﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Masturbation is not listed as lay sexual misdconduct in Abhidharma or the Vinaya Sutra.

It is a sexual misconduct that requires confession and penance in the case of bhikṣūs.

N

Adamantine said:
So you don't disagree that for a Vajrayana practitioner it is breaking the fourth root vow?


Malcolm wrote:
I disagree that it breaks the fourth root samaya.That vow is referring to Mahāyāna bodhicitta, not semen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:
Beatzen said:
I'm sure you can say that dzogchen constitutes the essence of the path, sort of the way trungpa said that the three yanas compliment eachother.  I'm sure you get what I mean by "preserving the essence though


Malcolm wrote:
The essence is dzogchen.

If you ask someone else, they will give you a different answer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:


Beatzen said:
I wouldn't know that, but it seems like preserving atiyoga is peripheral when it concerns the survival of the whole enchilada.  Not unimportant, just that why focus on dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
All teachings spring from dzogchen, it is the source of all teachings, and the place to which all teachings return. Therefore, preserving dzogchen is of the greatest importance.

Monastic sangas are secondary, and not every Buddha's dispensation has one.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:


JinpaRangdrol said:
All of the spiritual side effects aside (blocked channels, breaking of Samaya with protectors, addiction, distress in the Bardo, etc.), I think the bottom line lies in the Four Thoughts. The precious human birth is EXTREMELY hard to attain. Why would you EVER participate in a practice that is proven to destroy it, without any kind of tangible benefit whatsoever?

Malcolm wrote:
Catmoon is not a Nyingmapa, and so I don't think these dire warnings, which are from a Nyingma perspective, have much influence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:01 AM
Title: Re: Unable to visualize
Content:
Inge said:
I have been trying to learn to visualize for a couple of year now, but it is as if I lack the ability to do so. Could this be a result of my rlung imbalance? Is it something specific that can be done in order to overcome this problem.

I feel that much of the practice I try to do is ineffective because I can't do the visualisations. Especially the guru yoga of white A.

kirtu said:
Do you think in images?  Can you imagine an image of a circle in your mind?

Kirt

Inge said:
No I don't and no I can't.


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Inge,

Then just sound A and relax into that state -- don;t worry about the visualization. It is not important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:
Beatzen said:
The only way to preserve the pure dharma of established traditions is to establish a strong monastic community here.

Malcolm wrote:
I used to believe that, but I don't anymore. Dzogchen does not survive well in the monastic system.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:
Beatzen said:
My european history professor argues that modern people are distinguished by their capacity for doubt.

Malcolm wrote:
He never met a 12th century Tibetan scholar then. Let alone a 6th century Indian Buddhist acharya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
Buddhists may assent to the fact that there is no person identity which is any other than a designation for the five aggregates, but I don't think you will find any Buddhists who assert that the aggregate of consciousness is a non-existent, conventionally speaking.

yadave said:
Exactly.  Buddhists have skandhas, Kant had his categories, scientists speak of a language center, an analytical left side, an intuitive right side, and so on.  Conventional descriptions of dravya (flow of consciousness).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, my point was is that there are two kinds of dravya in Buddhism, rūpa and nāma, material dravya, and mental dravya. What you said was that Science and Buddhism where in agreement that the former existed and the latter does not. I think this a false statement.

Some scientists, like Dennet, et al, are certainly of the opinion that there is no such a thing as a mind at all.

One of more impressive western scholars on the question of the hard problem of consiousness is Colin McGinn, whom I once had the pleasure of hearing speak. He argues, pretty well in my opinion, that the nature of consciousness is cognitively closed to human minds i.e. that in some sense we are frogs in a well and that our view is limited to what we can see out of the top of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
In the US, there is trend for yoga practicing Buddhists to eschew eating meat. Also amongst some younger Tibetan Buddhists there is a trend to stop eating meat -- which is ironic, because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

Virgo said:
Hey Loppon, what about elk and venison?

Thanks,
Kev

Malcolm wrote:
Both pretthy warming, as is bison.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
The five abhijñās, i.e. the ability to recall past lives, see into other realms, know the minds of others and so on are simply a result of concentrated ṡ́amatha practice and are in themselves nothign special.
N

Clarence said:
One more time

Thanks N-la. Nothing special because they are easy to attain or because they don't lead to liberation?

- C


Malcolm wrote:
They do not lead to liberation. not so easy to attain. They come naturally though, for most practitioners who practice enough.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Clarence said:
Going

N-la,

Namdrol said:
Such a demonstration is cognitively closed to anyone who has not developed the yogic capacity to know other minds directly. If one had that ability, then there are all kinds of phenomena in the universe one could experience but never prove to someone else who had not developed the same skills.



Clarence said:
How does one develop those skills? Is it described in the Abhidharma? Are those the same perceptions developed through for example Tsa Lung practices?

Many thanks, as usual,

Clarence

Malcolm wrote:
The five abhijñās, i.e. the ability to recall past lives, see into other realms, know the minds of others and so on are simply a result of concentrated ṡ́amatha practice and are in themselves nothign special.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
... there is no duration of thought which cannot be divided infinitely

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, according to Buddhist texts, the duration of a thought is about 13 miliseconds, almost three times the amount of time it takes for a neuron to fire in the brain.

The basic unit of time in Buddhism is the duration of a thought.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
So Tsongkhapa had a revelation that doesn't count but yogi's have other revelations that do count.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogis don't have revelations, they have direct personal knowledge.

Now, Tsongkhapas followers beleive of course that Tsongkhapa was a realized person with such direct knowledge. Tsongkhapa's detractors on the other hand are not convinced.


yadave said:
Now you label me physicalist after erasing my actual view.  Scientists and Buddhists agree that a "mind" or "self" really does not exist.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhists may assent to the fact that there is no person identity which is any other than a designation for the five aggregates, but I don't think you will find any Buddhists who assert that the aggregate of consciousness is a non-existent, conventionally speaking.


yadave said:
My curiosity is to keep all doors open rather than repeat a dogma I cannot personally confirm in direct experience per Mr. Buddha's recommendation.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Buddha, in the Eastern Gatehouse Sutta, asserted the opposite -- those who do not have direct knowledge need to accept it on faith from people who do. The Sutta spoken to the Kalamas was spoken to non-buddhists who were confused by all the competing claims made by itinerant religious teachers who visited them. In the end, in that Sutta, Buddha does not teach any thing especially Buddhist, but gave them the brahma viharas, asserting that those who practiced these would take rebirth in a better place, and even if they did not beleive in rebirth, this practice would improve their lives as they were. But the four bhrama viharas are not a specifically Buddhist practice and therefore are never held to lead to liberation. They are the practice of the "vehicles of gods and humans".

Namdrol said:
The fact that there is no identity, or self, is the natural conclusion of the logic of dependent origination.
I think the Buddha was blown away practicing self-enquiry under a tree before he started writing books.

Malcolm wrote:
What Buddha arrived at was the logic of dependent origination through having reviewed thousands of his previous lives. When he discerned the principle of dependent origination, he applied to his continuum and then he woke up. In other words, his view preceded his realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Mostly they don't mind so much as far as I remember.
But I know that as soon as I (for example) would start talking about rebirth being metaphorical instead of literal, or what have you, some people would immediately get on my case, and wouldn't stop hounding me until I cried uncle...
It's not a very pleasant situation to be in to be honest, so I can imagine someone with these viewpoints not getting into a habit of posting here frequently.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason why people would get on your case about it is that it is quite obvious that the Buddha never intended for rebirth to be taken as a metaphor. There is simply no justification for such as view. If you wish to understand rebirth metaphorically, that is one thing -- but asserting that rebirth must be understood as a metaphor is completely wrong.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Energy from Buddhist perspective
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Same with karma. Although we experience good karma, actually that karma cannot be exhausted or vanish. It just changes.


