﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: parinirvana on DW
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...It was either him or greg, one of them had to go...

Sherab Dorje said:
Neither of us had to go, he decided to leave because he felt that he was being unduly discriminated against by staff and that I was being pandered to.

When in doubt, blame everybody else!

Personally, I am unhappy that he left, because some of the stuff he posted was genuinely interesting and informative (regardless of whether I agreed with all of it or not).

PS  As an ex-staff member I don't have any executive power/capacity.  I, when needed to, have recourse to reporting posts, just like any other member.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am familiar with the charge, having been subjected to it many times myself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: parinirvana on DW
Content:
tatpurusa said:
What happened to padma norbu?


Malcolm wrote:
He went postal on the board because of an argument he was having with Greg, demanding to have his user named removed. Apparently he decided that Greg was using moderator powers to his own advantage. He then spammed the board with topic after topic, demanding that attention be given to his demand. It was either him or greg, one of them had to go.

Alternately, it is the Buddhist rapture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Sherab said:
So you rationalization does not work.

Malcolm wrote:
Just admit it, Sherab, you don't completely accept the Buddha's teaching "Where this exists, that exists". You don't completely accept "arising from conditions".

The Tantra that I mentioned, the sku gdung 'bar ba, explains very precisely all the causes and conditions for the arising of the various types of things we call "ring srel" aka śariraṃ, i.e. relics. There really isn't a detailed explanation for these phenomena outside of Dzogchen tantras.

Sakya Pandita says one must be cautious about relics: he doesn't rule out that they could be a result of realization, but he also observes that they could be mere formations of the four elements or even the artifices of demonic non-humans meant to deceive.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
smcj said:
Well, thanks for the link anyway. It's over my head. I'm out of my league. It happens.

Thankfully I do not believe that my progress on the spiritual path is contingent on understanding this stuff.

Malcolm wrote:
Fundamentally speaking, the way Jayananda is understanding Chandrakirti is that the ālayavijñāna is the the consciousness that apprehends emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 10:14 AM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Candrakirti accepts the ālayavijñāna. Tsongkhapa did not.

cloudburst said:
This is incorrect. Chandrakirti rejected the alayavijnana as it is is being used in this discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
He rejected the yogacara interpretation, he did not however reject how it discussed in the Lanka, in fact he cites the Lanka in support of his interpretation...but didn't we alreafy have this discussion?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
oushi said:
How come did your intentions dramatically change from pure to impure? Or, impure to pure...

Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple really — positive minds in samsara are still afflictive, apart from path dharmas, and give forth afflicted results. Whatever is afflicted, even if it is positive, tends to produce suffering through its very impermanence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:52 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:


dmr82 said:
It depends on what you're really after. But two still living masters displaying siddhis like the 84 mahasiddhas seems pretty relevant if one looks for confirmation of these abilities.


Malcolm wrote:
All of these things remain anecdotal, as I am sure will you will admit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We can understand this because such stories are conspicuously absent from Chinese accounts of Indian Buddhism.

dmr82 said:
If you're interested in the Chinese versions of masters displaying such abilities you can find them in "Opening the Dragon Gate: The Making of a Modern Taoist Wizard" and "The Magus of Java". Both masters are still alive and can display everything Padmasambhava did. Over the years small groups from Europe have visited these masters in private and confirmed it's not mere fantasy or trickery but real abilities and manifestations of power.


Malcolm wrote:
I am not talking about tales of Taoist masters. Such stories, while interesting in their own right, are not relevant here.

I am talking about the reports of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in India. They do not report the same kinds of tales that Tibetan pilgrims four centuries later report. In fact, Sino-Japanese Vajrayāna interestingly also lacks the emphasis on stories of siddhas, coming from an earlier epoch in the development of Vajrayāna. Of course there are the stock in trade mundane siddhis mention in early tantras like the Susiddhikara and so on that we find common to both Hindu and Buddhist sources, like the eye salve siddhi for finding buried treasures and so on, these things are mentioned in texts translated into Chinese, but there does not seem to be the same obsession with subduing Hindus we find, for example, in the life story of Virupa, or the treasure bios of Padmasamabhava, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:


dmr82 said:
Actually revealing terma is a siddhi.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN himself has said the klong gsal teachings are not, technically speaking "gter ma".

They are rmi chos, dream Dharmas, and as such, he has frequently admitted that he has a lot of capacity in this regard, which he has said manifested as a result of his contact with Rigzin Chanchub Dorje.

My other main Dzogchen master, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, revealed gter mas on my front porch (2005), teachings which I hold in the highest regard.

On the other hand, I have also found texts in famous terma cycles that are most definitely renovations of earlier texts (in one specific case I am thinking of, a text authored originally in the 12th century that also happens to be reported by Go Lotsawa by name] with "mis en scene" added for dramatic effect at the beginning. Robert Meyers and Cathy Cantwell's work on the treasures of Nyang ral Nyima Ozer are instructive in this regard as well.

In the case of the treasure tradition, perhaps it is wise to take Guru Chowang's dictum to heart, i.e., the entire universe is a gter ma. This perspective solves a lot of teleological problems.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Pero said:
Malcolm, if it's not too much of a personal question to answer so publicly, how much do you believe? ?

Malcolm wrote:
I try to believe as little as possible. I don't find beliefs to be very useful.

However, just because I don't believe some thing does not make that it false.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
dmr82 said:
This is one of the reasons siddhis are displayed by realized beings.


Malcolm wrote:
Historically speaking, tales of siddhas really only arise in India when Buddhism was in the process of being destroyed.

We can understand this because such stories are conspicuously absent from Chinese accounts of Indian Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, poverty and hunger are a result of stealing in past lives, etc. Being short lived is a result of killing, and so on.

oushi said:
Only if we assume that punishment requires a judge.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are adding the aspect of "judgement" and "punishment" and "reward" to it.

oushi said:
I personally think that karma spanning over many lifetimes is a sociological invention.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, so you don't believe in rebirth and karma. That's fine. The Buddha however taught it this way.

oushi said:
But even if we accept it, how is it, that we have people with fortunate birth (healthy, wealthy etc) who are, simply speaking, evil ? Since they have this fortunate life, they had to accumulate a lot of good karma before. How come, they have so much bad karma at the same time? It doesn't really calculate. Where do those drastic ups and downs come from?

Malcolm wrote:
If you would bother to study what the Buddha says about this, he explains this very clearly. Merely because you are favored in this life with wealth, beauty and so on is no guarantee that you are going to be a nice person. Being born poor, destitute, and without opportunity does not guarantee you will turn to a life of crime. Thus, a person who seems to have all advantages has accumulated a lot of postive action in the past, but by engaging evil actions in this life they are exhausting their positive fortune in for future lives. A poor person who nevertheless is generous, kind and virtuous is creating positive actions that will ripen for them in terms of wealth, health and higher rebirth in the future.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
oushi said:
Mixing it with strict causality leads to such nonsense like hunger as a punishment for past life actions.


Malcolm wrote:
All pleasant, neutral and unpleasant sensations are a result of karma, i.e. karma vipaka.

These are not punishments, these are consequences of actions. For example, poverty and hunger are a result of stealing in past lives, etc. Being short lived is a result of killing, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Fair enough.  I would still say, though, that (the Buddhist take would be that) all experience is due to karma.  Even our experience of (apparently external) phenomena like the weather.

Malcolm wrote:
All pleasant, neutral and unpleasant sensations are results of karma.

But a thunderstorm is not the result of anything you did. It is not necessarily a karmavipaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
There is also the other Pali word for action (as becoming): bhava.

Malcolm wrote:
Doesn't matter, karma/kamma as the Buddha defined them. That is the definition we ought to use.

Bhāva is not exactly karma, but some explanations assert that formations in the past life and becoming in this life mean "karma". But bhava is not really a word for action.

Likewise, some explanations consider ignorance in the past life and craving and addiction in this life to be affliction.

This the Sarvastivāda presentation, which is rejected by the Sautrantikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I am being a little more literal in my definition.


Malcolm wrote:
"Karma" aka "action", is not the same thing as activity, kṛt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
This is interesting, could you explain further, please? Could you give an example of something that does not depend upon a karmic cause?

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, we have to clarify which tenet system we are speaking from.

So, from the Sautrantika pov,  the growth of inanimate things certainly depend on causes and conditions, but as they have no volition since they are living beings which possess only a material aggregate, their causes and conditions are not result of karma and they do not experience the ripening of karma because they are incapable of painful, pleasurable and indifferent feelings, which are necessarily the ripening of karma.

If it were the case that all causes were karma, there would be no purpose in first presenting the six causes and four conditions; then dependent origination and finally karma-vipaka.

The general Yogacara presentation will maintain that the container universe appears to us because of traces we share -- there are no external trees, planets, and so on on "out there", their appearances being a mere ripening of the traces of the ālayavijñāna.

Nāgārjuna too maintains that Karma is also volition and the results of those volitions. But he does not assert anywhere that I am aware of that all causes are karma.

Of course, how we sentient beings experience the container universe is precisely a ripening of our karma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Guty said:
"Once karmic winds get exhausted through completing the visions the body self-liberates into the basic space of phenomena. The self-aware enlightened mandala perfect from beginningless time becomes evident and one reaches perfect buddhahood. Your physical body is no more real than the thoughts that appear in your mind. Both are result of karmic winds/delusion and both self-liberate when abiding in rigpa. Rigpa is how karmic winds get exhausted. The visions arise as potentiality of rigpa. If the visions are completed before death the body self-liberates completely into the great transfer without having to go through the bardo."
What is the source of this text? The Circle of the Sun from Tsele Natsok Rangdrol or some other?

Malcolm wrote:
His statement is more or less correct, if not very complete.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
PS Karma is just action, it is not necessarily intentional/volitional action (sankhara).

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha, Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu in one voice proclaim "Action [karma] is volition [cetana] and what proceeds from volition."

See the first two verses of chapter four of the Abhidharmakoṣa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 5th, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So you agree that experience is based on karma?

oushi said:
No, although it may be. If I suddenly feel pain in my hand, can I say it was intended? No, I experienced it without intending, without an action.


Malcolm wrote:
Not everything that happens, happens because of a karmic cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 4th, 2014 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Wouldn't you say they can be proven (and have been, and continue to be) but not empirically?  Not within the narrow confines of the materialist paradigm?  And they are rather narrow, right?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I would not say that.

I would say that they remain unproven.

Materialists also have such beliefs, even if they are not aware of this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 4th, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Guty are you dmr82 on vajracakra?

dmr82 said:
He isn't. Dmr82 believes the physical body is merely a result of karma/delusion. Once karmic winds get exhausted through completing the visions the body self-liberates into the basic space of phenomena. The self-aware enlightened mandala perfect from beginningless time becomes evident and one reaches perfect buddhahood. Your physical body is no more real than the thoughts that appear in your mind. Both are result of karmic winds/delusion and both self-liberate when abiding in rigpa. Rigpa is how karmic winds get exhausted. The visions arise as potentiality of rigpa. If the visions are completed before death the body self-liberates completely into the great transfer without having to go through the bardo. People of such capacity can leave handprints in stone, dive into earth, penetrate mountain rock, sit in fire, walk on water, and fly in space.


Malcolm wrote:
That's what the texts say. Sounds easy, but it is not so easy. Even ChNN does not claim any of these abilities for himself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 4th, 2014 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
Punya said:
If the storehouse conciousness is not accepted, presumably by the prasingikas, what is their explanation? I seem to remember something about consciousness carrying forward moment to moment but I've never understood it properly. Also, what are the manas? I've tried to research this without success.

Malcolm wrote:
Candrakirti accepts the ālayavijñāna. Tsongkhapa did not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Guty said:
Do I undertstand correctly, that what you mean is the phenomena is real from the inside from the perspective of the subjexct  that realizes, but the allegations that physical bodies disappear are cultural myths?

Malcolm wrote:
Until I have proof of the contrary, this is my [admittedly unenlightened] perspective on the subject.

However, my teachers are adamant that such phenomena are real. So, I am very confident about the first part, since it is corresponds with what is in the texts. I am less confident about the latter since I have not found textual support for it apart from legends, ancient and modern.

The tantra that deals with this subject most exhaustively is the sku gdung 'bar ba. But I have not read it yet in its entirety. It also has a 150 folio commentary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
\ I believe that materialists just have to admit that not all phenomena are material and thus provable/observable/demostratable via the empirical method.


Malcolm wrote:
They already have admitted this: hence the category of phenomena referred to as "non-falsifiable". They just tend to be sarcastic about it (and you are no stranger to sarcasm), considering such things as the flying spaghetti monster to be that kind of thing.

But in the end, Greg, we have beliefs we cannot prove. In that respect Buddhists are no better than Hindus, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Guty said:
I merely seek external confirmation, whether or not there is at all a possibility to meet the criteria of secular science when presenting this RB phenomenon as factual.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there isn't. Whoever imagined that there could be?

The theory of the body of light is predicted on the fundamental state of reality being something called wisdom, which has five lights, which are reified as physical matter. Upon completion of the path, one sees this matter in its real nature once again and the elements of the body "revert" to their original nature as wisdom (i.e. through the process of thogal on eradicates all the afflictive obscurations which prevent one from seeing things just as they are (yathabhutaṃ))

Body of light is a realization. Rainbow body is cultural myth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Except that empirical verification is a just a tool in yet another conceptual system.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that "empirical" means can be demonstrated to someone who has no belief in a given phenomena, and can be repeated.

This weak, "one concept is no better than another concept" just makes Buddhists look like silly idiots when talking with materialists. It is much better to simply admit we have religious beliefs we cannot prove.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Except that karma and rebirth are not "beliefs".

Malcolm wrote:
Sure they are, karma and rebirth are completely non-falsifiable at present. Gravity, on the other hand, is falsifiable.

However, their absence of falsifiability does not mean the phenomena themselves are false, merely that they cannot be verified or disproven empirically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Guty said:
There is no need to stick with WHATSOEVER that is indemonstrable for the one who practices the path of dzogpachenpo.

Malcolm wrote:
You believe in a nonfalsifiable path, i.e. atiyoga, so you are are already screwed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: Shamar on Monastic Buddhism in Tibet
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Is there something about the article that you find unclear?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 3rd, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Shamar on Monastic Buddhism in Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/mlgeaxy

Discuss...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 2nd, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
So are you sure about that "Dzogchen" association?


Malcolm wrote:
He wrote an article entitled "Dzogchen and Christianity" published in 1993.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


brendan said:
Bringing out the "don't be sectarian line" is passive aggressive new ageism.

.

Malcolm wrote:
So  I guess in your view, HHDL is a passive aggressive new ager?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


tobes said:
I agree. Maybe I'm oversensitive, but it seems to me like some (most?) people like a good old fashioned sectarian dispute more than anything else.


Malcolm wrote:
Not really, but when pushed to it...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

Anders said:
They don't need to be any more discrete than apparently discrete objects in space like "table", "chair" or "atoms" for that to happen. That is, apparently discrete but not fundamentally so.

Malcolm wrote:
One thing that is escaping this discussion is that general buddhist concept of moments (relevant to Indian Buddhism in general from the Kosha) is actually based on the duration of a thought. That duration is something approximating 7 nanoseconds (it takes five nanoseconds for an impulse to travel across a neutron in the brain, longer for neurons in the body). This aside, Sapan's argument is pretty tight:

Because the three times do not arise at once,
the present moment is partless.

This partless moment perishes as soon as its arises. It perishes immediately.

Partless moments are possible precisely because the three times are not substantially established.

Sapan maintains with respect to the question of whether such moments are ultimate or not,  "...it is not the ultimate free from proliferation because of being perishable; the ultimate of efficient capability, because in the context of the investigating the empirical conventional authority all delusion and non-delusion depends upon moments."

In the case of the continuum of mind, for example, this is possible because the present moment of mind is neither the same nor different nor different than the previous moment of mind, indeed it is the same with all series [see MMK, chapter on Samskaras]. The series of partless moments will cease as soon as the conditions supporting it cease. Hence, the only way a continuum is actually possible requires partless moments. If moments have parts, there is no way to ensure the continuation of any series, because moments will have parts, and thus causes and their effects will be different, and thus one will have a large series of negative consequences stemming from this.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
ConradTree said:
Malcolm,

Would you agree that emptiness, in general, refers to nonarising / illusion?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness, in Mahāyāna, specifically refers to the absence of the four extremes in phenomena. This is the profound emptiness taught in Mahāyāna according to Gorampa and many other critics of Tsongkhapa, not the mere emptiness of inherent existence which is common which the śravaka systems.

Since phenomena cannot be found by any of the four extremes, they are illusory, and ultimately nonarisen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.

Anders said:
Without duration there is no way for discrete objects to form a series.

Malcolm wrote:
A moment that has parts or duration leads to negative consequences  as shown by Nagarjuna. In other words, moments will have arising, duration, and cessation. If moments have these three, these three parts must also have parts and so on. In this case then you are left with an infinite regress. Not only that, you are left with a definition of moments in which all three, past, present and future must exist simultaneously. Otherwise a moments arising does not exist now, its ceasing does not exist now, and its present duration can only exist with duration because the duration of the present moment is merely a conceptual designation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Anders said:
A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

dharmagoat said:
An infinite number of durationless moments does.

Anders said:
Not if these moments are partless and therefore discrete.

Malcolm wrote:
If they are discrete they form a series that leads to perception of time, that is the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Anders said:
. A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a mere assertion.

Anders said:
It is simple logic. If you assert a discrete object without duration then you have by definition asserted a non-temporal object.

What you propose is absurd.


Malcolm wrote:
Did I assert any discrete objects without duration? No.

You need to review Nagarjuna's refutation of time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsondru said:
Oh lord, TF ... Me and Malcolm have provided quotes contrary to things that you have said but you still keep on repeating your opinion without referencing anyone (re dzogchen). Though even a lineage masters of your was quoted .. you continue to go on with your prejudiced views.

Saying vajradhara/samantabhadra did not teach dzogchen, even attempting to make the dharmakaya into something sectarian!! Amazing!


Malcolm wrote:
It is useless to  continue this line of discussion with TKf because his POV is clearly a minority view, even amongst Gelugpas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
conebeckham said:
It's all well and good, but utlimately I'm more interested in soteriological relevance than historical accuracy.  And that's a good thing, I think.


Malcolm wrote:
Oh I agree, but TKf started in with all of this nonsense, making no effort to establish his view with recourse to reasoning, preferring instead to regale us with "Just so" stories. Well, I am pretty good at that too, maybe a little better, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha Samantabhadra, the Dharmakāya aspect of Buddha Shakyamuni, taught Dzogchen
The Dharmakaya does not  teach because it can only be perceived by other Buddhas. The Dharmakaya manifests subtle and gross form bodies for the purpose of teaching.


Malcolm wrote:
Master Sonam Tsemo contends:

If the teacher’a sambhogakāya teaches Dharma to the retinue, if it is wondered how there can be teaching since the teacher’s dharmakāya does not teach anything, since the mind of the teacher is the dharmakāya, it will also teach. Further, also the dharmakāya itself, demonstrates aspects of form. Its behavior as a Dharma teacher is called “Teacher Śrī Vajradhara”. As the Tattvasamgraha says:

E ma ho, I am the stable being,
self-originated Samantabhadra.
Since he is stable, although without a body,
he transforms into the body of a being.

What do you imagine that name of the Buddha who teaches Dzogchen is? Why Samantabhadra, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
tobes said:
......the science of Buddhism will never change. Doesn't it come down to a first principle? I'll frame it thus:

" My school was founded by the second Buddha, whose word is equal to the first Buddha."

(Dzogchenpas vs Gelugpas...wow....fascinating, I've never seen that before....)


Malcolm wrote:
Actually, it is more like, Dzogchen (according to its texts) was taught by the primordial ultimate Buddha [ye nas don dam pa'i sangs rgyas]. Everything else by the relative Buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
conebeckham said:
Wait, I thought Heruka Cakrasamvara appeared and taught tantra......?!?!?

Malcolm wrote:
The Sakyapa position is that Cakrasamvara was not taught by Śakyamuni during this dispensation.

Loppon Sonam Tsemo states:

“Other than his general activities, he did not recite or teach later on. Having taught the Tattvasamgraha in the beginning, after completing that tantra he arrived in human lands....” and so on. Likewise, he performed the deeds of arriving in Jambudvipa, etc., but he did not recite or teach the Śrī Cakrasamvara Tantra later on”

Not only did Śakyamuni not teach this during his eighty year sojourn in India, but also the root Yogatantra, Tattvasamgraha was not taught by Śakyamuni during this period either.

This is actually the position of the Indian master, Bhavyakirti. He along with Bhavabhata maintain:

This teacher (i.e. Śakyamuni) having attained buddhahood in the beginningless past taught the Cakrasamvara tantras, but later, after becoming the son of Śuddodana, did not teach it. Their reasoning holds that since Cakrasamvara is continually practiced by the heros and yoginis of the twenty four countries, even when the eon forms and perished (the twenty four countries) do not form and perish so [the Cakrasamvara] does not disappear. Even though other dharmas may have also been taught in the beginning, since they are destroyed by the formation and perishing of the eon, since they disappear during the interval, they must be taught again by Śākyamuni.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Norwegian said:
What has gone astray, is your understanding Tsongkhapafan, which is sorely lacking. Not only that, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well:

" From the point of view of individually ascribed names, there are numerous traditions, such as those of the simultaneously arising as merged, the amulet box, possessing five, the six spheres of equal taste, the four syllables, the pacifier, the object to be cut off, dzogchen, the discursive madhyamaka view, and so on. Nevertheless, when scrutinized by a yogi, learned in scripture and logic and experienced (in meditation), their definitive meanings are all seen to come to the same intended point. "

From the page you yourself just linked.

Please rid yourself of your narrowmindedness and secterianism, and be more open minded. Study more. You may learn something.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Thank you for pointing that out, I did make a mistake and didn't notice that reference, I scanned the document too hastily.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this means that for you, Dzogchen is valid because it is validated in a scripture you consider fundamental to your school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha Vajradhara, the enjoyment body aspect of Buddha Shakyamuni, taught Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha Samantabhadra, the Dharmakāya aspect of Buddha Shakyamuni, taught Dzogchen. So did Buddha Vajradhara on the Amolika rock of the Thirty Three Heavens.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I don't really want to get into this as it is obviously pointless and divisive. Dzogchen is not the entire basis of the Nyingma school, they follow Buddha's Sutra and Tantra teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is the pinnacle of the Nyingma schools teaching. They are the ultimate teaching of the Nyingma school. Dzogchen is Buddhahood as well as the basic reality out of which Buddhahood is realized.



Tsongkhapafan said:
There's no mention of Dzogchen at all in this.

Malcolm wrote:
You apparently do not read carefully. From the page you give:

From the point of view of individually ascribed names, there are numerous traditions, such as those of the simultaneously arising as merged, the amulet box, possessing five, the six spheres of equal taste, the four syllables, the pacifier, the object to be cut off, dzogchen, the discursive madhyamaka view, and so on.

Tsongkhapafan said:
when you start denigrating Nagarjuna...

Malcolm wrote:
No one denigrated Nāgārjuna.

Tsongkhapafan said:
...something that was not taught by Buddha at all...

Malcolm wrote:
There you go again with the sectarian, biased, rubbish-filled rhetoric that Dzogchen was not taught by a Buddha. I don't think you really want to go down the road of making accusations that some teachings were not taught by the Buddha such as certain practices which exist in certain quarters that come to mind...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
tobes said:
The very first post was about this - do the Gelugpas do philosophy or do they just learn old arguments and repeat them as truth?

Malcolm wrote:
Well that has been proven in the affirmative. TKfan merely trotted out a dogma without bothering to defend it. According to him, the Buddha must have been a disciple of Candrakirti, otherwise, Buddha's enlightenment was impossible.

tobes said:
With all due respect to TKfan, I don't think we can take those statements as proof for what the Geshes are up to these days.....



Malcolm wrote:
Indeed. However, I am fairly certain that the way people are taught in India and Tibet has not really changed that much.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha did not teach Dzogchen at all.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are maintaining the entire basis of the Nyingma school is not the Buddha's teaching?

You are maintaining that the first Panchen Lama was wrong to equate Great Madhyamaka, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc? He said in his Mahāmudra text:

Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Madhyamaka, 
Lamdre, Chod, Zhiched, etc.,
Are various designations. 
But if examined by an experienced yogi,
They lead to the same realization.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
tobes said:
The very first post was about this - do the Gelugpas do philosophy or do they just learn old arguments and repeat them as truth?

Malcolm wrote:
Well that has been proven in the affirmative. TKfan merely trotted out a dogma without bothering to defend it. According to him, the Buddha must have been a disciple of Candrakirti, otherwise, Buddha's enlightenment was impossible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
daverupa said:
cromulent

Malcolm wrote:
not a word...especially since it was coined by the writer of the Simpsons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 31st, 2013 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
daverupa said:
How can it be amazing, when you also add the word 'supposedly'?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the people holding these kinds of views tend to have a very fundamentalist view of the history of Buddhist textual systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
If you want to dismiss Nagarjuna for something you regard as "higher" you will simply fall into asserting something that doesn't exist or negating something that does. Atisha said that there is Buddhahood in the Lineage of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and apart from this lineage, there is no Buddhahood, which is exactly what Chandrakirti is saying in the quote I gave above.

Malcolm wrote:
I always find it amazing when people prioritize the words of the treatises over the words that are supposedly the Buddha's; treating Tantras as somehow provisional, while treating Nāgārjuna's treatises as more definitive than the words attributed to the Buddha in the sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


tobes said:
No argument has been given which articulates why tantra is 'higher' than sutra.

There seems to be an unambiguous appeal to authority (text, tradition, master) to justify that claim.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the topic is off topic here. Second, the unambiguous appeal to authority runs for both the claim as well as the counterclaim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Atisha said that there is Buddhahood in the Lineage of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and apart from this lineage, there is no Buddhahood, which is exactly what Chandrakirti is saying in the quote I gave above.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so the Buddha was a disciple of Candrakirti?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I do however think that while Madhyamaka is the definitive sūtra view, the view of tantra in general goes beyond Madhyamaka.
.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You can't go beyond Madhyamaka as it is the definitive view, as Chandrakirti points out.  As far as tantra goes, the only other refinement is to explain that phenomena are the nature of mind as well as the nature of emptiness. We might call this the Tantric Prasangika view and as such is not going beyond the Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you can dogmatically assert this, but for example,if you wish to understand how the profound view of Vajrayāna is extraordinarily different from common Madhyamaka, then you must study the work of the Sakya master, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen, one of the founder masters of Sakya, who wrote an extensive refutation of those who apprehend emptiness as the intrinsic nature of all phenomena in his presentation of the abhisamaya of the Hevajra Tantra called The Precious Wish Fulfilling Tree, which also treats Prasanga Madhyamaka in its section on the four tenets.

Of course it is rather pointless to tell you this, because even if you could read Tibetan you would not read this text with anything but a jaundiced eye.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
ཆོས་མེད

Malcolm wrote:
Is that basically emptiness?[/quote]


More or less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As it is said:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

dzogchungpa said:
What is 'nonphenomena' in the Tibetan?


Malcolm wrote:
ཆོས་མེད


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I didn't realise that Nagarjuna is nonsense. No one who follows the genuine teachings of Buddha seems to think so since they all followed the essential meaning of the Prajnaparamita Sutras which is summarised in Nagarjuna's view and attained liberation and enlightenment as a result.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna is not nonsense, at least I do not think so.

I do however think that while Madhyamaka is the definitive sūtra view, the view of tantra in general goes beyond Madhyamaka.

However, that being said, there is in the end no difference in meaning between the great perfection, prajñāpāramita and mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
If you reject the two truths, there is no spiritual path.

Malcolm wrote:
Not for you, perhaps. For others, on the other hand, there seems to be a very vital and important path, even though it transcends the Madhyamaka notion of the two truths. In order to familiarize you a little more with the Dzogchen point of view, a very early commentary presents the Dzogchen approach to the two truths:

Here, since the two truths have been inseparable from the beginning, the two truths are not presented individually even conventionally. The madhyamaka deviation is dividing up dharmatā and dharmin into ultimate and relative and then training in the ultimate as supreme. As it is said:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.


However, we are not talking about Dzogchen here, we are talking about Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


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

Dzogchen only subscribes to 1 truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we were talking about sutra.

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

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

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

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Sherab said:
This definition of hidden explains nothing as it would simply means that all phenomena will be hidden from normal cognition and therefore cannot explain why you used the term "hidden phenomena" in your reply to my earlier question.

Malcolm wrote:
Hidden simply means "Not accessible" to ordinary cognition. For example, the ability of a yogi to levitate is "hidden", you can't tell by looking at someone whether they have this capacity or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
If the yogi through samadhi has power over the elements, would he not be able to produce milk from a picture of a cow?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Pictures of cows do not produce milk ever.

Of course, in didactic stories meant to impress children, on the other hand, all kinds of miracles are possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 30th, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
cloudburst said:
you apparently fail to see that it is the negating of essence or self that in one stroke negates all four extremes, since the characteristic of being an extreme depends entirely upon essential existence.

Malcolm wrote:
I do not fail to see that; however, it is necessary for we commoners to run through the four-fold negation with regard to the four extremes. It is not necessary for āryas.

For example, there are some, for example, Jains, who maintain that things in a state of arising both exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, in addition to refuting existence and non-existence, it is necessary to refute both [existent and non-existent] as well as neither. 

For this reason, solely negating inherent existence is fine as a short cut for an experienced Mādhyamika; but maintaining the refutation of inherent existence alone will lead to the realization of freedom from extremes is doubtful except in the case of someone who is extremely bright. 

By asserting that emptiness is the mere non-existence of true existence, the emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence, one runs a real risk of leading people to two conclusions: the intellectual approximation of emptiness as a non-existence is appropriate; the ultimate is a form of non-existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
[ I think arguments based off the conventional can only be use to point to the possibility of an ultimate but cannot come to a conclusion on the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate, from the Madhyamaka POV, is simply the absence of the four extremes in the relative. Also the ultimate does not exist according to any of the four extremes. The best you can say about the ultimate is that it is inexpressible.

Sherab said:
My understanding of what is taught in the suttas and sutras is that the ultimate IS inexpressible.  There is no two ways about it.

Malcolm wrote:
There is inexpressible and then there is inexpressible; how one arrives at inexpressibility is critical.

Hindus also claim that their ultimate is beyond predicates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Sherab said:
Why is the above different from production/arising from dissimilar causes/conditions?

Malcolm wrote:
"Hidden" means what is not accessible to normal cognition, for example, atoms. In the case of supernormal phenomena, like power over the elements this is based on the cause of samadhi, and so on. In other words, without the realization of certain yogic skills, certain powers are not attainable. If these skills are attained, even though it may seem "miraculous" to the average person, nevertheless there is proper cause and condition governing the production of such phenomena on the relative level.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
For the same reason that you have not told me my why you disagree with my argument, I am unable to understand your claim that my argument above would imply that "we would have no basis for rejecting creation by a supreme creator deity"


Malcolm wrote:
If you suggest that there can be production from dissimilar causes, a claim explicitly rejected in all Madhyamaka texts, you are allowing, for example, that unconditioned phenomena, for example God, can produce conditioned phenomena, for example, the world.

I also gave you the example of the production of maize from wheat seeds, chickens from cows and so on.

Since I have in fact answered all of your qualms in detail already, and am merely repeating answers I have already given, I can only conclude from this that you are incapable of actually reading my posts and will not longer respond to your questions about this. You clearly have some need to believe in things which are not reasonable from a Buddhist point of view.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
[ I think arguments based off the conventional can only be use to point to the possibility of an ultimate but cannot come to a conclusion on the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate, from the Madhyamaka POV, is simply the absence of the four extremes in the relative. Also the ultimate does not exist according to any of the four extremes. The best you can say about the ultimate is that it is inexpressible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
I was arguing that accepting the phenomena of miracles would entail production/arising from dissimilar causes/conditions and that would throw off kilter the generally accepted notion of production/arising from similar causes/conditions.

Malcolm wrote:
We really don't have the loaves and fishes thing in Buddhadharma. All so called "miraculous" events in Buddhadharma are products of samadhi, so they have a cause and condition that does not circumvent our standard and conventional notions of causality. Otherwise, as I said, we would have no basis for rejecting creation by a supreme creator deity.

Sherab said:
There is also another issue that I have not raised as yet, that is whether the ability of siddhas to control the elements entails an ability to break the the conventional relationship between cause and effect.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Anders said:
. A series of durationless moments taking over from each other seamlessly doesn't make sense.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a mere assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Anders said:
How can a moment have no duration? This seems an absurd position. If something lacks duration, how can it even be temporal (and therefore impermanent)?


Malcolm wrote:
If a moment has duration, it will have a past, a present and future. Since the past no longer exists, since the future is yet to be, the present cannot have parts at all, and thus moments by definition cannot possess duration.

When you stop to think about it, partless moments are the only thing that make sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Eckart Tolle - master of the park bench
Content:
tatpurusa said:
Well .... This was in a personal interview anyway. And I don't doubt it, because I know that person really well.

mutsuk said:
I personally discussed issues such as westerners wasting their time in other tradition than buddhism/bon, etc. He was adamant.He said "If you want to progress, you'd better put all your eggs in the same basket. Progress takes time, nobody has enough time to waste in "mu-stegs-pa business"." ("mu-stegs-pa business" was in anglo-tibetan).


Malcolm wrote:
One positive aspect of studying tīrthika doctrines with Tīrthika masters is that it will make one realize with surety that tīrthika view and practice is not really compatible with Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Otherwise, if we allow production from dissimilar causes we will have NO BASIS FOR REFUTING CREATION BY GOD. In that case, one will undermine the entire basis of Buddhadharma.

dzogchungpa said:
Is a definition of 'similar/dissimilar' in this context available? It seems like this would be an important point to clarify.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for example, wheat growing from maize. Cows giving birth to chickens, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
oushi said:
I watched this lecture today, and I was like... WOW! It's about the nature, power and potential of mushrooms.
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

There is also something about neuron-like behavior of mycelium.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Staments work is interesting, especially in using fungi for decontamination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Sherab said:
I prefer the argument of Sakya Pandita actually, who argues that partless moments cannot be refuted even by Madyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
Partless moments are figments of imagination.  Therefore Sakya Pandita was saying that figments of imagination cannot be refuted by Madyamaka.  Since inherent existence is also a figment of imagination, therefore, inherent existence cannot be refuted by Madyamaka.
[/quote]


No, Sakya Pandita was saying that partless moments were conventionally ultimate (as opposed to be ing the ultimate of the freedom from proliferation) because they have no duration and therefore they cannot be refuted by Madhyamaka reasonings (which only aims at particles that are conceived of has having duration). He is distinctly not saying these are figments of imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 29th, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
You must then allow from production from conventional conditions and production from non-conventional conditions.  In other words, you must allow for the possibility of production from dissimilar conditions, which was my earlier point.

Malcolm wrote:
No. But one can imagine conditions which while being conventional, are not immediately accessible to ordinary cognitions.

To allow for the possibility of production from dissimilar causes is to allow for creation by God, for example.

Sherab said:
Are you saying that conditions not accessible by ordinary cognitions allowed, say, Chandrakirti to get milk from a picture of cow while ordinary beings can only get milk from a conventional cow?  If yes, then that is exactly what I meant when I said that you have to allow for dissimilar conditions that can produce the same thing.  But that would ruin the idea of conventional cause and effect wouldn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
You are really not paying attention. I said:
For example, Candra's milking a vow might have been an illusion generated by his capacity in rḍḍhipati.
I never admitted that Candra could produce valid, functional milk from the picture of a cow.

Sherab said:
"Are you saying that conditions not accessible by ordinary cognitions allowed"

Malcolm wrote:
I am speaking of "hidden phenomena". But even hidden phenomena must obey the laws of conventionality. Otherwise, if we allow production from dissimilar causes we will have NO BASIS FOR REFUTING CREATION BY GOD. In that case, one will undermine the entire basis of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: Musings on Kali Yuga
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you accept the Kalacakra dates for the parinirvana of the Buddha (927 BCE), Rudra Cakravartin is supposed to defeat the Muslims in 2430 (1800 years after the conquest of Mecca),.


theanarchist said:
The muslims ???

There is something in the Kalachakra texts about Muslims?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Anders said:
And irreducable phenomena is necessarily uncaused.

Malcolm wrote:
The please explain the parts of the vedana and samjñā skandhas. For that matter, what are the "parts" of sraddha? Krodha? etc.? What are the parts of the vijñāna skandha?

I will tell you, they are momentary and exist in a causal series. But in themselves they are irreducible while being at the same time impermanent and therefore, conditioned.

Sherab said:
The argument of momentariness raise the issue of whether you take time as discrete or continuous.  If you take time as discreet, then there is always a discrete moment in which a thing does not change.  But this will contradict the idea of things always changing.  If you take time as continuous, then there is no time between one moment and another, so no change is possible from one moment to another.  (I am using an argument of Ven Nanavira here.)

Malcolm wrote:
I prefer the argument of Sakya Pandita actually, who argues that partless moments cannot be refuted even by Madyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
You must then allow from production from conventional conditions and production from non-conventional conditions.  In other words, you must allow for the possibility of production from dissimilar conditions, which was my earlier point.

Malcolm wrote:
No. But one can imagine conditions which while being conventional, are not immediately accessible to ordinary cognitions.

To allow for the possibility of production from dissimilar causes is to allow for creation by God, for example.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That special connection is nothing more than the dependent origination you create with that teacher. You cannot take those promises outside of empowerment at all.

dzogchungpa said:
I've often wondered what exactly is going on during an empowerment. I don't see how saying this special connection is the dependent origination created with that teacher really explains anything. Could you elaborate?


Malcolm wrote:
You have five aggregates; these are the cause. The teacher arranges their connection to the five buddhas, the result, through the empowerment. If you don't attain buddhahood during the empowerment, then you have a path to follow.

Most people do not understand that abhisheka is primarily a method of attaining buddhahood, and only secondarily, an introduction to a path.

When we talk about dependent origination, there are five: outer, inner, secret, ultimate and sucheness. If you really want to understand this, then you should go and study Lamdre with the Sakyapas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That special connection is nothing more than the dependent origination you create with that teacher. You cannot take those promises outside of empowerment at all.

dzogchungpa said:
I've often wondered what exactly is going on during an empowerment. I don't see how saying this special connection is the dependent origination created with that teacher really explains anything. Could you elaborate?


Malcolm wrote:
You have five aggregates; these are the cause. The teacher arranges their connection to the five buddhas, the result, through the empowerment. If you don't attain buddhahood during the empowerment, then you have a path to follow.

Most people do not understand that abhisheka is primarily a method of attaining buddhahood, and only secondarily, an introduction to a path.

When we talk about dependent origination, there are five: outer, inner, secret, ultimate and sucheness. If you really want to understand this, then you should go and study Lamdre with the Sakyapas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra in Dzogchen Community
Content:
heart said:
Interesting that Rinpoche is calling the Longsal Kalachekra Ati and Changchub Dorje's Kalachakra Anu. Or did I misunderstand?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
No, you did not misunderstand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
theanarchist said:
It's harmful because you have made a promise, and that is the connection; this is why "dam tshig", "solemn word" is how Tibetans translate the term samaya. There is no mystical basis for samaya. It is premised strictly on accepting a set of promises.

No, it's not harmful because you have made a promise. It is harmful because in the initiation you made that special connection.

Malcolm wrote:
That special connection is nothing more than the dependent origination you create with that teacher. You cannot take those promises outside of empowerment at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
theanarchist said:
It's harmful because you have made a promise, and that is the connection; this is why "dam tshig", "solemn word" is how Tibetans translate the term samaya. There is no mystical basis for samaya. It is premised strictly on accepting a set of promises.

No, it's not harmful because you have made a promise. It is harmful because in the initiation you made that special connection.

Malcolm wrote:
That special connection is nothing more than the dependent origination you create with that teacher. You cannot take those promises outside of empowerment at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Musings on Kali Yuga
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The duration and chronological starting point in human history of Kali Yuga has given rise to different evaluations and interpretations. According to the Surya Siddhanta, Kali Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 14 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode.
From the book The Indus Script and the Rg-Veda

So that places "2000 years ago" about 1000 years into the Kali Yuga.  The Kali Yuga is supposed to last 432,000 years, (and there is a 10,000 year Golden Age tucked away in there somewhere).

Malcolm wrote:
While  Buddhist notion of the four ages based on Kalacakra are a little different, this is the Buddhist Kali Yuga. This is based on concept that the Buddha's teaching will endure for 5000 years. Check the Ornament of Stainless Light by the 15th century Gelug master Khedrup Norzang Gyatso.

If you accept the Kalacakra dates for the parinirvana of the Buddha (927 BCE), Rudra Cakravartin is supposed to defeat the Muslims in 2430 (1800 years after the conquest of Mecca), at the end of the Buddhist Kali Yuga. This will issue in another four Buddhist ages and all told, Buddhadharma is supposed to last in this world roughly 5000 years altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Musings on Kali Yuga
Content:
smcj said:
This is not like the "where's Mt. Meru" thread to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is -- in Buddhist mythological texts there is clearly described a progressive degeneration to the present day. In the treta yuga for example, humans are supposed to have had limitless lifespans. Then in the second age, lifespans of 80,000 years and so on, down to the pathetic one hundred years (if you're lucky) lifespan of the present day.

The best explanation I have seen is that a "golden" age depends on the virtue of the rulers. Hence, the longing we often see expressed on this board to return to some form of "Dharma monarchy".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Anders said:
And irreducable phenomena is necessarily uncaused.

Malcolm wrote:
The please explain the parts of the vedana and samjñā skandhas.

PadmaVonSamba said:
perception = means of perception (eyes, brain) + object of perception (picture of cow)
feeling = means of feeling  (fingers, brain)+ object of feeling (fuzzy sweater)
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but what are the parts of the mental factor of feeling, the third thing that is produced? You have described how it is generated, not what it is. When you have a pleasant feeling or a painful feeling, what are the parts of that feeling itself?

You have described how a percept is caused, but not what it is. When you have discerned a blue pot, what are the parts of that percept itself?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 28th, 2013 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra in Dzogchen Community
Content:
Virgo said:
How much is my limitation?  If I missed the first day and listened to it on replay I did not receive the lung for the ganapuja to be done after donwong, do then I have missed my opportunity for this?

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
He gave it again today.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Sherab said:
If Chandrakirti's cow milking story is to be disbelieved, we must similarly disbelieve any miracle stories.  So if Nagarjuna's intent is to say that production from dissimilar causes are disallowed, then miracles are impossibilities.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily. For example, Candra's milking a vow might have been an illusion generated by his capacity in rḍḍhipati. Buddha's ability to levitate to the height of fourteen palms trees is clearly based on his command over the four elements.

All of these things have causes that seem miraculous to others since they do not see the inner workings of cause and condition. But I am quite certain Candra never obtained real milk from a picture of a cow. I am equally certain, since we know almost nothing of Candra from sources other than Tibetan (which conflate two Candrakīrtis anyway), that this is little more than a pedagogical legend, like most of these stories, which also generally have outer, inner and secret interpretations and generally cannot be taken at face value.

My preferred Candra story is the one where after accidentally running into a pillar at Nalanda because he was looking at a book while walking, a student said "Ha, so that pillar is really "empty", isn't it?"

To which Candra replied by passing his hand through the pillar.

All conditioned phenomena arise from conditions. When we do not understand those conditions, we call those events "miracles".

If this is not the case, then we must consider Nagārjuna, and even the Buddha, liars for presenting miracles that violate the very principle of production from conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Anders said:
And irreducable phenomena is necessarily uncaused.

Malcolm wrote:
The please explain the parts of the vedana and samjñā skandhas. For that matter, what are the "parts" of sraddha? Krodha? etc.? What are the parts of the vijñāna skandha?

I will tell you, they are momentary and exist in a causal series. But in themselves they are irreducible while being at the same time impermanent and therefore, conditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
theanarchist said:
Then of course there is the four Dzogchen "samayas", which are unbreakable since they are not conditioned.
Other vajrayana samaya connections are just as unbreakable.

Malcolm wrote:
Not what I meant. What I meant was that Dzogchen samayas are connected with reality. The 22 Vajrayāna samayas of the new tantra schools or the 29 samayas of the old tantra tradition are connnected with view and  conduct.

theanarchist said:
Because even if it's nowhere as explicit as in dzogchen, in a highest yogatantra initiation what makes the initiation valid is the conferrence of a spark of the absolute nature of the deity.

Malcolm wrote:
No divine spark is implanted, Gurus are not creator gods.

What happens during an anuttarayoga initiation is an arrangement of dependent origination. Each initiation has its own samayas connected with the practices which it permits one to do. Please Kongtrul's Buddhist Ethics for a full account.

theanarchist said:
The vows you take during an initiation are vows, they are not the actual samaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are.

theanarchist said:
The actual samaya is the connection you make with the teacher by receiving initiation, the vows are a tool that enables the disciple to progress on that path in a meaningful way.

Malcolm wrote:
The vows are what maintain that connection. When you break those, you break the connection.

theanarchist said:
It is not harmful because you made some promise, it's harmful because it not following those rules is in itself harmful once you have made this type of connection.

Malcolm wrote:
It's harmful because you have made a promise, and that is the connection; this is why "dam tshig", "solemn word" is how Tibetans translate the term samaya. There is no mystical basis for samaya. It is premised strictly on accepting a set of promises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
theanarchist said:
Then of course there is the four Dzogchen "samayas", which are unbreakable since they are not conditioned.
Other vajrayana samaya connections are just as unbreakable.

Malcolm wrote:
Not what I meant. What I meant was that Dzogchen samayas are connected with reality. The 22 Vajrayāna samayas of the new tantra schools or the 29 samayas of the old tantra tradition are connnected with view and  conduct.

theanarchist said:
Because even if it's nowhere as explicit as in dzogchen, in a highest yogatantra initiation what makes the initiation valid is the conferrence of a spark of the absolute nature of the deity.

Malcolm wrote:
No divine spark is implanted, Gurus are not creator gods.

What happens during an anuttarayoga initiation is an arrangement of dependent origination. Each initiation has its own samayas connected with the practices which it permits one to do. Please Kongtrul's Buddhist Ethics for a full account.

theanarchist said:
The vows you take during an initiation are vows, they are not the actual samaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are.

theanarchist said:
The actual samaya is the connection you make with the teacher by receiving initiation, the vows are a tool that enables the disciple to progress on that path in a meaningful way.

Malcolm wrote:
The vows are what maintain that connection. When you break those, you break the connection.

theanarchist said:
It is not harmful because you made some promise, it's harmful because it not following those rules is in itself harmful once you have made this type of connection.

Malcolm wrote:
It's harmful because you have made a promise, and that is the connection; this is why "dam tshig", "solemn word" is how Tibetans translate the term samaya. There is no mystical basis for samaya. It is premised strictly on accepting a set of promises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Musings on Kali Yuga
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
And I started to think about all the whinging and whining in regards to Kali Yuga and the destruction of the Dharma teachings.  It occurred to me that we are here now in Kali Yuga as a consequence of our karma (actions) in the past.  We all lived during the Satya Yuga (the Golden Age) and yet obviously we "pissed" away our opportunity to achieve enlightenment under those incredibly fortunate conditions.

Malcolm wrote:
The four ages is a nearly universal theme worldwide.

Interestingly, some Native American schemes presents each age [parsed as Suns] as an improvement over the last.

Though not an easy read, Witzel's The Origins of the World's Mythologies provides much interesting context for all the world's mythologies such as the four ages and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Kalachakra in Dzogchen Community
Content:
Tenpa said:
What is the specific use/function of this Kalachakra Atiyoga practice?
tks.


Malcolm wrote:
Total realization. Might improve your astrological skills too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
But it would seem that the convention of how things exist relatively can be violated as well.  The getting of milk from a conventional cow and from a pictorial cow comes to mind.  So are conventional beings supposed to accept that radically different conditions can produce the same conventional thing?

Malcolm wrote:
I have never heard of anyone successfully milking a picture of a cow.

Sherab said:
If I remembered correctly, there was story about Chandrakirti getting milk from a picture of a cow.  Anyway, Nagarjuna said that with emptiness everything is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Including production from a dissimilar cause?  i think you have not understood Nagarjuna's intent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They are simples.

PadmaVonSamba said:
can you explain a little more?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
They are irreducible, however they are also momentary, and hence conditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Am I missing something?
How can these skandhas be said to happen
in a way that can be called irreducible?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Irreducible does not mean unconditioned.

PadmaVonSamba said:
It means it can't be reduced to anything beyond than what it is.
I don't see how if something isn't the result of causes, it is Irreducible.
If perception and feeling can be divided into subject and object,
how are they Irreducible?
are perception and feeling established as pre-existing qualities
that occur even with or without the objects of perception and feeling?
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
They are simples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Am I missing something?
How can these skandhas be said to happen
in a way that can be called irreducible?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Irreducible does not mean unconditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
theanarchist said:
No, personal experience with empowerment, the way vajrayana practice works in general, logical conclusion taking into account the mechanics of vows and karma. And i have heard teachings on the subject.

Although I am sure I can dig up something on samaya in some scriptures, I haven't studied scriptures in a while.

Malcolm wrote:
All vows, including samaya, are nothing more than a series of intent, which are disrupted due to engaging in acts contrary to that initial intent. There is nothing mystical or psychic about receiving samaya vows. They are received when one recites the commitments after the master during the empowerment. The receipt of samaya is something very precise.

Then of course there is the four Dzogchen "samayas", which are unbreakable since they are not conditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
theanarchist said:
No, personal experience with empowerment, the way vajrayana practice works in general, logical conclusion taking into account the mechanics of vows and karma. And i have heard teachings on the subject.

Although I am sure I can dig up something on samaya in some scriptures, I haven't studied scriptures in a while.

Malcolm wrote:
All vows, including samaya, are nothing more than a series of intent, which are disrupted due to engaging in acts contrary to that initial intent. There is nothing mystical or psychic about receiving samaya vows. They are received when one recites the commitments after the master during the empowerment. The receipt of samaya is something very precise.

Then of course there is the four Dzogchen "samayas", which are unbreakable since they are not conditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:


theanarchist said:
Nope. Samaya is not a promise but a psychic connection with the teacher that you get when the teacher confers initiation and you receive it.

Malcolm wrote:
Interesting opinion. No textual support, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:


theanarchist said:
Nope. Samaya is not a promise but a psychic connection with the teacher that you get when the teacher confers initiation and you receive it.

Malcolm wrote:
Interesting opinion. No textual support, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The vedana skandha and the saṃjñā skandha are irreducible.

PadmaVonSamba said:
That may be what is traditionally taught,
but it isn't how it looks to me.


Malcolm wrote:
Then you have to specify what the parts of these things are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab said:
But it would seem that the convention of how things exist relatively can be violated as well.  The getting of milk from a conventional cow and from a pictorial cow comes to mind.  So are conventional beings supposed to accept that radically different conditions can produce the same conventional thing?

Malcolm wrote:
I have never heard of anyone successfully milking a picture of a cow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
tobes said:
Everyone is always sure that the opponent has been nailed.

Few ever make the effort to actually understand the opponent.

Can you nail something you don't actually understand??

Malcolm wrote:
Having studied Saṃkhya at the feet of someone quite expert in it, I can say that I understand Saṃkhya well enough to endorse Buddhapalita's refutation of it.

Being the son of a western philosophy professor, however, I am also sure that the same arguments and examples get used in all kinds of traditions.

Huifeng is correct, however, Saṃghabhadra's (pissed off) commentary on the Koṣa is a good presentation which goes to some length to preserve Sarvastivāda epistemology.

On the other hand, most tenet system literature presents a mockery of the opponents position.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because he is laying the intellectual basis for the later application of his ideas in Mahamudra practice, etc. There is no such thing as an actual application of western philosophy.
Ummmm, Nāgārjuna who wrote the MMK is demonstrably earlier (later [sic]) than the siddha Nāgārjuna, disciple of Saraha, who write the Bodhicittavivarana, the Pañcakrama and so on.

smcj said:
So you are saying that there is no relevance to meditation of soteriological value to the MMK?

Malcolm wrote:
MMK is pretty much strictly an analytical text. However, Rongton Sheja Kunrig explained an "intimate instruction" madhyamaka which involves contemplating the examples of illusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are three skandhas which are caittas, mental factors, which always accompany citta i.e. the vijñāna skandha.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, I understand that. but when you break those down...
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
The vedana skandha and the saṃjñā skandha are irreducible. The formation skandha on the other hand contains 51 to 100 hundred factors depending on whose scheme you are following. These factors are also irreducible. In other words, apart from their momentariness, they have no further parts into which they can be divided.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I have no "outcome". I haven't yet decided if Nagarjuna is a genius, full of shit, or a bit of both. (probably a bit of both: why should he different from any other philosopher?)

smcj said:
Because he is laying the intellectual basis for the later application of his ideas in Mahamudra practice, etc. There is no such thing as an actual application of western philosophy.


Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm, Nāgārjuna who wrote the MMK is demonstrably earlier than the siddha Nāgārjuna, disciple of Saraha, who write the Bodhicittavivarana, the Pañcakrama and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Right, like I said, what you are terming "awareness" is actually the samjñā-skandha, which is in turn actually a mental factor.

PadmaVonSamba said:
But the skandhas are also components factors, are they not? They have to occur as a result of causes.
So, I think there is a better term than my using the word 'awareness'.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
There are three skandhas which are caittas, mental factors, which always accompany citta i.e. the vijñāna skandha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 27th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
People can detect consciousness.
Consciousness can be an object of awareness.
what I mean by that is
you are cognitive of the fact that you yourself are thinking these words.
and you can infer that someone else wrote them.
When we meditate, we are aware of thoughts arising.
We can detect consciousness (the arising of awareness with objects of awareness) in others
even though we do not directly experience their exact experience.
We can ask, "what do you hear?" and observe that other beings experience cognitive function.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, like I said, what you are terming "awareness" is actually the samjñā-skandha, which is in turn actually a mental factor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
People can detect consciousness.
Consciousness can be an object of awareness.


Malcolm wrote:
An unsupported consciousness cannot be an object of another's consciousness since there is nothing by which it can be perceived. A supported consciousness can be an object of another's consciousness.

However, in the view of Candra, one's own consciousness cannot take itself as an object.

I don't really know what you mean by awareness. Awareness is generally held to be a property of consciousness. It is, in my opinion, a mental factor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Ivo said:
Yes, definitely. Can we apply it as beginners? No. If we try, we will fail. We have not accumulated the causes in out midstream. We still don't have the merit.

Malcolm wrote:
This is definitely not the view of Dzogchen. Dzogchen realization does not depend on accumulating causes of any kind.

On the other hand, there is no reason to stop doing practices related to the cause and result vehicles either.

It's all good.

Since nirvana is also not perceived, there is also freedom from the convention “buddha”, i.e. the great meaning, the inherently pure efforts of lower yānas are not abandoned. Since the identity of the result is naturally perfected, all effort of qualities self-arose without effort. Freedom from gradual progress in this is the naturally perfected result itself.
-- The Sun that Illuminates the Meaning (A commentary on the Cuckoo of Vidyā, which is also chapter 31 of the Kun byed rGyal po.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
not so fast kimosabe. Conventional production=dependent origination=hallucination of illusory production by deluded beings. yes, no, or maybe?


Malcolm wrote:
It's pretty clear from Candra's language that there should be an object to be seen correctly or falsely. This means there must be an appearance about which one is either mistaken or unmistaken. When one unmistakenly sees the apparent objects which serves as the basis for imputation (hearkening back to your original qualm), depending on which strand of Tibetan Madhyamaka one is following:

a) the objects themselves do not actually arise in truth and are considered to be no more than illusions, and so on
b) the objects themselves arise from causes and conditions conventionally (i.e. not causelessly, from single causes, from self, other, or dissimilar causes). What objects do not do is arise inherently.

Candra presupposes a Sautrantika epistemology where sense consciousnesses only arise when sense objects are encountered by contact with sense organs. For Candra, a sense consciousness will never arise in absence of a sense object or a sense organ, and this is clearly stated in the Madhyamakāvatara. Thus, the question of what the delusion actually is remains a matter of debate amongst Mādhyamika proponents.

What we can see from all of this is that since "Mādhyamikas" cannot agree amongst themselves, not to mention the other three tenets, indeed the "science" of Buddhism has undergone much change and transformation, like any body of human knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Khenpo Tsultrim said:
Chandrakrti was the great proponent of the Prasangika system, and he relied a lot on arguments that show that dharmas did not arise.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, or in other words, in reality, arising cannot be established for phenomena. Conventionally or relatively speaking, Candra eliminates arising without a cause, from single causes, dissimilar causes or from self or other, leaving only arising from conditions as the only valid option.

Those who do not see this point do not understand either Nāgārjuna or Candra.

smcj said:
I have no intention of investing myself in the details of this discussion, but I do have confidence enough in Khenpo Tsultrim's credentials to believe his characterization of Chandrakirti has some credibility. YMMV.


Malcolm wrote:
It is worthwhile here to repost the master's own words from his own magnum opus, Prasannapāda:

Therefore, that being the case, here when the Bhagavan clarified the production of things depending on cause and condition, he refuted the production of things causelessly, from a single cause, a dissimilar cause, or generated by self and other. Since those were refuted, the intrinsic nature of relative things was taught according to how they exist relatively.

Please compare this with what I stated above:

Conventionally or relatively speaking, Candra eliminates arising without a cause, from single causes, dissimilar causes or from self or other, leaving only arising from conditions as the only valid option.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Toes and digital pads (of a paw) are both digits, but I imagine you would not use the terms interchangeably, so...  stop being unjustifiably defensive.

Malcolm wrote:
In some languages there is no separate word for toes, for example, Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus, your thesis that Nāgārjuna rejects arising conventionally is not to be found in the thought of Candrakirti, etc.

gad rgyangs said:
There is conventional production.

Malcolm wrote:
Case closed. We agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Chandrakrti was the great proponent of the Prasangika system, and he relied a lot on arguments that show that dharmas did not arise.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, or in other words, in reality, arising cannot be established for phenomena. Conventionally or relatively speaking, Candra eliminates arising without a cause, from single causes, dissimilar causes or from self or other, leaving only arising from conditions as the only valid option.

Those who do not see this point do not understand either Nāgārjuna or Candra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
(glossed by Chandra as "completely deluded")

Malcolm wrote:
Candra says:

།ཡང་དག་མཐོང་ཡུལ་གང་དེ་དེ་ཉིད་དེ།
།མཐོང་བ་བརྫུན་པ་ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པར་གསུངས།
།མཐོང་བ་བརྫུན་པའང་རྣམ་པ་གཉིས་འདོད་དེ།
།དབང་པོ་གསལ་དང་དབང་པོ་སྐྱོན་ལྡན་ནོ།

That object which is correctly seen is true,
that falsely seen is said to be relative truth.
Also false seeing is held to be of two kinds:
a non-defective sense organ and a defective sense organ.

He also says:

།རྐྱེན་ལས་བྱུང་ཕྱིར་ཁམས་གསུམ་པོ།
།འདུས་བྱས་ཡིན་པར་ངེས་པར་བསྙད།
།དེ་ནི་དེ་ཡིས་སྟོང་ཉིད་གང༌།
།དེ་ནི་འདུས་བྱས་སྟོང་ཉིད་གསུངས།

Because of arising from conditions,
the three realms are conventionally ascertained to be conditioned. 
That [the three realms] which is empty of that [the inherent existence of the three realms];
that is said to be the emptiness of the conditioned.

In this case, all that the three realms are empty of here is inherent existence, here termed "the emptiness of the conditioned".

But what they are not empty of, according to Candra, is being conventionally designated as "conditioned" since the three realms are observed to arise from conditions.

Thus, your thesis that Nāgārjuna rejects arising conventionally is not to be found in the thought of Candrakirti, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 26th, 2013 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Causation is deconstructed in chapter 1 of MMK.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, yes; conventionally no, as passages by Buddhapalita and Candra demonstrated quite clearly.

You can deconstruct the two truths if you like, and certainly the two truths are rejected in Dzogchen; but not in Madhyamaka. And conventional truth in Madhyamaka clearly demonstrates the need for causation in order to have a sensible world where everything does not arise from everything at random.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
In that way they will avoid the anthropomorphism which is implied by using the term "neurons".


Malcolm wrote:
I think the term you are looking for is not anthropomorphism, but rather, "zoomorphism", if we are going to be fussy about terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
Ditto on the attitude.

Malcolm wrote:
Your habitually hostile tone has been mentioned many times, buy many people. You usually defend it saying "That's just how I am....".

People say many things about me, but they never call me "hostile". They usually just say I am a bully, or a fundamentalist ( ), and then only when they haven't anything substantive with which to back up their argument.

Anyway


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:


tingdzin said:
1 Sri Singha was born in China -- any of the biographies that gives a birthplace says this.

Malcolm wrote:
The sole source for this attribution is the lo rgyus chen mo by Zhang ston. This text is quite late, and seems wholly fictional apart from some details borrowed from earlier accounts of Vairocana's adventures in India, as well as sharing details of Garab Dorje's birth as well as Manjuśrimitra. None of the details of his life ever place him anywhere outside of the region of Bodhgaya in any pre-sNying thig accounts. I am not aware of any pre sNying thig text that places Śrī Siṇgha outside of India.

tingdzin said:
His birthplace is specified as So khyam, which through comparative historical linguistics and the accounts of later Tibetan histories, which do not mention Sri Singha at all, can be identified with the Chinese district of Suo fang. This does not mean Khotan -- I've seen that silliness several times and don't know how it got started. Nor does it mean Sri Singha was ethnic Chinese -- Suo fang, though part of the T'ang Empire, fell squarely into what was called the Sogdian (hu) prefectures, because they were populated by Sogdians, an Iranic-speaking people from present-day Uzbekistan (who had a lot of influence on early Chinese Buddhism, by the way). Sri Singha was supposed to have studied in his early life at Wu T'ai Shan, very close to Suo fang.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all very interesting but none of this shows that in fact Shri Singha was Sogdian, it is not impossible, but it is not certain. Such an account is utterly lacking in the accounts of the bodhicitta texts and the vajra bridge instructions.

tingdzin said:
2 If you say that Uddiyana fell within the Indian sphere of cultural influence, I would ask you: where did that sphere stop?

Malcolm wrote:
Northwards, think we can define it to be within the region covered by the Mauryan Empire, which definitely covers all areas which can be defined as Gandhara as well as Oḍḍiyāna. Apart from Shri Lanka, Buddhism never really penetrated the deep southern portion of the subcontinent, which is accounted for by the fact that Mauryan Empire never stretched that far. We can see the influence of the Roman Empire on the map of the world even today, so such a long standing network of trade and kinships that were set up during the Maurya can be considered to have endured for hundreds of years after the fall of the Mauryan empire itself.

A note: there is a passage that records the fact that Oḍḍiyāna is a country that no longer exists in the world in the long Vajra Bridge lo rgyus.

As far as Buddhism beyond this region [Khotan, etc.], I think it is fair to consider that these are also "Indian" Buddhisms in so far as their Buddhism was of the export variety. As we know, oft times exports cannot be found at home.

tingdzin said:
3) When you sat that Buddhist Dzogchen was entirely Indic-Buddhist inspired, that is still quite hotly debated, as you, being pretty au courant with modern scholarship, must know.

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from some Chan influence [very debatable] which also has Indian roots, I see no reason to doubt otherwise.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Thank you VERY much for your effort.  But this begs the question:  why did you state earlier that you have not seen any texts that refer to Mahamudra as primordial when you are the translator of a text that points out that it is primordial?

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is typically divided into three: basis, path and result. The Mahāmudra dohas treat all three. Take the passage:

All sentient beings are emanations of mahamudra,
the essence of those emanations is the forever non-arising dharmadhatu,
also all characteristics of dualistic appearances, happiness, suffering and so on, 
are the play of mahamudra, the original dharmata.

This is not generally regarded as a statement concerning primordial buddhahood, it is generally considered to be a statement of concerning the cause continuum (rgyu rgyud).

In Mahāmudra traditions the basis is regarded as "the cause", not the result. When implanted with the seed of the ripening empowerment and the liberating instructions, the path produces a result.

The main difference is one of terminology. Everyone agrees [apart from the Bonpos] that Mahāmudra and Dzogchen provide the same buddhahood, differing primarily in how the basis and the path is presented.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
If it means something like the aggregates of a given moment "depend" on the "previous" moment's, that only raises more questions for me.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what is meant. It's very clearly stated in the passage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
“Yes, plants have both short- and long-term electrical signalling, and they use some neurotransmitter-like chemicals as chemical signals,” Lincoln Taiz, an emeritus professor of plant physiology at U.C. Santa Cruz and one of the signers of the Alpi letter, told me. “But the mechanisms are quite different from those of true nervous systems.” Taiz says that the writings of the plant neurobiologists suffer from “over-interpretation of data, teleology, anthropomorphizing, philosophizing, and wild speculations.”

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, thanks, I read the article quite closely.

The article is about plant neurobiology. Some people, like yourself, might take issue with the term since plants do not have "neurons", but they clearly have information processing capacities and cells that appear homologous with neurons, as the article also suggests.

You might also work on the attitude.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, actually he is just paraphrasing Nāgārjuna's Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:

...Although the aggregates are serially connected...

dzogchungpa said:
I don't really understand what "serially connected" means.

Malcolm wrote:
The aggregates of this life form a series connected with aggregates of the past life, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The subject of the discussion is plant neurobiology and, like I said, plants do not have neurons so the thread title is WRONG.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the subject of the discussion is the Pollen article, and therefore the title is correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Where did I refute "intelligence"?  Where did I equate "intelligence" with a brain?

Malcolm wrote:
I wasn't talking about you specifically. It is true that I practice Buddhadharma, not "Buddhism".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
It's the same for Dzogchen, and most other dharma systems.

"At no time throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes has there ever been an actual birth. There has only been the appearance of birth. There has never been actual death, only the transformation of appearances like the shift from the dream state to the waking state... throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes there has never been any actual experience of transition or going from one state to another, or any actual experience of being located in some other place. This is analogous to the images in a dream."
- Longchenpa
Most Dharma systems are sailing manuals to "the other shore". Longchenpa speaks from the perspective of having gotten out of the boat after having reached "the other shore".


Malcolm wrote:
Well, actually he is just paraphrasing Nāgārjuna's Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:

Empty dharmas are entirely produced 
from dharmas strictly empty; 
dharmas without a self and [not] of a self.
Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals,
fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes.
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing has transfered.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
he is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Neurobiology is a misleading term here.  Plants do not have neurons.  That is not to deny that some sort of biofeedback system is at work here, but it is not neurological.


Malcolm wrote:
“Metaphors help stimulate the investigative imagination of good scientists,” the British plant scientist Anthony Trewavas wrote in a spirited response to the Alpi letter denouncing plant neurobiology. “Plant neurobiology” is obviously a metaphor—plants don’t possess the type of excitable, communicative cells we call neurons. Yet the introduction of the term has raised a series of questions and inspired a set of experiments that promise to deepen our understanding not only of plants but potentially also of brains. If there are other ways of processing information, other kinds of cells and cell networks that can somehow give rise to intelligent behavior, then we may be more inclined to ask, with Mancuso, “What’s so special about neurons?”

And:

Most definitions of intelligence fall into one of two categories. The first is worded so that intelligence requires a brain; the definition refers to intrinsic mental qualities such as reason, judgment, and abstract thought. The second category, less brain-bound and metaphysical, stresses behavior, defining intelligence as the ability to respond in optimal ways to the challenges presented by one’s environment and circumstances. Not surprisingly, the plant neurobiologists jump into this second camp.

Frankly it is hilarious to see Buddhists refute the intelligence of plants on the one hand, and insist on the other that a mind cannot be reduced to a brain on the other...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Understanding the Abhidharmakosa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Kosha's verses, true, are based on Sarvāstivādin; the the bhaṣyaṃ is Sautrantika.

daverupa said:
Sure, but I hadn't seen the bhasyam mentioned yet so had not commented with it in mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The two are inseparable, i.e. the one is always studied with the other.


daverupa said:
Well, Indian Buddhadhamma covers more chronology than the last 800 years; the Abhidharmakosa is not a castle built in the sky. It is a trenchant summary position from within scholastic Buddhism, which may or may not matter to the OP, but there it is.

Malcolm wrote:
The beauty of the Kosha is that is covers pretty much every major Abhidharma trend until the fifth century, based as it is in the Mahāvibhasa, etc. Abhidhamma is a different thing, and was largely irrelevant to continental Buddhadharma and remains so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 25th, 2013 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
daverupa said:
Be wary of false dichotomies; big cities are just as natural as anthills.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in my opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
padma norbu said:
Shared that with one person who immediately concluded it was proof of God designing it.


Malcolm wrote:
Confirmation bias...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Understanding the Abhidharmakosa
Content:
daverupa said:
It presents the general anatomy and physiology of Sarvāstivādin Buddhadharma ca. 4th-5th century CE.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, this not exactly true. The Kosha's verses, true, are based on Sarvāstivādin; the the bhaṣyaṃ is Sautrantika.

In any event, it was the major Abhidharma text on the subcontinent for the last 800 years of Buddhadharma's presence on the subcontinent. If someone wants to understand Indian Buddhadharma's basics, the Kosha is the go to text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Understanding the Abhidharmakosa
Content:
dimeo said:
Can anyone give a general comment as to what is profound about this book that Buddhists appreciate and have studied it for so many centuries?  Anyone have any insight on this text to share?

Malcolm wrote:
It presents the general anatomy and physiology of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Title: Plant Neurobiology
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They injected fir trees with radioactive carbon isotopes, then followed the spread of the isotopes through the forest community using a variety of sensing methods, including a Geiger counter. Within a few days, stores of radioactive carbon had been routed from tree to tree. Every tree in a plot thirty metres square was connected to the network; the oldest trees functioned as hubs, some with as many as forty-seven connections. The diagram of the forest network resembled an airline route map.

The pattern of nutrient traffic showed how “mother trees” were using the network to nourish shaded seedlings, including their offspring—which the trees can apparently recognize as kin—until they’re tall enough to reach the light. And, in a striking example of interspecies coöperation, Simard found that fir trees were using the fungal web to trade nutrients with paper-bark birch trees over the course of the season. The evergreen species will tide over the deciduous one when it has sugars to spare, and then call in the debt later in the season. For the forest community, the value of this coöperative underground economy appears to be better over-all health, more total photosynthesis, and greater resilience in the face of disturbance.

In his talk, Mancuso juxtaposed a slide of the nodes and links in one of these subterranean forest networks with a diagram of the Internet, and suggested that in some respects the former was superior. “Plants are able to create scalable networks of self-maintaining, self-operating, and self-repairing units,” he said. “Plants.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?currentPage=all


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Malcolm, should the rig pa rang shar quote say "the dharmatā free from extremes"? Or is "the Dharma free from extremes" correct in this context?

Malcolm wrote:
Dharma is correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Malcolm's idea of causes and conditions existing conventionally? Gelugpa.

Malcolm wrote:
As Candra points out in the Prasannapāda:
Therefore, that being the case, here when the Bhagavan clarified the production of things depending on cause and condition, he refuted the production of things causelessly, from a single cause, a dissimilar cause, or generated by self and other. Since those were refuted, the intrinsic nature of relative things was taught according to how they exist relatively.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
all you can say is that you have seen something you call a sprout appearing where previously you have seen a seed. There is no demonstrable causal relation between them, on that both Nagarjuna and Hume agree.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they do not agree. Hume, a materialist, is rejecting causal necessity conventionally. Nāgārjuna, a Buddhist, is only rejecting arising ultimately/intrinsically.

This does not establish causality at all except as a proliferation, plain and simple. For example, in the Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:

Question: Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?
Reply: All living beings are causes and results.

As an example of Nāgārjuna maintaining conventional causality conventionally states in the same text:
Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

gad rgyangs said:
plucking one member of the tetralemma out this way results in the most egregious misreading I think I have ever seen of this passage.  "Arising without a cause" is not refuted to demonstrate that causes and conditions exist conventionally, it is refuted because nothing at all arises, period.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a tetralemma, there is no fourth member. The third argument "Nothing...arises without a cause" serves to eliminate the idea that conventionally anything can arise from anything, as Buddhapalita, etc. clearly explain in their commentaries.

Remember, when we are discussing conventionalities such as causality and arising, we are not doing so from the perspective of how things actually are, we are speaking strictly from the perspective of conventional truth. Buddhapalita at the end of the first chapter says "Because results, conditions, and non-conditions do not exist, descriptions for arising are merely conventional." No Madhyamaka maintains "There is no arising in conventional truth".

Now you may prefer Hume to Nāgārjuna, but don't conflate Hume's materialism with Nāgārjuna's presentation of ultimate truth.

In fact, in every commentary around 13.6 preserves the necessity of a relationship between causes and their effects, i.e. asserting that from a Madhyamaka point of view, causal connection is necessary, for example, demonstrating how curd does not come from water because curd indeed comes from milk even though causes and effects can not be said to be the same nor different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The arising of appearances needs to explained in some way, hence MMK 1.1

gad rgyangs said:
but they can't be explained, thats just the point.