Malcolm wrote:
This is a completely baseless statement.You really do need to study abidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Again, I never said or meant subversive, just cultural. Buddhist "modernists" would fit badly in this culture for example, so the chance of one sticking around here for a time are pretty slim.
So, I think I can actually correlate that.

Malcolm wrote:
They wold fit badly if they expected people to simply roll over and not challenge any of their views.

I love it when "Buddhist" modernists feel they have an absolute right to challenge any Buddhist idea they like, but get so offended when their own modernist biases and irrationalities are called into question.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Virgo said:
For example, work places should let smokers smoke outside the front or back doors, etc., one should not have to leave the parking lot and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I don't agree. I hate walking through clouds of smoke into a building. Smoking is a nasty habit and it would be better for all concerned if cigarettes were taxed and banned until it just becomes impossible to smoke. For years I would not go listen to music, or go to clubs, because of all the smoke. 

There  is no two ways about it -- smoking is an aweful habit. 

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Unable to visualize
Content:
Inge said:
I saw this in the "smoking tobacco" thread
Fa Dao said:
Is it possible from a Tibetan medical or spiritual standpoint or any other for that matter that smoking could effect my ability to do visualization?...

Namdrol said:
Yes, by disturbing your wind/vatta/rlung.
...

N

Inge said:
I have been trying to learn to visualize for a couple of year now, but it is as if I lack the ability to do so. Could this be a result of my rlung imbalance? Is it something specific that can be done in order to overcome this problem.

I feel that much of the practice I try to do is ineffective because I can't do the visualisations. Especially the guru yoga of white A.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, visualize a western Letter A in a thigle. That is fine.

IN terms of deity practice, in Dzogchen, it is sufficient to think you are the deity. There is no need to focus on all details.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Is there also such thing as a vajra guru? Who takes it upon themselves to have sole responsibility of their student's realization? I heard this somewhere.

Malcolm wrote:
The only person who can be responsible for your realization is you, despite whatever else you may have heard.

A vajra guru just means a teacher of secret mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:


Fruitzilla said:
Well, you're pretty pivotal here also it looks like.

Mr. G said:
The overall policies of this forum were, and are setup by the Owner, Founders, Administrators, and Moderators.  Namdrol assisted in setting up the initial policies for the Tibetan Medicine sub-forum as he is the Tibetan Medicine Lead.


Malcolm wrote:
Right, I have no role at all otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Funny that there's a Theravada, a Mahayana(actually mostly Vajrayana) and a Zen forum by the way. Three pretty different interpretations/temperaments it seems.

Malcolm wrote:
That is pretty much exactly how it was at E-Sangha. What made people unhappy was that most of the mods were Tibetan Buddhists, even though we tried hard to have team balanced between Zen, TB and Theravada.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
I always figured you and Nonin had more in common than you both wanted to admit......

Namdrol said:
One thing people really don't undertand is that I virtually had no hand in making the policies of E-Sangha.

I was just a convientient person to blame.

N

Fruitzilla said:
I have no insight into the internal affairs of the moderating team.
You did seems pretty pivotal in the prevailing culture over there though.

Malcolm wrote:
No more so than here.

The fact is that E-sangha was too big, and trying to wear too many hats, being everything to everyone. The fact that it fell apart and reconstituted itself into three separate forums completely makes sense.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
But if having a brain were all that was needed to be perfectly free from suffering, then why wouldn't beings be perfectly free from suffering? Why seek food and warmth?
.

padma norbu said:
Also, something I just remembered regarding Namdrol's point of neurons firing (sentient beings) vs. hormones (plants) is that all forms of Buddhism I am aware of consider various spirit beings as sentient beings. Pretas (ghosts) and demons, etc. have less of a body than plants (from the human perspective of being able to examine and compare, anyway). I suppose in deciding about the sentience of beings, we must defer to whatever the Buddhas have said.


Malcolm wrote:
I was talking about sentient beings with gross physical bodies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
I always figured you and Nonin had more in common than you both wanted to admit......

Malcolm wrote:
One thing people really don't undertand is that I virtually had no hand in making the policies of E-Sangha.

I was just a convientient person to blame.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.grist.org/list/2012-01-12-american-beef-consumption-is-at-a-50-year-low " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: banned from zenforuminternational...
Content:
klqv said:
has anyone else experienced this kind of bullsh1t on a supposedly buddhist website?

gad rgyangs said:
you're joking right? have you ever heard of e-sangha?


Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is they all quit e-sangha because we were too "draconian" -- but from what I hear, they have instituted very draconion policies.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
This is the point of view of physicalism ala Dennet, etc. And I do not think it is accurate at all. MRI, PET scans, etc., don't measure the mind. They measure the brain's bloodflow, etc., but they do not measure minds.

yadave said:
You seem to hold a substantialist view.  There is no mind to measure.  There is bloodflow and electrical patterns and nerve impulses that "seem" like a mind.  The illusion is strong but there is really no independent mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness is classfied as a dravya [lit 'flow'], in classical Buddhist texts. So, conventionally, it is a substance, like water, or fire, it is not a material substance; it is a substance of a different order than material substances.

Namdrol said:
But the cause and condition of a mind is not a brain, from a Buddhist perspective.
Judging from your disagreements with Gelugs and so on, I'm not sure a single Buddhist perspective exists.  For example, HHDL seems pretty open to all this, MIT invites Buddhists to help with this work, there is even a new branch of "contemplative science."  I find it fascinating rather than threatening and believe it will help us better understand ourselves and so be better able to relieve suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
The perspective on this in Tibetan Buddhism comes from the second chapter of Dharmakirti's Pramanasiddhi, where he systematically excludes physicalism. This text is shared by all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, and no one disagrees with its points. The reason why people disagree with Tsongkhapa is that his explanations of things are not discernable in Indian Madhyamaka literature, which he himself admits, combined with his and his disciples assertion that Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka view came about largely as a result of a series of spiritual encounters he had with the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, and not out of his personal intellectual investigations.

I don't feel threatened by research into cogntion and the brain. You might think that knowledge about the relationship between the brain and sense organs is modern, not know to Tibetan Buddhists before the 20th centruy -- but in point of fact Tibetan Medicine was aware of the connection between the brain, sense organs and internal organs from at least the 11th century and understood the function of the brain was to act as a central processsor for sense data, as well as the organ that goverend motor impulses, internal organ function, so on and so forth. All of this information is pretty clearly described in Tibetan Medical literature on nerve damage and head injuries.

Namdrol said:
...the onus is on you to show us a "mind" without an associated brain or person.

Malcolm wrote:
Such a demonstration is cognitively closed to anyone who has not developed the yogic capacity to know other minds directly. If one had that ability, then there are all kinds of phenomena in the universe one could experience but never prove to someone else who had not developed the same skills.


Namdrol said:
These recent scientific studies confirm ancient Buddhist truths.  Anatta.  Emptiness in spades.  I would think this fascinating to anyone studying Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Hume rejected a self too. Not too interesting, from my point of view. He also rejected necessary connection -- Nagarjuna beat him to the punch by 1500 years.

The fact that there is no identity, or self, is the natural conclusion of the logic of dependent origination. Scientic studies only confirm what some Buddhists have already known for millenia -- entities in causal relationships have no intrinsic nature or essence. If entities did, they would not need to be in causal relationships.

The primary difference between Buddhist schools was in how far down they were willing to extend that analysis. The non-Mahāyāna schools stopped at paramanus i.e. "atoms"; the Mahāyāna Yogacara school stopped at consciousness. Madhyamaka extended its analysis all the way and came up with emptiness as the basis of reality i.e. that in the end, reality has no objective basis whatsoever.

Namdrol said:
My teachers encouraged an attitude of curiosity.  Hope I don't lose this.

Malcolm wrote:
The unwillingness to entertain the idea that yogis may possess knowledge that cannot be tested for in a lab is a form of lacking of curiosity. Thinking that PET scans, etc., prove that the mind is merely an epiphenomenal illusion is simply fundamentalist physicalism. The only thing these experiments prove is what Buddhists have been saying all along, mind and matter can interact, conventionally speaking. Pet scans don't work on formless realm beings. You would assert it is because they don't exist. Buddhists would assert that it is because they do not have physical bodies. As I said, you can only verify their existence yogically. You cannot share that perception directly in an empirical or testable fashion, because not everyone has the same capacity to do develop the necessary skills to perceive devas in the form and formless realms.

N

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Is it possible from a Tibetan medical or spiritual standpoint or any other for that matter that smoking could effect my ability to do visualization? And yes, if I ever am able to go to a live retreat with ChNNR and he was to tell me that I had to stop I would do it without any hesitation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, by disturbing your wind/vatta/rlung.

He would never tell you that you have to stop. But he always tells people it is better if they do not smoke.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
padma norbu said:
:: kills self ::

Seriously, though, great last few pages. I particularly like the breakdown of the brain constituents and molecular comparison to a rock. I've had a sense of vague unease at times when others talk about sentient beings and vegetarianism and the idea is always raised that plants are not sentient beings. I always think of the famous experiments which show some sort of reaction from plants in response to negative or positive actions in their presence (not even necessarily to the plant itself). The plants don't have a brain, but the mind isn't found in the brain. In relation to what I've learned and pondered these past couple days about energy, there is something interesting yet unknowable here...


Malcolm wrote:
All living things have tsal. But while plants have a hormonal system, they lack a neural system, and while the mind is not reducible to the brain and neural system, in any thing we define as sentient there is always at least a rudimentary neural network. Also, information transfer in plants depends on hormones, while information transfer in animals depends on neurons i.e. when a plant is attacked, it communicates that by releasing hormones, when an animal is attacked, it fire neurons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Increase in 5 Poisons
Content:
Virgo said:
What is going on?


Malcolm wrote:
The world is not getting worse, your vision is getting clearer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


padma norbu said:
Thanks for taking the time to explain these things.


Malcolm wrote:
I am glad you have found some benefit in my posts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Fa Dao said:
I have been following this thread with interest for a while now. Can anyone explain exactly how and why smoking effects ones practice without resorting to "its bad...its evil..it blocks the channels..etc etc" Please explain how it blocks channels and effects practice. And if possible how it effects Dzogchen practice. Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, for one the tar from tobacco blocks the channels in the lungs, reducing our ability to breath.

Secondly, it contaminates the air we breath directly.

Third, it creates a vata imbalance, this will directly affect whatever practice you are doing.

Fourth, it physically addictive, which means your body will start to crave it, and this craving is distracting.

In short, there is nothing positive about smoking at all -- it is a stupid, addictive, life-destroying habit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: ‘How Yoga Wrecks the Body’ via The New York Times
Content:
Namdrol said:
The fact is that most of the people I know who have done a lot of yoga (of any kind) have seriously injured themselves, and this includes more than one high lama.

N

Anders Honore said:
Since we Buddhists tend to prefer the Lotus position for that sweet blend of relaxation and upright firmness, what would you propose?

Simply going into it without proper being properly limber for it is a sure way to ruin your knees and is not very relaxing either. If not yoga, how would you propose to work towards that? Or is it only some kinds of yoga that should be cautioned against?

Malcolm wrote:
Deep squats using a chair helps.

The reason it is easy for Asians to sit in lotus is that they mostly hunker when they have to go to the toilet. The infamous Asian toilets which are little more than ceramic troughs on the floor are the reason that Asians can more easily sit in lotus.

Sitting in lotus is a not a question of knee flexibility, it is a question of hip openess. This a reason why women usually find it easier to get into lotus then men, and children easier than adults.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
I hope you like barbeque. I am destined for many hell realms first.
but I never read any sutra that specifically prohibited cannibalism,
so grab a fork.

Malcolm wrote:
It is prohibited in Vinaya, along with the meat of predators and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
catmoon said:
Chogyam Trungpa. His mere existence disproves the whole idea that smoking is a barrier to enlightenment.


Malcolm wrote:
This presumes that Trungpa was an awakened person. I have had increasing doubts about this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


padma norbu said:
Also, my other problem with the whole concept of "there is no more power an offering than offering to the Guru" is very simple: just what that means exactly is just a jumbled up mess in my brain.


Malcolm wrote:
There are four gurus: the guru who gives you introduction is the outer guru; the path practiced is the inner guru; the result realized is the secret guru; rigpa is the ultimate guru;

But without the first, the rest will not happen.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
A brain is the smallest common denominator we know of that appears in any "mind experience."


Malcolm wrote:
This is the point of view of physicalism ala Dennet, etc. And I do not think it is accurate at all. MRI, PET scans, etc., don't measure the mind. They measure the brain's bloodflow, etc., but they do not measure minds.

Mind and soul differentiated in Buddhism; the former exists, the latter do not. The former is an impermanent dependent phenomena; the latter is permananent, non-dependent phenomena.

But the cause and condition of a mind is not a brain, from a Buddhist perspective. But this discussion of differneces in POV between Buddhism and physicalism is a bit off topic.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:


Mr. G said:
Thanks Namdrol.  I will give this some thought.

Malcolm wrote:
The definition of lhun grub is "not made by anyone". Lhun drub is dependent origination free of afflictive patterning, thus it is pure process and transformation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:


Mr. G said:
Hi Namdrol,

Am I inferring correctly that dependent origination from a Dzogchen POV is illusory?

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent origination from the Buddha's point of view is illusory.


Mr. G said:
How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis does not accord with dependent origination?

Malcolm wrote:
Lhun grub.


Mr. G said:
How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis has been reified?

Malcolm wrote:
Ka dag


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
I tried to say that you appear to be looking for an "I" while the actual process involves no "I" in transforming sensory input into "a thought".  In other jargon, there is no homunculus, no "little person" directing things in the brain.  It is one massive complicated network of systems that eventually deliver something that arises as "my thought" in the forebrain, the final place where most of us start to play.

Malcolm wrote:
A view pretty much completely incompatible with Buddhism. From a Buddhist POV, the mind is not located in the brain, nor does it depend on the brain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
In the meantime, I'm gonna just say salt molecules exist and they are the smallest common denominator we know of that appears in any "salt experience."  This is a nonmetaphysical "essence" if you like.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this a substantialist position, which is incompatible with all Mahāyāna tenet systems, but is entirely compatible with non-Mahāyāna tenet systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: A 1st look: Red Pine’s Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as Jasmine Tea
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
t or if you are pontificating yourself
No, I was stumbling trying to explain that Red Pine's use of the word  "memory" limits the depth of the 4th skanda referred to. My bad. I am unfamiliar with it all.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, limits it in a way that is entirely inaappropriate. "Formations" is better, since the samsakara skandha consists of regular formations of mental factors associated with various postive, negative, and afflicted mental states.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
but there are no sentient beings during the basis-bardo, so does that mean that there are no buddhas either?

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.

gad rgyangs said:
Do both Buddhas with traces and Buddhas without traces get absorbed into the basis during the basis-bardo?