Malcolm wrote:
They can indeed be explained.


gad rgyangs said:
The Madhyamaka project is to show that as long as one insists that there is an ultimate basis of imputation beyond mere appearances
hang on, I thought appearances are the imputations?

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that. Not even once.



gad rgyangs said:
In the end it is very simple, this appearance, for example a sprout, depends on the appearance of that appearance, for example a seed; without the seed there is no sprout. This appearance, butter, depends on that appearance, milk., etc.
this is just crypto-causality.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing crypto about it. It is causality, plain and simple.

gad rgyangs said:
Dependent origination serves to explain causal processes without invoking essences.
causal processes are refuted in 1.1: there aren't any

Malcolm wrote:
They are not refuted conventionally in MMK 1.1.

"Nothing...arises without a cause..."

As Buddhapalita explains:

Also they do not arise without a cause, because the consequence would be that everything arising from everything permanently, and because there would be the fallacy of the purposelessness of all undertakings. Why is that so? Because the arising of existents is not accepted in all aspects, therefor, because there is no arising, the expression ‘arising’ is just a convention.

So even while we can refute arising ultimately, we must accept causes conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Appearances are mere percepts: colors, shapes, sounds, smells, etc. Everything else is conceptual overlay.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you have reduced your view to that of the Carvaka materialists who accept only direct perception as authorities.

Thats ok with me, but it is not Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Hanuman in Vajrayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Perhaps this is getting off topic and maybe we could start a new thread, but I am also very interested in the idea of local protectors. Does anyone have any more stories of lamas recognizing their presence outside of Tibet?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not really necessary to give them names. Bhumipatis is the general designation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
I give up. If you think it is necessary to accept the idea of a self in order to teach the absence of a self I just don't agree with that.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha very clearly taught both self and not-self, depending on context.

heart said:
Yeah, right. you keep telling me that.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna states:

Though a so called "self" is designated,
also non-self was taught;
The buddhas have also said
"there is no self or nonself at all"

The commentary by Buddhapalita explains that Buddhas teach the existence of a self in order to prevent beings from falling into lower realms because they will then ignore the effects of positive and negative actions. Nonself is taught in order to counter attachment to samsara in general and to higher realms specifically. But, he adds, this two are illusions taught to guide the immature. Buddhapalita states that In reality, the buddhas teach neither self nor nonself.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
appearances are a given, dependent arising is a concept. how can they be two sides of an "equation"? In that sense, dependent origination is itself an imputation made on the bases of appearances. If Madhymaka claims that the quieting of proliferations is a desideratum, why doesn't it start with itself?

In the end, Madhyamaka says exactly nothing, only that you can impute whatever you want on whatever you want. This is helpful how exactly?

Malcolm wrote:
As Rongzom points out, only Madhyamaka "harms" itself.

The arising of appearances needs to explained in some way, hence MMK 1.1

At no time, no where
do things arise from self,
from other,
or without a cause.

Madhyamaka serves to pacify proliferation through demonstrating dependent origination. This is the mangalaṃ of MMK states that dependent origination, unceasing, non-arising, etc., is the pacification of proliferation.

From your given appearance, one might explain appearances arise causelessly [Carvaka], or from themselves [Saṃkhya], from other [Vaiṣeśika], etc.

Nāgārjuna's project is twofold: one, to show that accounts of apparent phenomena other than dependent origination are unintelligible. Two, to show that dependently originated phenomena are empty.

He does this because of the subject/predicate [dharmin/dharmatā] problem in discussing phenomena in terms of essences. The dharmin in this case is appearances which are dependently arisings. When their predicate is sought, their dharmatā, it is found to be emptiness.

Since phenomena are found to be essenceless, they are likened to appearances that everyone accepts are unreal, i.e. illusions, apparitions, space and so on.

The Madhyamaka project is to show that as long as one insists that there is an ultimate basis of imputation beyond mere appearances, for that long one will be locked into conceptuality. Since in the final analysis, one can find no basis of imputation at all, and since the object under analysis ceases to appear as either an existent or in this case as a non-existent (since a non-existent cannot be predicated without an existent), one ceases to conceive of things as existents or nonexistents. That is the desiderata.

In the end it is very simple, this appearance, for example a sprout, depends on the appearance of that appearance, for example a seed; without the seed there is no sprout. This appearance, butter, depends on that appearance, milk., etc.

Dependent origination serves to explain causal processes without invoking essences. Dependent origination is something one can witness with one's own eyes, so in that sense it is not imputation, it is how things exist. In other words, at no time has anyone ever witnessed the arising of something that did not depend on a cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Hanuman in Vajrayana
Content:
Destiny said:
As far I know, there are a few secret mantras practiced in tantric sadhanas, but the common hindu mantras don't require any transmission.
It is very, very different from Vajrayana.
Actually, it is also possibile to perform homa (fire puja) to hindu gods without any initiations. You can even find instructions to do that online
I don't know anyway if this kind of practices are recommended from a buddhist point of view. Probably, if the specific god is recognized as a buddhist protector it would be fine.

Malcolm wrote:
There are, according to my yoga teacher Srivatsa Ramaswami, three kinds of "Hindu" mantras; vedic mantras, bija mantras (tantric) and loka mantras (puranic). The last do not require any sort of transmission, the first two do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
I give up. If you think it is necessary to accept the idea of a self in order to teach the absence of a self I just don't agree with that.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha very clearly taught both self and not-self, depending on context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I'm not asking about first causes, but rather bases of imputation in the Madhyamaka view. The whole magical person thing is bogus & irrelevant, as I have shown.

Malcolm wrote:
I already explained this: the basis of imputation is an appearance. Some trends on Madhyamaka then assert that appearances are mind. Since appearances/mind are not findable on analysis, they/it are equated with illusion. Illusions lack any inherent nature because they are dependent originations. Dependent originations are free from extremes and, in the final analysis, inexpressible. None of this is circular in anyway.

You ask, what dependently arises -- we can say all kinds of things, but in the end, it boils down to appearance. What are appearances? Dependent arisings. What dependently arises? Appearances. This is not a circularity, it is an equation appearances = dependent origination.

If you want to be more specific you can say what appearance? A rope or a car, for example. Upon what is a rope designated? It's parts. Upon what are the parts designated? Their parts, if they have any. If they do not have further parts, then they are designated upon moments, etc., until one runs out of bases of imputation. At that point, you have [intellectually] discovered emptiness, i.e., the absence of a ultimate or final basis of designation. At each stage of the analysis the previous basis of imputation no longer appears since it is has been deconstructed. As Shantideva points out:

When an existent or a nonexistent
does not exist in the presence of the mind, 
at that time since there is no other aspect
[concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support [dmigs pa, ālambana].

gad rgyangs said:
yes, rigpa resolves all questions about the nature of reality, but there ain't no rigpa in Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Shantideva's quote above shows that there is vidyā in Madhyamaka, as the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:

The Dharma free from the extremes of conceptual grasping.
is directly perceived without dwelling on an object.

These two statements should be understood to have the same import.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
where, and by whom, has it been demonstrated that magical people exist at all or can or cannot interact? And why should this prove that an empty statement can refute a statement claiming substance?

Malcolm wrote:
This is why N gives the example of illusions, etc., over and over again. That is point of the example from V. Emanational people can hinder other emanational people, since they can generate them. Since all statements are in fact empty, empty statements can rebut empty statements that assert substantiality.

gad rgyangs said:
here is a simile with no referent, unless Teacher (meaning of course, the Buddha) is a creator god. If we, as agents are magical beings and so are our actions, then who is the one that creates these magical beings in the way that the Buddha creates chains of magical beings?

Malcolm wrote:
You are asking an irrelevant question.

It is axiomatic in Buddhadharma that there are no first causes. The very notion of pratītyasamutpada forbids the notion of any first cause, or creator, etc.

You might imagine you have found an answer in "rig pa", but vidyā just means knowledge of the basis, etc., and it is also baseless and essenceless as well. Keep going where your going and you are going to wind up in new age la la land.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's very simple:

"Where this exists, that exists. With the arising of that, this arises...."

Since we cannot in the end find anything but appearances that are found on examination to be empty, all we are left with is appearances that arise in dependence upon other appearances. For example, like an emanational person who generates further emanational persons as stated in the Vigrahavyāvartanīvṛtti passage I provided above.

gad rgyangs said:
the concept of emanational/artificial/magical people is first raised in the V by the opponent, to say that N's empty statement cannot refute his claims for svabhava in the same way that one purportedly artificial person cannot hinder another. N replies that an artificial person can indeed hinder another, so his empty statement can refute the opponent's substantial one: "Therefore in just the same way the negation of the substance of thing is established by my empty speech". The opponent is retarded to raise the issue at all, but N's reply is no better: where, and by whom, has it been demonstrated that magical people exist at all or can or cannot interact? And why should this prove that an empty statement can refute a statement claiming substance?

However, in MMK 17.31-32 N says,

"Just as the Teacher by his supernatural power fabricates a magical being
that in turn fabricates yet another magical being,
so with regard to the agent, which has the form of a magical being, and the action that is done by it,
it is like the case where a second magical being is fabricated by a magical being."

here is a simile with no referent, unless Teacher (meaning of course, the Buddha) is a creator god. If we, as agents are magical beings and so are our actions, then who is the one that creates these magical beings in the way that the Buddha creates chains of magical beings?

imputations require ropes and magical beings require magicians.

Malcolm wrote:
You are chasing a first cause down a rabbit hole. Blue pill or red pill?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
Is there a relationship between Shiva and Chenrezig?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Avalokiteshvara is held to have converted Shiva in the Karandavyuha sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
me: "and appearances are what?"

thee: "Dependent arisings."

me : "dependent arisings of what?"

thee: "Of appearances..."
dude...

Malcolm wrote:
It's very simple:

"Where this exists, that exists. With the arising of that, this arises...."

Since we cannot in the end find anything but appearances that are found on examination to be empty, all we are left with is appearances that arise in dependence upon other appearances. For example, like an emanational person who generates further emanational persons as stated in the Vigrahavyāvartanīvṛtti passage I provided above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
I personally think 'dependent arising' is better rendered as 'interdependent arising', which is even better rendered into simple language as 'paradox'.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no "inter" in pratītyasamutpada

A more literal translation is "conditioned co-origination", where pratitya bears the sense of pratyaya, i.e. conditioned.

The tibetan "rten cing 'brel bar 'byung ba" means something like " dependent and relational origination".

There is however nothing "paradoxical" about dependent origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
I wouldn't say so. Nāgārjuna's entire exposition concerns what occurs after the basis isn't recognized in Dzogchen.
I would tend to agree with you, but a Gelugpa would not accept the idea of a "basis" at all. Once you say that there is a "basis", no matter how you define or don't define it, you've left Nagarjuna behind--unless you accept "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" as authored by Nagarjuna.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily. Gelugpas accept the dharmadhātu, therefore, they accept a basis. For example, they accept the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra as definitive. It states:
If it is asked what is the bodhisattva's skill in the elements [khams, dhātu], it is that which is the wisdom that engages the dharmadhātu. The dharmadhātu is the element of earth, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of solidity. The dharmadhātu is the element of water, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of wetness. The dharmadhātu is the element of fire, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of maturation. The dharmadhātu is the element of air, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of motility. The dharmadhātu is the element of the eye, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of sight...The dharmadhātu is the element of the body, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of touch. The dharmadhātu is the element of mind, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of perception [vijñāpti]. The dharmadhātu is the element of eye consciousness, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of of the specific perception of form...The dharmadhātu is the element of form, but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of the element of perception of an eye consciousness. The dharmadhātu is the element of phenomena [chos kyi khams, dharma dhātu, one of the eighteen dhātus], but the dharmadhātu is not the characteristic of the perception of phenomena...the dharmadhātu and the element of the self are the same. The dharmadhātu, the desire realm, form realm and formless realm are the same. The dharmadhātu and the element of samsara and the element of nirvana are the same. The dharmadhātu, the element of sentient beings the element of space and the element of all phenomena, those are the same. If it is asked why they are the same, because they are the same as emptiness, they are the same.
This is the basis any Gelugpa can accept.

This sutra also has a beautiful definition of wisdom as well:
If it is asked what is consciousness [vijñāna] and what is wisdom [jñāna], so called "consciousness" are the four abodes of consciousness. If it is asked what four, it is as follows: consciousness approaches matter, approaches sensation, approaches perception [samjñā] and approaches formations and abides. This is called "consciousness". If it is asked what is wisdom, whatever throughly knows the aggregate of consciousness in the four aggregates, this is called "wisdom". Moreover, consciousness is the earth element consciousness, the water element, the fire element and air element consciousness. This is called "consciousness". Whatever knows the consciousness that abides in these four elements to be inseparable with the dharmadhātu, this is called "wisdom".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
and appearances are what?

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent arisings.

gad rgyangs said:
dependent arisings of what?

Malcolm wrote:
Of appearances...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Destiny said:
In general, in the White Mahākala sadhana of Shangpa there is only one Ganapati.
In the sadhana I have there are two Tso Daks. Also in the pictures one can find online one usually sees two Tso Daks. That's why I was confused and thought that Tso Dak was not exactly Ganesh, but something like a class of beings linked to him.


Malcolm wrote:
In the sadhana I have practiced on and off for the past 25 years there is only one. There must be a slight difference in lineage. I received through the Sakyapa school where it is a major wealth practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
and appearances are what?

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent arisings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


smcj said:
Dudjom R. subscribes to the 3rd turning as definitive. You are more than welcome to follow ChNN's lead on this, but his opinion is not universally held.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither is Dudjom Rinpoche's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Destiny said:
Is there a similar sadhana in other lineages (ex. Shangpa) where one takes the form of Gonkar/White Mahakala while commanding Ganapati?
I'm asking this questions because of a dream i had last night.
Tshogs bdag is Tibetan for Ganapati.
If they are exactly the same thing, why in the sadhana of Gonkar there are 2 (two) Tso Daks under the feet of Gonkar? In the sadhana I have, these Tso Daks are also called "Lords of Demons".

I'm also interested to know if we can consider these Ganapatis part of Gonkar's wordly entourage. In that case the torma would be offered to them, also.

Malcolm wrote:
As for your first question, as far as I know, no.

Tshogs = gana
bdag = pati.

In general, in the White Mahākala sadhana of Shangpa there is only one Ganapati.

Lords of Demons is an alternate name for Ganesh/Ganapati i.e. Vinayaka.

No need to offer torma to Ganapati in White Mahakāla sadhana.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Either way, Dzogpa Chenpo never advocates for a substantial existence.

smcj said:
Neither does Great Madhyamaka advocate for a "substantial" existence. As I quoted Samba as saying on p. 19 of this thread, "the ineffable ground that is also empty (but not empti-ness-a-thing)" is a restating of the Great Madhyamak view.

Malcolm wrote:
It is sort of ridiculous to term gzhan stong "great madhyamaka" since it is a term used to describe several different positions amongst Tibetan Madhyamakas i.e. gzhan stong; the early Sakya/Nyingma view of free from extremes that goes right back to Kawa Paltseg, and of course Tsongkhapa's formulation.

The Indian texts also show no consistency in how the term is used, the anonymous pramāṇavidhvaṃsanaṭippiṭakavṛtti refers to its adherents as "great madhyamaka" and rejects the so called cittamatra madhyamaka [that Bhava advocates in the passage you reference] as inferior.

In reality, in the Indian context, "great madhyamaka is a term mostly used in tantric treatises; even here however it is used in various different ways. The Śrī-kālacakropadeśayogaṣaḍaṇgatantrapañjikā by Avadhutipāda states:
"The nature of the completion [stage] is said to be mahāmadhyamaka".
On other hand, the Śrī-ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarājasyaṭīkāvohitaṭikā by Padmavajra states:
So called "madhyamaka" is the dharma of the essence, the freedom from four extremes of the mahāmadhyamaka of the Mahāyāna and the awakening of the fortunate.
Dombi Heruka's Śrīhevajrasādhana states:
One should mediate on the great madhyamaka free from all signs.
And the Tantric Candrakiriti's Samājābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states
Having manifested the mahāmadhyamaka that is like space, 
the sunlight of compassion benefits all sentient beings


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom Rinpoche stated that it's acceptable to hold a gzhan stong view in certain circumstances regarding practice. I believe he then also stated that in post-meditation and in instances where discussion/debate was occurring, the rang stong view is appropriate.
I believe what D.R. said was that Prasangika view is best if the subject of emptiness is approached intellectually, and Great Madhyamaka view is best if the subject of emptiness is approached from an experiential/meditational perspective. He calls the Prasangika the "coarse outer Madhyamaka" as opposed to the "subtle inner Madhyamaka". He subscribes to the 3rd turning as definitive. I've got the quote(s) somewhere in the Big Red Book. I will look them up if you so desire.

Malcolm wrote:
I have already shown that this distinction made by many gzhan stong scholars is based on a misconception, and I even trotted out the passage in question.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=13306&p=174083&hilit=outer+madhyamaka#p174083

So called subtle inner Madhyamaka is just taking appearances to be mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Destiny said:
'Oh Ananda, when any son of noble family, daughter of noble family, monk, nun, lay man or lay woman goes to a place of worship other than where the Three Jewels (are worshipped) or enters the palace retinue of a king and practices the mantras (recited in that place) and begins with this Essence of Ganapati-Ganesvara all one's tasks will be accomplished. Have no doubts about it.
Can someone clarify this statement ? Does that mean that by using that mantra, any other non-buddhist mantras become buddhist and brings realization?

I have another question: there is a clear connection between White Mahakala (Gonkar) and Ganesh - or at least that's what I've understood.
If one practice white mahakala sadhana, do you think that if one recite the usual ganesha mantra (om gam ganapataye namaha) his practice will be enhanced?

And what is the connection between the Tso Dak that are under Gonkar's feet and Ganapati? To be more precise, what are the tso dak and their role in Vajrayana buddhism?

Thanks

Malcolm wrote:
The answer to your first question is no.


Tshogs bdag is Tibetan for Ganapati.

Ganapati is a mundane protector in Tibetan Buddhism. For example, in the Red Ganapati practice transmitted in Sakya, oneself in the form of Vajrapani commands Ganapati to perform one's wishes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
how can aggregates, or anything else, be posited on emptiness? "Emptiness" is not a res.

Malcolm wrote:
"For those whom emptiness is possible, for them everything is possible; for those whom emptiness is not possible, for them nothing is possible."

gad rgyangs said:
sure, but that does not address the fact that the traditional presentation of imputation requires a rope first. Im sure thats why paratantra was made up. you can break it down to atoms, but what is the "rope" that atoms are imputed on?

Malcolm wrote:
The atoms are not imputed upon a rope. When the atoms are perceived, the rope no longer appears, just as when the rope is perceived, the snake no longer appears. As I mentioned above, all of these things are imputed upon appearances. When you run out of appearances, i.e. when you cannot find anything more, you run out of imputations -- hence emptiness.This is all very straightforward.

Yogacara assumes that mind is a basis for everything, hence their paratantra concept.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
ok so if we mistake the aggregates for a "self", then what is it we are mistaking as "aggregates"?

Malcolm wrote:
snake = self
rope = aggregates
atoms/moments= constituents of aggregates

Keep breaking it down, you arrive at emptiness.

gad rgyangs said:
how can aggregates, or anything else, be posited on emptiness? "Emptiness" is not a res.

Malcolm wrote:
"For those whom emptiness is possible, for them everything is possible; for those whom emptiness is not possible, for them nothing is possible."

In any event, the main point is that these things are appearances. So the real answer to your question is that all of these thing such as aggregates, etc., are posited upon appearances. These appearances are dependently arisen. Since they are dependently arisen, they are empty. That is the best you are going to get out of Madhyamaka, hence the two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if the self is posited on the aggregates, then what are the aggregates posited on? And no infinte regressess please.

Anders said:
The point here is that it is not actually posited on the aggregates. But conventionally designated as the aggregates. That is to say, when people [falsely] impute a self, they do so in relation to the aggregates.

This is, structurally, no different from positing four legs and a plate as 'a table'. Table is a mere designation of apparently connected aggregates. Where the designation of 'self' differs from 'table' is that sentient beings have real hard time recognising, in realtime, that this self we posit all the time is actually a mere convention overlayed on the aggregates. But this is a practical issue, not a logical one.

gad rgyangs said:
ok so if we mistake the aggregates for a "self", then what is it we are mistaking as "aggregates"?

Malcolm wrote:
snake = self
rope = aggregates
atoms/moments= constituents of aggregates

Keep breaking it down, you arrive at emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
At this point the whole system becomes realist. The corrective for that is the two truths as presented in Mahāyāna.

gad rgyangs said:
ok this much is history. but can you posit one illusion upon another? and who does all this positing? another illusory "mental factor"? then we have an illusion positing an illusion on other illusions. Isn't anything said by this illusory configuration about the nature of reality itself an illusion? (I'm not saying "empty" but rather "illusion" so no replys from Vigrahavyavartani. N claims that an empty statement about emptiness is OK. I am asking about the illusory maker of that empty statement.)

Malcolm wrote:
Illusions are empty so there is really no difference between saying "an illusory agent" and "an empty agent". It amounts to the same thing. This is why the example of the illusionist is so frequently used. In the Vigrahavyavartani commentary the example of an illusionist is brought up and addressed:

།ཇི་ལྟར་སྤྲུལ་པའི་སྐྱེས་བུས་སྤྲུལ་པའི་སྐྱེས་བུ་ཞིག་དོན་འགའ་ཞིག་གི་ཕྱིར་འོང་བར་བྱེད་པ་ལ་འགོག་པར་བྱེད་པ་དང༌། སྒྱུ་མ་མཁན་གྱིས་ཕྱུང་བའི་སྒྱུ་མའི་སྐྱེས་བུས་སྒྱུ་མའི་སྐྱེས་བུ་གཞན་ཞིག་དོན་འགའ་ཞིག་གི་ཕྱིར་འོང་བར་བྱེད་པ་ལ་འགོག་པར་བྱེད་པ་བཞིན་ཏེ་དེ་ལ་སྤྲུལ་པའི་སྐྱེས་བུ་དགག་པར་བྱ་བ་གང་ཡིན་པ ་དེ་ཡང་སྟོང་པ་ཡིན །


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if the self is posited on the aggregates, then what are the aggregates posited on? And no infinte regressess please.

Malcolm wrote:
Matter, mind and mental factors: dharmas the Abhidharmikas took to be pāramārtha dharmas.

They posit the material aggregate upon the four elements which make up one's sense organs and their objects. Sensation, perception and formations are posited upon mental factors. The aggregate of consciousness is posited on past (manas), present (vijñāna) and future (citta) minds.

Matter is then posited on particles (described in various ways). Mind and mental factors are posited upon moments.

At this point the whole system becomes realist. The corrective for that is the two truths as presented in Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
dude said:
what's important is instruction.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


dude said:
I'm talking about the Buddha's teachings themselves, not academic speculation on events.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddha's teaching?

dude said:
THE Buddha's teaching.
In the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha said that supernatural powers aren't really important, what's important is instruction.


Malcolm wrote:
There are lots of Buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
I don't need a person obssesed with building a grandiose reputation as a scholar and researcher to explain it to me in terms that are less than several hundred years old.

Malcolm wrote:
Which person would that be?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
Modern practitioner here who prefers so-called Tibetan myth and supernaturalism's explanation of reality to modern science's narcissistic and limited temporal conclusions.

Malcolm wrote:
Why narcissistic?

And yes, people need certainty in their lives-- some seek it in science, others in religion; but certainty is found in neither.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


dude said:
I'm talking about the Buddha's teachings themselves, not academic speculation on events.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddha's teaching?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Sexism in Buddhism
Content:
kirtu said:
The Tara's are of course.  However I have a tale for you: one day Naropa was sitting outside the gate at his monastic university reading a parjnaparamita text.  An aged hag come up and asked, do you understand what you are reading?  Naropa answered, yes, I understand the words.  The hag danced for joy.  Then Naropa said "I also understand the meaning."  Whereupon the hag wept bitterly.....

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Use of the word "hag" indicates again patriarchal expectations around female beauty, availability and desirability, in this case, Western ones since the word "hag" does not exist in Tibetan.

hag 1 |hag|
noun
1 a witch, esp. one in the form of an ugly old woman (often used as a term of disparagement for a woman): a fat old hag in a dirty apron.

In the original text by Tsang Nyon Heruka, she is simply described as an old women (rgan mo) with thirty seven signs of ugliness.

kirtu said:
Thank-you.  Of course most people recounting the tale do not say "There is no word for 'hag' in Tibetan and Tsang Nyon Heruka, simply described her as an old women (rgan mo) with thirty seven signs of ugliness."  This is almost always translated as "hag" and then perhaps it's mentioned that she was ugly as well as old.

Malcolm wrote:
"rgan mo" is virtually never translated as hag, and the native Tibetan dictionaries simple describes a "rgan mo" as "a women who is "high" in years" [lo na mtho ba'i bud med]. In this case the translator [Guenther] took license with the Tibetan text in an unfortunate way, looking to make the text more "dramatic".

kirtu said:
The whole use of the term is to counter patriarchal conditioning as the old woman in the story is Vajrayogini appearing to Naropa (for those playing at home).  The fully enlightened being appeared in a form counter to Naropa's patriarchial expectations.  And this is the lesson to us as well.

Malcolm wrote:
I clarified, had you been reading carefully, that use of the the term "hag" was a result of Western patriarchal expectations, thus undermining the intent of the original Tibetan text.

BTW, if there is a word for "hag" in Tibetan it would be 'bag mo [༏འབག་མོ, literary "mask woman"], as in Sa skya 'bag mo i.e. the witches of Sakya, three very powerful demonesses that are mundane protectors. The term 'bag mo is also used for evil women.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
dude said:
I think this will be harder for Tibetan Buddhists because supernaturalism is a governing principle in Tibetan Buddhism and is used as a criteria for its ultimate validity.
This in itself goes  against the Buddha's teachings.


Malcolm wrote:
As far as I can tell, the rise in the phenomena of recorded magical battles between Buddhists and Hindus reflected the reality that Buddhists in India were in a losing war in which Hindus, for many complicated reasons, were eventually able to drive Institutional Buddhism to its knees.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I think this will be harder for Tibetan Buddhists because supernaturalism is a governing principle in Tibetan Buddhism and is used as a criteria for its ultimate validity. Demonstrations of siddhis were the rule in ancient contests between Buddhists and Hindus, not the exception if we are to understand how Tibetans perceived the viability of the siddha tradition in ancient India.

Nighthawk said:
Is the "rainbow body" also a supernatural element of TB that Tibetan Buddhists need to get rid of?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that Tibetan Buddhists needed to get rid of anything. I am pointing out that many Tibetan Buddhist beliefs need to be understood as nonfalsifiable. I have actually been saying the same thing for over 15 years years now. Inferentially, because many potential "converts" are attracted to Buddhism because of its supposed rationalism, forms like Vipassana are more likely to fit it with the dominant worldview in the West and therefore gain much wider currency. Just look at how the term "mindfulness" has been expropriated from Buddhism. Of course there will always be folks who are attracted to Tibetan Buddhism precisely because of its supernatural elements. But those beliefs are not likely to sustain the transmission of Dharma in the Industrialized West. We do not, for example, see magical duels between Buddhist siddhas and Catholic priests.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Is this insurmountable? No, of course not. However, traditional Tibetan Buddhists will need to accommodate science into their world view.

Anders said:
I don't think Buddhism needs to dump it's myths. It just needs to hold them with a light touch so that modern practitioners may adequately compartmentalise this and science. Given the hoops scientistic Christians manage to jump through to accomplish such a feat, I think that's fairly manageable for your average modern Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
I think this will be harder for Tibetan Buddhists because supernaturalism is a governing principle in Tibetan Buddhism and is used as a criteria for its ultimate validity. Demonstrations of siddhis were the rule in ancient contests between Buddhists and Hindus, not the exception if we are to understand how Tibetans perceived the viability of the siddha tradition in ancient India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Sexism in Buddhism
Content:
kirtu said:
Here are a few images of female Buddhas/10th Bhumi Bodhisattvas in Tibetan Buddhism.  Some are found also in other forms of Buddhism:


Malcolm wrote:
Please note however that all these images correspond to patriarchal (Brahmanical in this case) social expectations around female beauty.

kirtu said:
The Tara's are of course.  However I have a tale for you: one day Naropa was sitting outside the gate at his monastic university reading a parjnaparamita text.  An aged hag come up and asked, do you understand what you are reading?  Naropa answered, yes, I understand the words.  The hag danced for joy.  Then Naropa said "I also understand the meaning."  Whereupon the hag wept bitterly.....

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Use of the word "hag" indicates again patriarchal expectations around female beauty, availability and desirability, in this case, Western ones since the word "hag" does not exist in Tibetan.

hag 1 |hag|
noun
1 a witch, esp. one in the form of an ugly old woman (often used as a term of disparagement for a woman): a fat old hag in a dirty apron.

In the original text by Tsang Nyon Heruka, she is simply described as an old women (rgan mo) with thirty seven signs of ugliness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Sexism in Buddhism
Content:
kirtu said:
Here are a few images of female Buddhas/10th Bhumi Bodhisattvas in Tibetan Buddhism.  Some are found also in other forms of Buddhism:


Malcolm wrote:
Please note however that all these images correspond to patriarchal (Brahmanical in this case) social expectations around female beauty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I don't think it is (neither is Islam or Christianity) I think that YOU are facing a crisis of modernity (and projecting it onto Buddhism).

Malcolm wrote:
What I observe is that fundamentalism is how the world's religions are dealing with such things as evolution, science, etc.

Sherab Dorje said:
Sure, I agree.  But you know what?  Fundamentalism (unfortunately, as far as I am concerned) works really well at overcoming crises.  REALLY well.

Malcolm wrote:
Reacting to a crisis is not the same thing as overcoming a crisis. Thus, I must disagree with your assessment.

Buddhism as a whole has a somewhat better chance of dealing with the crisis of modernity because it was reconstructed as a "science" in the late 19th century, with Theravada largely jumping on this bandwagon early on.

Tibetan Buddhism on the other hand is, at present, the least well equipped to deal with modernity because it has layers and layers of metaphysical developments due to it being the end product of 1300 years of the development and evolution of Buddhist thought in India (and of course, this includes the period between 650-1500 in Tibet itself and its unique permutations of basically Indic materials).

Is this insurmountable? No, of course not. However, traditional Tibetan Buddhists will need to accommodate science into their world view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I don't think it is (neither is Islam or Christianity) I think that YOU are facing a crisis of modernity (and projecting it onto Buddhism).

Malcolm wrote:
What I observe is that fundamentalism is how the world's religions are dealing with such things as evolution, science, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
Since I don't agree that when using "I" and "mine" I am accepting the idea of a conventional self I find it difficult to discuss this further. I just don't think the Buddha ever made a distinction between a conventional self that is existing and an unconventional non changing ultimate self that don't exist.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact he did:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

And this is a nice one:

"It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.

"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

Gaddula Sutta: The Leash (2)

Here you can clearly see how the Buddha teaches the conventional self. You have to remember, the corollary of "conventional" is "prior to analysis".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 22nd, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Science does not reject metaphysical claims, it simply is not equipped to deal with them.

Practice said:
I think this is a half truth. It is true that science is not equipped to deal with them, and false that it does not reject metaphysical calms. I think the inherent paradigm of science has to reject it.

Malcolm wrote:
Now that you have given your position, in my opinion, I can see that you are in reaction against modernity.

You are confusing science with logical postivism, in my opinion. Science is unconcerned with metaphysics.

Practice said:
We are rapidly losing any personal contact with any inner understanding and orientation. I think this is where Buddhism shines. It addresses the inner questions of “how we be”, a “quality of being”.

Malcolm wrote:
Only in so far as, at its best, Buddhism deconstructs the whole ontological project and shows that it is fundamentally pointless since categories of being are proven to be mere conventions, at best.

One does not even need to commit to the bare minimum of Buddhist metaphysical tenets (rebirth, karma and so on) in order to benefit greatly from the Buddhist meditation, ethics, and so on. Of course, anyone who argues that these basic metaphysics are not essential to Buddhadharma itself is deeply mistaken.

Practice said:
All our behavior and actions are up for self review. Out of this inner inquiry and self cultivation, self understanding can grow. This is simply not the concerns of western science.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not true. Neuroscience, for example, is very concerned how social behavior, language, cognition, emotion and so on are grounded in our embodiment as human beings and what that implies for our contentment and happiness. I think you will find that many people involved in the sciences see science as a means of inner inquiry and self-understanding.

Practice said:
I personally hope Buddhism does not drift over to the paradigm of science and lose what it uniquely has to contribute to our self understanding. If it does may be we should call it Neo-Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Plainly put: Buddhists will have to cope with science. They will do so in a variety of fashions. Some will retreat into fundamentalism, rejecting science (while nevertheless enjoying its fruits, such as the internet and so on); some will manage a happy coexistence, and some will want to revise Buddhism to make it "scientific".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Hanmi Buddhism
Content:
Snovid said:
Buddhist these guys are not.
In fact
I also do not consider myself to be a Buddhist
I adore Dzogchen and Bon because of shamanism

Malcolm wrote:
Shamanism and Dzogchen have nothing to do with each other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


heart said:
I do understand what conventional means. But I don't agree that using the "label "I" and "me", you are accepting the "existence" of a conventional self". The Buddha's teaching on the 5 skandhas is clearly pointing to the non-existence of a conventional self. I agree that label "I" and "me", you might be accepting the "existence" of a conventional person. A person is simply not a self. A self is an abstract construct based on a giant misunderstanding and person on the other hand is something quite different.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
If you do not accept a conventional "self" you are in fact rejecting the designations "I" and "mine". I don't really have any stake in convincing you otherwise, but you will find if you pursue this line of reasoning you will be locked into some funny contradictions.

Incidentally, person [pudgala] and self [atman] are generally considered to be synonyms in Buddhist literature. I have never, in all my years of studying these texts ever seen any Indian or Tibetan author make a case that persons and selves ought to be treated as distinct and different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You mean people do not use the convention "I" and "me" to refer to themselves?

heart said:
Sure they do, still no proof of an actual conventional  self.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Conventional means "dependent on designation", not actual, truly existent, etc.

If you use the label "I" and "me", you are accepting the "existence" of a conventional self but not necessarily a real, true, actual self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Title: Re: Awakening the Sacred Body
Content:
Snowid said:
So if I'm working with the lowest chakra as described by TWR
this means that I'm working on the base chakra in the description of the Hindu?

Crown chakra in Bon
is equivalent of hindu crown chakra and the third eye ?

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Title: Re: Dra Thalgyur Tantra
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the abidharmakosa translation is from the french. it shouldnt be hard or take too long to translate the tantra from french to english.

Malcolm wrote:
Much if the tantra makes very little sense on its own without the commentary.

The commentary is roughly 1400 folios long.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 11:38 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.

heart said:
I am not sure I agree with that. Even conventionally there is no self. If there was someone would be able to find it, but no such luck.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
You mean people do not use the convention "I" and "me" to refer to themselves?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
How does that affect me here and now?

Malcolm wrote:
If you really followed that line of thinking yourself, you would never post.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Awakening the Sacred Body
Content:
Snowid said:
Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche described in his book exercises with five chakras
Why does not have all the seven?
Where can I find a description of  exercise with the other two chakras?

Malcolm wrote:
IN general, five cakras is the Buddist/Bon system. Seven is the Hindu system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Scientific methodology cannot verify non-falsifiable phenomena (such as karma, rebirth, God, etc.) because they cannot be tested and reproduced. Nonfalsifiabiluty does not render something false, merely untestable at present.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, that is quite correct.
But a big factor is also what the terms mean.
For example, if karma is used to express some sense of cause and effect,
then that can be tested.

Malcolm wrote:
But that is not strictly what karma means. Karma refers to morally driven actions performed by a person whose continuum, either in this life or in some future life, will experience the ripening [phala] of that action.

Cause and condition [hetu and pratyaya] is a separate topic; necessary for understanding karma, but more general.

For this reason, Vasubandhu first writes about causes and conditions; then he writes about dependent origination; then he writes about karma: moving from the very general to the very specific.

PadmaVonSamba said:
if it refers only to some notion of
some continuity of behavior patterns or conditions from one lifetime to another
then, not so easy to test.

Malcolm wrote:
That is what karma means.

PadmaVonSamba said:
And, it depends on what you define as a 'lifetime".
if there is no 'self', how long is a lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, there is a self, there is birth, there is death, and rebirth. Conventionally, there is also karma. Ultimately there is no self, no birth, no death, no rebirth, and also no karma.

The lifespan of human beings is considered to be about 80 years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Dra Thalgyur Tantra
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Thanks Malcolm..thats what I was afraid of..and let me guess..there is no English translation/commentary, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Not yet...Jean Luc Achard has apparently rendered the whole in French however. I am slowly working on it, and have let the SSI translators know this. So who knows, perhaps my draft will someday become the basis for a publication. But I have completed less than 10 percent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Ivo said:
A careful reading of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra will also appeal to some Star Wars fans, and it seems to be one of the early texts, although not of Tibetan origin.


Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, the concept that this or that form of Buddhadharma is being practiced in some other world system than our own is not an innovation of Dzogchen texts, but appears in Mahāyāna texts from an early time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Science does not reject metaphysical claims, it simply is not equipped to deal with them.

Scientific methodology cannot verify non-falsifiable phenomena (such as karma, rebirth, God, etc.) because they cannot be tested and reproduced. Nonfalsifiabiluty does not render something false, merely untestable at present.

smcj said:
Along the same lines, studies of complex systems, like macro economics, cannot be tested and reproduced either, which is why there are so many different economic theories.


Malcolm wrote:
Economics is often called "the dismal science", when in fact it is actually dismal science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 21st, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Dra Thalgyur Tantra
Content:
Fa Dao said:
This Tantra seems to be one that is referenced a great deal by many different Dzogchen Teachers. So of course I am thinking it is of obvious importance. I have a few questions ....#1 Can anyone who can actually read Tibetan give a brief synopsis of the main thrust of this Tantra in comparison to say other Dzogchen Tantras? and #2 how difficult is this Tantra to read if one were to try and learn Tibetan? I just remember somewhere where ChNN had said how difficult some passages were in the Marvelous Primordial State to render into English. It seems that some things in Tibetan are more direct and pithy and others...well..not so much. Any help/insight would be greatly appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
This tantra is a sprawling text that cannot be correctly read without the aid of a commentary.

It presents the entire path of Dzogchen, embryology, cosmology, etc.

Even if one were to learn Tibetan, a classical education in the five classical sciences is a requirement to actually understand any of these texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 20th, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
ddorje said:
Isn't this quite deconstructionist?

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhists could take some lessons from Derrida, etc. It might stave off a lot of naive beliefs about our textual traditions.

In any event, there is a long standing critical tradition with Tibetan Buddhism, the problem with it is that it is usually only applied to the other guy's books and not our own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 20th, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
ddorje said:
Isn't this quite deconstructionist?

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhists could take some lessons from Derrida, etc. It might stave off a lot of naive beliefs about our textual traditions.

In any event, there is a long standing critical tradition with Tibetan Buddhism, the problem with it is that it is usually only applied to the other guy's books and not our own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 20th, 2013 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Ivo said:
As this topic of discussion is quite serious and has a lot of implications it will be meaningful only if some "universally" accepted teacher comes forward with some clear statements.

dzogchungpa said:
What kind of implications are you referring to?

Ivo said:
Well... think for yourself what it would mean if a certain Buddha field from which a certain doctrine is said to have originated can be correlated to a physically observable place in our universe. The implications are more than what most Dharma practitioners will be able to handle comfortably.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the present day origin of Dzogchen teaching can be correlated to a physically identifiable place in the Universe and we are located on it. Otherwise, since most Mahāyāna practitioners who are familiar with the accounts of the universe, for example, as presented in the opening chapters of the Avatamska sutras will have no problem with the idea of the existence of planets in other solar systems and civilizations which exist in them. Nor for that matter will Star Wars fans be that suprised:



In any case, the first chapter of the sgra thal gyur identifies 13 buddhafields where Dzogchen is practiced. The introduction to the The Supreme Source discusses these in much detail.

It should be noted however that in terms of textual history, there is no mention anywhere of this concept in Tibetan literature which can be reliably dated earlier than the sgra thal rgyur itself, which most likely was compiled between the 10th and 11th centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 20th, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Practice said:
It would be helpful for understanding your over all thesis. I truly would like to understand.

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
"Science" is an open-ended iterative method of inquiry into physical reality. Scientism is a belief system, which includes metaphysical beliefs, constructed out of the findings of the former.

Practice said:
To make sure that I am not misunderstanding you-

Two questions:
Does “true science” (science void of scientism) then reject any metaphysical clams? Also, a major branch of metaphysics is ontology, would science embrace ontological inquires or consider them a form of scientism also?

Malcolm wrote:
Science does not reject metaphysical claims, it simply is not equipped to deal with them.

Scientific methodology cannot verify non-falsifiable phenomena (such as karma, rebirth, God, etc.) because they cannot be tested and reproduced. Nonfalsifiabiluty does not render something false, merely untestable at present.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 20th, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Can someone give an example which demonstrates how:
"Scientism is a belief system, which includes metaphysical beliefs, constructed out of the findings of the former."

Malcolm wrote:
For example, deciding that neuro-cognitive functions prove that mind is at best a epiphenomena of the brain. That is a species of metaphysical belief.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 20th, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Practice said:
It would be helpful for understanding your over all thesis. I truly would like to understand.

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
"Science" is an open-ended iterative method of inquiry into physical reality. Scientism is a belief system, which includes metaphysical beliefs, constructed out of the findings of the former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Science (as opposed to Scientism) is always "...there is still a lot yet that we don't know".

Practice said:
Could you please be clearer on your distinction between “Science” and “Scientism”? Please be specific, I think this is very important for communication and an understanding of your position.

Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 19th, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
luckily, Dzogchen is not a religion! rigpa is not an illusion..

Malcolm wrote:
Vidyā is knowing illusions as illusions. But vidyā itself is not something "real".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
Then it turns out the universe is a hologram of a reality that is two dimensional http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.

heart said:
This is where DJKR goes wrong it is only religion that knows because science is always "maybe, maybe not".

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Religions give an illusion of certainty. And of course they contradict each on other on every detail.

Science (as opposed to Scientism) is always "...there is still a lot yet that we don't know".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
How is this different than Advaita Vedanta?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Because the self is not asserted as permanent.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean Buddhahood is conditioned? Whatever is impermanent is conditioned.

Tsongkhapafan said:
A Buddha's self is imputed on the Truth Body

Malcolm wrote:
A Buddha imputes a conditioned self onto the permanent dharmakāya? That seems very strange to me.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddhas can impute non-conceptually.

Malcolm wrote:
This is incoherent. Imputations cannot exist in absence of conceptuality, for example, in a direct perception.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It is a valid basis for imputing an I just as the parts of a car are a valid basis for imputing 'car' even though no car can be found in any of the parts of the car.  The car, as a conceptual imputation, functions.  So it is with the I or self - it functions in dependence upon being imputed upon the body and mind, otherwise it would be non-existent.

Malcolm wrote:
The parts of a car are not a valid basis for imputing a "car". If they were a valid basis for imputing a car, a car would work when all its parts were piled in a disorganized heap. So your assertion fails.

Tsongkhapafan said:
This verse is often misinterpreted.

Malcolm wrote:
Your alternate translation is incorrect. Mine is based directly on Candrakirti's own commentary.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It is absurd to suggest that Buddhas do not have minds.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas do not possess vijñāna; they possess only jñāna. This is a point poorly understood by most.

In any case, you admit that Candrakirti's verse states that all objects of knowledge are burnt by the fire of wisdom. Even you must admit a mind cannot arise in absence of an object. If there are no objects for a Buddha (as indicated by the verse above), how can a mind  (citta) arise, conceptual or otherwise? Therefore, to call the wisdom of a Buddha a "mind" is at best a convention. A Buddha's mind is an omniscient nonconceptual wisdom.

Nāgarjuna states for example in the Sixty Verses of Reasonings:

When reflection-like things
are seen fully with the eye of wisdom, 
those great beings
will not be stuck in the swamp of objects.

When there is no attachment, since there is no attachment to or engagement to those things as a self, there is no attachment to the swamp of objects. āryas are conventionally "like [those ones who have] trained their minds on reflections".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddhas impute 'I' upon the Truth Body, which is their valid basis of imputation and is therefore not wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
How is this different than Advaita Vedanta?

Further, how can Buddhas impute anything? The dharmakāya is the "mind" of a Buddha, and is completely free of all concepts. How can there be imputation when there is no conceptuality?

Further, how are the body and mind "valid" bases for imputing an I? No self can be found in either.

I am afraid you have long since abandoned any form of Madhyamaka, let alone "Prasanga".

Since all of the dried fire wood of knowledge objects
have been burned, that peace is the dharmakāya of the victors;
at that time there is no arising, no cessation;
that cessation of the mind is the direct perception of the kāya.

Candrakirti comments upon this that cessation of mind and mental factors is conventionally termed "direct perception" of the kāya.

jeeprs said:
I am struggling to understand how this is not nihilism. If it is the complete cessation of all concepts and the end of 'the person' how is this state different from non-existence?

Malcolm wrote:
"Persons" never started, so how could they end?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Practice said:
@ Malcolm

Your original post is well put and is a thesis that needs to be reckoned with, by all religions.
Let me ask you though, in your view what is the value, if any, to being a Buddhist? Why bother if science has a more modern and better approach to the structure of reality?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see Buddhadharma and scientific inquiry as being inherently in conflict.

Buddhism and Scientism on the other hand, are bound to be in conflict.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddhas impute 'I' upon the Truth Body, which is their valid basis of imputation and is therefore not wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
How is this different than Advaita Vedanta?

Further, how can Buddhas impute anything? The dharmakāya is the "mind" of a Buddha, and is completely free of all concepts. How can there be imputation when there is no conceptuality?

Further, how are the body and mind "valid" bases for imputing an I? No self can be found in either.

I am afraid you have long since abandoned any form of Madhyamaka, let alone "Prasanga".

Since all of the dried fire wood of knowledge objects
have been burned, that peace is the dharmakāya of the victors;
at that time there is no arising, no cessation;
that cessation of the mind is the direct perception of the kāya.

Candrakirti comments upon this that cessation of mind and mental factors is conventionally termed "direct perception" of the kāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Khechara
Content:
Konchog1 said:
I know it is a Tantric Pure Land (whatever that means) and that Tantric practice is the cause to be reborn there (especially the practice of Vajrayogini).

Besides from that, what are the properties of Khechara? What is life there like? How does Khechara differ from Sukhavati?

Thank you.


Malcolm wrote:
For one there are women there...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Care to name the (English) source?


Malcolm wrote:
The English source ultimately is myself. I translated the Doha, revised it with Lama Migmar. He allowed Sakya Center to print it, but left my name out inadvertently.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Catherine of Siena said:
The Absolute Innocence of all within my Creation takes a while to understand.

dzogchungpa said:
Did he say how long?


Malcolm wrote:
I have seen Catherine's head in Sienna, where it is preserved.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Whether he actually said the things he is purported to have said or not,
there are teachings you can actually practice and get the same results,

Malcolm wrote:
Have you met someone who has returned from Sukhavati and reported on it to you?

pueraeternus said:
What are your views on practices such as Phowa?
(Not a loaded question, just curious based on your take on buddhaksetras).

Malcolm wrote:
I dont have much of a view about them. I have done a few phowa retreats, got signs and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
Then it turns out the universe is a hologram of a reality that is two dimensional http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
dude said:
Heaven in monotheism is eternal.
In Buddhism, it isn't even outside the realm of birth and death!

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, I know this. But this is a mere sectarian definition. And this does not make the Buddhist definition true and the eternalist definition false.

In short, all of these beliefs are just mediated by some book someone chooses to believe as opposed to some other books they choose not to believe.

When I say that I "don't beleive" in Sukhavati, what I mean is that I am agnostic about it. I will admit though that there is certain a poetic quality to the mandalas through which the Sukhavati and so on are described. However, remove the Buddhist context and these paradises very are very similar.

And of course there are some unappealingly sexist aspects to the Sukhavati teachings as well as such as:

"[A]fter any woman hears my name, rouses full faith and generates the mind to awaken, she will condemn the female body, and after exchanging those at that time, should she take a female body twice, I shall not attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi."

Of course, we can understand such attitudes to be symptomatic of the age. But if we take that approach, what else should we not just regard as cultural relics?

The doctrine of buddhakṣetras is of course deeply embedded in Mahāyāna Buddhist teachings from a very early period and pervades every Mahāyāna teaching including Dzogchen.

I personally think the motivation for developing such teachings comes as an early response to the doctrine that full buddhahood requires three incalculable eons to attain, i.e. imagining a place in which an ordinary person can find bliss and ease to practice dharma without having to be an 8th stage bodhisattva (required for rebirth in Akaniṣtha Gaṇḍavyuha)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Whether he actually said the things he is purported to have said or not,
there are teachings you can actually practice and get the same results,

Malcolm wrote:
Have you met someone who has returned from Sukhavati and reported on it to you?

While there are certainly some results we can confirm in this triple realm, rebirth in realms outside the three realms is not something we can ascertain personally. So we either take them on faith, actively disbelieve, or remain agnostic regarding them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Upon what is this mere person imputed in absence of aggregates? If there is no basis of imputation, what is the difference between this mere person and horns on a rabbit?

Tsongkhapafan said:
The mere person is imputed on their mind and body which is mere appearance, one nature with emptiness.  That explains why there are no aggregates in nirvana, there is just the appearance of them and the appearance of a person imputed on them. Emptiness is appearing as these phenomena, although that's not someone's constant experience until they attain enlightenment - there is an appearance of inherently existent aggregates until the imprints of the delusions are removed and omniscience is achieved.

Malcolm wrote:
If there are no aggregates in nirvana, how can there be an appearance of aggregates? It seems you are suggesting that in fact that the appearance of aggregates in nirvana are like the appearance of horns on a rabbit. In other words, these aggregates, which you now agree do not exist in nirvana, appear there due to a false imputation. Is this correct? But if this is so, you also agree that Buddhas make this false imputation, and as Candrakirti observes, they would not then transcend samsara because whoever makes false imputations cannot be considered a Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.


PadmaVonSamba said:
In what way, exactly, is it "no different"?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
They are places where the faithful imagine they will go when they die.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:


dude said:
Do you believe in nirvana?


Malcolm wrote:
That rather depends on who is defining it, why and how.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Is there a person in Nirvana? What kind of person?

Malcolm wrote:
A mere person, otherwise nirvana is the extinction of existence and the extreme of nothingness.[/quote]

Upon what is this mere person imputed in absence of aggregates? If there is no basis of imputation, what is the difference between this mere person and horns on a rabbit?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 9:59 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.

Nighthawk said:
How is that so? Can you practice the Dharma and manifest Buddhahood in those heavens?

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmmm.....I think the point is that I don't really believe in heavens, Buddhist or otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:


Alfredo said:
Perhaps I am not really sold on the Buddhist teaching that samsaric activities are a waste of time...

Malcolm wrote:
In Mahāyāna skills in the sciences of all kinds are encouraged because they benefit beings. So I think a lot of Buddhists were not sold on this (early Buddhist) idea as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, you are at the end of your argument. You can object to the aesthetics of meat eating, but you really do not have a moral basis to protest against it. At least animals slaughtered in a butcher house are not automatically left to rot where they are killed.

In the end, everything we eat comes from the abattoir of industrial food production. That is just how things are right now. Does it have to stay that way? No. Is it likely to stay that way? Yes.

M

gad rgyangs said:
your argument is the Johnny-not-so-Dangerously school of thought: "since one can't do everything, there's no point in doing anything", closely akin to the "kill 'em all and let Buddha sort 'em out" argument.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is recognizing that you cannot fix samsara.

But I understand that city dwellers who do not actually participate in the act of food production other than as consumers have a very abstract view of the situation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

Tsongkhapafan said:
If there are no aggregates, there is no person...

Malcolm wrote:
Is there a person in Nirvana? What kind of person?

Aryadeva clearly states in 400 Verses:
[Since] there are no aggregates in nirvana, 
a person cannot possibly be [in nirvana].
Candrakirti comments on this:
If there are aggregates in nirvana, there is also a person. At that time, because they exist [i.e. aggregates and persons], in contradiction with sūtra there will be a support that turns into nirvana, and samsara cannot be transcended.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
this is actually a nice contribution to the debate: not only does eating meat contribute to the suffering and killing of animals, but it contributes to the accumulation of bad karma by other sentient beings by creating jobs in slaughterhouses, butchers etc.

Malcolm wrote:
So does eating plants by creating jobs for exterminators, hunters (used for pest control) and so on, who kill billions of insects and animals every year in order to make sure you get your tofu.

gad rgyangs said:
meat eaters not only create those jobs too, but the slaughterhouse and butcher jobs as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, you are at the end of your argument. You can object to the aesthetics of meat eating, but you really do not have a moral basis to protest against it. At least animals slaughtered in a butcher house are not automatically left to rot where they are killed.

In the end, everything we eat comes from the abattoir of industrial food production. That is just how things are right now. Does it have to stay that way? No. Is it likely to stay that way? Yes.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Of course eating meat is bad, because it always involves killing... which is bad.

porpoise said:
Yes, and for most people eating meat is dependent on others doing the killing and working in slaughterhouses, which must be a soul-destroying job - which is also considered to be Wrong Livelihood.

gad rgyangs said:
this is actually a nice contribution to the debate: not only does eating meat contribute to the suffering and killing of animals, but it contributes to the accumulation of bad karma by other sentient beings by creating jobs in slaughterhouses, butchers etc.

Malcolm wrote:
So does eating plants by creating jobs for exterminators, hunters (used for pest control) and so on, who kill billions of insects and animals every year in order to make sure you get your tofu.

gad rgyangs said:
New research has found that the use of common pesticides in Europe and Australia has killed up to 42 percent of invertebrates, which make up about 95 percent of all animal species.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130621/ew130621b.html

Pest control in organic agriculture:

Here we use one kind of sentient being to kill another kind of sentient beings:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/insects/fad64s00.html#Direct%20Treatment

gad rgyangs said:
Pesticides are found as common contaminants in soil, air, water and on non-target organisms in our urban landscapes. Once there, they can harm plants and animals ranging from beneficial soil microorganisms and insects, non-target plants, fish, birds, and other wildlife. Chlorpyrifos, a common contaminant of urban streams (U.S. Geological Survey, 1999), is highly toxic to fish, and has caused fish, kills in waterways near treated fields or buildings (US EPA, 2000). Herbicides can also be toxic to fish. According to the EPA, studies show that trifluralin, an active ingredient in the weed-killer Snapshot, “is highly to very highly toxic to both cold and warm water fish” (U.S. EPA, 1996). In a series of different tests it was also shown to cause vertebral deformities in fish (Koyama, 1996). The weed-killers Ronstar and Roundup are also acutely toxic to fish (Folmar et al., 1979; Shafiei and Costa, 1990). The toxicity of Roundup is likely due to the high toxicity of one of the inert ingredients of the product (Folmar et al., 1979). In addition to direct acute toxicity, some herbicides may produce sublethal effects on fish that lessen their chances for survival and threaten the population as a whole. Glyphosate or glyphosate-containing products can cause sublethal effects such as erratic swimming and labored breathing, which increase the fish's chance of being eaten (Liong et al., 1988). 2,4-D herbicides caused physiological stress responses in sockeye salmon (McBride et al., 1981) and reduced the food-gathering abilities of rainbow trout (Little, 1990).

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

In short, there is no kind of mass food production which does not involve the wholesale annihilation of billions of creatures, both invertebrate and vertebrate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?

dude said:
Good question, but it can't be oblivion either, or it wouldn't be peaceful abiding, eh?

Malcolm wrote:
Who stated nirvana was peaceful abiding? Nirvana is peace, meaning a state free from arising or ceasing.

The Mahāyāna analysis holds that as all phenomena never arose from the start, all phenomena have been in a state of nirvana from the start.

Nirvana cannot be oblivion, because "oblivion" means a state of annihilation [where it does not mean a state of unconsciousness].

Nirvana is cessation. Cessation is not annihilation, cessation is the absence of causes for further arising.

For this reason, in Mahāyana, reality is described as non-arisen and unceasing. What has not arisen cannot cease, hence nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Malcolm, what do you make then of the proliferation of Zen books that don't mention the Four Seals, sila, Refuge, or indeed anything other than "being in the present" and already being enlightened so there's nothing to do?
I wonder what enlightenment even means with such little context.
I add too that these books are often written for beginners or a lay audience for whom this may be the primary exposure to Buddhism.

If these are not indicative of Western or American Zen, then I'll be very relieved to be corrected.

Malcolm wrote:
You would have to give me some examples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
but strictly speaking nirvana is the peace of mind that is experienced when all delusions have been removed. Only living beings can experience nirvana, inanimate objects cannot, because it is a state of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no aggregates in nirvana. How can it be a state of mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 15th, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a description, it is intended as a proof that there can be a Real that is beyond all predicates.

Simply put, if one can think of a real beyond all predicates, there is a real beyond all predicates.

gad rgyangs said:
its not taken seriously anymore. and it certainly ain't no rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Its taken very seriously among philosophers, and like all arguments, is interesting if only as a literary phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
not only are all arguments about the nature of reality flawed, but so are all descriptions. what the lady said.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a description, it is intended as a proof that there can be a Real that is beyond all predicates.

Simply put, if one can think of a real beyond all predicates, there is a real beyond all predicates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Astus said:
Buddhism is about meditation. It is not a religion, it only looks like one, but that is a mistake. That's why Buddhists in the West are called 'practitioners' because unless you meditate it is not even Buddhism.

ReasonAndRhyme said:
Hi Astus,

I'm not sure which part of your post is a quote and which part is you speaking, but concerning the above statement: this is not neccessarily so. In Tibetan Buddhism it is a widespread view that you're a Buddhist when you accept the Four Seals. This is for instance how Dzongzar Jamyang Khyentse defines being a Buddhist in http://www.shambhala.com/what-makes-you-not-a-buddhist.html:
Anyone who accepts these four seals, even independently of Buddha’s teachings, even never having heard the name Shakyamuni Buddha, can be considered to be on the same path as he
What sets Buddhism apart from the religions of the world? I believe it boils down to the four seals (...)
(I'm afraid I can't give any page numbers cause I'm reading the eBook.)

This is also how it was defined in a Gelug study course I participated in a while ago.

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Pandita is more precise. To be considered a follower of Buddhadharma you must:

1. Accept the four seals*
2. Have gone for Refuge
3. Either be training in Buddhadharma through śila, samadhi and prajñā or have realized the fruit of the three trainings.

According to his thinking, if one satisfies all three criteria listed above, only then can one be considered a follower of Buddhadharma. Personally, I agree with him.

M

*He makes an exception for pudgalavadins because while they do not accept the four seals, they nevertheless go for refuge and engage in the three trainings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
from Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo's FB page:
One time I saw this Russian Orthodox priest who was being interviewed, and he said the first thing they learn in the novitiate is that anything they say or think about God – it’s not that. And we could say that exactly for the nature of our true existence. Whatever we think we are, we’re not that. It’s all just words, but the experience is beyond words.

Malcolm wrote:
The old ontologiocal argument of St. Anselm:

Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm

Recast:
Our understanding of the Real is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of the Real exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If the Real only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than the Real.
Therefore, the Real exists.

A flawed argument, from my POV, but there you go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All Mahayana assets that all phenomena have been in the state of nirvana from the start.

Sherab said:
I remembered something about Garab Dorje (I think) debating with scholars...

Malcolm wrote:
Manjushrimitra, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
when delusions are removed, what remains is unobstructed awareness (nirvana).
Nirvana not something extra that is obtained, that one didn't have before.
It is what occurs when the defilements are permanently removed.


Malcolm wrote:
"Here there is nothing to remove, 
there is nothing to add.
Look correctly at the real
if the real is seen, liberation."

Abhisamayālaṃkāra-nāma-prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrakārikā


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
All phenomena are not in the state of nirvana from the beginning.

Malcolm wrote:
From a sūtra you hold to be definitive:

Subhuti, further, the Tathāgata has shown that sensations, perceptions, formations and consciousness (which do not inherently exist)— non-arisen, unceasing, peaceful from the beginning — to be in parinirvana inherently; all of that which has been demonstrated is not the indirect meaning, is not the intentional meaning, but should be understood literally.
-- Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā

I can provide many other similar citations from the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
What then, is the defining characteristic, from a buddhist understanding, or,
since you mention other beings in other realms of samasara, of a human,
of of beings in the human realm?
My understanding is that it is the suffering of change
a constant sense of dissatisfaction,
wanting things to change when they do not change,
wanting things to stay the same when they start to change.
But it is also this very thing that gives humans
the greatest opportunity for dharma understanding and practice.
.

Malcolm wrote:
All these features are lacking in Sukhvati: there is no dissatisfaction at all in Sukhavati, hence the name Sukhavativyuha, the field of bliss/happiness, etc.

Thus by your own analysis we cannot consider birth in Sukhavati a human birth place, not just because there is no womb birth in Sukhavati, according to its mythos, but because none of the feature you are defining as integral to human experience are present in that place. Hence the reason why birth in Sukhavati is a desiderata, according the Sukhavtivyuha sūtras. One wishes to be born there precisely because all the obstacles we experience as human beings are lacking there. In reality, Sukhavati is just a heaven -- no different than the heaven of Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, there is good reason to suppose in fact that the blueprint for the concept of a Buddhist paradise arose in Central Asia (and not India) because of the Persian custom of building wall gardens, such as Cyrus the Great's walled garden at Pasargadae. The word "paradise" ultimately comes from the Avestan word "pairidaēza", which simple means walled garden where one can engage in peaceful pursuits.


And therefore, the reason I stated that human birth depends on being born from a human womb, which seemed obvious to me at the time, and still seems obvious. There are also no women in Sukhavati, and certainly our gendered experience is crucial to being human as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:
Astus said:
Zen is therefore a style.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, largely, though not entirely, based on Sung dynasty Neo-confucian aesthetics as interpreted by the Japanese.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Alfredo said:
but religions ought...not siphon off the resources...

Malcolm wrote:
But this is exactly what religions do. It is like asking a leopard to changes its spots to expect otherwise.

Anyway, Buddhist institutions are bipolar in terms of whether Buddhism is a religion or not. One minute Buddhist authors like Thinly Norbu Rinpoche is siding with theistic religions because Buddhism ought properly be grounded in "faith"; the next minute HHDL is telling us that Buddhism is scientific, and empirical verification is the standard Buddhism ought to be striving for.

In the end, it seems to me (and for many years, incidentally) that Buddhism is reeling from the knocks it is taking from its encounter with modernity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Is your point that as soon as one refers to Budd ism,
that the 'ism' makes it a reference to one specific tradition or another,
and that it is an inaccurate term because not all traditions agree on all the same doctrines,
hence, there is no common ("generic") Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
I am making the point it is an inaccurate term for me for the reasons you state. That is why I prefer to call my "self" (a sensitive term around here, apparently) a follower of Buddhadharma, rather than a Buddhist of this or that type.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
My point is that what describes human birth in Sukhavati is not a meat & bones body,
but the still-conditioned arising, the projection of mind, of the experience of being human, hearing, seeing, and so forth, the same way as it is experienced here and now,
because the causes for that result to occur have not been severed
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Devas and asuras are also held to be anthropomorphic, but we do not term them human births.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The baby you were born as is dead

Malcolm wrote:
This is annihilationism. The opposite of the view you accused pensum of holding.

PadmaVonSamba said:
No, Annihilationism requires some sort of 'self' that is annihilated. The total destruction of a soul.

.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it us not that restrictive. it also means the belief that some entity (like a seed) which existed before, does not exist now. See Nagarjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' , as I suggested before.

Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing me with Pensum.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I was responding to the statement  "Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth."
Didn't you say that?
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, but it does not bear the consequence you impute.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is one strand. There is also a strand of Mahayana that maintains that all perfections are perfected within prajnaparamita. This strand of Mahayana is more characteristic of the Lanka avatara sutra and other nongradual sutras.

smcj said:
Oh I understood that what you said was correct. I just thought that given your stature here you could have been a little more diligent and complete, that's all.

Malcolm wrote:
All Mahayana assets that all phenomena have been in the state of nirvana from the start.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
smcj said:
From my perspective, the difference between Mahāyāna view and the view of the Nikayas is that Nikāyas view nirvana as a result to be obtained. Mahāyāna understands that all phenomena have always been in the state of nirvana from the start.
As you know the Mahayana-Paramitayana thinks of realization as something to be attained by accumulating merit and awareness. I know it's not your favorite view, and you did start your post with "From my perspective…", but still that's not a totally fair or complete take on the Mahayana.

Sorry to nit-pick.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one strand. There is also a strand of Mahayana that maintains that all perfections are perfected within prajnaparamita. This strand of Mahayana is more characteristic of the Lanka avatara sutra and other nongradual sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
smcj said:
From my perspective, the difference between Mahāyāna view and the view of the Nikayas is that Nikāyas view nirvana as a result to be obtained. Mahāyāna understands that all phenomena have always been in the state of nirvana from the start.
As you know the Mahayana-Paramitayana thinks of realization as something to be attained by accumulating merit and awareness. I know it's not your favorite view, and you did start your post with "From my perspective…", but still that's not a totally fair or complete take on the Mahayana.

Sorry to nit-pick.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one strand. There is also a strand of Mahayana that maintains that all perfections are perfected within prajnaparamita. This strand of Mahayana is more characteristic of the Lanka avatara sutra and other nongradual sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:


duckfiasco said:
This is a major point where I think Western Zen has failed.

Malcolm wrote:
Do western Zen practitioners cultivate bodhicitta? Indeed, they do.

Do they need to believe in rebirth? No, they don't.

M

duckfiasco said:
I must've just had bad luck in the centers I went to and the books I read and the forums I visited being almost entirely devoid of talk of compassion, the paramitas, or other such things. DW has been a much appreciated exception.
Instead, it's all Buddha-nature and Dogen, and only a very small slice of his writings about zazen, as Astus noted.

I'll avoid turning this into yet another thread on rebirth. We'll just have to disagree about the importance of rebirth.
I will say that I think it's symptomatic of a larger tendency to reject the parts of Buddhism and Zen that are unpalatable to Western culture or views.


Malcolm wrote:
I did not say that rebirth was not important.

I just said they do not need to believe it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Are you your body?

.


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha suggests in the Majjihma NIkaya that if, between the body and the mind, we were to choose one to regard as our self, he suggested it was better to choose the body since it least it lasted some 80 odd years, while the mind only lasts but an instant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' , as I suggested before.
.

Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing me with Pensum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
[

The baby you were born as is dead.
.

Malcolm wrote:
This is annihilationism. The opposite of the view you accused pensum of holding.

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend that nothing transfers

As I said on the other thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
dude said:
There is no self or person that undergoes rebirth in Mahāyāna. In this respect Mahāyāna view is no different than the view expressed in the Pali Canon.

Agreed, but the PC sutras do not go beyond phenomenology, while the final Mahayana teachings explain True Cause and the true aspect in full.

Malcolm wrote:
From my perspective, the difference between Mahāyāna view and the view of the Nikayas is that Nikāyas view nirvana as a result to be obtained. Mahāyāna understands that all phenomena have always been in the state of nirvana from the start.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:


duckfiasco said:
This is a major point where I think Western Zen has failed.

Malcolm wrote:
Do western Zen practitioners cultivate bodhicitta? Indeed, they do.

Do they need to believe in rebirth? No, they don't.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Common Anatta Question
Content:
smcj said:
Do you then accept the Pali Canon as the last word and reject the Mahayana sutras as heresy?
A lot of people do. That's 100% ok.

dude said:
People are free to believe what they will, but the reason I asked is that duckfiasco's reply is based on the Pali Canon sutras, while the Mahayana view is drastically different.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh?

There is no self or person that undergoes rebirth in Mahāyāna. In this respect Mahāyāna view is no different than the view expressed in the Pali Canon.

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend that nothing transfers

Nāgārjuna


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Alfredo said:
the Maitreya Project (now thankfully cancelled) could have happened.


Malcolm wrote:
Not cancelled.

"The laying of the foundation stone for a very large Maitreya Buddha statue in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India, will take place during a ceremony on Friday, December 13, 2013..."

http://mandala.fpmt.org/2013/maitreya-project-kushinagar-takes-important-step-forward/

See also:

http://www.maitreyaproject.org/en/index.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Chimed Sogthig Instructions
Content:
vangelis said:
Can you recommend me a teacher in these places,for this practice.


Malcolm wrote:
Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche in NYC, Khenpo Sonam in LA, etc., Vajrayana Foundation etc.

Just search Yeshe Nyingpo/ Dudjom Tersar,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Chimed Sogthig Instructions
Content:
vangelis said:
Can anyone tell me where i can meet a Lama or Rinpoche who can give instructions about Dudjom Rinpoche`s Chimed Sogthig long sadhana ?


Malcolm wrote:
NYC, LA, San Fran, Oregon, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
...Is it because being human only happens in the human realm?

Malcolm wrote:
It is axiomatic that human birth can only happen to humans. Where ever there are humans, there is womb birth. That is not the case in our idealized paradises like Sukhavat (but unlike Abhirati) where there are no wombs at all, not even women in fact. I never met human being that did not derive in some way from a human womb (even test tube babies), have you?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: Western Myth of Zen
Content:


duckfiasco said:
The kind of meditation that results from this, in my opinion, becomes a way to sit in a seemingly equanimous fog as defilements play out unabated, remaining just as fierce off the cushion.
And since defilements are no issue and all we need is to "just sit" or "just eat" we can meditate for 5 minutes a day and feel real good is being done.


Malcolm wrote:
What the Chan/Zen schools have understood, like the Dzogchen and Mahāmudra traditions which followed them, is that buddhahood is not a result accomplished through effort, that afflictions are not something concrete that can be cleansed the same way we wash our clothes (in fact there is nothing to remove), and the cultivation of conditioned states of samadhi/dhyāna lead nowhere than to more conceptuality.

Since Western Zen practitioners are not harming you, why be so up in arms about it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
pensum said:
And yet they then turn around and claim that those who don't succeed in this life can take rebirth in a buddha realm where the circumstances are ideal and realization assured. I've never questioned it before, but i would be hard-pressed to see how such a rebirth could be considered "human". So even on that fundamental point there would seem to be some discrepancy and contradiction.

PadmaVonSamba said:
The problem is that you are still clinging to a notion of an intrinsic 'self' that takes rebirth.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Pensum? No, I don't think so at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...it's a question of testability.

bob said:
Yes, and that implies having the right instruments for measurement. However, the limitations of the human vehicle preclude access to some of the higher levels of the spectrum...

Malcolm wrote:
Then such things are cognitively closed to us and not worthy of further speculation, don't you agree?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Do you think this battle ended with all the lives of Ajasatru's soldiers being spared? They fought a battle. People surely died on both sides.

I can't speak for others, but there are plenty of Buddhist sutras where acts of killing are defended as virtuous, for example, the sea captain story and so on.

I am merely pointing out that the issue is not so simple as "killing is bad".

seeker242 said:
"Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage.html

Thanissaro Bhikkhu must just be wrong then? Although, I find that hard to believe. More like impossible to believe!

Malcolm wrote:
Context is everything. Soldiers are not monks. Laypeople are not monks. Monks, it is true, are not allowed to encourage killing.

Killing is less than ideal. But there are always circumstances when it cannot be avoided.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
bob said:
rambling on about which religion or "scientific" point of view is best.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not question of "best", it's a question of testability. There are tons of things that may be true, which are nevertheless untestable.

Pramaṇa, a term which is generally glossed as "authority", is derived from two Sanskrit roots "pra" and māṇa, and really means "best measurement".

That is all Science can tell us i.e., their best measurements. There is nothing definitive about science, per se. But everyone wants reliable scales.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
smcj said:
Power, all power, is always laced with the threat of violence, the ability to transgress boundaries, whether physical, social, or moral.
Power="the ability to do". A surgeon has the ability, or power, to heal, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but a surgeon can also kill. When you study poisons in order to cure poison, you learn how to poison as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One thing that people seem to be unaware of, because perhaps they are not very clear about the history of Buddhist ideas, is that the so called "siddha" movement largely rose in response to increasing hostility towards Buddhists...

dzogchungpa said:
I understand what you say, and I agree with it. However I think you are using a more restrictive sense of "siddha/siddhi" here than what I, and probably others posting on this thread, have in mind.


Malcolm wrote:
Power, all power, is always laced with the threat of violence, the ability to transgress boundaries, whether physical, social, or moral.

We see these themes again and again the stories of Buddhist siddhas:

Physical boundaries: master over the four elements, etc.

Social boundaries: Kings reduced to beggars like Luipa, brahmins using low caste consorts like Saraha, etc.

Moral boundaries: the five meats, the five nectars, ritual acts of violence like the famous lower activities rites of Vajrakīlaya, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
JKhedrup said:
The legendary battles between buddhist and non-buddhist siddhas always come down to "The fastest siddha in the East". And of course, we only record our victories, not our defeats. For a record of our defeats, we must examine Hindu sources.
Agreed, can you suggest some?