Malcolm wrote:
Again, all sentient beings acheive some species of awakening by the end of a given eon. Samyak Sambuddhas acheive buddhahood without remainder.

gad rgyangs said:
So are there Dzogchen Buddhas who wave bye bye to the Samyak Sambuddhas who enter into parinirvana without remainder? is it simply a choice which one you want to be, or is one considered a "higher" level of realization (I assume since we are talking Dzogchen view, the abiding-nirvana-Buddhas are higher)?

Malcolm wrote:
According to Dzogchen texts, Samyak sambuddhas Buddhas enter into parinirvana without remainder. Buddhahood without remainder is considered superior to or higher than Buddhahood with remainder. It is the highest form of Buddhahood, according to Dzogchen.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
im confused about where the samyak sambuddhas are during the basis-bardo.

Malcolm wrote:
Parinirvana without any remainder.

This is another place where Dzogchen doctrine differs from common Mahāyāna -- the goal in common Mahāyāna is a non-abiding nirvana.

The ultimate result of Dzogchen is an abiding nirvana.

Why? Because compassion is innate in the basis, and whenever sentient beings appear, so do Buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
If Nagarjuna had an electron microscope, he would have thought it was an alien death ray machine and freaked out.  Namdrol told me the molecules-are-atoms theory and I replied that atoms weren't salty.  "Self-inherent existence" is a metaphysical Buddhist notion, a stellar concept with regards to our intuitive notion of self, a misplaced idea when projected onto shared perceptions.  In my humble opinion of course.

Malcolm wrote:
Your view is similar with Sautrantika position. You accept the absence of identity of persons, but you uphold that things bear intrinsic characteristics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
Namdrol said:
Those who have completed the fourth vision experience the universe arising as the basis [snang srid gzhir bzhengs].

gad rgyangs said:
what is the "basis" of that experience? it can't be the same basis, as that would be circular.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same basis since self-originated wisdom is unchanging.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
Namdrol said:
Everything from stream enterers up to the 12th bhumi.

gad rgyangs said:
are you saying up to and including 12th bhumi has traces and gets re-absorbed? 13th-16th counts as samyak sambuddha and doesn't get re-absorbed? so where do they hang out during that bardo period? and if the basis is rang byung ye shes, are they then not "grounded" in it (so to speak), not needing to "return" to it?

Malcolm wrote:
Those who have completed the fourth vision experience the universe arising as the basis [snang srid gzhir bzhengs].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: A 1st look: Red Pine’s Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as Jasmine Tea
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
On the very same page as the self characterization of the text by the translator is this statement:

“These include the 5 Skandhas (form, sensation, perception, memory, and consciousness)”, (page 15).

That rendering into English of “samskāra” as “memory”

Malcolm wrote:
This is simply misleading and wrong. The samakāra skandha is composed of all kinds of caittas, mental factors, of which smṛti, memory, is merely one. I hope that the rest of his translation is not dominated by such coarse glosses.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
So are you then asserting that saltiness is caused by something other than salt?
N

Beatzen said:
Salty is a discrimination of mind consciousness.  The sense object alone is not the cause of the salty experience, because that is a byproduct of the object's interaction with the sense organs.  Each link in the chain leading up to mind categorization as "salty" is not the cause in itself.  Therefore, emptiness via effective causality.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are saying that salt is not salty?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so even fully enlightened Buddhas never really eliminate all afflictions

Namdrol said:
Samyak Sambuddhas fully eliminate traces. Hence the "samyak". Dzogchen texts speak of them achieving parinirvana.

N

gad rgyangs said:
so when you said earlier:
there are no sentient beings at the time of the latent basis, because all sentient beings, theoretically, acheived some kind of buddhahood in the last eon.
"some kind of buddhahood" includes types that leave traces ("returning to the cause" kind?) and the samyak kind, that does not entail getting re-absorbed into the basis during the bardo period?

Malcolm wrote:
Everything from stream enterers up to the 12th bhumi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so even fully enlightened Buddhas never really eliminate all afflictions

Malcolm wrote:
Samyak Sambuddhas fully eliminate traces. Hence the "samyak". Dzogchen texts speak of them achieving parinirvana.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Can Insects Feel Pain?
.

Adamantine said:
Just to shake things up even more, it's a must to read this book as an overview of contemporary scientific research into intelligence in life forms other-than-human, --including plants (that make decisions, interact with their environments, and appear to feel pain) and slime molds which solve mazes. Warning-- the contents of this book certainly do challenge some long-held Buddhist beliefs about the limits of "sentience" .

Acchantika said:
I just wanted to clarify that whether an insect can or can't feel pain is not a reflection of whether or not it is sentient. As before, some human's can't feel pain, but that doesn't mean they are not sentient. Just as humans lack the sensory capabilities to detect gamma rays, but are sentient, insects lack a centralized nervous system which would make it impossible for them to experience pain as we currently understand it. But, we may understand it wrong. Either way, this doesn't mean they are not aware or conscious at all.

Sönam said:
when you have no other choice, you better kill the animal form the most distant from buddhahhod ... an insect is more distant to bouddhahood than a cow, for exemple.

Sönam

Namdrol said:
I violently disagree with this point of view, actually.

Acchantika said:
Forced to kill one or the other, what would inform your decision?

Malcolm wrote:
I would insist the person forcing me be the one to choose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: You know your a Tibetan Buddhist when,...
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You know you're a Tibetan Buddhist when you reflexively jam your left ring finger into all food and drink and flick it in the air.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Nemo said:
You know your a Tibetan Buddhist when you don't mind if your neighbors smoke pot, but when a whiff of tobacco smoke comes across your deck you close all the windows and go inside.


Malcolm wrote:
Very true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
But atoms are not salty.  The homework assignment was to find saltiness.

Namdrol said:
If atoms don't produce saltiness, then from where does it come? From where does the saltiness of salt molecules come? Your analysis is not finished.

N

Beatzen said:
The sixth consciousness labels the experience "salty", but the taste is dependent both on the molecules of salt and the molecules of taste buds.  To paraphrase Padma, there is nothing existing which could be called salty, or cause of it's own saltiness.

Malcolm wrote:
So are you then asserting that saltiness is caused by something other than salt?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: May wrathful practice be performed?
Content:
Kilaya said:
Does Throma Nagmo have any separate sadhana of her own apart from the Chöd ritual?


Namdrol said:
Yes. Many.

N

Kilaya said:
Is her specific activity similar to that of Sengdongma?

Malcolm wrote:
The kama origin of Krodhakali is the mahāsiddha Virupa who received the sadhana for Krodhakali in Oddiyāna. This sadhana was introduced to Tibet by Padampha Sangye.

The remaining Krodhakali practices are all terma, beginning with the Krodhakali practice of Nyang Ral Nyima Ozer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: May wrathful practice be performed?
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
Nyingma Sengdongma or the Sarma Sengdongma from the Chakrasamvara Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
They are the same. They both use the 14 syllable mantra. The sole difference is whether it is kama or terma. Nyingma Simhamukha is all terma. Kama Simhamukha comes from Bari Lotsawa through Sakya.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
padma norbu said:
What I would like to know is... how do I bring them back to life? You know, like Tilopa. just kidding.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think rebirth pretty much covers it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sönam said:
when you have no other choice, you better kill the animal form the most distant from buddhahhod ... an insect is more distant to bouddhahood than a cow, for exemple.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I never explained such a principle. I violently disagree with this point of view, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sönam said:
Yes but, and that is why have difficulty with that recommandation of Rinpoché, at the same time you are more upstream of the chain, because you are also one of the multiple causes of the violent death of the concerned animal.


Namdrol said:
This is just as much a problem with animals killed during the production of wheat.

Sönam said:
yes but, as you explained to me years ago, there is a hierarchy by animals regarding buddhahood ...