Malcolm wrote:
Take a look at the "The Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India" showing that Indian Buddhism was destroyed by Hindus. This book convincingly puts to rest the idea that Buddhism was not destroyed by Hindus but rather by Muslims. It shows, convincingly in my mind, that the long standing and deeply entrenched Brahmanical hostility to Buddhism was in large part responsible for the downfall of Buddhism in India, as recorded in myths and accounts in Hindu texts and archaeology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 14th, 2013 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
What did he say of the individual soldiers who went onto the battlefield and engaged in killing the enemy?

Malcolm wrote:
If they belong to such a virtuous country, they are not at fault, because the violence is forced upon them. Run a search on Pasenadi at access to insight.

seeker242 said:
"Staying at Savatthi. Then King Ajatasattu of Magadha, the son of Queen Videha, raising a fourfold army, marched toward Kasi against King Pasenadi Kosala. King Pasenadi heard, "King Ajatasattu of Magadha, the son of Queen Videha, they say, has raised a fourfold army and is marching toward Kasi against me." So King Pasenadi, raising a fourfold army, launched a counter-attack toward Kasi against King Ajatasattu. Then King Ajatasattu & King Pasenadi fought a battle, and in that battle King Pasenadi defeated King Ajatasattu and captured him alive.

The thought then occurred to King Pasenadi: "Even though King Ajatasattu has wronged me when I have done him no wrong, still he is my nephew. What if I, having confiscated all his elephant troops, all his cavalry, all his chariots, & all his infantry, were to let him go with just his life?" So King Pasenadi — having confiscated all his elephant troops, cavalry, chariots, & infantry — let King Ajatasattu go with just his life."


And if he had taken his life and not let him go? What then? And what does all this have to do with what goes on at a slaughterhouse?

Honestly, I just can't believe you have people on a Buddhist forum actually defending the act of killing...No wonder it's called the dharma ending age...

Malcolm wrote:
Do you think this battle ended with all the lives of Ajasatru's soldiers being spared? They fought a battle. People surely died on both sides.

I can't speak for others, but there are plenty of Buddhist sutras where acts of killing are defended as virtuous, for example, the sea captain story and so on.

I am merely pointing out that the issue is not so simple as "killing is bad".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is  presented by  Vasubandhu as empirical fact.  Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another  culture that no longer can be entertained as true.

dzogchungpa said:
You seem to accept rebirth. Is that based on universally accessible empirical knowledge?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

No. It's an inferential conclusion about a phenomena of which I have no direct knowledge (I have no recollection of past lives, and couldn't prove it to you even if I did). But I do have a mind, the last I checked (some may disagree of course), and as a matter of inference, is seemed unlikely to me (when I examined the question) that ultimately my stream of consciousness could have emerged from my brain alone (which is a necessary condition for sense cognitions, but in my opinion cannot account for knowing).

M
Should be..."my stream of consciousness could not have emerged..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
What did he say of the individual soldiers who went onto the battlefield and engaged in killing the enemy?

Malcolm wrote:
If they belong to such a virtuous country, they are not at fault, because the violence is forced upon them. Run a search on Pasenadi at access to insight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
No Seeker, you're in error. "Killing is bad" is not a pan-Buddhist doctrine.

seeker242 said:
Sorry friend, but it is. What deluded Japanese soldiers did or did not do, is irrelevant to what the Buddha himself taught.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha himself taught that a virtuous country had the right to defend itself with violent force if need be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."

Why does he not mention vegetable farming? Hmm, I wonder!...

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist monks are forbidden to dig in the ground because of the harm they will cause to small animals, thus they cannot farm, for a monk this is wrong livelyhood. Likewise, monks are forbidden to travel in the rains season primarily because of all the small creatures they will kill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One thing that people seem to be unaware of, because perhaps they are not very clear about the history of Buddhist ideas, is that the so called "siddha" movement largely rose in response to increasing hostility towards Buddhists. In fact, it seems it seems that the tales of magical violence match pretty well with the increasing unviability of Buddhism in India. Think on this.

The legends of siddhas in India virtually all have the context of trying to amaze or defeat non-Buddhist opponents. The legendary battles between buddhist and non-buddhist siddhas always come down to "The fastest siddha in the East". And of course, we only record our victories, not our defeats. For a record of our defeats, we must examine Hindu sources.

If we take the example of Virupa -- in the legends of siddhis he displayed for Buddhists, they are generally kind, like crossing a reflecting pond by walking on the lotus leaves. However, when confronting Hindus they are always wrathful, like causing a linga to split in two by prostrating to it, and so on. Eventually, because Virupa was such a badass, Avalokiteśvara intervened, according to the main account of his career, and asked him to stop displaying siddhis because he was freaking people out too much.

Tibetans were fascinated by such stories. When we look to the accounts of Vajrayāna in Sino-japenese Buddhism, we do not see anything like the narrative of conflict and subjugation that we see when Vajrayāna was imported to Tibet.

While the Buddha himself is said to have criticized displays of ṛddhipati as a means to engender faith, as Buddhism lost ground against hostile Shaivaites and Bhagavatis (followers of Vishnu), there is marked increase in such tales. Unfortunately for Indian Buddhists, there simply were not enough Buddhist siddhas to stave off the eventual destruction of Buddhism in India by hostile Hindus and Muslims -- not to mention Central Asia. In reality, if we examine the Buddhist siddha movement as a defensive strategy in order to preserve the faith, it failed. By the the 12th century, even Bodhgaya had been overrun by nonbuddhists. So it seems that the Buddhist siddha movement in the end completely failed at preserving the Dharma in India.

So what does this have to do with Buddhist "inner science"? Of what possible use are siddhis in taming the mind? Of what possible use are siddhis other than as a frightening display of power imbued with the threat of violence?

If you read the accounts of Buddhist siddhas, they are filled with magical violence of the most extreme kind (Tilopa killing small creatures by the side of a river; Gesar slaying hundreds of thousands of Horpas). What is admirable about stopping the sun so that crops in the field burn and animals begin to die of dehydration (Virupa)? What is admirable about the ability to incinerate your opponent with a wrathful glare (Dharmakirti)? Why do we admire this?

Honestly, I think that people should really evaluate what it is that they find so admirable about the ritual violence (that we term "siddhis") that so many Vajrayāna legends are imbued with. Poeple really should evaluate the fact that many of the primary legends of siddhas concern their skill at destructive magical violence as evidence of their qualities of realization.

This reflection should also cause people to reconsider what is meant by Buddhist "inner science". Perhaps we should form a hypothesis (like any good scientist) and subject that hypothesis to testing.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is  presented by  Vasubandhu as empirical fact.  Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another  culture that no longer can be entertained as true.

dzogchungpa said:
You seem to accept rebirth. Is that based on universally accessible empirical knowledge?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

No. It's an inferential conclusion about a phenomena of which I have no direct knowledge (I have no recollection of past lives, and couldn't prove it to you even if I did). But I do have a mind, the last I checked (some may disagree of course), and as a matter of inference, is seemed unlikely to me (when I examined the question) that ultimately my stream of consciousness could have emerged from my brain alone (which is a necessary condition for sense cognitions, but in my opinion cannot account for knowing).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined  the world community in 1959.

Karma Dorje said:
Visionary experience != universally accessible empirical knowledge.  Collapsing the two is nonsensical.

Malcolm wrote:
Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is  presented by  Vasubandhu as empirical fact.  Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another  culture that no longer can be entertained as true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

dzogchungpa said:
Tell us what you really think, Malcolm.


Malcolm wrote:
Truthfully, even discussing it is useless prapanca.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.

Karma Dorje said:
Nobody of your ilk perhaps, but plenty of us mere humans.  Yet again you are coming off as if you believe your viewpoint is the only sensible, mature one and everyone else is simply wrong. Frankly, I find you a lot more dogmatic about your opinions than these so-called fundamentalists you are railing against.  I'll stick with what I have been taught by a realized master over the opinions of a scholar, no matter how eloquently stated or forcefully argued.

Malcolm wrote:
Its not dogma. When you can show me a cosmic mountain in the middle of space somewhere, or even a human being who can fly unaided through the mere power of their will, then there is something discuss. Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined  the world community in 1959.

Secondly, a person may be realized about the nature of their minds, utterly free of affliction, and  may still be completely mistaken about all kinds of things. Realization does not equal omniscience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I said, they are fun stories, but in the end the real siddhis are the human qualities of compassion,love and awakening: in other words, the things that make us more human, not superhuman. Apart from the supreme siddhi, the other siddhis are just parlor tricks, even if they are true.

M

Karma Dorje said:
A couple or three millennia ago, the flat earth was regarded as a fact.  A few hundred years ago, the heavens were thought to be geocentric rather than heliocentric. Those things that we view as self-evident today may be considered quaint 400 years from now and unrecognizable 2000 years from now.

So why be emphatic about what is possible and close off what is not based on one's own current world view?  I would rather keep a sense of wonder and possibility than try to be some sort of hard-boiled denizen of modernity puffed up with the conceit of purported progress.  I would rather regard life as a riot of paradoxes and fables than as a scorched earth of foolish consistency.

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite sure in 2000 years humans, if we still exist, will still discover the earth revolves around the sun, and not other way around.

For instance, a common fact that no one in any culture has ever rejected is that there is a sun and a moon. One sun, one moon. Not two, not three. Why do you think that is?  Everyone understands that there are two human, biologically determined genders, not three, not four.

There are certain basic facts of our existence which are constant. Those facts are explained better today then they were 2000 years ago.  Why fight it with fantasies about continents that only siddhas can fly to and so on? To insist there is a shred of truth in abhidharma meru cosmology, for example, is extremely immature. It is exactly at the same level of thinking as biblical creationism.

Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
The fact that a school referred to as Pudgalavadins existed
and asserted some type of existent 'self',
even though that is inconsistent with the doctrine of anatta,
regardless of what brought on their demise,
it has absolutely nothing to to with this discussion.

.


Malcolm wrote:
It has everything to do with this discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
I am quite happy with the traditional accounts of siddhis, siddhas, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
O, I am happy with them too, they are fun to read.

Do I think they ever happened...miracles of loaves and fishes anyone? Raising Lazarus from the dead? Flying to Jerusalem on an ass? Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...?

Quite frankly, I have never seen any human being swim through the earth, fly through mountains, fly in the air (except in a plane, etc.), stand in the middle of bonfire unharmed, walk through a wall, stick a kīla in a rock, leave a footprint in a stone (and I have seen highly respected Tibetan Lamas laugh at the supposed photographed "miracles" of other lamas who claim to have done so (no not saying who)) and so on.

As I said, they are fun stories, but in the end the real siddhis are the human qualities of compassion,love and awakening: in other words, the things that make us more human, not superhuman. Apart from the supreme siddhi, the other siddhis are just parlor tricks, even if they are true.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
smcj said:
Incidentally, prostrations as a "practice" are Tibetan innovation.  This is not a bad thing,  but it does need to be recognized as such.
Nylon strings on a classical guitar are an American invention. Nobody wants to go back to cat-gut strings. Sometimes innovation is improvement. But if you tried to put metal strings on a classical guitar you'd collapse the instrument. You've got to know what you're doing. Best to trust the experts.

Malcolm wrote:
My basic point of course, is that I have seen numerous people injure themselves severely with prostrations (knees, backs, necks, wrists). As a Doctor, my motivation is to prevent further injuries so people can practice well and long. The Nalanda style of prostrations (so called half prostrations) is better than that Vikramashila style (so called full prostrations). It is easier on the back, knees and neck.

Sun salutations is better than either in my opinion, because it works all the major joints and channels with little risk of injury done slowly and with care.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


heart said:
So you feel siddhas exist but not the siddhis, since they are all defying the laws of science and common sense?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I think we can all agree that the only important siddhi is the supreme siddhi, i.e., awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
...watering Buddhism down with science and New Age philosophies.

Malcolm wrote:
BTW, I do neither. Buddhism is Buddhism, science is science. One is a religion, the other is an iterative method for advancing our knowledge of the physical universe. Sometimes their paths intersect, but mostly they do not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
So trying to practise what the Buddha taught is now fundamentalism?

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.

Insisting that one must accept as literally true any traditional narratives about the origin of various Buddhist texts (for example, the idea that Nāgārjuna recovers the Prajñāpāramita from the Nāgā realm "under the ocean") is fundamentalism. Insisting that one must accept that Buddha taught Mahāyāna surrounded by millions of bodhisattvas on Rajagriha or that he taught Vajrayāna literally and personally, either inside a stupa in south India, or in some imaginary devaloka is fundamentalism.

My point is that the teachings in these texts must be able to stand on their own and be able to withstand scrutiny on the basis of the ideas presented in those texts on their own without any reference to or dependence upon some imagined authority. In the end, authority is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. Thus Ganden Chophel said in regards to the question of authority:

"It is a tiger who testifies on behalf of the lion. It is a yak who testifies on behalf of the tiger. It is a dog who testifies on behalf of the yak. It is a mouse who testifies on behalf of behalf of the dog. It is a flea who testifies on behalf of the mouse. Therefore, a flea is the ultimate witness on behalf of all."

Not only that, but the various claims put forth by various factions about what the Buddha taught and where wildly contradict one another, especially when we come to Vajrayāna texts, where, according to late 10th century Indian accounts we have the Buddha flying with his monks to Oḍḍiyāna and granting the Guhyasamaja empowerment to King Indrabhuti, who then, with his kingdom all vanish after achieving enlightenment, only to be replaced by a lake full of nāgās out of which one transforms into a human woman many centuries later, who then travels to South India and imparts the teachings to a South Indian King. (The Nyingma version of the origin of Vajrayāna is completely at odds with this account, involving magical texts that fall from the sky, and so on). I mean these are marvelous stories, but are no more believable than the story of Mahāsiddha Virupa arresting the progress of the sun in the sky while on a drinking binge with his disciple in order to delay the arrival of his bartab.

Therefore, with regard to Buddhist texts, it is my opinion that the best way to approach them, the approach that makes the most sense to me as someone who lives in these texts everyday is to see these texts as products of gradual development and emendation over time. We have many instances of this in the long history of sutra translation into Chinese. I prefer this approach, rather than believing that these texts are a divine revelation imparted completely within the eighty year lifespan of the undoubtedly remarkable human being, Gautama Siddhārtha.

As I see it, Buddhist sutras and tantras are a remarkable record of human beings, some awakened, others not, working out what awakening means. I see it as documentary evidence of a very human process of self-discovery and self-fulfillment.

But I do not think we need to take the legendary and mythological accounts of Buddha's life, or teachings attributed to him as literal, historical fact. We do not even need to take the cosmological myths presented in the Pali canon as fact. Nor do we need to accept the legends Buddha is portrayed as telling about his past lives as fact. In the same I do not believe for an instant that Padmasambhava was, as it is claimed in numerous biographies, born in the center of a lotus blossom somewhere in modern day Pakistan, or that he was three thousand years old and so on. Nevertheless, I happily recite the seven line prayer, understanding that is meaningful symbolically, as myth, etc. But I certainly do not take it to be a literal portrayal of the facts of the life of a person we call Padmasambhava.

We can, if we so choose, accept these myths and legends as literally true, but to insist to others that they must accept these as literal facts is fundamentalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles to Bodhicitta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You must merely observe reality, see that there is suffering and decide that you want to be as awakened as possible so you are finally useful to someone other than yourself. The rest will take care of itself.

Konchog1 said:
Exactly there. Some days I feel some compassion and some days I do not. But if I follow the Lam Rim procedure of recognizing beings as mothers, remembering kindnesses etc. and generate love, then generate compassion on the basis of that love, I feel stronger compassion than I usually feel. But only for a couple seconds and it isn't progressing stronger.


Malcolm wrote:
We all have good days and bad days.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:
Aemilius said:
The name George thus means Guru of Orgyen. The myth or history of Saint George subduing, or slaughtering, the Dragon derives from the legend of Padmasambhava, who is the Guru of Orgyen, i.e. Saint George.
The name George has many variants in european languages, like italian Giorgio, german Jörg & Jürgen, hungarian György, swedish Jörgen, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
This is incredibly silly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are no rules, my friend., apart from those we choose to follow.

smcj said:
In my work I sometimes have to go to 3 or 4 different places a week, places I've never been to. They give me directions and a map on how to get there. Nobody forces me to follow their directions, but if I choose not to follow them I can't blame the guy that made the map if I get lost or if I am late. If I take a shortcut I do so at my own peril.

Malcolm wrote:
Maps do not specify if you are to arrive by walking, train, car,  bike, bus, helicopter or motorbike.

Incidentally, prostrations as a "practice" are Tibetan innovation.  This is not a bad thing,  but it does need to be recognized as such.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Apparently the Pudgalavadins' argument didn't hold up either.
.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that Pudgalavadins asserted a self is sufficient to demolish your claim that all buddhist schools adhered to the three or four seals, and thus renders your claim that theses are universal tenets in buddhism invalid.

Sorry, this is just a fact. You would do well to study a bit more Buddhist history . The fact that this school was  long lived is born out by the fact that  they were subject to polemical refutations from the time of Asoka until buddhism perished in India. That their schools did mot survive owes everything to the destruction buddhism in India and nothing to succesful refutation of their positions  by opposing buddhist schools. This is simply a fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, things like this are decided by oneself. If one chooses to follow someone else's idea, still it is one's own choice. Nothing trumps personal authority.

smcj said:
Since this is actual practice we are talking about, where do you draw the line? Can you make up your own mantra? Create a new deity or sadhana?

Malcolm wrote:
There are no rules, my friend., apart from those we choose to follow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Things like this are decided by the practitioner's guru.

Malcolm wrote:
No, things like this are decided by oneself. If one chooses to follow someone else's idea, still it is one's own choice. Nothing trumps personal authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Witness the *growth* of Islam and fundamentalist Christianity in recent years.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is exactly a result of the crisis of Modernity. Buddhists are just a little late on the scene, hence the phenomena of fledgling Buddhist fundamentalism that we see growing in groups like NKT and so on, and the attitudes of certain fundamentalist Nyingmapas etc.

Karma Dorje said:
What it makes clear is that our own personal understanding is not necessarily tied to, and might actually be counter to, what is good for the institutional survival of Buddhism.  The fundamentalism may serve an important purpose in propagating the institutional forms, even though I don't intend to have them over for a beer and a BBQ any time soon.

Malcolm wrote:
If this is the case, the institutional form isn't worth saving. Fundamentalism is basically religious cancer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Witness the *growth* of Islam and fundamentalist Christianity in recent years.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is exactly a result of the crisis of Modernity. Buddhists are just a little late on the scene, hence the phenomena of fledgling Buddhist fundamentalism that we see growing in groups like NKT and so on, and the attitudes of certain fundamentalist Nyingmapas etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Personally, when asked I just say I am a Hindu which is true....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
In order to demonstrate that these three or four are not universal amongst so called "Buddhists".

PadmaVonSamba said:
But you just established that they are:
anicca=impermanence
dukkha=suffering
anatta=no self

Malcolm wrote:
You are apparently not listening very well.  I never stated once that these were shared amongst all Buddhist schools.

In fact, Pudgalavadins, a Buddhist school, assert that there is indeed a real self that experiences rebirth. They were once the most populous school in all India. They do not accept the third "seal" above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles to Bodhicitta
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
My understanding is that bodhicitta is selfless compasssion.


Malcolm wrote:
Bodhicitta is specifically the arousal [utpada] of the intent or mind [citta] to attain awakening [bodhi]. That has three forms: the intent to awaken as an arhat, as a pratyekabuddha, or as a Samyaksambuddha.

The wish to awaken as a Samyak Sambuddha is special bodhicitta, the kind cultivated by bodhisattvas.

Compassion is its condition. However, as Dharmakirti notes, love and compassion do not have the ability to cause one to achieve full awakening, i.e. the awakening of a Samyaksambuddha. One needs something more, and that something is Mahāyāna bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In short, Buddhism's "grace" period or probationary period in the West is over and done with. In order for Buddhism to hold its own in the free market of ideas, it must be able to do so without any recourse to traditional authority. If it fails at this, it will fail the test of modernity and as human civilization continues to advance and develop, Buddhism will become yet another footnote to history.

Karma Dorje said:
Has fundamentalist Islam or Christianity met this test?


They don't seem to have a problem growing, regardless of "philosophical moribundity".

Malcolm wrote:
Death throes of a dying beast.

Karma Dorje said:
I am not so convinced of it's relevancy for the bulk of the 7 billion.

Malcolm wrote:
Only time will tell.

Karma Dorje said:
The problem Buddhism faces here is not that it relies too much on traditional Indian and Tibetan epistemological premises.

Malcolm wrote:
So you don't agree that Buddhism is facing a crisis of modernity? Sure seems like it to me.

Karma Dorje said:
It is that people here are conditioned at an emotional and instinctual level to identify with the Abrahamic narratives.

Malcolm wrote:
The Abrahamic narrative thing is overstated, IMO. It is, to use a term borrowed from Witzel, just another form of the Laurasian Ur-myth that all European, Asian and American cosmological narratives share.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
Unknown said:
...in order to do what?

Malcolm wrote:
In order to demonstrate that these three or four are not universal amongst so called "Buddhists".

Unknown said:
Then tell me, by what cognitive means is the arhat aware that he is an arhat?

Malcolm wrote:
His mind, what else?  Surely you are not going to now suggest that arhats lack the five aggregates?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
and yet you have listed three of the four I mentioned.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't claim they were universal in Buddhism. You did.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, and they are.

Malcolm wrote:
So all I have to do is provide one countervailing example?


PadmaVonSamba said:
And again,
do you suppose an arhat is aware he is an arhat?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. For example, the Buddha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
and yet you have listed three of the four I mentioned.


Malcolm wrote:
I didn't claim they were universal in Buddhism. You did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Unknown said:
"the conviction that rituals can cause moral purity....

Malcolm wrote:
That pretty much does in a lot of Vajrayāna ritual purity rituals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
How about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_Mahayana?

Malcolm wrote:
That works if you are a Theravadin or Mahāyāni, it does not work so well if you are a Dzogchenpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is much easier to define what is not Buddhist than what is "Buddhist" in fact.

dzogchungpa said:
What do yout think about this attempt:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=184779#p184779?

Malcolm wrote:
It is definitely more comprehensive than merely relying on the four seals. But its not perfect, though it is a start.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: Obstacles to Bodhicitta
Content:
Konchog1 said:
How can you generate without force?


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, it is very easy. Just look around you.

In other words, you cannot generate bodhicitta from formulas found in books.

You must merely observe reality, see that there is suffering and decide that you want to be as awakened as possible so you are finally useful to someone other than yourself. The rest will take care of itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, I don't think the four seals are a sufficient criteria: for example, the Saṃkhya school regards conditioned phenomena as being nonself, suffering, and impermanent (the manner in which they do so is a bit different than the Buddha's formulation, nevertheless...), and the experience of purusha can easily be equated with the unsupported consciousness of the Pali suttas...so...

dzogchungpa said:
I recently read this in DJKR's Buddha Nature book: Buddhists talk about “not truly existent”, and I think that in this present day, this is like the ace up our sleeves, our trump card. It is what distinguishes the Buddhist view. However, only the Samkhyas, the high Samkhyas, have a view that is so close to the Buddhist view as to be nearly indistinguishable.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he is referring to the early non-theistic Saṃkhya of the Rishi Kapila, rather than the later theistic Saṃkhya.

But this merely goes to show that it is difficult to define a universal core set of Buddhist doctrines that are uniquely and distinctly Buddhist.

It is much easier to define what is not Buddhist than what is "Buddhist" in fact.

Universe created by God? Ok not Buddhist. And that's about it.

Actually, if there is a teaching in Buddhism that is uniquely the Buddha's, it is dependent origination i.e. where this exists, that exists, where that arose, this arose; where that does not exist, this does not exist, with the ceasing of that, this ceased, etc.

But not all "Buddhist" schools acccept this as the sine qua non of Dharma. For example, in Dzogchen, the twelve limbs are considered merely a gateway for deluded people, but not the sine qua non of Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


futerko said:
He did write a book about it - "What makes you not a Buddhist", where he discusses the four seals - a definition I seem to remember you using to defend Stephen Batchelor's position a while back.


Malcolm wrote:
IN general, I was doing so because of what other people accepted, not what I accept.

futerko said:
Yes, but I think it's safe to say that DKR has outlined his position concerning your earlier question.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I don't think the four seals are a sufficient criteria: for example, the Saṃkhya school regards conditioned phenomena as being nonself, suffering, and impermanent (the manner in which they do so is a bit different than the Buddha's formulation, nevertheless...), and the experience of purusha can easily be equated with the unsupported consciousness of the Pali suttas...so...

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


futerko said:
He did write a book about it - "What makes you not a Buddhist", where he discusses the four seals - a definition I seem to remember you using to defend Stephen Batchelor's position a while back.


Malcolm wrote:
IN general, I was doing so because of what other people accepted, not what I accept.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is in fact no true standard set of Buddhist doctrines that universally apply to all instances of what we call Buddhism.

PadmaVonSamba said:
How did you determine this?
There are, in fact, four basic tenets common to all schools of Buddhism.
They are commonly referred to as the Four Seals:
All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. 
The nature of conditioned (*should be afflicted) phenomena is suffering (duhhka)
All phenomena lack inherent existence (*should be not-self)
The true nature of the mind is free from suffering (nirvana) (*should be nirvana is peaceful)

Malcolm wrote:
No, sorry to contradict you but...

The Theravadins do not have a formulation using the the fourth seal. That only exists in Mahāyāna.

Theravadas use the three seals: anicca, dukkha and anatta.

What is interesting here is of course when seeking to find a common ground among Buddhist schools we depend on doctrines also found in Hindu schools such as Saṃkhya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
But just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "generic Buddhism"?

If you mean that there isn't a particular school or lineage or sect  called "Generic" then you are correct.


Malcolm wrote:
There is in fact no true standard set of Buddhist doctrines that universally apply to all instances of what we call Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So you believe that there is no core of beliefs and practices that can be defined as Buddhist?  That there is nothing that all Buddhists can agree on?  Dependent origination, for example?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that -- I said there was no generic Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is no generic "Buddhism".

Sherab Dorje said:
Of course there is.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Five precepts: an inquiry
Content:
Mouse Soldier said:
What does Buddhism have to say about when life begins?

Malcolm wrote:
It begins at conception. Therefore, Buddhist women need to think long and hard before committing to an abortion. That said, since I do not believe in legislating religious belief into law, I am pro-choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
I think you are wrong, I think the Upadesa is the oldest form of Dzogchen. Semde with it aim to separate itself from Tantric teachings is in my eyes a later development.

Malcolm wrote:
You can think what you like dear Magnus, but the man ngag de texts, all of them being termas, are all demonstrably later than the bodhicitta texts, with the rig pa rang shar and the sgra thal gyur being among the latest of all (no earlier than the 11th century).

Secondly, you are incorrect about "sems sde" trying to separate itself from Anuyoga and so on. Atiyoga, as Rongzom says, is "a commentary" of the lower yānas, as well as their definitive meaning.

But this is all besides the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
It's inner science and the results of the path can be proven to oneself by practising the methods.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what Scientology says as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Does that sound like "reactionary rhetoric" from someone suffering from "religious and cultural insecurity"? I am very sympathetic with what you have said in this thread, but honestly I feel that you are misrepresenting DJKR.

Malcolm wrote:
I was merely using Dzongsar Khyentse's interview as example of what I find to be a reactionary rhetoric which stems from an overall religious and cultural insecurity I have found amongst Tibetan religious professionals.

He also does not specify this "main philosophy of Buddhism" that must remain "intact".

Perhaps he can drop in and tell us what he feels that might be.



M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
well, if you like simpler Dzogchen, stick with the bodhicitta texts, since they are most likely the ones which actually have a root in a historical person named "Vajraprahe".

heart said:
I am fine with what I do, thanks. I don't share your or Germano's ideas of the origin of Dzogchen.

/magnus

pensum said:
I'm assuming, Magnus, that you don't realize that Vajraprahe is no other than Garab Dorje. In Tibetan texts his name is rendered in Sanskrit as either Prahevajra or in some of the early texts that Malcolm has been researching as Vajraprahe. Or do you disagree that Garab Dorje most likely was an actual person and that the main, if not all (Buddhist anyway, Bon may be an exception), Dzogchen lineages can be traced back to him (which i believe is Malcolm's view)?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is my view that these persons: Garab Dorje, Manjushrimitra and Shri Simha are historical persons. It is also my view that Dzogchen as an intimate instruction must come from that source. I do not imagine however that all the texts attributed to Garab Dorje are actually by him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


heart said:
Of course know that dear pensum. Germano and Malcolm share the view that Dzogchen, or at least the Upadesa tradition, is an Tibetan invention. I don't share that view. Not because Tibetan invention would in itself be a bad thing, I am pretty sure that there are many elaborations of Tibetan origin in Dzogchen, but because the insistence on lineage in the Tibetan cultural sphere. I also don't think Dzogchen developed from semde to longde  to upadesa or that hinayana developed to mahayana and further to vajrayana, it is just a comfortable darwinistic view that our society is full of. But I am not a scholar and what I think is of little consequence.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
What you call the view that Germano and I share is in fact the Western academic consensus, current even among Western academics who nevertheless are practitioners.

So called sems sde and klong sde are contemporary, they are but two branches of the same teaching of the same Tibetan teacher, Vairocana -- there is nothing philosophically remarkable about klong sde that separates it from so called sems sde. In short, sems sde and klong sde are different streams of the same basic teaching.

Man ngag sde however is a different matter. It is not a Tibetan "invention". That is too crude. It is a reworking of Dzogchen based on the second contact of Tibetan civilization with late Indian Vajrayāna. It is essentially gsar ma rDzogs chen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
The Mahayana is not an evolution of the Dharma in the Nikayas.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not an evolution of the Dharma in the Nikayas, it is an evolution of the Dharma outside of the Nikāyas.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Both were taught by Buddha Shakyamuni...

Malcolm wrote:
Impossible, I say.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The Dharma does not evolve because the nature of samsara and nirvana does not change.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma has demonstrably evolved over the centuries in order to cope with changes in human cultures, economics, and civilizations. It is changing now as we speak. To refuse to see this is voluntary blindness.

The meaning of nirvana has changed over time (once a desiderata, then an extreme to be avoided). Even the meaning of samsara has changed (once something to eschew, then something not be abandoned).

Tsongkhapafan said:
The meaning of Dharma does not change, but the presentation may do to suit the capacity and lifestyle of those who are listening.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as "inherent meaning".

Tsongkhapafan said:
For example the lamrim teachings of Venerable Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa present a complete path to liberation and enlightenment that will not change in meaning, but may be presented differently as times degenerate and the wisdom of living beings wanes.

Malcolm wrote:
The very meaning of "Buddhahood" has changed over time.

++++++++

Basically, Buddhism and Buddhists are facing the crisis of modernity.

Like Christianity, Buddhism has no hope of relying upon the pre-modern myths and fables which provided its narratives. The vast majority of modern people simply will not accept the narratives traditional Buddhisms have proffered for explaining our world. Buddhism[s], which once provided a complete explanation of the universe, is/are no longer capable of doing so.

Buddhism, like Christianity before it, will be forced to discover new meaning for itself, and will need to forge new narratives for itself, if it hopes to survive in the modern world. Of course Buddhism has the materials at hand to do so, like Christianity.

In other words, the validity or absence of validity of Mahāyāna does not depend on its origen legend. If Mahāyāna depends on its origin legends for its validity, then it is intellectually moribund and philosophically meagre. If on the other hand Mahāyāna does not depend upon its origin legend for its validity, then it is intellectually vital and philosophically robust. The same observation can be made about those who require the origin legend of Mahāyāna to be literally true, they are neither intellectually vital nor philosophically robust because they are incapable of defending Mahāyāna ideas purely on their own terms without recourse to some imagined authority.

The corollary however does not hold; the successful defense of Mahāyāna ideas on their own terms does not validate the legends of Mahāyāna origins.

Again, this begs the question: just how many Mahāyānas are there? How many Vajrayānas are there?

In short, Buddhism's "grace" period or probationary period in the West is over and done with. In order for Buddhism to hold its own in the free market of ideas, it must be able to do so without any recourse to traditional authority. If it fails at this, it will fail the test of modernity and as human civilization continues to advance and develop, Buddhism will become yet another footnote to history.

In order to prevent that from happening, Buddhists must in fact be the harshest critics of Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
I rather sit at the feet of Garab Dorje and receive Dzogchen personally.

Malcolm wrote:
Me too, but it didn't happen and is not going to happen, so why fantasize?

heart said:
Oh, I don't fantasize, just stating what end of evolution has the most value to me.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
well, if you like simpler Dzogchen, stick with the bodhicitta texts, since they are most likely the ones which actually have a root in a historical person named "Vajraprahe".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
So if something "develops" or "evolve" it gets more complicated or diversified or just different but not better except randomly so?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Better/worse are human judgements. Simplicity/complexity are observable phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Riwo Sang Chod
Content:
Kunzang said:
Regarding the question about a requirement for empowerment for practicing Riwo Sang Chod:  the version I practice, and I think it's the most common version, has self-visualization as Padmasambhava (i.e., as Padma Thodtrengtsal).   So somebody more knowledgeable should correct me if I'm wrong, but even though the RSC itself doesn't require its own empowerment (just the lung), don't you need prior empowerment before you can do any self-visualization practice?

Malcolm wrote:
The original version does not contain a self-visualization at all. The edition penned by Dudjom R., does, and in order to use it as such, one must at least have the lung, if not any suitable Guru P empowerment such as the Rigzin Sogdrup etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Simon E. said:
And the most well known ' recognition ' that Lama Zopa made didn't work out too well, did it ?

Indrajala said:
Does that reflect more on the recognized tulku or the Lama who recognized him?

Simon E. said:
In my view it reflects on the whole process really...
Lets face it we largely know about Hita because he is a westerner...the attrition rate of ' reluctant ' tulkus might be a big proportion actually.

Malcolm wrote:
"Nature habitually overproduces..."
-- Ezra Pound.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
I rather sit at the feet of Garab Dorje and receive Dzogchen personally.

Malcolm wrote:
Me too, but it didn't happen and is not going to happen, so why fantasize?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Simon E. said:
And the most well known ' recognition ' that Lama Zopa made didn't work out too well, did it ?

Indrajala said:
Does that reflect more on the recognized tulku or the Lama who recognized him?

Malcolm wrote:
Equally upon both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
heart said:
The idea of evolution is that everything becomes better for most beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.

There are two major definitions here:

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2. the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

The idea of biological evolution is covered by definition one.

Systems of belief and thought, such as Dzogchen, Christianity, Santeria, modern science, communism, free markets, etc. are covered by the definition two.

For example, so called "sems sde" is comparatively simple when contrasted with man ngag sde. Mahāyāna is comparatively more complex than the Buddhism expressed in the Nikāyas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Obstacles to Bodhicitta
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Any advice?

Malcolm wrote:
Don't force. Anyway, bodhicitta is not something you can contrive. You either want to become an awakened person to benefit others or you don't, and some days are better than others when you are an ordinary person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
tatpurusa said:
Dzogchenpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Ditto.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Rather than: "I am a buddhist"
how about: "I follow (or agree with) the teachings of buddhism"

Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddhism?

PadmaVonSamba said:
whichever buddhism you follow.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no generic "Buddhism".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Title: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
JKhedrup said:
The level of scholarship and debate necessary in the great [Tibetan] instiutions requires a high degree of doubt and critical thinking.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it has strictly defined parameters. Despite all the deep learning, critical acumen, and doubt your Geshes may bring to the table, in the end, they are merely expected to master what is already accepted as true according to a consensus. Like musicians, they are merely expected to become expert at playing the scales. They neither expected nor encouraged to open up whole new fields of learning. They are expected merely to be vessels conveying the wisdom of one generation to another, unaltered like an impression from a seal. Now, do not think that in my view this has no value. It definitely has value. It is a part of human culture and learning.

However, most of the classically educated Tibetans I know have a very hard time with the idea of evolution. They have difficulty accepting that modern humans come from Africa, and that all languages also originally come from Africa and that the pattern of human migration from Africa can be mathematically tracked. Indeed, they have difficulty with Science in general (all the while happily using the fruits of scientific endeavor in the form of electricity, cell phones, antibiotics, and so on).

This is largely because up until recently most educated Tibetans are educated into a pre-modern view of the world that includes Mt. Meru, the Buddhist myth of the origin of humans in devas whose bodies gel and thicken due to their craving for the sweet "cream of the earth" (sa zhag) on the surface of the planet and so on.