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
I did not explain it, but other people maintain that higher animals lives are more precious because they are higher life forms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
but then I spent a few years eating meat, constantly justifying it to myself with the same ol' Vajrayana rhetoric of "imbibing poison to transform it."


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing to purify, it's all rtsal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sönam said:
Yes but, and that is why have difficulty with that recommandation of Rinpoché, at the same time you are more upstream of the chain, because you are also one of the multiple causes of the violent death of the concerned animal.


Malcolm wrote:
This is just as much a problem with animals killed during the production of wheat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
padma norbu said:
Uh, because I don't believe that is possible. Namdrol once said he's a vegetarian now EXCEPT for not refusing such offerings because he didn't quite think he had that ability himself, but he would never refuse ritual substances.

Malcolm wrote:
Our bodies, essentially, are composed of rtsal which is expressed in our ignorance as the five outer and inner elements.

When pracitioners eat the flesh of those who have been killed (necessarily by someone else, not at our specific encouragement, nor have we seen the animal killed) a postive cause is created for this being. Why? Because a connection is made through the field of rtsal which also includes minds.

Since we don't eat anything but cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, fowl, fish and seafood, these animals are in some sense luckier than others, they are more closely associated with human beings, and more likely to wind up in the diet of practitioners.

It is not a question of ability, it is question of knowledge. When you know how everything is connected through rtsal, then such questions about the mechanisms by which a practitioner consuming the flesh of some unfortunate animal benefits that animal becomes very obvious.

The reason why Ganapujas have a powerful effect is that there is no more power an offering than offering to the Guru. If your ganapuja is just a dry ritual, then of course it will have little benefit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
But atoms are not salty.  The homework assignment was to find saltiness.

Malcolm wrote:
If atoms don't produce saltiness, then from where does it come? From where does the saltiness of salt molecules come? Your analysis is not finished.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
AilurusFulgens said:
Namdrol, and what would those methods be ,if i may ask?

Namdrol said:
Rushan.

N

padma norbu said:
As found in that little pamphlet The Practice of Purification of the Six Lokas?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that among other rushans.

'khor 'das ru shan practices are called "seperation of samsara and nirvana" is that successful completion of them guarantees one will not longer be reborn in samsara, equivalent with attaining patience on the path of application.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:


AilurusFulgens said:
Does it mean that whoever has not achieved the Rainbow Body of Great Transference i.e. the complete and final result of Dzogchen can fall back into a state of ignorance after the pralaya happens and then a new universe (or should I rather say multiverse) emerges?

A. Fulgens


Namdrol said:
No, one can acheive complete realization either in this life, at the time of death, or in the bardo of dharmatā.

If one is a Dzogchen practitioner, even of one is a best an average practitioner i.e. the lowest capacity, there are methods to ensure rebirth in the five pure nirmanakāya buddhafields, where one will attain samyaksambuddhahood within five hundred human years, according to the texts.

alpha said:
Namdrol, and what would those methods be ,if i may ask?

Is not that i am an average practitioner  but i hope that one day i will come to engender the hope of becoming a beginner and thus i could be called a proper "average practitioner"

I find the knowledge in this tread extremely fascinating.

Malcolm wrote:
Rushan.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
Also, I think it should be mentioned that a very prominent (relatively) western practitioner that I was very close to was a cigarette smoker. He died of a heart attack a couple of years ago (probably related to smoking), but his enlightenment in the Bardo of Dharmata was attested by multiple Rinpoches. There were also incredible signs surrounding his death. He was an accomplished Tögal practitioner, but had smoked long before he started practicing Buddhism...


Malcolm wrote:
Tögal does not work with relative channels. What is being discussed is relative channels.

Your friend is fortunate to have received tögal instruction, and unfortunate to have had an addiction that prevented his complete realization in this life.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Red Tara Sadhana
Content:
sangyey said:
For instance I had been trying to visualize when listening to music the sound as the mantra conjoined with emptiness as a way to develop compassion/wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
Sound is already mantra. Just enjoy it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:


AilurusFulgens said:
Does it mean that whoever has not achieved the Rainbow Body of Great Transference i.e. the complete and final result of Dzogchen can fall back into a state of ignorance after the pralaya happens and then a new universe (or should I rather say multiverse) emerges?

A. Fulgens


Malcolm wrote:
No, one can acheive complete realization either in this life, at the time of death, or in the bardo of dharmatā.

If one is a Dzogchen practitioner, even of one is a best an average practitioner i.e. the lowest capacity, there are methods to ensure rebirth in the five pure nirmanakāya buddhafields, where one will attain samyaksambuddhahood within five hundred human years, according to the texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
Namdrol said:
No, the basis is self-originated wisdom; sentient beings arise from the condition of ignorance. The cause of their arising is the non-recognition of wisdom. Hence the term "buddhahood that returns the cause".

N

wisdom said:
What is the meaning of "returning to the cause".

Malcolm wrote:
Means returning to the state of the basis -- the basis is called the basis because it has not been realized. When it is realized, the basis is called the result. If it is realized imperfectly, then that is called a result that returns to the cause; when it is realized perfectly, then it is called "the result that does not return to the cause".

Please bear in mind that these things are theoretical, and they have very little if nothing at all to do with dailhy practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Malcolm, this is super-fascinating. thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff.

I have a question here:
Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana.
where are these traces during the basis-bardo, in the basis itself? that doesn't sound plausible. we would then have a basis with latent awareness(es) and latent afflicted traces???

Malcolm wrote:
In the basis itself, which is why  I cited the passage "Wisdom is the accumulator of traces". And yes, that is exactly what Dzogchen "cosmology" is saying i.e. that there are latent awareness [shes pa bag la nyal] in the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the dzogchen presentation of the basis, what exactly it is or isnt, and how things arise from it, is intimately related to questions of just what a sentient being is, just what we are, what our awareness is, where it comes from, etc. none of this stuff is trivial.

Namdrol said:
Things dont rise from the basis. They arise from non-recognition of the basis, i.e. the parikalpita- avidyā.

N

gad rgyangs said:
what is it that fails to recognize the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
I have explained this now several ways. So, I'll try again: there are no sentient beings at the time of the latent basis, because all sentient beings, theoretically, acheived some kind of buddhahood in the last eon. The notion of the basis in Dzogchen man ngag sde is very similar to the Hindu idea of Pralaya. [In fact, in the term kun gzhi, ālaya, kun = ā, gzhi = laya. The term kun gzhi is distinguished from the term gzhi in Dzogchen, as you can easily find out, but the fact that gzhi is desceribed as the bardo of samara and nirvana is nothing if not telling. If someone is taking a text critical approach, they will note that there is a movement in Buddhist tantric texts in India in the late 9th through the 10th century in such texts as the Samputa tantra and the Kalacakra to borrow and repurpose some Samkhya concepts. Hence Dzogchen use of the term prakriti, etc.]

After the collapse of the previous universe, there are no buddhas and sentient beings -- and this is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana. Present in the latent basis however is a neutral awareness which does not know itself.

Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana.

This neutral awareness is what happens when someone acheives an incomplete full awakening, for example an arhat or some other form of lesser iberation that can "return to the cause". This is why Dzogchen makes such a big deal about Dzogchen Buddhahood being one that "does not return to the cause".

gad rgyangs said:
have sentient beings existed since beginningless time alongside the basis, but not arising from it?

Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen answer is no. Sentient beings newly arise at the end of each bardo of samsara and nirvana.

How do they arise? They arise when neutral awarenesss in the basis makes the error of not recognizing the display of the a basis as its own display. The imputing ignorance results in self and other, the ālaya forms, the twelve links start up, samsara and nirvana divide. Etc.