There is no fault in all this, of course, but it is important to remember that there are bound to be vast differences in the way persons like ourselves, raised and educated in a post-modern civilization will view the world when compared to those who have pre-modern educations.

For example, a common theme among Tibetan teachers is the oft repeated trope:

"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
-- Dzongsar Khyentse
http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Buddhism/Through_the_Lens_of_Reality112005.asp

"Why will Buddhism never change?", we ask; and answer as always is "Because Buddhism is based on wisdom."

Of course, anyone who has studied history will instantly recognize this to be a statement that is at best, very naive. Buddhism has undergone constant change and evolution from the beginning.

Even more questionable is the arrogation of Buddhism as a "science". It is not science, it never was and never will be. Buddhism, is, in its best aspect, a yogic tradition; at worst, a religious dogma. Buddhism may indeed have some ideas which are compatible with the worldview informed by modern science, but it equally entertains many beliefs which are not falsifiable in any respect, and hence must be considered non-scientific (which does not mean false, rather merely empirically untestable).

Now, of course, Dzongsar Khyentse can be forgiven for referring to Buddhism as a "science" because of the use of the term adhyātmavidyā ( nang rig ) translated as so-called "inner science" where the term "science" is used to the translate the term "vidyā".

We must however see statements like Dzongsar Khyentse's for what they are: reactionary rhetoric which misses the target.

Modern science, as we know, is a method of coming up with predicative models. If one's predictions fail, one's model is defective, and one's hypothesis is either abandoned or revised by incorporating the results of one's failure. It is an iterative process, as we all know.

However, there is, in my estimation a religious and cultural insecurity which is responsible for sentiments like Dzongar Khyentse's, a sentiment right at home with similar sentiments about the Bible expressed by Christian Fundamentalists. It is an eternalization of tradition. Stating that Buddhism will never or has never changed is like asserting that words of the Bible or the Koran are infallible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Rather than: "I am a buddhist"
how about: "I follow (or agree with) the teachings of buddhism"
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddhism?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Title: Re: Denying you're a Buddhist to outsiders
Content:
padma norbu said:
I have occasionally in the past few years started just saying "I'm not really a Buddhist, though" to friends and extended family whenever they ask me about all my books and thangkas and statues...

seeker242 said:
Do they believe you? I probably wouldn't if you had Buddha statues and Buddha pictures all over the place. Does it really matter that friends and family understand the technical differences of Dzogchen vs Buddhism? That sound like a long, complicated conversation, one they probably would not understand.

padma norbu said:
They probably think I'm weird and full of crap like a new age hippy or something. I think this is better than them thinking I'm really a buddhist because I think the professional buddhists who wear robes and stuff do a much better job setting an example than I do. Yes, I could try to set a better example, but it's just not natural for me to be a teacher. If I ever found myself in that position, I'd probably abuse the power more and more with each passing year.

Malcolm wrote:
To nonbuddhists I say freely I am  Buddhist. But I am not really a "buddhist". I am a practitioner of Dharma, not a follower of a school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
supermaxv said:
Well, in my Ngondro materials from my refuge lama, there are specific guidelines and teachings in regards to the proper forms of prostrations for Ngondro accumulation.

Malcolm wrote:
These things are customs, not Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:


padma norbu said:
So, can you just answer the question? Would it matter to you if Zoroastrianism influenced Buddhism? If so, why?

Malcolm wrote:
It would not matter; but it didn't — not in any meaningful way that I can see.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:


padma norbu said:
I mean, what are you even arguing about?

Malcolm wrote:
Vedanta originally referred the Upanishads [End of the Vedas], only two of which are pre-Buddhist (Brihadaranyaka and the Candogya).

However as a _school_, it is post- buddhist by many centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:
padma norbu said:
So, the Vajra appeared in Vedanta prior to the existence of Vajrayana...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the Vajra appeared in Buddhism before Vedanta existed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 6:56 AM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:
padma norbu said:
Besides invisiblediamond, would anybody care either way? It doesn't seem like anyone really cares in this thread, they are just stating why it the idea is demonstrably factually incorrect. If it influenced Dzogchen the way Vedanta influenced Vajrayana, it wouldn't actually matter to anyone, right?

Just want to clear this up.


Malcolm wrote:
Who says Vedanta influenced Vajrayāna?

padma norbu said:
The Vajra (thunderbolt) is from Hindu origin, is it not? Then, we have the various deities that were assimilated into Vajrayana like Saraswati, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
The vajra is not "Hindu" it is Vedic, and is a shared mytheme in all Indian religions, just like Saraswati, Tārā and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Is it actually acceptable to do them that way?
Bump

heart said:
No, of course not. Different traditions.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course it is acceptable. A prostration is a prostration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Does Dzogchen have Persian or Zoroastrian influences?
Content:
padma norbu said:
Besides invisiblediamond, would anybody care either way? It doesn't seem like anyone really cares in this thread, they are just stating why it the idea is demonstrably factually incorrect. If it influenced Dzogchen the way Vedanta influenced Vajrayana, it wouldn't actually matter to anyone, right?

Just want to clear this up.


Malcolm wrote:
Who says Vedanta influenced Vajrayāna?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:


invisiblediamond said:
Look at the west. We still flock to Thor.Where did that come from?

Malcolm wrote:
Marvel Comics.

invisiblediamond said:
We still believe in a work ethic. Where did that come from?

Malcolm wrote:
John Calvin.

invisiblediamond said:
Bonpo say, Shang Shung people were culturally more Persian. This is where dharma met persia and had a baby.

Malcolm wrote:
That is silly. Zhang zhung was literally next door to Kashmir.

Occam's razor, baby.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
To clarify, DC and Z share unique ideas. This is from some where. If not from Z itself, then from what came before and it was so old it was just like the basic world view, or there was some cross pollination with Persian ascetics who must have crossed paths with Shang Shung meditators.

Malcolm wrote:
No. they really do not. Dzogchen is non-theistic. Dzogchen is not eternalist. Dzogchen uses the Indian scheme of the five elements, not the Zoroastrian scheme of seven elements which I posted to you.

I think you are tripping on this one.

Ok, over and out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:


invisiblediamond said:
So where from in Africa do colors amd elements meet? My research makes this a North Central Asian Aryan motif.

Malcolm wrote:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs012/1101454195791/archive/1104070256872.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:


invisiblediamond said:
From what? That what is the root cultural bias that DC seems to unwind. Bc once it got to the borderlands with Persia, Z ideas were woven in.

Malcolm wrote:
They split as in "went their separate ways".

Dzogchen is based on Indian Antecedents which then were further developed in Tibet in complete absence of any influence from Zoroastrianism, which by the time period you are talking about. We do not have any record in Tibetan, Chinese or any other language of a major contact between Tibetans and Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians strictly do not proselytize. We do have some evidence of contact between Tibetans and Manichaeans in Khotan however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:


invisiblediamond said:
I don't believe you. Could be much older, by 10,000 years.

Malcolm wrote:
Then, inexplicably, you are being a knucklehead. And the above is total new age bullshit fueled by some very strong weed, I am sure.

Ok, I am done with this thread because it has degenerated into total nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
OddiyanaIsIndia said:
I see the core error of InvisibleDiamond.

He doesn't understand geography or borders of pre-1947 India.

invisiblediamond said:
These comments are retarded bc I'm talking about PreVedic time.

Malcolm wrote:
Look, all mythologies come from a common source in Africa 130,000 years ago.

You need to read Witzel's book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:


invisiblediamond said:
Z influence bc it's that old and pinioned between both regions.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Dude, the ancient Indo-aryan and the Ancient Iranians were enemies. Not friends. They split.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It's fascinating.

Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of fascinating things. But mixing up Zoroastrianism with Dzogchen? Really, there is no solid basis for this.

invisiblediamond said:
Do the Maya equate color and elements?  I know of know other two groups who have this idea. They live in the same region. These are clearly coming from a common cultural root. Failing to see this is fantasizing about one's tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh for christ's sake -- the Chinese also equate their elements and color, and so to the Greeks (black, red, yellow and white).

Mayan elements:
East – Red : Father Sun, the Way of the Visionary:  Reed, Knowledge, Crocodile, Serpent, Offering

West – Blue/Black:  Grandmother Moon/Ocean, the Way of the Teacher: Monkey, Bird, Rainstorm, Dawn, Deer

South – Yellow:  Mother Earth, the Way of the Healer: Road, Wisdom, Sun, Net, Seed

North – White: Father Sky, the Way of the Sacred Warrior: Jaguar, Flint, Wind, Death, Dog


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
They are missing the anthropological evidence so their text based analysis, since texts are dubious, sheds rather little light on what may or may not have really happened.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so what is your archaeological evidence to proves an Iranian source for certain aspects of Dzogchen, namely body of light(Since everything else in Dzogchen is squarely Buddhist like emptiness, three kāyas, buddhas, bodhisattvas, etc.)?

Unless you want to try and convince us that all Mahāyāna is really just Zoroastrianism in drag.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It's fascinating.

Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of fascinating things. But mixing up Zoroastrianism with Dzogchen? Really, there is no solid basis for this.

Anyway, this thread has been sunk by useless speculation.

BTW Mahāmudra guys. If you really take seriously what your citations say -- then why bother with gradualism and defending it.

However, I must point out to you that it is really not possible to find the notion of primordial buddhhood in Mahamudra texts explained in the unique style of Dzogchen.

Its ok. Its not a competition. Fundamentally, we can all agree that Dzogchen and Mahamudra are describing the same state. But the paths are different.

Greg, your citations are ok, but you really should have cited Virupa:

All sentient beings are emanations of mahāmudrā,
the essence of those emanations is the forever non-arising dharmadhātu,
also all characteristics of dualistic appearances, happiness, suffering and so on,
are the play of mahāmudrā, the original dharmatā.

and:

Since realism is destroyed in its own state, one is liberated from samsara and nirvana.
Since vidyā is pure in the basis, it is called “Perfect Buddhahood.”
Since phenomena and mind are exhausted in the state of exhaustion, therefore it is explained as “nirvana”,
uncontrived, unchanging,  totally liberated from everything to be given up or to attain.

--Lion Doha

You guys who claim to be practitioners of Mahāmudra really need to poked every now and again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
I need to see the evidence. .

Malcolm wrote:
Paul, with all due respect, this is a preposterous thing to for you to say. You engage in wild speculation and then claim to need to see evidence?

invisiblediamond said:
I'm inferring from what the evidence shows. The similarities to Persian mysticism is unmistakeable.

Malcolm wrote:
First, there is no Persian Mysticism. Parsis have not lived in Iran for centuries. They mostly live in Western India. Sure, under the Shah some were invited back, but then it stopped. There are only 30 thousand Parsis in Iran, who all were invited back by the Shah.

Second, the notion of five elements of the physical body reverting to light clearly is found in oral instructions connected to the Cakrasamvara completion stage practices that are contemporary with the Dzogchen tantras that treat the same idea.

Secondly, the notion that the five element vāyus of the body have color is widespread in India Buddhist tantra and intimate instructions. So there are plenty of places where these ideas about rainbow body/body of light can be sourced in India Buddhist texts.

Third, even your presentation of the elements of Zorastrianism is dramatically wrong.

Sure, I can accept that ideas like Sukhavati and so on were influenced by Persian culture, no problem.

But Zoroastrianism and Dzogchen are incompatible. It is simply irresponsible speculation on your part to continue this way. You have no evidence, you have no proof.

invisiblediamond said:
I won't follow the self deceived and self professed.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't need to follow the self-deceived, your are doing an excellent job of deceiving yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It's a good thing I'm not reputable then. I don't believe these tall tales. I don't trust historical accounts. Many of these folks say they come from Greeks. But they don't as born out by genetic testing. They are indigenous. So accounts can't be trusted.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? Are you high? First you reject that Dzogchen is indigenous to "India". Then you claim, with no evidence at all, that it is Zoroastrian influenced on the basis of some fairly unintelligible account written in the sixties about Zoroastrian mysticism on the basis of the five elements reverting to light, which is interesting but not conclusive in any sense.

Then you reject early Tibetan accounts of the importation of Dzogchen to Tibet based on what? Your "feeling"? Your years of dedicated research on comparative religion and mastery of world history?

invisiblediamond said:
I believe the Proto-Aryan elements are part of maghada. The PreVedics revere the elements and nature.

Malcolm wrote:
You are mixing up so many periods of history, so many cultures, here it is really insane. You must be smoking some really strong weed.

There is no reason to believe that there was a teaching called "atiyoga" prior to the late 6th or 7th century. But there is every reason to accept that it was brought to Tibet by Vairocana in the late 8th.

Doctrines like "the body of light" occur rather late in the textual history of Dzogchen. If they do have Persian Influence at all, it could only be from Central Asian Manichaeans. The other possible influence is the mother tantras, specifically the śrī-vajraḍāka-nāma-mahātantrarāja.

invisiblediamond said:
Dzogchen may very we'll be the same thing for this Persian influenced group. Based on this I'm pretty doubtful about these yanas.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you smoking some Bonpo crack. Did you hang out with Geshe Chagphur recently or something?

I respect Bon, but their Dzogchen is entirely Buddhist in origin.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
I need to see the evidence. .

Malcolm wrote:
Paul, with all due respect, this is a preposterous thing to for you to say. You engage in wild speculation and then claim to need to see evidence?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Just out of curiosity, does 'Oddiyana', the place name, have anything to do with the 'Uddiyana' of yoga's Uddiyana Bandha?


Malcolm wrote:
Possibly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It would be difficult to pigeon-hole Swat as "culturally Indian." Then, as now, it had its distinct idiosyncrasies that made it seem a little far North of Indian.

Malcolm wrote:
Woo-Chang, or Udyana. Monasteries, and Their Ways. Traces of Buddha.

After crossing the river, (the travellers) immediately came to the kingdom of Woo-chang, which is indeed (a part) of North India. The people all use the language of Central India, “Central India” being what we should call the “Middle Kingdom.” The food and clothes of the common people are the same as in that Central Kingdom. The Law of Buddha is very (flourishing in Woo-chang). They call the places where the monks stay (for a time) or reside permanently Sangharamas; and of these there are in all 500, the monks being all students of the hinayana. When stranger bhikshus arrive at one of them, their wants are supplied for three days, after which they are told to find a resting-place for themselves.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fa-hien/f15l//contents.html

invisiblediamond said:
If there is a strong influence of Z in DC...

Malcolm wrote:
No respectable, competent scholar thinks Zoroastrianism has a "strong" influence on Dzogchen. Dzogchen is Buddhadharma. Its origins are strictly from the Indo-Buddhist cultural sphere.

In the medium history of the Vajra Bridge (klong sde), it describes nine regions (glings) in "rGya gar" (pre-partition subcontinental India including Indo-China) eight of which are sited from the center, which is of course Vajrasana:  Bangla in the east, Bhaitala in the south; Orgyen in the west; Kashmir in the north; Khams bu gLing (Kampuchea) in the south east; Zangs gling (the copper country, Visnagar in Gujarat?) in the south west. Zahor in the northwest; Kamarupa in the northeast — with Vajrasana in the center of all of these.

This text further asserts that rGya gar is the source of Dzogchen; in particular, Northwestern Orgyen.

The earliest accounts we have of Garab Dorje, in the Wheel that Ascertains the Yānas (found in the Bairo rgyud 'bum, vol. nga) records that he was born to a princess from Northwestern region of Orgyen who was a Buddhist nun.

The earliest accounts state that Mañjuśrimitra was from Shri Lanka, but studied at Nalanda (founded in the 5th century AD, and all accounts describe Mañjuśrimitra as being a scholar here). Manjushrimitra meets Garab Dorje in a place within Orgyen called Danakosha, which is held to be on the shores of the great outer ocean, which can only be the Arabian Sea, somewhere on the coast of modern Pakistan.

Shri Simha was an Indian. Despite later Nyinthig accounts that he came from "rgya nag" and the attempt of some modern authors to site him as being from Khotan, the earliest accounts we have about this master indicate that he was an Indian.

We have no real reason to doubt the historicity of these three masters, especially Shri Simha, whom Vairocana met.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It would be difficult to pigeon-hole Swat as "culturally Indian." Then, as now, it had its distinct idiosyncrasies that made it seem a little far North of Indian.

Malcolm wrote:
Woo-Chang, or Udyana. Monasteries, and Their Ways. Traces of Buddha.

After crossing the river, (the travellers) immediately came to the kingdom of Woo-chang, which is indeed (a part) of North India. The people all use the language of Central India, “Central India” being what we should call the “Middle Kingdom.” The food and clothes of the common people are the same as in that Central Kingdom. The Law of Buddha is very (flourishing in Woo-chang). They call the places where the monks stay (for a time) or reside permanently Sangharamas; and of these there are in all 500, the monks being all students of the hinayana. When stranger bhikshus arrive at one of them, their wants are supplied for three days, after which they are told to find a resting-place for themselves.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/f/fa-hien/f15l//contents.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
In the link I posted, the College is telling the meat industry to stop lying to people. You are implying that the meat industry is sponsoring people who tell that same meat industry to stop being liars? That is unheard of! The meat industry would never admit to being liars. But of course, this exchange is going nowhere. So you can dismiss my statements, and I can just as easily dismiss your statements and we can just be friends? That would be nice!



Malcolm wrote:
The meat industry as a whole is opposed to the grassfed meat producers.

It is a fact that cows should not eat corn. The article you posted asserts the opposite, i.e. that cows should be fed corn in order to increase marbling of meat. This is a standard meat industry position.

The health issue for humans is antibiotics used by the standard meat industry and so on. There are many other issues as well.

As yes, we never were not friends.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
pemachophel said:
Breech of copyright is most definitely "taking what is not given freely."

dzogchungpa said:
The oracle has spoken!

However, not everyone agrees with you: In this paper, I examine the modern concepts of intellectual property and account for their significance in monastic law and culture of early Buddhism. As a result, I have come to the following conclusions: (1) the infringement of copyrights, patents, and trademarks does not amount to theft as far as Theravādin Vinaya is concerned ...
See: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/2012/10/04/intellectual-property-in-early-buddhism/


Malcolm wrote:
Apparently the author does not believe his own paper:
Copyright Notice: Digital copies of this work may be made and distributed provided no change is made and no alteration is made to the content. Re-production in any other format, with the exception of a single copy for pri-vate study, requires the written permission of the author.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
Christ! I didn't tell you anything.... All I said was In order for your statement to have weight, you need to prove that it's true. Simply linking to the college website does not provide that proof...

Malcolm wrote:
Smoke --> fire.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Oh Christ — Michael Pollan's point of view is that one's diet should be primarily plant based.

On the other hand, he also supports locally sourced, grass-fed operations of the kind run by Joel Salatin.

seeker242 said:
I'm aware of both of those things, but that still does not change the fact that just dismissing it as "industry sponsored science"

Malcolm wrote:
Just look here:

http://animalscience.psu.edu/extension/meat

This is the department and program where Dr. John Comerford works. Still want to tell me this not industry sponsored science?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
"The reality is there is no evidence whatsoever that grass-fed beef has any advantage for safety, human health, or impact on the environment than grain-fed beef."
This is just industry sponsored "science". You should read Michael Pollen and so on.

seeker242 said:
"Michael Pollen is just grass fed industry marketing manifesting itself."

Now you see, that statement doesn't carry much weight without any actual evidence to back it up. The problem is, with that statement, I have provided just as much evidence as you have. That is really not good enough for an actual debate. You should read Richard Oppenlander, and others, where they debunk the myths perpetuated by Michael Pollan. Just dismissing it as "industry sponsored science" and leaving it at that, is very convenient way to not even address the arguments being made.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh Christ — Michael Pollan's point of view is that one's diet should be primarily plant based.

On the other hand, he also supports locally sourced, grass-fed operations of the kind run by Joel Salatin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:


invisiblediamond said:
If I'm right then we might have to rework that theory. Even Kashmiri, some speak dialects which are more similar to Persian. Like Burushaski.

Malcolm wrote:
It is well established that Odḍḍiyāna was well within the Indo-cultural sphere. We have many reports of Chinese pilgrims going through it and so on.

As far as Burushaki goes:

Although Burushaski has been compared to almost any language on earth, no fully convincing relationships have yet been established.

http://dickgrune.com/NatLang/Summaries/Burushaski.pdf

While this document claims that no written Burushaki language exists, it is claimed that Nubchen translated the Anuyoga tantras from this language, and in fact Burushaki words do exist in the Anuyoga tantras.

But there is no relationship here with Persian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
Do you think that the current demand of meat can be met strictly by using only pasture raised, strictly grass fed beef and dairy? Apparently 6% of beef is grass fed right now. In order to meet the current demand, you would have to increase grass fed production by more than 15 times the current level. What would be the effects of that?

Malcolm wrote:
Massive grassland restoration, for one thing, properly done.

You should look into the farming methods of Joel Salatin.


seeker242 said:
"The reality is there is no evidence whatsoever that grass-fed beef has any advantage for safety, human health, or impact on the environment than grain-fed beef."

Malcolm wrote:
This is just industry sponsored "science". You should read Michael Pollen and so on.



seeker242 said:
Personally, I don't think it's all that simple. Especially when you take into account the grass fed information above, the health effects of high meat consumption on one's body and the ethical ramifications of an industry whose sole intention it is to kill sentient beings. The whole entire meat industry, grass fed or not, has one sole intention, to kill sentient beings and sell their body parts. The whole entire industry is ethically tainted by a slaughterhouse.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not everyone shares the notion that killing animals, birds, and fish for food is morally wrong. Since they don't and are not likely too (ever), it is probably better for everyone to move people away from truly destructive practices presently found in the food production system.


seeker242 said:
That is how it's currently done but it doesn't need to be done that way IMO. The waste treatment plants in the USA that are currently and successfully using treated human waste for good fertilizer, I think is evidence that it can be done another way.

Malcolm wrote:
Because of all the crap we humans put in our bodies, I would be very skeptical of this at the present time. If human waste can be properly filtered and purified, then no problem.

Bottom line -- as long as animals are going to be killed for food (and they will, forever), it is better to move the industry to healthier standards for ourselves and the environments. You may not believe that organically raised beef, chicken and pork is better for people and the environment, but it is. It is a very simple reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
michaelb said:
Garab Dorje,on the other hand, was Persian.

Malcolm wrote:
Garab Dorje was from Oḍḍiyāna.

invisiblediamond said:
That far North, the people were all Aryan sharing culture up to the Pamirs.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, Oḍḍiyāna was fully within the Indian cultural sphere, not the Persian cultural sphere.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It's not syncronic it's aim is to describe Kshnoom, the esotericism of Z. I don't think the Greek and Manichean elements are in there.

Malcolm wrote:
Synchronic means that its ideas are not parsed out in terms of when they arose.

That text has a lot of strange writing which may very well be a modern Parsee mysticism, but I do not think it is very old.

invisiblediamond said:
Yes. But I have to assume the Parsees did what their site says they did, which is go to India to do one thing, preserve the true Z-ism. Including, not mix racially. I'll agree this isn't a smoking gun. But just the fact that stuff is in there is amazing.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is interesting.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
It's not syncronic it's aim is to describe Kshnoom, the esotericism of Z. I don't think the Greek and Manichean elements are in there.

Malcolm wrote:
Synchronic means that its ideas are not parsed out in terms of when they arose.

That text has a lot of strange writing which may very well be a modern Parsee mysticism, but I do not think it is very old.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
michaelb said:
Garab Dorje,on the other hand, was Persian.

Malcolm wrote:
Garab Dorje was from Oḍḍiyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Dzogchen was not originally Bon OR Buddhist...it represents the essence of both and precedes both.
Either are adequate to provide a portal to it.

invisiblediamond said:
That's because it was Zoroastrian.

Malcolm wrote:
No. I am certainly open the idea that Dzogchen teachings as well as Tantric teachings in India may have been influenced by Zoroastrian and Manichean concepts, but the link you provide seems to be a Pharsee document which is synchronic, i.e., it does not parse ancient Zoroastrianism from later Greek and Manichaean ideas. This is a more clear presentation:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elements


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Mouse Soldier said:
The copyright law doesn't have to go anywhere for it to become archaic.  They'll simply artificially create other industries in order for us to circumvent them.


Malcolm wrote:
Usually what happens is that when young people like you begin to develop a life, your attitudes change drastically depending on what you have at stake.

When your livelihood seems threatened by people who don't respect your rights, I am quite sure you will be the first one in court.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Qing Tian said:
Futerko wrote: Let's say that corporations claim ownership of the air. Are you still going to insist on legality, or will you challenge the validity of the law?
Really? I was talking about a product that has been created for the purpose of sale and you are talking about claiming ownership of something that is freely available to start with.

futerko said:
Tell that to the native populations of colonized lands.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, while I do not happen to agree with it, the notion of natural right of ownership is, in European law since Locke, superseded by the principle that the right to a resource belongs to that person who can best utilize it. John Winthrop writes in 1629, an attitude in whole derived from Locke:

That which lies common, and has never been replenished or subdued, is free to any that possess and improve it; for God hath given to the sons of men a double right to the earth — there is a natural right and a civil right. The first right was natural when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased. Then as men and their cattle increased, they appropriated certain parcels of ground by enclosing and peculiar cultivation, and this in time got them a civil right — such is the right which Ephron the Hittite had in the field of Mackpelah, wherein Abraham could not bury a dead corpse without leave, though for the out parts of the country he dwelt upon them and took the fruit of them at his pleasure. The like did Jacob, who fed his cattle as boldly in Hamor's land (for he is said to be Lord of the country) and in other places where he came, as the native inhabitants themselves. And in those times and places, that men accounted nothing their own but that which they had appropriated by their own industry, appears plainly by this — that Abimileck's servants in their own country, when they oft contended with Isaac's servants about wells which they had dug, yet never strove for the land wherein they were. So like between Jacob and Laban, he would not take a goat of Laban's without special contract, but he makes no bargain with them for the land where they fed, and it is very probable that, had the land not been as free for Jacob as for Laban, that covetous wretch would have made his advantage of it, and would have upbraided Jacob with it as he did with his cattle. As for the natives in New England, they enclose no land, neither have they any settled habitation, nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, and so have no other but a natural right to those countries. So if we leave them sufficient for their own use, we may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them and for us.

But we all know how this ended...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: "Do not befriend the foolish"
Content:
Lindama said:
what is the context of this... could it also be talking about our own foolish parts?  are we above it...  and, what about family.  Perhaps it is saying do not subscribe to foolishness in others.

old zen master talking to himself:
master, master... are you awake?
yes!  yes!
don't be fooled by others


Malcolm wrote:
It is from the Bodhicarya-avatara. It means do not be familiar with immature people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Western world and buddhist life
Content:
pensum said:
Q: To many laypeople in the dharma today, the purity and uncompromising nature of your views will seem like a luxury, even an indulgence.
A: Many people seem to be all but overwhelmed by their jobs and their lives. To support themselves and their families there seems to be no choice but to get up each day and go to work. There is a certain kind of circularity here. People want to engage with teachings that point out that craving and clinging are root causes of stress. Yet people don’t want to let go of patterns of being and consuming that fuel craving and clinging. We have to ask honestly whether the people you describe really want to be transformed or whether they are simply looking for ways to reduce their stress. What do they want?
From an interview with Mu Soeng http://www.tricycle.com/interview/dharma-sale

Malcolm wrote:
Reduce stress first.

Starve craving and clinging second.

You cannot let go of patterns of craving and clinging if you are stressed out.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs apply here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The can't claim ownership, they license bandwidth.

futerko said:
Of course, all you need to do is find a way to put a fence around it in order to claim distribution rights.

Malcolm wrote:
If you broadcast on someone else's bandwidth, you will be shutdown pretty fast.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Qing Tian said:
I realise that my position is unpopular, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to support piracy.

Mouse Soldier said:
I felt that my post, and the comparison to the invention of the printing press was somewhat apt.  File sharing is a simple fact of life these days because it's so easy and the copyright laws concerning intellectual property are quickly becoming archaic.  The printing press put many scribes out of work, but it brought with it wonderful new industries and opportunity for human development.  In this analogy the printing press is the internet, and the scribes are corporations wanting to hold onto the old methods of doing things because the modern applications of the internet put their business model in jeopardy.

The biggest difference is that unlike the scribes, these corporations have a lot of money and power that they use to hold back the world from change, in the forms of copyright law and DRM technologies.  Progress is inevitable, but they're certainly capable of gumming up the process some and continuing to profit from their arguably artificial means of remaining relevant.  For now.

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing one tiny little fact in your analysis. Copyright laws are not going anywhere, since they are based on extremely ancient and deeply embedded principles of property rights that can be traced directly back to Roman Law:

...Roman law regulated the legal protection of property and the equality of legal subjects and their wills, and because it prescribed the possibility that the legal subjects could dispose their property through testament.

In US law, specifically copyright law is intended to ensure:

"...the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, US Constitution.

Anything I write, be it code, music, etc., is protected by this law. This is why in the US, at any rate, it is quite illegal to download software that has been broken, DRM encryptions and so on. It is theft under US Law. Of course, if an author/artist wishes to relinquish this right, they may do so, hence Copyleft, and other alternate intellectual property schemes have been introduced.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We are talking about whether or not it is theft/receiving stolen goods to download a pirated copy of say Logic Pro.

dzogchungpa said:
I am not saying it is right to download a pirated copy of Logic Pro. However, in all seriousness, I'm not sure it is either theft or receiving stolen goods. It might be illegal, but I don't think it is an example of either of those, legally speaking, and I don't think it's an example of either of those in the ordinary sense of those words either. Buddhists can condemn that kind of thing, but I don't think there's any point in misusing language in our eagerness to do so.


Johnny Dangerous said:
The right thing to do is download Audacity instead heh, and circumvent the whole ethical issue, as well as supporting people who want to make recording software for free, instead of people who ask $200 for  abig box of cute bells and whistles;)

Malcolm wrote:
Audacity  does not have all the bells and whistles. Its great for what it does. But Logic Pro infinitely more useful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Qing Tian said:
Futerko, I felt that the claim was implicit.

As for... I personally find your relationship to rule-governed behaviour quite rigid
That's a fair point, although it is also an assumption. If people diligently followed the 8FP then I guess the 'rules' would not be required... but they don't and so they are.
Discarding rules in a cavalier fashion without recourse to an acceptable ethical framework is likely to result in further suffering.

I realise that my position is unpopular, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to support piracy.
You going to provide one?

futerko said:
Let's say that corporations claim ownership of the air. Are you still going to insist on legality, or will you challenge the validity of the law?

Malcolm wrote:
The can't claim ownership, they license bandwidth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Sure, and also, important to the Kagyu Stew, he was a Kadampa Monk as well.......and then he met Milarepa.

smcj said:
And that Milarepa tried the Nyingma Dzogchen/sudden path too. It didn't work for him, so that's when he went to go find Marpa.

Malcolm wrote:
It would have, he just didn't understand the instructions and did not meditate. So Rongton sent him to Marpa.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: "Do not befriend the foolish"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
གསུངས་is both the imperative as well as the past. Tibetan does not have a "perfect past" It has only three conjugations of verbs, past/future; present/infinitive and imperative. Often the imperative is morphologically the same as the past tense.

So this line could the read both ways i.e. as a command or as past tense.

Generally, for bshes pa to be a verb, it usually requires the auxillary "byed pa". Here the auxiliary [bya/byed] is elided, but implied.

It could also be translated completely nominally: "Do not be a friend to immature [person] at all", etc.

Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"




kirtu said:
From Hacket, "A Tibetan Verb Lexicon": བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས། །དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་གསུངས།: All the Tathagatas have said "Do not befriend the foolish".

Why does Hacket insert "have" to change གསུངས། to the perfect past?   Is there actually a perfect past in Tibetan as opposed to just a past tense (perfect past being things that are actually completed and often a while ago)?

How does this get parsed out: བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས།:

བྱིས་པ: foolish beings
འགའ་ཡང: at all, whatsoever
བཤེས: friend
མིན: not
ཞེས།: particle indicating quote

"Do not become friends at all with foolish beings" - ? Is བཤེས actually a verb?  Otherwise what is the logic behind this construction?

Also how is བྱིས་པ pronounced? be pa (bay pa) ?

Thanks!

Kirt


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:


futerko said:
Well, going back a few years, the Sex Pistols weren't too impressed with EMI...

Malcolm wrote:
The Great Rock and Roll Swindle anyone?

http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/the-untold-story-behind-the-great-rock-n-roll-swindle/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
futerko said:
Debating the technicalities of whether this is theft, or receiving stolen property, or not, strikes me as rather misplaced.

On the one side - of course corporate property laws designed for maximum profit and establishing a monopoly are suspect and bordering on the exploitative.

On the other - the demand for a steady stream of high production entertainment is also unhealthy for the individual and plays right into the hands of those corporations.

Clearly it is preferable for those individuals to break the cycle of addiction, however it is also desirable to break the corporate stranglehold on artistic content.

Malcolm wrote:
Ahem....it is generally the artists themselves that want these protections....

In any case we are not really taking about Metallica.

We are talking about whether or not it is theft/receiving stolen goods to download a pirated copy of say Logic Pro.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
If you say it's a question of degree, OK,

Malcolm wrote:
It is a question of law.

dzogchungpa said:
If you mean that it is stealing or pirating because the law forbids it, maybe that makes sense in a certain way, but I am addressing the  "depriving of profits" = "stealing/pirating" argument, i.e the idea that if someone is "deprived" of profits than an act of stealing or piracy, according to the ordinary understanding of those terms, has taken place. If one accepts that idea, then honestly I believe one would have to admit that libraries are engaged in pirating books as well. For example, I have access through my local library to the link+ system: http://csul.iii.com/screens/members.html. I used to buy many books, both used and new, but when I started to use that system, I basically didn't need to anymore, and so I more or less stopped buying books. I doubt authors, publishers and bookstores benefited as a result. Does that mean someone stole or pirated something? It seems that some here would say yes, but I don't think so.

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out to you -- libraries pay a higher price for books in general than you do personally.

Also, one can loan and borrow books on Amazon [for a yearly surcharge which is part of Amazon Prime -- clearly some portion of this is being paid to the publishers].

Authors benefit because they their books are being read (they are paid a higher royalty for library sales), Libraries benefit because they can purchase more books. Bookstores do not benefit from libraries of course, but that is the market for you. Libraries and bookstores are in competition which is why B&N etc., permit you to browse and read books in their place, a deferred sales strategy, if you will.

All of this is off-topic however.

In any case: it is clear that downloading software that has been broken into by defeating its cryptographic protections is theft. Those protections are placed on software sold to companies and individuals. You or the company is issued a license to use that software. If you break the encryption or give away the key to your unique copy of that software to others, you are guilty of theft. If you download pirated software, you are not guilty of stealing exactly, you are guilty of receiving stolen goods, technically. But receipt of stolen goods is still "taking what has not been given".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
If you say it's a question of degree, OK,

Malcolm wrote:
It is a question of law.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are libraries pirating books?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is no. Publishers price books for libraries at a much higher price than for individuals exactly for this purpose. In fact, some publishers, like Brill, price their speciality books primarily for libraries, which is why they are so expensive.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, but let's say I give the library a book, having paid the regular price for it. Then the library would be pirating it by lending it out and thereby depriving the publisher of profits?

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. The publisher would only be deprived of profits if you took the book out of the library copied it, and gave it to your friends. This is why most large copy shops in the US will not copy books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
michaelb said:
Malcolm, I thought maize had been a staple in S.American diet for a very long time, but the widespread use of modified maize syrup was linked to global rise in obesity.

Malcolm wrote:
Domestic cattle, pigs and chicken were only introduced to the Americans in the 16th century by the Spanish. The primary domesticated meat animals of the Americas were dogs and turkeys until this time.

Maize is a crop developed by humans in Central Mexico some believe around 4600 years ago, though others assert it is as old as 10,000 -- it is not clear.

Maize is the only crop we grow that is entirely dependent on human intervention for its propagation. Maize never existed in the wild, unlike wheat, rye, oats, barely and so on. Plant geneticists are still not entirely certain exactly which plants were hybridized to crate Maize. The main plant that people think maize comes from is a wild grass called Teosinte.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Jainarayan said:
There are technological safeguards against photocopying and digital copying. If they are not employed by the publisher or distributor, that says to me they are well aware that the materials will be copied. One can go into a Barnes & Noble, get a Starbucks coffee, sit and read a book cover to cover, put it back on the shelf and leave. This is actually encouraged by B&N. B&N has paid for the book, and you are reading it using their facilities without paying for anything other than coffee and maybe a brownie. Is that stealing?  B&N doesn't think so. The author and publisher got their share. Now, to make money by selling the copied materials is preceptually wrong as well as illegal, imo.