As I mentioned above, Dzoghchen texts do not distinguish whether this neutral awareness in the basis is multiple or singular.

So this question is left for us to solve on our own: either the neutral awareness of basis is multiple, not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons, but this explains how there are individual mind streams from the start; or it is singular (not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons), but gets warped by the presence of trace afflictions into individuated sentient beings; or is it neither singular or multiple (not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons) and gets warped by the presence of trace afflictions into individuated sentient beings. In the last two scenarios, the inability of awakened people to completely eradicate all traces of afflictions leaves traces of affliction left over, where they act as seeds for new sentient beings. There is a passage in the Gongpa Zangthal that describes wisdom as "the accumulator of traces".

gad rgyangs said:
do the basis and sentient beings have a common origin?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the basis is self-originated wisdom; sentient beings arise from the condition of ignorance. The cause of their arising is the non-recognition of wisdom. Hence the term "buddhahood that returns the cause".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Krishnamurti and Buddhism
Content:
Beatzen said:
Atisha explicitly stated not to concern oneself with others.  You really shouldn't even judge yourself.  You are encouraged to cultivate without hope of benefit or reward.

gregkavarnos said:
Hogwash, not only do we have the right to judge the capacity and motivation of those that are teaching us, we have to!  It's a tantric thang!  How else will we find a teacher to totally commit to?


Malcolm wrote:
The unexamined master is a māra for the disciple,
the unexamined disciple is the enemy of the master.
-- Tantra of Self-arisen Vidyā


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the dzogchen presentation of the basis, what exactly it is or isnt, and how things arise from it, is intimately related to questions of just what a sentient being is, just what we are, what our awareness is, where it comes from, etc. none of this stuff is trivial.

Malcolm wrote:
Things dont rise from the basis. They arise from non-recognition of the basis, i.e. the parikalpita- avidyā.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
Kai said:
Therefore  KaDag ChenPo = basis = yeshe?

Malcolm wrote:
indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
i don't see how anyone could not experience some perplexity with this story.

Virgo said:
It's actually the clearest explanation of things I've come across.

Kevin

gad rgyangs said:
i didnt say it wasnt clear, i said it was bizarre.

Malcolm wrote:
No more bizarre that Kalacakra space atoms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
a "basis" that is "self originated" and possesses some kind of rudimentary "awarenesses". it sounds like some kind of primordial blob or something.


Namdrol said:
I guess you are not very interested in understanding Dzogchne. It is probably better for you to study Lamdre or Mahamudra.

N

gad rgyangs said:
thats not fair. i am asking honest questions and expressing my perplexity with some aspects of this creation story. i don't see how anyone could not experience some perplexity with this story. your explanations are very clear and appreciated, but that doesn't mean its something to be just swallowed hook line and sinker without question.


Malcolm wrote:
You should examine the tone of your questions. BTW, it is not a creation story. The basis refers to a time between universes. Also, as I have mentioned before, if you are not practicing thögal, this explanation is not relevant to your practice. This explanation is directly tied to tögal teachings and provides the basis for understanding the Nyinthig model of liberation. It is actually not really good that there is so much out there about this "cosmology" since people misunderstand its intent badly.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Masturbation is not listed as lay sexual misdconduct in Abhidharma or the Vinaya Sutra.

It is a sexual misconduct that requires confession and penance in the case of bhikṣūs.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
a "basis" that is "self originated" and possesses some kind of rudimentary "awarenesses". it sounds like some kind of primordial blob or something.


Malcolm wrote:
I guess you are not very interested in understanding Dzogchne. It is probably better for you to study Lamdre or Mahamudra.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
Namdrol said:
The basis is original purity. The Unwritten Tantra states:

“There is no object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Prajñā does not exist. Samsara does not exist.  Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.”

However, Prasaga is an intellectual view. Dzogchen is not and that is the main difference between the two.

gad rgyangs said:
so wisdom (ye shes) is prior to vidya (rig pa), and is actually a synonym for the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


gad rgyangs said:
when ye shes takes an object it becomes rig pa (or rather ye shes stirs and becomes a duality of rigpa and object)? what then is "resting in rig pa", what is the object then?

Malcolm wrote:
Awarenesses [shes pa rnams] in the basis are neutral, meaning they are not afflicted, but they possess innate ignorance since they not know themselves. When there is a stirring in the basis and the light of wisdom shines out, then these awarenesses either recognize it, in which case their shes pa becomes a shes rab and they know [vidyā] the basis as their own state; or they reify appearance of the five lights as an object through the imputing ignorance and this sets into motion I-making, dependent origination and all the rest of it, and their shes pa becomes rnam shes.

BTW, the texts themselves do not speak of the shes pas in the plural. They just use the the term shes pa lung ma bstan.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
is the basis a dependent arising or not? if it is, its not a basis. if it is not, it is not empty, which is impossible.


Namdrol said:
The basis is not dependently originated. It is self-originated.

The Blazing Lamp Tantra:

Within initial original purity
the nature is like so:
not made by anyone, intrinsically clear
the nature is already just so.

gad rgyangs said:
how is this reconcilable with the standard Dzogchen trope that Dzogchen follows the view of Pransangika Madhayamaka and the MMK?


Malcolm wrote:
The basis is original purity. The Unwritten Tantra states:

“There is no object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Prajñā does not exist. Samsara does not exist.  Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.”

However, Prasaga is an intellectual view. Dzogchen is not and that is the main difference between the two.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: May wrathful practice be performed?
Content:
Kilaya said:
Does Throma Nagmo have any separate sadhana of her own apart from the Chöd ritual?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Many.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: How to Generate Merit?
Content:
Clarence said:
So, after some thinking and contemplating, I decided to get cracking at increasing my merit. Now, my life is good and easy so I am looking to increase the merit so I get to do retreats and meet realized Lamas. I don't need merit to attract women or money, so you can skip that.

What would you suggest are the best practices for this?

Many thanks, C


Malcolm wrote:
DO Ganapujas. Sing SOV. More merit in a single moment of contemplation than all the stupas in the universe.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
is the basis a dependent arising or not? if it is, its not a basis. if it is not, it is not empty, which is impossible.


Malcolm wrote:
The basis is not dependently originated. It is self-originated.

The Blazing Lamp Tantra:

Within initial original purity
the nature is like so:
not made by anyone, intrinsically clear
the nature is already just so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Orthodoxy in Vajrayana
Content:
Astus said:
Thanks Namdrol for the initial input. You listed the major differences between sutra and tantra, but what are the fundamental doctrines that tantras have to accord with in order to be considered authentic? I think of something similar to the four seals and such.

Malcolm wrote:
Those are the ten criteria I listed above. Then I mentioned that Dzogchen tosses them out.




Astus said:
You say the transmission is valid if the teacher is realised or if s/he has an unbroken lineage. I assume there are no verifiable proofs for either of that, are there?

Malcolm wrote:
Zero.

Astus said:
Is a lineage authentic as long as it originates from a realised master -

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But this is true of both sutra and tantric teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: The Lack of Cause and Result in Dzogchen
Content:
Mr. G said:
Hi Namdrol,

Perhaps I was being a bit more granular than I wanted to be.  This is the context in which I was using the word "causation":

The accumulation of merit leads to the meeting of Dzogchen teachings, which leads to receiving Direct Introduction, which leads to the eventual recognition of rigpa.  So:

merit ---> Direct Introduction ---> recognition of rigpa.

Does this sound about right?


Malcolm wrote:
Not at the time fo the basis; after the basis has arisen and samsara and nirvana have split, then this is correct. I.e. it is correct for sentient being. At the time of the basis however there are neither buddhas nor sentient beings, hence it is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:


Namdrol said:
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)]

gad rgyangs said:
this is the actual definition of svabhava.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no diversity in a svābhāva. There is diversity in lhun grub. This is the reason why ka dag is termed ngo bo, or svabhāva; while lhun grub is termed prakriti or rang bzhin.
N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


Kai said:
Thats a strictly Sakya view.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, it is view of the Samputa tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava.

Malcolm wrote:
No, since it is originally pure.

gad rgyangs said:
if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case?

Malcolm wrote:
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)] but it is also not conditioned by afflictions.

However, since it is naturally formed, it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Nemo said:
I think that reading a book about dzog chen without a Masters supervision is about as useful as reading a book on brain surgery.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed, fortunately I have all necessary transmissions and instructions. Thanks.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
then this implies that the sentient being exists first, and then fails to recognize its state, which results in it being a sentient being, which is a circular regress.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

As I have stated elsewhere, Dzogchen cosmology is just a minor variation on the standard abhidharma cosmology. In Abhidharmakośa, at the end of the eon, all sentient beings are reborn in the two upper form realms, where their minds are in a state of dharmatā. After twenty anatarakalpas, intermediate eons, because of traces of latent afflictions, the air mandala forms and so on, resulting in a container universe which is repopulated by sentient beings who take birth in it from top to bottom.

In Dzogchen, at the end of the previous mahākalpa, all sentient beings attain "buddhahood" after taking birth in the Kalavinkaloka. Then after twenty thousand eons while samsara and nirvana does not appear (this is called the bardo (antara) of samsara and nirvana in dzogchen texts), because of the lingering traces of affliction and action left over from the last eon, the basis becomes stirred, the five lights shine out and there is a chance for recognition or non-recognition by the neutral awareness(es) that is/are obscured by the innate ignorance of mere non-recognition while the basis is in a latent state. Depending on the fact of recognition or non-recognition, there is Samantabhadra and sentient beings.

Thus, we understand that the basis has two phases, active and latent. During the bardo of samsara and nirvana, it is in a latent phase.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
One last question, then: when everything is destroyed at the end a world age, do the Buddhas survive that or not?


Malcolm wrote:
This is one of those fourteen questions....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: The Lack of Cause and Result in Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
....are called the basis (aka bodhicitta in sems sde) when they are not recognized. When they are recognized, they are called the path.

N

Mr. G said:
Hi Namdrol,

What "causes" the act of recognition?

Malcolm wrote:
It is more like, what is the condition for recognition. The condition for recognition is the stirring of the basis


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: The Lack of Cause and Result in Dzogchen
Content:


Mr. G said:
The basis was not recognized as being orignally pure and free of afflictions which initiated samsara and nirvana.  However, we can't call the act of "recognition" a real act or cause due to the the basis which possesses a nature, essence and compassion.  So it is not the individual that is "recognizing", but it is the intelligence of the basis that is at work.

Malcolm wrote:
The three wisdoms, essence, nature and compassion, are called the basis (aka bodhicitta in sems sde) when they are not recognized. When they are recognized, they are called the path. When they are realized, they are called the result.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Then I look at my example of a modern person searching for saltiness and stopping at the salt molecule and it seems so dumb to continue decomposing things, everything is made of the smaller stuff.

Malcolm wrote:
Molecules are made of atoms which are made of electrons and protons, etc.

By stopping at the salt molecule, you are making precisely the mistake Madhyamakas criticized Sarvastivadins for making i.e. arbitrarily stopping your analysis at a false level of irreducibility.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
And if you can argue for and against a view, it makes one wonder why you casually brush one off.

Malcolm wrote:
Because I think that Tsongkhapa's presentation does not reflect Chandrakirti's intention, or that of Nagarjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Jnana said:
There are also other conservative interpretations on the role and importance of karmamudrā. For example, Chomdan Rigpey Raltri's Dohālaṃkārapuṣpa (Do ha rgyan gyi me tog):
People who do not know [that] the nature of everything [is] co-emergence claim that unadulterated great bliss is attained while engaging in sexual union with a karmamudrā. They are mistaken, like the thirsty wild deer who sees a mirage as water, goes running after it and gets injured. They die from thirst; can they get water from the sky? Similarly, [such people] mistake the bliss of the four joys to be primordial awareness, and do not realize co-emergence. For this reason, since that bliss which is born from sexual union has no capacity to give rise to and sustain co-emergence, where can it complete the realization [which is] free of the three worlds, [i.e.] the three doors? Well, it cannot complete this.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. The bliss of karmaudra practice is just a tool. In the lamdre system, it is called the practice of small bliss and emptiness and is connected with the third consecration. It does not produce a final result since it works by purifying the the white and red bodhicitta. For that, you need the practices of the jñānavāyu, the wisdom winds (albiet still practiced with either sort of mudra), termed in Lamdre, great bliss and emptiness -- the practice that transforms the karmavāyus into jñānav̄ayus -- thus resulting in rainbow body, as in Dzogchen.

The main advantage of Dzogchen togal over these practices is that a) it does not require a consort b) it does not require the step by step purification of the four mandalas through the two stages (i.e. the outer body channel mandala, the inner channel syllable mandala, the bodhicitta mandala, and the vāyu mandala). This is why togal is sometimes equated with the completion stage practices of the gsar ma system.

The practice of tregchö, the inseperabilty of samsara and nirvana of Sakya, mahāmudra of Kagyu, and clear light nature of the mind of the Gelugpas have essentially the same point i.e. cultivating a momentary unfabricated awareness.

Dzogchenpas maintain however that this cultivation of a momentary unfabricated awareness by itself will not result in rainbow body, but rather, will result only in the the body dissolving at death into subtle particles.  In Nyingma, Sakya and Gelug, it seems this cultivation of a momentary unfabricated awareness forms the basis for the pratice the two stages, whereas Kagyu dissents, and asserts that this meditation alone can be sufficient for a person of supreme caliber.

In any event, the main point of the view in all four (or five if we included Jonang) schools is the experiential cultivation of a momentary unfabricated awareness. Other than that, the main differences are terminolgies related to the specifics of each schools presentation of their respective paths and methodologies.

N

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: The Lack of Cause and Result in Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Sentient beings occur through non-recognition of the basis.

The result does not arise from a cause.

Mr. G said:
Would you be able to elaborate on this?  I'm stuck on the notion that recognition or non-recognition is a "cause" of sorts that enables the result.


Malcolm wrote:
The result does not depend on the two accumulations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Namdrol said:
The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

gad rgyangs said:
are you an individual? yes
does that mean you and the basis are therefore distinct?

Malcolm wrote:
Imputing ignorance [kun brtags ma rig pa] reifies the basis as a self and an other. This ignorance does not exist in the basis, has never existed in the basis and will never exist in the basis. Nevertheless, the basis, nature, essence and compassion, serve as its cause in the sense that it is the basis which is reified. However, the basis itself is free from reification and therefore any sort of enumeration. Even the notion of three wisdoms of essence, nature and compassion is merely a way of talking about the basis which in fact has one essence.

Individuals occur because the basis was not recognized at the beginning of the eon, when the neutral awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan, jñāvyakrta] in the basis became conscioussness [rnam shes, vijñāna] through not recognizing the basis as its own state due to the imputing ignorance mentioned above. When that nuetral awareness recognizes the basis as its own display, it becomes prajñā [shes rab] through knowing [rig pa, vidyā] the basis as its own display, there is effortless buddhahood in the state of realization called "Samantabhadra".

Sentient beings in others words are merely a continuation of ignorance about our own true state.