Malcolm wrote:
Of course, Amazon has forced B&N into near bankruptcy. And libraries around the US are shuttering their doors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are libraries pirating books?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is no. Publishers price books for libraries at a much higher price than for individuals exactly for this purpose. In fact, some publishers, like Brill, price their speciality books primarily for libraries, which is why they are so expensive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
I am not making it out to be innocent.  It is clearly breaking the law.  What it is not doing is breaking the 2nd precept.

Malcolm wrote:
Vasubandhu established the judicial character of the second precept as follows:

To take a thing that does not have an owner is to take what is not given by the ruler of a country.

So, for Canadians, downloading music and tv shows is not a a violation of the second precept since it is permitted by their government, whereas for Americans it is, since this kind of activity is prohibited by my government.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
michaelb said:
Does anyone just feed livestock grass and hay? Do pigs and chickens eat grass? I thought, due to lack of space and the weather, even 'organic' cattle are kept inside for at least a few months a year and fed soya, bonemeal and stuff made from chicken feathers. Non-organic livestock are fed GM soya, of course as well as a bunch of other odd stuff (chickens are already cannibals, for example.)

Malcolm wrote:
Chicken meat and pork was traditionally was more expensive than beef because these animals require grain in general as part of their diet. Now they are less expensive than beef pound for pound in the US because corn is subsidized by the US Government.

Not only that, but in general, meat of all kinds was traditionally also a seasonal food. In northern climes, animals would not be slaughtered until the autumn. People did not eat steaks year round. It is only with the advent of refrigeration that the modern industrial economy of meat is even possible.

For most of the year, what meat was in people's diets was usually sausage and dried meats in general, added in some portions to meals. Arguably, people were healthier as a result.

From a dietary point of view meat and dairy combined is a very building diet. It is no mistake that individuals in meat/dairy eating societies are larger, heavier and stronger (as well as more aggressive) than those in societies who eat little or no meat.

In the organic "local" beef industry, there are two kinds of programs, grass finished and grain finished. Grain finished beef has more fat. However, maize is a relatively recent crop in human history, and cattle never evolved to properly digest it. It is very harmful for them. The reason so much antibiotic is used in grain-fed feedlot beef, as well as grain-fed dairy cattle, is that corn causes acidosis in cattle which in turn leaves them open to infection, and so on.

Also, there is however another problem (similar to the biofuel craze) -- the craze for grass fed beef has led to clearing rainforest in South America and elsewhere, which is why it is important for an environmentally conscientious omnivore to only eat locally sourced meat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 10th, 2013 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You can't even own physical things. The idea of owning physical things is also a metaphor. In fact, the criteria for stealing is based on another's sense of property, not our own.

Karma Dorje said:
If I observe your car parked in your driveway and create a replica of it, you are saying that I stole your car?  There is very obviously a difference between copying something and stealing it.  If I steal your car, I deprive you of its use.  If I copy your car, there are now more cars.

Malcolm wrote:
If I invent a car and patent it, then you copy it and then sell it, then you are stealing.

I understand that in Canada, downloading pirated material is not illegal. But it is in the US. Hence, in the US, downloading music and software online is illegal, whereas if I make a cd of music I own and give it to someone, it is not illegal. Such is the nature of the contradictory laws.

However, in general, since a piece of code is regarded as property, under US law, downloading pirated versions of Acrobat (where the software key has been compromised) is illegal. Giving away that key to others is also illegal, as you know.

DMR also is used for the same reason. You have to break the DMR to pirate Itunes music. Of course, if you buy the CD, copy it and give those copies to your friends, this is not illegal. If you upload that copy to the internet, however, you will definitely be busted eventually if you do it a lot, and are a US citizen.

But in general the second precept refers to taking what is not given. This also applies to a $50 bill lying on the ground. If you wish to be very diligent, it is better you do not pick it up. The same applies to digital media. As I said, there are certain Academic books that I will download from Scribd (some of which I have bought in the past for $$$) to further my research. But in general, I have a policy of not using that which I have not paid for, whether it is software, music, tv,  movies, etc.

In the end it is a question of individual conscience as well as local laws. If I were Canadian, I would probably not be so reticent about downloading music and so on, since it is not illegal in Canada to do so. I would not download pirated software however, because that has be digitally broken into in order to be distributed.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But even so, this text does not really offer a clear affirmation of primordial buddhahood.

Sherab Dorje said:
The Gampopa quote clearly does.  Pretty funny when you consider that Gampopa was (for the Karma Kagyu) the "founder" of the whole gradualist approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Gampopa taught what he thought was appropriate for his audience.

You must remember however that Gampopa was a Dzogchen practitioner from a young age, as he originally was a Nyingmapa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Indrajala said:
Copying and pasting data is not taking. It is copying. Sharing.

Mouse Soldier said:
It's not the data we may be "stealing", it's the money that would have been paid out had we purchased the data.

Karma Dorje said:
This makes no sense.  Who is in possession of "the money that would have been paid out"?  You can't steal something that someone might have in the future, only something they actually possess.  All of these problem ensue from regarding a metaphor as a actuality.  You can't own ideas, only physical things.  If someone steals a physical book, it's theft. If someone photocopies the book, it's a copyright infringement and this has certain legal significance.  Trying to intrude buddhist morality into what is simply a matter of contractual law is perverse and strange.

Malcolm wrote:
You can't even own physical things. The idea of owning physical things is also a metaphor. In fact, the criteria for stealing is based on another's sense of property, not our own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
“By eating meat we share the responsibility of climate change, the destruction of our forests, and the poisoning of our air and water. The simple act of becoming a vegetarian will make a difference in the health of our planet.”

Yes, we do have a choice.

Malcolm wrote:
I think that Thich Nhat Hahn is making a massive oversimplification.

seeker242 said:
I think the statement is massively simple but at the same time does accurately reflect and summarize the complex situation. Modern day animal agriculture is extremely destructive to the environment.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes that is true. However, it is not true that eating meat necessarily adds to that. That really depends upon the source of the meat that one eats.  Eating meat from  commercial feed lots is very destructive, as opposed to pasture raised, strictly grass fed beef and dairy which does not depend on grain which is not environmentally destructive at all.  If we wish to stem environmentally destructive meat, it is simple enough to change from industrially produced meat to locally produced meat. However, that also requires changing our plant consumption from industrial agriculture too. As i have pointed out many times, industrial level organic farming absolutely requires animal concentrates at levels possible only because of industrial levels of animal husbandry and slaughter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist ethics also recognize that one must obey the laws of whatever society one belongs to.

Indrajala said:
That's just a general idea really.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a very specific fact of buddhist ethics which as you know has commentarial support.

The sangha is capable of adjudicating only breaches of vows, but not crimes, or even  civil disputes.

Taking what is not given applies to anything someone else regards as their property, including intellectual property.

For this reason, while i certainly dont pretend to be a perfect upasaka,, i never diownload pirated music or software. I admit to downloading  brilll publications however, and other academic buddhist works that are priced for libraries in order to further my research. But i recognize that it is not a perfect thing to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: Does software pirating break the second precept?
Content:
Indrajala said:
Copyright laws are not covered in any pre-modern discussion of Buddhist ethics because they didn't exist.

The general understanding of theft requires that you successfully physically move something you recognize as belonging to another person without their consent.

To copy and paste data does not qualify as theft in that respect. In Buddhist ethics you cannot steal a song, because a song is not something you can deprive from another.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure  it does.

Buddhist ethics also recognize that one must obey the laws of whatever society one belongs to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Caz said:
Is this Rigpa the same as Clear light ? or is it a seperate entity ?

Malcolm wrote:
That “Mind of” [kyi sems] is the unmixed totally complete essence, the primal nature of the eight consciousnesses endowed with a luminous [‘od gsal] identity which inherently never wavers into any extreme at all, free from all extremes, naturally pure and unwavering in the three times. 
Now then, if it is asked “Is it not impossible for such a pure primal nature to appear to the mind of a person?”, it is possible, called “vidyā” [rig pa, the knowing aspect of the mind]. The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness manifests as self-originated wisdom, and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of an apprehending subject and apprehended objects) bring samsara to an end. The wisdom of one’s vidyā (without root or leaf) — naturally perfected as it all-encompassingly subsumes everything — is the true state [de kho na nyid].
-- The Sun That Illuminates the Meaning

You really ought to read that text by Tsongkhapa that I mentioned to TK fan. It is useless to quote texts to you from the Dzogchen tradition directly in some respects, but you cannot reject the writing of the founder of your own lineage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Caz said:
Malcolm

Well yes it is to the muddied minds of sentient beings it (samsara) is a very real object.

Malcolm wrote:
So you grant samsara is not real, is not established etc.?

Is that "muddle" in the minds of sentient beings real or not?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Caz said:
How can Buddhahood be Inherently accomplished when it is not manifest ? If it was Inherent as suggested then by nature it would be unchanging and hence never unmanifest yet sentient beings still experience Samsaric suffering and have to work hard to accomplish Enlightenment.

The potentiality is always present but how could Buddhahood be present in the mind of an ordinary being ?

asunthatneversets said:
Primordial wisdom [ye shes] is originally pure [ka dag] and naturally perfected [lhun grub], all that is required is recognition. From the standpoint of wisdom the whole charade of samsāra and nirvāna is illusory and unreal.

Caz said:
If its naturally perfected why is it unmanifest ? If it is Primordial and naturally perfected why is there Samsara in the first place ?

Malcolm wrote:
Is samsara there in the first place?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I would say that Mr. Esler has a slightly anachronistic read of Nubchen. None of the text available to Nubs, AFAIK, use terms like gzhi snang and so on. In this footnote, at any rate, he is reading the man ngag sde text doctrine into the bodhicitta texts. I would say this is erroneous.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, that's interesting. Is his statement about grol-gzhi and ’khrul-gzhi accurate then? If so, would it be possible to explain how the bodhicitta texts view of gzhi differ from what he says in his footnote?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the bodhicitta texts, no distinction is made between the kun gzhi and the gzhi i.e. the all-basis and the basis.

It is true, however that in the bodicitta texts, the all-basis is both the basis of liberation and delusion depending upon whether one has received instructions or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Footnote 10 reads in part as: As such, the ground is always alpha-pure (ka-dag); it is according to an individual’s recognition or non-recognition of the ground’s illumination (gzhi-snang) that it becomes, in the experience of a Buddha, the ground of liberation (grol-gzhi) and, in the experience of ordinary sentient beings, the ground of confusion.
Of course I don't know if the above is in line with Malcolm's thinking.

Malcolm wrote:
I would say that Mr. Esler has a slightly anachronistic read of Nubchen. None of the text available to Nubs, AFAIK, use terms like gzhi snang and so on. In this footnote, at any rate, he is reading the man ngag sde text doctrine into the bodhicitta texts. I would say this is erroneous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
“By eating meat we share the responsibility of climate change, the destruction of our forests, and the poisoning of our air and water. The simple act of becoming a vegetarian will make a difference in the health of our planet.”

Yes, we do have a choice.

Malcolm wrote:
I think that Thich Nhat Hahn is making a massive oversimplification.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Whatever turns you on dude!

How about this one?

"Meditation:
why look for freedom in a lie?

The net of illusion:
why hold it so tight?

Trust in the truth
of the precious guru's word;

Saraha says:
I've made my declaration."

or this one:

"No tantra, no mantra,
no reflection or recollection -

Hey fool!  All this
is the cause of error.

Mind is unstained -
don't taint it with meditation;

you're living in bliss:
don't torment yourself."
Saraha

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, Saraha is not deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Mhamudra is primodial too.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, parse it out for us then, Greg.

Maitripa states in the Mahāmudrākanakamālā:

In the same way, when not realized, samsara and nirvana are analyzed separately; when realized, samsara has always been the kāya of the great buddha.

But this is a little different.

Sherab Dorje said:
"1) To have a decisive understanding about the True Nature
Mahamudrahas no causes.
Mahamudra has no conditions.
Mahamudra has no methods.
Mahamudra has no path.
Mahamudra has no result."
Gampopa The Very Essence of Mind, Mahamudra, the One sufficient Path

"6. For thousands of aeons, the sun that shines every day
has never been clouded by darkness.
Likewise, the real nature of the mind's clear light of awareness
Has never been clouded by the cycle of samsara.
12.  Never leave Thatness, but don't stay in it either and don't try to represent it.
Simply vow never to leave it, and nothing will obscure the flames [of awakening].
Beyond the reactivity of the [ordinary] mind moving toward and moving away,
not trying to stay,not even trying to see it, then you will see everything there is to see!"
Tilopa Ganges Mahamudra

Malcolm wrote:
You should have cited this verse:

Practitioners of mantra, of the perfections, 
of discipline, and of the sutras and so on
do not see the luminosity of mahāmudrā,
with their own texts and theories,
luminosity is not seen, obscured with such wishful thinking.

And this:

Beyond all objects of perception, the nature of the mind is clarity,
without a path to traverse, the path of Buddhahood is entered,
if one cultivates without an object of meditation, one will attain unsurpassed awakening.

But even so, this text does not really offer a clear affirmation of primordial buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
I do have a bias towards not abusing and not mass killing of billions of living beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you need to understand that all agriculture will result in the same thing (i.e. the mass killing of billions of living beings).

Factually speaking, we have a choice -- we can, as we have for the past ten millenia, continue to rely on animal inputs for fertilizing agriculture (which has a corollary, we cannot support or sustain a large population of animals that are not producing inputs into that system, hence the need for slaughter); or we can continue to poison the planet by reliance on petrochemicals (which are increasingly more difficult and dangerous for our environment to extract).

The choice is yours. We either have a living biosystem where living beings (plants and animals) feed on other living beings (plants and animals), or we have a poisoned planet where everything dies apart from humans and those plants and animals we choose to preserve.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
Right now, undersating and seeying this evolution of concepts and ideas, give me a broader view of Mahayana buddhism, very different from Theravada, and that is, Mahayana is a living religion, evolving with new views and interpretations

kirtu said:
So is Theravada.   There used to be 16 or 17 or so Sravaka lineages and now there is only one.   And few people know the history of Theravada going back several centuries, for example.  But there are still many different Mahayana lineages.  We are seeing changes in Mahayana over centuries up to 2.5 millenia.  The changes that we are seeing in Theravada are not so obvious and are much more incremental because we are seeing them over a period of decades to 150 years (so the lifespans of 4-5 masters max).

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
There are three in fact: Theravada, Mulasarvastivada and Dharmaguptaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 9th, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of Pure Land
Content:
zamotcr said:
I have been studying the Lotus Sutra this days and I found the concept of Pure Land to be different from the general accepted view. It's like the Pure Land concept and theory (or comoslogy, perhaps) has evolved from it's inception.

Malcolm wrote:
Chances are, the archeological foundation for the concept of the "western paradise" was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasargadae as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gardens

See this interesting paper as well:

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp076_buddhism_paradise.pdf


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
I've got this really strong feeling that Dzogchen is a restatement of Zoroastrianism, transmuting the impure matter into light.?


Malcolm wrote:
I think you are confusing Zoroastrianism with Manichaeism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
What are you talking about Malcolm?  Your teacher is arecognised tulku from a family (lineage) of tulkus and nobility to boot.  His son (and likely heir) is a tulku that was enthroned and "given" a monastery (seat) too.  He even wore a funny hat and rode a pony to prove it.  Sure, neither of them hold monks vows but they are 100% part of the tulku deal.

Malcolm wrote:
It is true that both Norbu Rinpoche and his son are tulkus. But Dzogchen Community itself has no affiliation with any monastic seat. It does not invite teachers from any specified monastic lineage. It does not feed students to any monastic establishment.

While it may be the case that both ChNN and Yeshe Namkhai are nominally abbots (via reincarnation) of two Tibetan monasteries (In the case of the former a Drukpa Kagyu Monastery in Central Tibet; in the case of the latter, a Sakya monastery near Dege),very little fund raising is ever done to support them in the DC. They are supported by Tibetans, not westerners.

As I said, the DC is independent, and is not grounded in the Tibetan monastic establishment. While ChNN has thousands of "students" in Tibet, he has focused most of his attention teaching in the West. He has spent all of his adult life in the West (Happy Bday Rinpoche!!!!), moving to Rome when he was 23 or so (in 1961).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
Some people just don't seem to understand that it's about the animals...

Abuse like this is commonplace...It has been found... every...single...time...they have done undercover investigations. It's the rule, not the exception. Is this ethical? How can anyone willingly be involved with this?

Malcolm wrote:
Right. It is about the animals.

But why do you assume that everyone who consumes meat lacks awareness of the horrors of industrial animal husbandry?

Why do you assume it is impossible to make other economic choices about what kind of meat is to be consumed?

And why do you assume you have to only solution to their suffering, even so?

Actually, if one consumes meat it does not add to suffering; refraining from eating meat contributes nothing to the reduction of suffering,

You may think you are reducing suffering of animals by not consuming their flesh, but it isn't so. Thinking that it is so means you understood nothing about the nature of suffering.

If you don't want to eat meat, for whatever reason, that is fine. But you should understand that your choices are not objective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We have three kinds of proposed buddhahood in various schools:

gradual -- ala sutra and most Vajrayāna
sudden/non-gradual -- Mahāmudra/Chan
primordial -- Dzogchen.

Punya said:
Sorry to backtrack but why use the word primordial which in everyday english seems to have a time connotation? What is the tibetan word and is there an alternative translation?

dzogchungpa said:
I'm sure Malcolm will respond, but I think it is most likely 'gdod ma', or possibly 'thog ma'.

Malcolm wrote:
"ye nas"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
i dont know if the story of milarepa is true or not, but if you know its not, where does your sources come from in this matter?

Malcolm wrote:
One of the difficult things in studying pre-modern cultures is sorting out myth, legend and outright fabrication from history.

As it stands, the biography of Milarepa penned by Tsang Nyon Heruka is mostly religious fiction. If you want to know the details of the evolution of Milarepa's biography and its shifting set of details between the 12th century and the 16th, consult Peter Alan Robert's book, The Biographies of Rechungpa: The Evolution of a Tibetan Hagiography


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Pero said:
...this would be nothing other than new-age nonsense.

Indrajala said:
Not really. In most forms of Buddhism you can practice anything you read in scripture without permission or initiation of any sort. Vajrayāna is the exception.

Malcolm wrote:
And of course, the common misunderstanding of empowerments/initiations is that they are merely there to allow you to practice something. In fact empowerment is the primary method of liberation in Vajrayāna. It is only if you do not wake up from the empowerment itself that you are given a sadhana to practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Okay...while we're on this subject, I want to ask why Buddhists rely on Dzogchen when it was not taught by Buddha Shakyamuni or Buddha Vajradhara. I'm prepared to be corrected, but to my knowledge Buddha never taught about Rigpa or Dzogchen, or about primordial Buddhahood. There are the Buddhanature teachings in the Third turning of the Wheel of Dharma but these are not definitive, just interpretative. Can anyone explain the definitive source of the Dzogchen teachings and show that they are Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
For Gelugpas, Dzogchen was validated by Tsongkhapa in a text that appears in the first volume of the Zhol edition of Tsongkhapa's collected works called the zhu lan sman mchog bdud rtsi'i phreng ba (blo bzang grags pa'i dpal. "zhu lan sman mchog bdud rtsi'i phreng ba." In gsung 'bum/_tsong kha pa (zhol). TBRC W635. 1: 295 - 320. new delhi, india: mongolian lama guru deva, 1978-1979. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O2CZ7209%7CO2CZ72092CZ7221$W635 )

The English translation can be found in the LTWA publication, Life and Teachings of Tsongkhapa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Pero said:
IMO, the tulku system is not an actual part of my "religion". It is more like some kind of religous political system. I don't doubt there are some true tulkus but I personally couldn't care less who recognized who, it means absolutely nothing.

Indrajala said:
Yet much of your lineage leadership is presumably decided by men who were given the tulku title at birth, as decided by a group of people you have few connections with. Many exclusive resources are put into tulkus which, perhaps, part of your contributions go to.

But then I guess if you don't pay into the system, it isn't an issue. Also, it won't matter if your tradition in your home country is politically and financially autonomous.

Malcolm wrote:
Pero and i do not belong to a school grounded in the traditional tibetan monastic system. So it is not really an issue for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Title: Re: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Indrajala said:
As non-Tibetan Tibetan Buddhists, do you ever feel the tulku system ethnically excludes you? I know there are western tulkus, but not really so many (several of them don't have good track records to date too).

At best you can really just watch from the sidelines as the top Tibetan clerics make their judgements and write letters announcing a new tulku has been found. The whole administrative process and top brass are dominated by a small echelon of Tibetan men. As patrons and practitioners, doesn't it ever feel like you're being excluded from your own religion which you are supposed to be part and parcel of?

I don't ask that to be provocative. I'm actually interested in knowing what people think. You pay for and practice religious traditions which don't really embrace you or your kind into the administrative fold (at least not yet, but it doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon).

Malcolm wrote:
No more exclusive than the catholic church...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Title: Is the tulku system too exclusive?
Content:
Pero said:
IMO, the tulku system is not an actual part of my "religion". It is more like some kind of religous political system. I don't doubt there are some true tulkus but I personally couldn't care less who recognized who, it means absolutely nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
Seconded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
but if one rejects meditation in atiyoga, how will it not become endowed with accepting and rejecting?
Does this mean that if a dzogchen practitioner decides on the basis of the preceding part of the quotation that there is no meditation to be done, he or she will stray into accepting and rejecting?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
When a student meets a sudden buddhahood teacher, and is introduced, it is different than when a student means a primordial buddhahood teacher and is introduced, because...


Malcolm wrote:
Because the former still thinks there is something missing.

Sherab said:
There is something missing.  That something is realization.  Other than that, nothing else is missing.

Malcolm wrote:
What is missing is the following confidence:

The realization of the truth is that since there is nothing to realize, there is no meditation — one should have confidence that there is nothing to mediate upon. If there is something to realize, for what reason do an object to realize and a realizer not occur? 
All the teachings of meditation taught in the intimate instructions merely demonstrate meditating on one’s vidyā without one moving because there is no inside and outside, but if one rejects meditation in atiyoga, how will it not become endowed with accepting and rejecting?
-- The Sun of the Heart


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Simon E. said:
Or in extreme cases posting material that suggests that meat eaters are hell bound.
I think seeker242's " yes ! " in the context of that thread shows clearly that he thinks that the text in question indicates that HHDL is going to hell because he is a meat eater. T

Malcolm wrote:
Well, when your path requires three incalculable eons, you have to be a bit more careful, Simon.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics at a national level
Content:


kirtu said:
Legal redress in the US is severely limited.

Malcolm wrote:
That is an over-generalization.

In Yankeedom and the Left Coast, things are easier.

You live on the border of the Deep South. Your perspective about the US is heavily colored by the fact that you on the edge the cultural sphere of one of the most brutal, aggressive and repressive societies every known, founded at Charleston by slavers from Barbados.

You should read American Nations (Woodard, 2011) -- it provides the answer for why I generally disagree with your characterizations of the "US". You live in a "US" I never have. I live in a "US" that you don't.

(Ironically, on another note, Obamacare was indirectly hatched by the Heritage Foundation...which is why it is such a cluster...)


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics at a national level
Content:
Indrajala said:
Pornography, prostitution and so on...

Malcolm wrote:
Sex work is only a vice under patriarchy.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
When a student meets a sudden buddhahood teacher, and is introduced, it is different than when a student means a primordial buddhahood teacher and is introduced, because...

Malcolm wrote:
Because the former still thinks there is something missing.

Luke said:
Then what is the difference between a Dzogchen master and an ordinary person who is completely content with ordinary life, who could care less about religion, and who doesn't feel that "there is something missing" either?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing. Buddhas and sentient beings are nondual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
That's quite a smoke screen but it seems to me to be a long winded way of just saying "No!".

Malcolm wrote:
Nondual great bliss is the conduct of all sentient beings,
demonstrated as a mistaken path by the deluded.

-- Innermost Great Potentiality

Enjoy your buddhahood while you still can, Greg.


M

Sherab Dorje said:
Fat chance, I'm too busy enjoying my ignorance!
"Existence isNirvana -
indeed, they can't be
considered apart;

they lack a single nature -
to me they are
completely stainless."
Saraha


Malcolm wrote:
Saraha was not deluded, indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Mhamudra is primodial too.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, parse it out for us then, Greg.

Maitripa states in the Mahāmudrākanakamālā:

In the same way, when not realized, samsara and nirvana are analyzed separately; when realized, samsara has always been the kāya of the great buddha.

But this is a little different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
So are we primordial samyaksambuddhas then? The Four Visions are not traversed in time?

Malcolm wrote:
All qualities of buddhahood are complete in all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
When a student meets a sudden buddhahood teacher, and is introduced, it is different than when a student means a primordial buddhahood teacher and is introduced, because...


Malcolm wrote:
Because the former still thinks there is something missing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, it is not correct to term Dzogchen "nongradual".

dzogchungpa said:
It is beyond cause and effect though, right?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is why the term "nongradual" is not very accurate when used to described Dzogchen. We have three kinds of proposed buddhahood in various schools:

gradual -- ala sutra and most Vajrayāna
sudden/non-gradual -- Mahāmudra/Chan
primordial -- Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
smcj said:
Start doing them before the retreat. On a physical level it is like getting into shape for any physical exercise. You do NOT want to just start doing hundreds a day! You will be so sore you'll have to stop, and your other meditations will suffer as well. Get into shape before the retreat!

The important thing about prostration boards (if your teacher will allow them) is that your feet are 3"-4" below where your knees hit. That makes pushing up MUCH easier, which saves your stomach muscles. Also get a soft pad and tape it down where your knees hit. A couple pieces of spare carpet will do for hand sliders. I use a swimmers lap counter instead of a hand male to count. It fits on your finger and isn't sliding around, which can be annoying.

Good luck!

Malcolm wrote:
There are the three main injuries that turn prostrations into a harmful and injurious activity as opposed to what they are supposed to be: a yoga for loosening the main channels of the body. These are: Injuries to the cervical spine, the lumbar spine, and the knees.

To prevent injuries to the neck, lower your head as you bend down.

To prevent injuries to the small of your back as well as your knees, you should never allow your knees to "hit", nor should you slide out from a kneeling position. You should slide out to the up position of a pushup, and then lower your body in such a way that you do not "hit" your knees (which causes many practitioners to have lifelong knee injuries) nor strain the small of your back.

When you rise, keep your head down while you slide back onto your knees, and then when you stand, keep your head down until you are full standing, rolling up from the base of the spine.

Despite the masochism with which many people approach prostrations, prostrations, and indeed no spiritual activity, should be a cause for harming the body, especially if you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, since knowingly harming the body is violation of root samayas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
oushi said:
Both gradual and nongradual implies a doer.
Since doer is an illusion, he never existed as something fixed.
Realization still implies a person. Liberation is always free from fixation.
Thus, one can realize gradually or nongradually that liberation was always present.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, it is not correct to term Dzogchen "nongradual".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Anyway, as it has been said countless times this concept of non-gradual seems to completely disregard the previous infinte lives one has lived to arrive at liberationt "here and now".

Malcolm wrote:
It is irrelevant:

There is no place for birth and transmigration
in the experiential field of Samantabhadra. 
Since the twelve limbs of cause and condition 
are an explanation for the critical and the analytical,
in this way, the wise should understand this
as a mere doorway for the deluded.

-- Soaring Great Garuda


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
That's quite a smoke screen but it seems to me to be a long winded way of just saying "No!".

Malcolm wrote:
Nondual great bliss is the conduct of all sentient beings,
demonstrated as a mistaken path by the deluded.

-- Innermost Great Potentiality

Enjoy your buddhahood while you still can, Greg.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab said:
If the quotation is to true, then it is wrong to say that there is a buddhahood that is already present and always has been.

Malcolm wrote:
"[T]o identify a prong of gold, having immersed gold in a pan of water and then boiled it, if it becomes black it is not gold. If it is gold, then it will remain gold. In the same way, the mind of sentient beings has always been dharmatā. That being so, since it is demonstrated as the view, buddhahood is inherently accomplished since it has always been accomplished."

-- The Wheel of Ascertaining the View


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Good stretches for postration.
Content:
Tsultrim T. said:
Along the same line as the other posters, I think starting slowly is better than stretching.  Take it easy and gradually build up how many you are doing per session and per day over time.  A platform can be helpful but a wooden or other smooth floor will work just fine.  Also having something for the hands to make it easier to slide is helpful.  You can make it as easy or hard on yourself as you want, just remember it is supposed to be challenging and break down mental conceptions about body, pain, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Sun salutations is the healthiest way to do your prostrations [ but that's "Hindu"...]

However, doing 108 in a row is probably a bad idea. It is better to focus on quality, not on quantity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 8th, 2013 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Yangsi Penor Rinpoche found!
Content:
yegyal said:
So a couple interestings side notes to this:
1. This is the first time ever that Chatral Rinpoche has been involved with the recognition of a tulku.

Glyn said:
That is debatable. Some would say that he has informally been involved before, although he has also been critical of the tradition.

For the record, he has also recently written a letter regarding one of a set of twins. I thought this was related to the Penor Yangsi, but it's obviously not the case.

Tsultrim T. said:
He was also quite involved in the Dudjom Yangsi recognition process, making it clear that the Tibetan yangsi, Dudjom Tulku Sangye Pema Zhepa, was the true tulku. Although over time it seems everyone's stance has softened on that.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence the flaw of partisan politics and biases in the Tulku system (Dudjom Yangsi, Karmapa, I am sure we can think of other instances).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I didn't ask what the commentary says, I can see what it says, I asked: are YOU currently enlightened?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no buddhahood apart from rigpa. So when I am I am, and when I am not, I am not. In other words, everyone can have that experience of awakening, even if they are an "ordinary person", like me, and presumably you.

In any event, that is not really the point. The point is that awakening is fundamental feature of sentient beings. Whether or not they can access that state depends solely on whether they have access to a proper guru, introduction and confidence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
The quote does not answer sherab's question. I personally would "dumb down" the question and simply ask: are you currently enlightened?

Malcolm wrote:
It precisely answers his question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
LastLegend said:
Nongradual. What does that mean?

Malcolm wrote:
The title is not really quite right, it should be "Dzogchen: Primordial Buddhahood?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Teachers are there to point out a buddhahood that is already present and always has been,

Sherab said:
Is buddhahood = enlighten state?  If yes, does this mean that an enlightenment state can be obscured?  If so, when one becomes a buddha, what is there to prevent one's enlighten state from being obscured again?  If it cannot be obscured, why is it that our original enlighten state can be obscured?


Malcolm wrote:
The erroneous path of the mind that places hope for a result from any virtue, perfections, samaya, practice of accomplishment and so on are said to be deviations from the great vehicle without effort. Now then, if one proposes a cause of realization, because the absence of any activity and the absence of thought are a conducive cause, vidyā is held to arise from within. Since there are many thoughts due to activities, this is not a cause [of realization], again there is obscuration because of many perceptions.

-- The Commentary of the Inner Great Potentiality of The Great Perfection

While we can respect the notion of buddhahood from gathering two accumulations, Dzogchen practitioners do not believe it. Nevertheless, we also do dedications and so on, but from a different POV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Definition of Yangsi vs. Tulku
Content:
smcj said:
I thought the word 'tulku' was the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit word 'nirmanakaya'. No?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed it is, but it really cannot be taken literally when applied to to your average Tibetan reincarnated lama (not that HH Penor Rinpoche was "average" in any way")


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Nelson Mandela has died.
Content:
padma norbu said:
What good all-purpose prayers are there for the recently deceased? I know a Red Tara prayer, not sure if that's the best or maybe it doesn't matter.


Glyn said:
The Aspiration of Sukhavati, or Dewachen Monlam (de mon), from the Terton Mingyur Dorje is very common. There is a long one which takes about half an hour to chant and a much shorter one.

OM AMI DEWA HRIH


Malcolm wrote:
The long one is actually by Karma Chagmed, the short one is Namcho Migyur Dorje's personal vision of Sukhavati.

However in this case, since it is not clear that Nelson Mandela has any relationship with Dharma at all, it is better to do Shitro for him, and even better, a chang chog rite would be best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Nongradual Buddhahood?
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
So when student meets master, there will be no further passage of time between that and buddhahood?

Malcolm wrote:
You should start another thread.
Teachers are there to point out a buddhahood that is already present and always has been, as it states in the Inner Great Potentiality of Bodhicitta [ byang chub kyi sems rtsal chen sprugs pa ]:

Buddhas and sentient beings are nondual,
how could there be fabrication with a path?

However, a proper guru is indispensible, from the same text:

Without an authentic master, like the scripture of a monkey, 
the basis and path will be erroneous, indeed one will be seized by conceptuality.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
So when student meets master, there will be no further passage of time between that and buddhahood?

Malcolm wrote:
You should start another thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Malcolm I am not sure how many people take the Hvashang stories literally these days. Even several Geshes I have spoken to are inclined to believe much of the stuff is polemical.

That being said, I still thing the gradual approach has many benefits for those suited to it. The great majority of Buddhist paths advocate such an approach, and it is outlined clearly in the Buddhist canon. I don't think Lord Buddha would have spent so much teaching the superfluous- so I think such an approach must be appropriate for a great number of beings.


Malcolm wrote:
As i said, my point for bringing up dzogchen is that it is an example of something being "secret", while in reality there is nothing truly offensive to be found in dzogchen tantras, unlike say, the laghusamvara. The main reason they are considered  "secret" is, as i said, they reject the idea that buddhahood is something gradual, attained by gradually developing merit and wisdom. Ironically, dzogchen is kept secret precisely because of the responses garnered here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
Alfredo said:
Dzogchen is not so radical that it casts any doubt upon the institution of the lama.

Malcolm wrote:
No,  it is after all a Vajrayāna system. If someone wants to practice Dzogchen, they must of course have teacher of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
I was addressing the notion of what is "secret", why it is "secret", and the disparity in notions of secrecy.
There is an odd perspective in Dharma called the "One Yana" perspective. Is is peculiar to Vajrayana practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
The notion of "Ekayāna" in fact derives from a number of sūtras, most notable, the Saddharmapundarika.

It is not a particularly Vajrayāna sentiment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
why all the (off topic) trumpet blowing?
I was addressing the notion of what is "secret", why it is "secret", and the disparity in notions of secrecy.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:


pueraeternus said:
I have the same notion: that the idea behind the "sudden enlightenment" traditions are a form of skillful means to get people to practice and step into the stream, whereupon it will be revealed to them that they still have a very long way to go, but it is okay since they have already glimpsed Nirvana and gained the patiences. So it is a reverse technique ala the Lotus Sutra, but applied to Mahayanists instead of Sravakayanists.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a sudden enlightenment school.

It is a "everything is already in a state of buddhahood and always has been so" school.

pueraeternus said:
Yes - that is the usual premise such schools rest on.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it's a little different than what you think. But it is off topic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The main "scary" thing about Dzogchen is that it teaches a path beyond cause and result. This is scary for all those people who are easily frightened by the Hashang boogyman, especially those who remain trenchantly committed to Kadampa gradualism.

Sherab Dorje said:
One could quite as easily argue that Dzogchen was devised in order to placate cowardly beings that are scared stiff by the thought that they may actually have to devote a few hundred thousand lifetimes (like the Buddha, for example) to slowly chipping away at the petrified crud that has encrusted their true nature.  That it is a ploy to get scaredy-cats to not break a cold sweat over the daunting nature of the task and at least get them started on the path to liberation.  I mean, since becoming a one eyed fan, has it not occured to you that Dzogchen is just another skilful means?  Anyway, if the whole deal is so "shit-hot" why all the (off topic) trumpet blowing?

pueraeternus said:
I have the same notion: that the idea behind the "sudden enlightenment" traditions are a form of skillful means to get people to practice and step into the stream, whereupon it will be revealed to them that they still have a very long way to go, but it is okay since they have already glimpsed Nirvana and gained the patiences. So it is a reverse technique ala the Lotus Sutra, but applied to Mahayanists instead of Sravakayanists.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a sudden enlightenment school.

It is a "everything is already in a state of buddhahood and always has been so" school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 7th, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
Glyn said:
How do you feel about the interactions of the internet and Dharma?

On one level it seems a great way to give access to teachings which would otherwise not be available to great numbers of people, but on the other hand it's also an enabler of a plethora of fakes, and semi-fakes, to promote themselves and for material which should be secret, becoming publically accessible.

Malcolm wrote:
The lack of internet in old Tibet did nothing to prevent the spawn of fakes and semi-fakes.

Not only that, but in old Tibet, nothing was really secret provided you had $$$.

There may be some things in the so called anuttara tantras which probably were meant to titillate the brahmin-born scholars in whose milieu such texts were generally revealed (things entirely unremarkable to a beggar living in the streets). But the Dzogchen tantras, for example are largely free of such elements, and yet are considered super secret, even though in general the doctrines promulgated in such texts are tame in comparison to the sorcery and "antinomian" elements of the Laghusamvara, for example.

The main "scary" thing about Dzogchen is that it teaches a path beyond cause and result. This is scary for all those people who are easily frightened by the Hashang boogyman, especially those who remain trenchantly committed to Kadampa gradualism.

The only valid reason for gradually apportioning practices to students in a gradual manner that I have found is to keep people from getting very conceptual about practices of which they have no experience. Frankly, there is very little that should be kept "secret", and some practices in Vajrayāna have to be acknowledged as socially inappropriate, harmful and sexist, products of a patriarchal era in which the role of women was subordinate to the religious fantasies of wealthy scholars.

Returning to my main point: the truth is that Vajrayāna has never really been that "secret" from the beginning. Indeed, its "secrecy" was its prime marketing device and remains so even to this day.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: recent Jogye controversy
Content:
zed said:
would those anti-gambling Buddhist groups refuse to accept a donation from me?

Serious question.

Malcolm wrote:
Serious answer. I won't refuse it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Yangsi Penor Rinpoche found!
Content:
Punya said:
So would it be correct to say that an emanation is indicative of a higher state than that of a reincarnation? And is a tulku an emanation and a yangsi a reincarnation?


Malcolm wrote:
Correct. But as Sakya Pandita put it:

Even a common geshe is praised as an actual Buddha,
what is pleasing to poets is displeasing to scholars.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Yangsi Penor Rinpoche found!
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
An emanation is fully conscious before conception, during gestation and through his or her birth.

Punya said:
I know this is off topic but how does this definition distinguish the difference between emanation and reincarnation.

Malcolm wrote:
A reincarnation is not fully conscious through the entire process of rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Yangsi Penor Rinpoche found!
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
He would be an emanation of Vimalamitra. As the legend has it, Vimalamitra returns to Tibet every one hundred years.

M

Punya said:
Malcolm, can you explain what emanation means please.

Malcolm wrote:
An emanation is fully conscious before conception, during gestation and through his or her birth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 6th, 2013 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Yangsi Penor Rinpoche found!
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
what's the difference between a yangsi and a tulku?

Malcolm wrote:
A yang srid [punarbhāva] is literally a reincarnation. A sprul sku is a nirmanakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 5th, 2013 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Yangsi Penor Rinpoche found!
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
reincarnation of Vimalamitra

Malcolm wrote:
He can't be a reincarnation of Vimalamitra since Vimalamitra, according to legend, attained 'pho ba chen po, and still lives at Wutai Shan.

He would be an emanation of Vimalamitra. As the legend has it, Vimalamitra returns to Tibet every one hundred years.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Advice for the young layperson
Content:
flowerbudh said:
I have set my heart completely on liberating myself and all others from suffering... can any of you link me articles on how others have done this or provide your own insight... so, essentially, being a layperson (esp. young) and how to handle it. Thanks guys! <3

Malcolm wrote:
No one has ever managed to do this [i.e. liberate all others from suffering], not even the Buddha. But you can try.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Tucker's research on reincarnation.
Content:


Indrajala said:
Now, the "variety of the world arises from the actions of living beings" is similar to saying "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection". Beings in Buddhist philosophy generate karma as a result of willed action in varying degrees and types, which is saying that their variety is a result of intelligent causes, not strictly natural selection and mutations.

Malcolm wrote:
Its not similar at all.

Intelligence is accounted for in natural selection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 1st, 2013 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Selling the dharma
Content:
dude said:
That's why we should present offerings without being asked or required to.

Malcolm wrote:
That works fine for sutrayāna teachings, but it is a nonstarter in Vajrayāna where empowerment fees and so on are stipulated in the tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 30th, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Native vs. Tibetan language
Content:


Nighthawk said:
As a PL Buddhist following a Japanese tradition, you're saying I should be chanting it Namo Amitabha Buddha instead of Namu Amida Butsu in order to achieve the full effect?

Malcolm wrote:
That's not a mantra. It's an homage, so saying "Homage to Buddha Amitabha" would also be as effective as either the Sanskrit or the Japanese, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 30th, 2013 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
smcj said:
The  āryapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states, for example:

"The bodhisattva mahāsattva who wishes to overwhelm the cittopāda of the pratyekabuddha (who rejoices in patience) trains in the perfection of wisdom".

The term "generation of bodhicitta" is a gloss for the term cittopāda, "generation of the intent". Intent for what? Intent for one of the three kinds of awakening, i.e., arhat, pratyekabuddha, or samyaksambuddha.

There are many examples like this in the literature of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra which extensively discusses the differences in the creation of the various "intents" to awaken.
Well yes, obviously arhats and pratyekabuddhas have 'intents to awaken'. The question at hand is if that is properly called 'bodhicitta'. Your supporting citation is hardly a slam-dunk, but that's ok. This isn't really an important subject so let's drop it.

You're a busy man and I have no wish to make you do additional work. I'd rather not irritate you on this. I will save that privilege for something else that I see as more important.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the term "generation of [bodhi]citta" is what is usually translated by western translators as "generation of bodhicitta". For example, the Rangjung Yeshe dictionary gives:

sems bskyed - forming the resolve; motivation/ aspiration/ to resolve oneself; 1.Bodhichitta, producing the Bodhichitta, [bodhicittotpada]; 2) producing a thought; cultivation of an enlightened attitude. arousing / generating bodhichitta, mental disposition [when not particularly referring to the development of awakening mind]; aspiration; arousing / generating bodhichitta, cultivation of an enlightened attitude [ry]


All three, arhats, pratyekabuddhas and buddhas arises from an intent to awaken [bodhicitta]. Much of Mahāyāna polemical discourse around this is to make sure that Bodhisattvas do not fall into the bodhicitta of an arhat or pratyekabuddha. All three attain bodhi, therefore, it is a misconception to say that those who aspire to arhatship and pratyekabuddhahood have no bodhicitta, but it must be recognized that these bodhicittas are considered inferior bodhicittas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Content:
dude said:
You're quite right about the two being so far apart, and I think this is a positive outcome.
I imagine it produced some meaningful dialogue as well with increased understanding for both parties.

mindyourmind said:
For me it was more a reminder of the positions that the two worldviews take, and the gulf of differences that remain, has to remain, in discussions like these.

dude said:
You're right, but it really bothers me because I believe in Buddhism.  They're wrong, and cause suffering to self and others.  Maybe I can't convince them in some cases, but it's really too bad.
What bothers me even more is Buddhists who refuse to believe in karma and rebirth.   That's downright scary.

Malcolm wrote:
It is better not to be so attached to views that it causes you to have an emotional reaction when you find out that there are those who hold different views.

Theism, a belief in god, has brought peace to millions of people's minds.

Second, you don't know that they are wrong, any more than atheists are not right in asserting there is no karma and rebirth. These are all abstractions, concepts. While I personally accept rebirth and karma, I am not going to insist it is true, other than to insist it is part of the Buddhas teachings and needs to respected as such. But there is no orthodoxy to defend in Dharma, because Dharma is based on personal experience and not on adherence to a set of views. There are many Buddhists who like the bulk of Buddha's ethical and meditative teachings, who nevertheless don't accept rebirth because they have no memories from their past lives and so on. People are better left in freedom to figure things out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
xabir said:
Because Mahāyāna sutras and tantras are filled with Indian myths and legends.
mt meru cosmology originated from pali suttas yes? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, also the Pali canon is filled with Indian myths and legends.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
smcj said:
I think Malcolm is incorrect about calling the aspiration to become an arhat as a 'grade of bodhicitta'.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, in Mahāyāna texts, bodhicitta is presented in exactly this way -- do you really want me to drag out the citations?

smcj said:
Yes please.

Malcolm wrote:
The  āryapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti states, for example:

"The bodhisattva mahāsattva who wishes to overwhelm the cittopāda of the pratyekabuddha (who rejoices in patience) trains in the perfection of wisdom".

The term "generation of bodhicitta" is a gloss for the term cittopāda, "generation of the intent". Intent for what? Intent for one of the three kinds of awakening, i.e., arhat, pratyekabuddha, or samyaksambuddha.

There are many examples like this in the literature of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra which extensively discusses the differences in the creation of the various "intents" to awaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
smcj said:
I think Malcolm is incorrect about calling the aspiration to become an arhat as a 'grade of bodhicitta'.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, in Mahāyāna texts, bodhicitta is presented in exactly this way -- do you really want me to drag out the citations?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Of course we need to decide whether these stories are true or not, but I would contend that Buddhism gives us tools for believing the fantastical. If everything is the mere creation of our mind, like in a dream, and nothing exists from its own side, then anything can appear in accordance with karma. The only thing that is impossible is inherent existence. A true scientific understanding of the mind according to Buddha's teachings make many hidden objects logically provable such as past and future lives, karma, the existence of god realms and hell realms and Pure Lands.

Malcolm wrote:
You realize this is merely medieval style casuistry?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Native vs. Tibetan language
Content:
Indrajala said:
...but not so much with Tibetan Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans, being among the last Asians to encounter the colonial west, still resist modernity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
jeeprs said:
So, as I said, what is a better translation for 'Bodhicitta' than 'Compassion'?

Malcolm wrote:
In the Mahāyāna context, "the intent to awaken".

Tenzin Dorje said:
"for the sake of all sentient beings" (on the basis of having realized perfect and complete enlightenment, the ripening of all positive qualities and the elimination of all non-virtues, as the way to actually help countless sentient beings ; this is why thinking - of it - is important)

Malcolm wrote:
NO, you cannot make that statement -- because while the term bodhicitta is only defined in Mahāyāna, there are different grades of bodhicitta, the intent to awaken as an arhat, and so on. It is only the intent to awaken as a buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings that we describe as the true Mahāyāna bodhicitta, but there are in fact different intents to awaken, not all of which spring from compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Native vs. Tibetan language
Content:
Indrajala said:
...then people can compose their own prayers and commentaries, or do their practices exclusively in English with it being completely valid and orthodox, rather than reciting in Tibetan and then in a dead tone saying the English.

In due time the English traditions would be settled and have less need to defer to Tibetan sources or even Tibetan teachers.

Jainarayan said:
Would this include translating mantras into the vernacular? Everything I've read says that mantras lose their effectiveness unless recited or chanted in the original language, or close to it. So, I don't mean sound shifts like om mani padme hum to om mani peme hung. That's a case of approximating the sounds between languages, not any kind of literal or word for word translation. The Mahakaruna Dharani and Usnisa Vijaya Dharani do translate into English, but do they have the same effect (I don't know if there is a fully translated into Tibetan version).

I'm not challenging, just curious.



Malcolm wrote:
Mantras are a special case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Native vs. Tibetan language
Content:


Indrajala said:
What if Tibetan Buddhism in the west transitions to a primarily English medium?

Malcolm wrote:
It's not a what if. Parroting syllables in a language one does not speak is unsustainable.

Indrajala said:
In due time the English traditions would be settled and have less need to defer to Tibetan sources or even Tibetan teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
English is the new international Dharma language.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
jeeprs said:
I think it is perfectly sound to translate bodhicitta as 'compassion'. It is often translated that way.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a) unsound and b) no one translates bodhicitta as compassion (karuna).

Why is it unsound? Every person who has bodhicitta has compassion, but not every person who has compassion also has bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
jeeprs said:
So, as I said, what is a better translation for 'Bodhicitta' than 'Compassion'?

Malcolm wrote:
In the Mahāyāna context, "the intent to awaken".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That's a novel approach. Where, in any work of these two masters, do they claim to have personally visited Meru?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Asanga travelled to Tushita Pure Land with Maitreya (not merely had meditational experiences of Tushita) so he would have seen it as it would be below this realm. In Nagajuna's biography it says that during the period of his second Turning of the Wheel he went to the Northern Continent of the four that surround Mount Meru and taught there for two hundred and fifty years, so he would have seen it too.
To use another example, are we to say that Tushita and Akanishta Pure Lands do not exist because they have never been the objects of human valid cognitions? (actually, while being generally true that humans cannot see Tushita Pure Land, Asanga saw it with his human conventionally valid eye consciousness).

No, this is false. Asanga had meditational experience of Tushita. He did not observe Tushita with his physical eyes
What's your source for this belief?  In the widely accepted biographies of Asanga he physically travelled to Tushita and spent fifty human years there, so of course he saw it.

Malcolm wrote:
If you like reading religious novels and accepting them as truth, go for it. As for the Asanga story, I am basing myself on Chinese sources that are much earlier than Tibetan sources.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
the five skandhas are also impermanent, as with the skillful means they ripen into the 5 primordial wisdoms.

philji said:
At a certain level this just seems yada yada yada.....why do Buddhists love to quote stuff  like this when asked to help someone......who does it help?

Malcolm wrote:
yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
The real nature is Buddha Wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is just a name, like suchness, emptiness, luminosity, the limit of reality, nirvana, etc., which are all synonyms.

Son of Buddha said:
Emptiness is a negation,meaning the lack thereof if Enlightenment was sheer emptiness it would be nhilism.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha taught only three gateways to liberation:

śunyatā
alakṣana
apranidana.

Emptiness, absence of characteristics and absence of aspiration.

He did not teach a fourth gate of liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
SittingSilent said:
What then is this "real nature" you speak of? And mind? I read a lot about mind in Pema Chodron's books.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness.

dude said:
no it isn't


Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is. You can all it "luminosity" if you want, but that is also empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 28th, 2013 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Native vs. Tibetan language
Content:


Jainarayan said:
...it's Tibetan custom to end practices with Om Ah Hung 3 times.

Malcolm wrote:
No it isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Native vs. Tibetan language
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Admittedly, one could logically extend that line of thought and argue that Sanskrit syllables should be used rather than Tibetan ones, but I feel the Tibetan syllables to have no more or less ritual efficacy, and to be no more or less authentic than the Sanskrit.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no one standard Sanskrit shape. For example, the syllables e vaṃ; most of the explanations of these two phonemes in the tantras involve their shape, shapes which they have in some Sanskrit syllabaries, but not all, and not in Tibetan.

For example, the scripts used for the Nyingma tantras in Sanskrit in the 8th century could not be read by Indian Panditas in the 11th century.

In the end the shape of the letter merely represents a sound...it is the sound that is important, not the shape of the phoneme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
SittingSilent said:
What then is this "real nature" you speak of? And mind? I read a lot about mind in Pema Chodron's books.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I guess it depends on how far you want to take it.
According to traditional Indian (Vedic) cosmology the moon landing could have never happened because the scriptures indicate it is the abode of Chandra and the distance calculations are incorrect. Zealously holding to this view did not win the Hare Krishnas many supporters. Below are the founder, Swami Prabhupada's, comments on the issue:

Malcolm wrote:
Incorrect according to a religious text, much in the same vein as the Buddhist texts which make similar cosmological claims.

Ancient Indian Astronomy texts at least are based on mathematical calculations and centuries of specialized observation and records.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I submit that no human being ever perceived Mt. Meru with a conventionally valid cognition. Mt.Meru is and always been a cosmological Indian myth about which there are various and conflicting traditions.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Asanga and Nagarjuna have both seen it.

Malcolm wrote:
That's a novel approach. Where, in any work of these two masters, do they claim to have personally visited Meru?

Tsongkhapafan said:
They were great realised beings, so I submit that they had conventionally valid cognitions.

Malcolm wrote:
But there is no evidence that they held forth the idea that they had personally visited Meru. So you are merely engaging in proliferation, rank conceptual fabrication.

Tsongkhapafan said:
To use another example, are we to say that Tushita and Akanishta Pure Lands do not exist because they have never been the objects of human valid cognitions? (actually, while being generally true that humans cannot see Tushita Pure Land, Asanga saw it with his human conventionally valid eye consciousness).

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is false. Asanga had meditational experience of Tushita. He did not observe Tushita with his physical eyes.

Tsongkhapafan said:
We cannot say that something doesn't exist just because we cannot perceive it.

Malcolm wrote:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that certain facts about the world never change (sun, moon and stars), while other facts (flat earth --> round earth) do? Basically, all this indicates to me is that we have become better at analyzing and investigating the world, not worse, and that such obsolete cosmologies as the one we are discussing come from a time prior to that ability -- i.e. these suppositions could not be tested.

Tsongkhapafan said:
If Mount Sumeru is mythological, why is it referred to in the Sutras and Tantras (for example, Heruka's palace is on top of Mount Meru)?

Malcolm wrote:
Because Mahāyāna sutras and tantras are filled with Indian myths and legends.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
if my mind can perceive the thoughts, past lives and so forth of others, how can I say that others' minds exist outside my own?  .

Malcolm wrote:
But your mind cannot. You do not have the five kinds of clairvoyance. So this argument is not valid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: Oldest Buddhist Shrine Uncovered In Nepal
Content:
sukhamanveti said:
Now it looks as though one of the older chronologies may have been vindicated.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so fast. It is well established that the Buddha was born to his mother on a trip to a remote location. It is well known that ancient Indians maintained sacred groves [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_groves_of_India ] from time immemorial.

Without datable evidence of specifically Buddhist artifacts, it is too soon to use this as supporting the more traditional dates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
SittingSilent said:
then what gives rise to the sense of me-ness?

Malcolm wrote:
Ignorance of your real nature.

The body is not your self.

Mind and mental factors are not your self.

You have no self external to the mind and body.

Your self is not the body and mind taken together.

However, one designates the body and mind as a self based on convention, and that is fine. There is no other "self" than the conventional one designated on the complex of aggregates.

It is true that some later Mahāyāna trends attempt to define suchness, or the real nature of phenomena as a "self" -- but these trends did not gain much currency in Indian Buddhism because the tortured rhetoric of "self" vs. "nonself" utilized by these trends merely serves to reinforce the concept that a self cannot be ascertained in one's five aggregates, separate from one's five aggregates or is all one's five agggregates together.

Conventionally, there is no problem using the term self. The problem arises when one imputes permanent identity, i.e. an ultimate self, onto the continuum we are now referring to as "SittingSilent", etc.

You might read Hume's refutation of the self. It's sometimes helpful for those trying to grasp what the Buddha meant by absence of self:
According to the standard interpretation of Hume on personal identity, he was a bundle theorist, who held that the self is nothing but a bundle of experiences ("perceptions") linked by the relations of causation and resemblance; or, more accurately, that the empirically warranted idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle. This view is forwarded by, for example, positivist interpreters, who saw Hume as suggesting that terms such as "self", "person", or "mind" referred to collections of "sense-contents".[58] A modern-day version of the bundle theory of the mind has been advanced by Derek Parfit in his Reasons and Persons (1986).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_self


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The non-existence of Mount Meru FOR US is easily proved by it not being either a hidden or manifest object, but our view is not inherently the only one. The world is subjectively existent. We don't see pus and blood or nectar when we observe liquid...

Malcolm wrote:
This presumes there is a common basis of karmically determined perceptions, i.e. for a single vessel of a liquid, there are six different perceptions.

Now then, the perception of a Mt. Meru and the non-perception of Mt. Meru must have a common basis of perception if we are to accept your analogy.

We are not talking about the conventionally valid cognitions of beings of the six realms, we are only talking about the conventionally valid cognitions of human beings.

I submit that no human being ever perceived Mt. Meru with a conventionally valid cognition. Mt.Meru is and always been a cosmological Indian myth about which there are various and conflicting traditions.

Ancient Indian astronomical works as the Suryasiddhanta clearly describe our world as being round and suspended in space like an iron ball between two magnets. Further:

"The Surya Siddhanta also estimates the diameters of the planets. The estimate for the diameter of Mercury is 3,008 miles, an error of less than 1% from the currently accepted diameter of 3,032 miles. It also estimates the diameter of Saturn as 73,882 miles, which again has an error of less than 1% from the currently accepted diameter of 74,580. Its estimate for the diameter of Mars is 3,772 miles, which has an error within 11% of the currently accepted diameter of 4,218 miles. It also estimated the diameter of Venus as 4,011 miles and Jupiter as 41,624 miles, which are roughly half the currently accepted values, 7,523 miles and 88,748 miles, respectively."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta

Indian astronomers, while generally subscribing to a geocentric cosmology, were more advanced in their thinking than the mythic superstitions of Buddhist abhidharmikas, for whom Mt. Meru is only viewable by siddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
Emptiness is a bit of misnomer when used to refer to sunyata.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is actually a very precise translation.

Arjan Dirkse said:
OK, the word " misnomer"  is a misnomer then...

Still, emptiness in the Buddhist sense is something else to me than what is normally conveyed by the meaning of the English word emptiness.


Malcolm wrote:
The term simply means when something lacks something, that lack is termed "emptiness".

For example, the cullasunnata sutta, the lack of a city in a village is the designated as the emptiness of the village.

In yogacara "emptiness" means the perfected nature, i.e., the absence of subject and object (the imagined nature) in the dependent nature.

In madhyamaka, the absence of the four extremes in relative phenomena is ultimate, i.e. the emptiness of the things.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Content:
futerko said:
Let me come back to this...
The logical consequence of dependent origination is that nothing originates

PadmaVonSamba said:
No, it means that no thing originates.
In other words, in dependent origination, there is no intrinsically, self-asising thing.

futerko said:
You seem to be suggesting that something originates which is somehow not a thing.

As Oushi wrote, "To talk about time, you need change." So where do you locate any event or any arising outside of any reference to the present?

Without needing to be enlightened, we still know that time appears as a succession of moments in which change appears to occur in those subsequent moments, so if we locate temporal infinity anywhere other than right here and now then we find ourselves in a dead end - positing an uncaused cause.

Malcolm wrote:
Time depends on objects, when objects cannot be ascertained, neither can time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 27th, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Struggling with the Concept of No/Non-Self/Emptiness
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
Emptiness is a bit of misnomer when used to refer to sunyata.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is actually a very precise translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
(having already defined parabhāva as a species of svabhāva) "Where is there a bhāva which is not included in svabhāva or parabhāva?"

cloudburst said:
This is all irelevant, as you know. This is Nagarjuna arguing against the existence of essences. No one is claiming that. Sophistry will not win the day here, although you may impress the credulous.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, Nāgārjuna is pointing out in no uncertain terms that all assertions of existence and non-existence are fraught with notion of essences automatically. It is one thing to accept that tables and chairs "exist" prior to analysis. It is quite another to assert their existence is valid predicated on deluded cognitions, i.e. a cognition of a non-veridical object, which is in essence what a conventional truth is.


The clause "therefore, since that is so...", only intends go affirm that sense organs and so on are products of the ripening of action, as previously stated, in conformity with worldly convention -- but it is not a statement of commitment on Candrakirit's part that worldly convention is truthful, which is why he remarks that one should not get involved with how it actually is.
Affriming that eyes are products is all I need. Since they are produced according to worldly convention, they must exist according to worldly convention.
Worldly convention is predicated on cognitions of non-veridical objects, i.e. it is dependent on false cognitions. What does it matter if eyes and so on are products if the very substrate upon which the acceptance of their status as products is in itself delusion?

Madhyamakas do not make propositions concerning existence. They accept whatever is in common discourse merely for the purpose of demonstrating (to those that care) that the terms of common discourse they are using are deluded and false. What is the root delusion? Assertions of existence which always involve notions of inherency. As much as Tsongkhapa wanted to sever the discussion of called "mere existence" or conventional existence from inherent or ultimate existence, in reality, one cannot hew the two apart.

Nagarjuna's point, very simple put, is that when there are essences, only then can there be existences. When there are no essences, then there can be no existences. Such existences that are spoken about are understood to be merely conventional (meaning imputed, meaning not real), predicated on the deluded cognition of ordinary persons. These are accepted provisionally by Madhyamaka, but not asserted by Madhyamaka.

The Gelug commitment to arguing essenceless existence is fruitless because there are is no such thing as an essenceless existence. This is why it is necessary to negate merely inherent existence, but rather one must negate all four extremes in both the relative and the ultimate -- only this is the profound emptiness taught in Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Content:
smcj said:
Whereas the Buddhists simply say that there is an infinite regression

futerko said:
No, they don't. The whole point of Buddhism is to avoid such an issue of infinite regress.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact,  Budddhists accept certain kinds of infinite regression as a logical consequence of dependent origination, for example, the infinite regression of dependent causality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 26th, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Content:
mindyourmind said:
[

What he wants to know (and here my theism may be letting me down) is "Who made it?" In the theistic worlview all of these questions of course have a wonderfully pat answer.


Malcolm wrote:
The answer is that we (every sentient beings in the universe) all did by the force of our past actions which have no beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 25th, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: BASIS FOR KARMA / REBIRTH
Content:
mindyourmind said:
To put it in its simplest form, where does karma / rebirth "come from"? Who created such an exquisitely complex system, if there is no god?

Malcolm wrote:
Karma is volition and what proceeds from volition, state Buddha, Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu. Karma/rebirth, therefore  come from the mind.

One important Buddhist tenet is beginninglessness. There is no absolute beginning.

All the diversity that we see in the universe is a result of all the individual actions of all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 25th, 2013 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's a good question that I've been giving some thought. I think it's because Buddha did - he said there is no creator other than mind, so although mind doesn't exist from its own side it's still the creator of all our experiences. In the Mahamudra teachings Buddha said "if you realise your own mind, you will become a Buddha. You should not seek Buddhahood elsewhere."  I think it's possible to assert the primacy of mind without being a Chittamatrin, especially because karma arises from intention, which is part of mind, and the world arises from conceptual imputation which is the major function of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that line of reasoning suffers from infinite regress?

Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm curious why - please explain Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there are two problems: one your mind is not the only mind. This automatically means that unless you are a solipsist, you automatically must accept the existence of external entities that are not products of your mind, i.e. other minds.

Second, when you claim that everything is a product of one's own mind, including the causes and conditions that give rise to the mind itself, you are locked in an infinite regress, essentially asserting that the mind causes itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 25th, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: switching from vajrayana to theravada for some time
Content:
dude said:
The Buddha wouldn't agree with the Theravadin monks. They embrace the provisional and reject the essential.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddha? The Mahāyāna one?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 24th, 2013 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Goenka Retreat
Content:
duckfiasco said:
* it's run entirely by donations, which I found impressive

Malcolm wrote:
They will hit you up for a donation when you leave.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 22nd, 2013 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
This is why Nāgārjuna also wrote: "An existent [bhāva] does not arise from an existent, an existent does not arise from a nonexistent; a nonexistent does not arise from an existent; a nonexistent does not arise from a nonexistent. How can there be arising?"
Nagarjuna would have hated quantum mechanics, where things pop into and out of existence for no good reason.

Hey, doesn't that negate all his philosophy?

Malcolm wrote:
It simply means we don't have the math to understand the causality of a given phenomena, it doesn't entail the consequence that Nāgārjuna's opening statement in the MMK is incorrect:

"At no time and in no place does anything arise from itself, from other than itself, from both, or in absence of a cause."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 21st, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
cloudburst said:
Actually, they DO assert it. Many many examples of this can be provided. For the purposes of this discussion we will accept your own translation above "Mādhyamikas are proponents of dependent origination."

Malcolm wrote:
That is not an assertion of existence.

cloudburst said:
Of course it is.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't. It is for this reason that Nāgārjuna asks the question (having already defined parabhāva as a species of svabhāva) "Where is there a bhāva which is not included in svabhāva or parabhāva?" Since there is no such thing, to call "dependent origination" a proposition of bhāva is incredibly wrong-headed.This is why Nāgārjuna also wrote: "An existent [bhāva] does not arise from an existent, an existent does not arise from a nonexistent; a nonexistent does not arise from an existent; a nonexistent does not arise from a nonexistent. How can there be arising?"

cloudburst said:
The translators are using inferences to translate the meaning, not just the words. So when they say "therefore they do exist" (which you render as "this is so"), they do so in order to demonstrate that eyes are dependently arisen results of karma. This means that they exist convnetionally, so there is no problem in saying so in order to convey the meaning of the citation.

Malcolm wrote:
The clause "therefore, since that is so...", only intends go affirm that sense organs and so on are products of the ripening of action, as previously stated, in conformity with worldly convention -- but it is not a statement of commitment on Candrakirit's part that worldly convention is truthful, which is why he remarks that one should not get involved with how it actually is.

The translation (in this instance) is not successful and does not convey the meaning Candrakirti intends. Therefore, when you use it as a citation in support of a reason, the reason also fails. No, I did not have it lying around. Since the translation seemed a bit too pat to me, I examined the source of the citation and found it was slightly off when compared to the Tibetan. The term yod pa can be a translation of several different terms, ranging from asti to sat:

yod pa -  saṃ√vid:saṃvidyamāna
yod pa -  saṃniveśa
yod pa -  sat
yod pa -  sadbhāva
yod pa -  sāṃnidhya
yod pa -  a-vaikalya
yod pa -  /as:asti
yod pa -  astitā
yod pa -  /vid:vidyate
yod pa -  vidyamānatā
yod pa -  vidyamāna
yod pa -  upa√labh:upalabhyante
yod pa -  /bhū:bhavati

Since we do not have the sanskrit original of this commentary, it is a little hard to say what the proper rendering of yod pa is here in "de phyir, de yod pas", it could just as easily be "since that exists" as "since that is so". However, given that context, and given the fact that "de yod pas" bears the instrumental "s" on the yod pa, it is unlikely that to mean :"Therefore, they do exist", especially when there is no plural corresponding to "they" such as "de dag" (eṣām).

An endemic problem in online discussions is the use of citations people haven't the skill to investigate themselves in either a Sanskrit original or in a secondary language such as Tibetan. In order to have a meaningful discussion, we must have first translations we actually agree upon. If we cannot achieve that much, it is difficult to have a meaningful exchange. This is also compounded with the fact that most of these discussions are not predicated on detailed discussions of the source texts, but rather post 12th century Tibetans involved in polemics with agendas often quite removed from the context in which these texts were composed. It is for this reason I generally abstain from discussions about Tibetan Madhyamaka any more, other than to observe that Tibetans after the 12th century, such as Dolbuba, Tsongkhapa, Gorampa (who in fact does not faithfully portray the early Sakya view) and so on began to introduce novelties to Madhyamaka discussion. Khenpo Zhenga tried to remedy this by restoring study of original commentaries and texts, but thus far western disciples of Tibetans still remain committed to whatever sectarian division they were initially trained in.

On the other hand I am certainly happy to talk about Indian Madhyamaka as long as it is understood that citations from Tibetans are excluded from the discussion, since I decided long ago that Tibetan Madhyamaka was a waste of time.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 21st, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's a good question that I've been giving some thought. I think it's because Buddha did - he said there is no creator other than mind, so although mind doesn't exist from its own side it's still the creator of all our experiences. In the Mahamudra teachings Buddha said "if you realise your own mind, you will become a Buddha. You should not seek Buddhahood elsewhere."  I think it's possible to assert the primacy of mind without being a Chittamatrin, especially because karma arises from intention, which is part of mind, and the world arises from conceptual imputation which is the major function of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that line of reasoning suffers from infinite regress?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 21st, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:
cloudburst said:
Actually, they DO assert it. Many many examples of this can be provided. For the purposes of this discussion we will accept your own translation above "Mādhyamikas are proponents of dependent origination."

Malcolm wrote:
That is not an assertion of existence.

Chandrakirti said:
We refute here that things exist essentially; we do not refute that eyes and such are products. and are dependently arisen results of karma. Therefore they exist. Hence, when eyes and so forth are explained only as resutls of karma, they do exist.

Malcolm wrote:
This passage's translation is not correct.

།ཁོ་བོ་ཅག་ནི་འདིར་དངོས་པོ་རྣམས་རང་གི་ངོ་བོས་གྲུབ་པ་འགོག་གི་མིག་ལ་སོགས་པ་བྱས་ཤིང་རྟེན་ཅིང་འབྲེལ་པར་འབྱུང་བའི་ལས་ཀྱི་རྣམ་པར་སྨིན་པ་ཉིད་ནི་མི་འགོག་པའོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་ཡོད་པས་གང་ཞིག་རྣམ་པར་སྨིན་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྙད་པས་མིག་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་དོ།

"We are here refuting that things are proven [grub] through their own entity [svarūpa], but products such as eyes and so on are not refuted, being a ripening of dependently originated actions. Therefore, that is so because that which has been explained as being a ripening are eyes and so on.

So I can't accept your reason here because the citation is not correctly translated as far as I am concerned. Further, the point of the citation is not to prove existence of eyes and so forth, but rather in the original text, the point of the citation is demonstrate that:

དེའི་ཕྱིར་མཁས་པས་འཇིག་རྟེན་པའི་དོན་ལ་ཇི་སྐད་བཤད་པའི་རྣམ་པར་དཔྱད་པ་དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་མཐོང་བ་དང་རྗེས་སུ་མཐུན་པ་མ་བཅུག་པར་ལས་རྣམས་ཀྱི་རྣམ་པར་སྨིན་པ་བསམ་གྱིས་མི་ཁྱབ་པ་ཉིད་དུ་ཁས་བླངས

"Therefore, the wise who investigate according to how it is explained in the mundane meaning accept the inconceivable ripening of actions without getting correspondingly involved with seeing reality [de ko na nydi, tattvaṃ]."


Thus, the citation does not say what you want it to say, nor does it match the point you wish to make.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 21st, 2013 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
As far as claiming 3rd turning as provisional goes the chapter 7 of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra states the first and second turning are provisional and the third turning is definite.
As does the Nirvana sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
There are different ways to read the hermeneutic of the three turnings.

One has to present a logical reason why the so called third turning is superior to the second turning. Then one has to carefully identify which texts are actually referred to as such and so on. Personally, I don't think the three turnings are important. Why? Because this was just a scheme by one anonymous author to elevate his own text above other texts.

Further, the elaboration of a third wheel merely shows that texts like the Samdhi-nirmocana and the Nirvana sūtra are not part of the wave of original Mahāyāna texts, and belong to the second wave of Mahāyāna revelation.

In reality, the concept of the three turnings, which becomes so important in Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism receives almost no commentarial attention from Indians themselves in the Indian treatises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But your mind too does not exist from its own side...so what does it depend on?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Mind depends upon many factors such as its parts, energy winds, previous moments and objects.

Malcolm wrote:
Uh huh -- so why privilege mind as the arbiter of external appearances?

Why don't you just simple say "If you have the dependent origination to perceive x, then you will"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
nyamssnanggong'phel said:
LOL

I'm on your side Malcolm.

tobes said:
Why are you so eager to choose a side and denounce anyone that you think is on the "Other" side?

dzogchungpa said:
Which side is Malcolm on anyway?


Malcolm wrote:
I wish someone would tell me, it would make life so much easier.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Confused on Yangti generalities
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What article are you referencing, the funerary buddhism one?

nyamssnanggong'phel said:
yeah.

http://www.thlib.org/collections/texts/jiats/#!jiats=/01/germano/b8/

Malcolm wrote:
This simply means that contemporary tertons were working with the same system of praxis in the late 11th and 12th century; it does not render snying thig superior to yang ti.

I imagine the real success of the snying thig literature is actually the compelling and fabulously rich narrative provided to it by the lo rgyus chen mo. Simply put, Zhang ston simply wrote a more interesting legend of the transmission of Dzogchen then other contemporary accounts at that point in time (mid 12th century). Of course, his account was swiftly eclipsed by the Padmasambhava legend revealed/composed/reworked by his younger contemporary, Nyang ral.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
nyamssnanggong'phel said:
Even if Dzogchen is Tibetan, it still developed within a 100% Buddhist environment according to scholars.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But I don't think anyone disputed this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Confused on Yangti generalities
Content:
nyamssnanggong'phel said:
If yangti is a copy, then the original is better.

Of course I could be misunderstanding Germano.

Malcolm wrote:
What article are you referencing, the funerary buddhism one?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Confused on Yangti generalities
Content:


nyamssnanggong'phel said:
So we can say the unsurpassed secret cycle of nyingthig is superior to yangti.

Malcolm wrote:
What is your reasoning concerning this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Now that I have thought about it I am not sure this is a phenomenon completely outside our Western religious traditions. Does the Pope not call Catholics "Children of the Flock." All the priests in my father's Irish Catholic side of the family are called "Father", and nuns are called "Sister" or "Mother" depending on their rank.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and look where infantilizing Catholics brought the Catholic Church.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Emptiness means that things do not exist from their own side in the least which means that 'reality' depends on your mind.

Malcolm wrote:
But your mind too does not exist from its own side...so what does it depend on?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
even going so far as to call them "children" to their faces.

muni said:
Lol. I should see that as an ivitation to come home.

"The "coming home" is like the son recognizing his mother. Like a young child leaping up & embracing her".
http://www.sofiatopia.org/bodhi/dzogchen.htm


Malcolm wrote:
It was not intended as affection...