The answer of course is that inviduals are neither the same nor different than the basis. If they were the same, the basis would afflicted, if they were utterly different, sentient beings could not becomes buddhas through recognizing the basis as their own state.

Also bear in mind that the term "basis" is applied to the three wisdoms because they have not been realized. When the three wisdoms are realized, then they are termed the fruit and one rests on the stage of great original purity, uttarajñāna, highest wisdom.

N


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:


Adamantine said:
Namdrol, could you explain how you can say wanking is only sexual misconduct for monks without contradicting Dudjom Rinpoche? I am not trying to debate, I am just genuinely interested.

Malcolm wrote:
Because that item is not covered as part of sexual misconduct for laypeople.

Losing the "white" bodhicitta is interpreted differently by different masters. So I regard the whole thing as a matter of opinion, with no masters opinion being defintive.

I don't consider either Ngari Panchen or Dudjom R. to be final authorities about anything. The same goes for Sakya Pandita, Kongtrul, etc.

In other words, I am happy to contradict any scholar living or dead if I think they are mistaken.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 2:10 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Acid_Trancer said:
I am very much interested in dzogchen but I dont understand the relation between the dharmakaya and the individual natural state.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

The three kayas have one essence.

The three kayas do not exist apart from the basis.

Sentient beings occur through non-recognition of the basis.

The result does not arise from a cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
attempting to get back to the OPs mereological question, the holographic paradigm may point to an understanding: in a hologram, each fragment contains/reflects the whole. Aurobindo also said (IIRC) something to the effect that each thing is the whole universe presenting a different frontal aspect. clues like these may be fertile for rumination.

Sherab said:
So if one part of the universe becomes enlightened, every part of the universe become enlightened?

gad rgyangs said:
since this is the Dzogchen forum, of course theres nothing to "become enlightened", in the sense of a process or attainment actually happening. Illusory holographic fragments may kaleidoscopically change colors, that is all. the point is, there is both the illusory individual fragment holographically containing/contained in the illusory whole, and the illusory whole containing/contained in the illusory fragment. its not an either/or situation.

Malcolm wrote:
Read Guenther much? Word salad. At best some distorted Hua Yen. It is just not that complicated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
It is odd that there was such interest in Conventional Reality on its original thread but now there is none.

It is odd that the only response was "More Gelug naval gazing" and no Gelug's jump forward (if this has anything to do with it).

Almost makes me uncomfortable to ask.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason is,is that that I can argue for the Gelug position and against it. BTW, I know Jay Garfield reasonably well, and we have also had this conversation. He is a smart guy, but I don't completely agree with his assessment of Madhyamaka -- but we respect each other.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:



brendan said:
The less Theism in the place the better.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no theism in my thinking or statements, so it is just your imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
brendan said:
Your facebook profile says "Orginally Pure Natural Formation", you seem to be contradicing your self once again with "wishing people to experience nirvana".

Malcolm wrote:
The reason the basis is called "the basis" is because it has not been realized.

Once the basis has been fully realized, then there is parinirvana.

There is no contradiction.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Sherab said:
Wow, the exchanges are UNREAL.

asunthatneversets said:
FOREAL.


Malcolm wrote:
brenden is forever seeing theism under every bed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
brendan said:
RIP=Theism

Malcolm wrote:
Only you if have severse aversions to wishing people to experience nirvana.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:



brendan said:
Why then did you write "RIP Steve Jobs" on your facebook page when Steve Jobs died?

Namdrol said:
Why do you care?

brendan said:
Dont cheat.

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is: I wrote that out of sentimentality because I am fond of his products.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:



brendan said:
Why then did you write "RIP Steve Jobs" on your facebook page when Steve Jobs died?

Malcolm wrote:
Why do you care?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:


Tsering927 said:
I think this is the crucial point of Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
The crucial point of Vajrayāna is using the body as the method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
dharmakaya is a turtle living in a gingerbread house under the sea, but it isnt real, so my statement is buddhist and not a fairytale.


Malcolm wrote:
Being unreal does not mean being arbitrary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
wisdom said:
It is also all pervading and infinite, present in all things.

gad rgyangs said:
how is this different from vedanta or theism?

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakāya isn't real.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
It seems there is a quality of awareness which contains all knowledge and which is shared by everything in various quantities like an energy of some sort, basically, and then you basically contact and capture bits of this awareness like lightning bugs in a jar.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is called thugs rjes which expresses itself as rtsal or energy.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:


padma norbu said:
So... why is it necessary to receive knowledge from something "other" at all? Why can't he just know these teachings if they come from his real nature without the necessity of a manifestation of wisdom display to communicate it back to himself?

Malcolm wrote:
Because he has a body, and therefore a mind, and in the state of dreams, everyone has seven times more clarity than when they are awake.

Also while he is a realized person, he says he is not a completely realized person at the end of the path.

You also have this same state, so, you might as well ask yourself why you are not spontaneously receiving these teachings, etc.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
deff said:
masturbation is very dangerous?

Namdrol said:
Some people apparently think so -- they might go blind or grow hair on their palms.


Dechen Norbu said:
If it was, most male teens would never reach adulthood...

Malcolm wrote:
Some women would argue that most male teens never do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
We are told that if we have visions of deities not to hold too much importance to that

Malcolm wrote:
Because those visions are mental projections, based on mind.

padma norbu said:
and yet here we have world-famous teachers writing entire series of books based on visions from deities.

Malcolm wrote:
Because this teacher has knowledge of his real state, and because he is expert in dream yoga, the display of his wisdom manifests as teachers and deties that communicate knowledge which he then commits to writing.

And he also has provided the method by which we may know the difference between karmic dreams (based on on mind) and dreams of clarity (based on wisdom).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Bhairava in Buddhism?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Hindu Bhairava = Mahākala

Karinos said:
Mahakala and Bhairava are not the same.

Malcolm wrote:
I know that Bhairava and Mahākala are not the same.

However, Bhairava shrines in Nepal are considered Mahākala shrines by Tibetans.

It is the same principle with Vajrayogini statures being considered to be emanations of Kali.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Bhairava in Buddhism?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Hi, wondering if anyone is familiar with the cross-pollinating deities of Nepal, and specifically with the various statues and shrines devoted to Bhairava and how / if they fit into the context of tantric Buddhism. I wonder because I find some of the statues beautiful and powerful, but I am not familiar with the link.. some appear almost identical to the protector Mahakala... but unlike Siva I have not heard that Bhairvava specifically corresponds to a Nyingma protector ---->although Bhairava is supposedly another manifestation of Siva -- so would I then consider Bhairava as Mahadeva?

I know that this deity was particularly important to Newars, but I also understand Newars are primarily Buddhist. . . if anyone has any in-depth insight I'd love to hear it.


Malcolm wrote:
Hindu Bhairava = Mahākala


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
is physical phenomena an illusion
or is it the reality of physical phenomena that is the illusion?

Malcolm wrote:
If the reality of physical phenomena is an illusion, physical phenomena are illusory because the nature of a thing cannot be different than the thing that bears that nature -- for example, wetness and water, heat and fire, etc.

PadmaVonSamba said:
But why is divisibility the criteria for establishing the "reality" of something?

Malcolm wrote:
Irreducibility is held to be the criteria for establishing identity. Identity is the basis for establishing the reality of a given thing. If the identity of a given thing cannot be etablished for that thing because a given thing can still be reduced and analyzed, that thing's reality depends on non-analytical acceptance (hence a convention). Assuming that no phenomena can bear ultimate analysis,  a given thing's reality is an imputation based upon an appearance that has not been subject to ultimate analysis.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
Anyway, this is a boring game of semantics.

PadmaVonSamba said:
....Or does it only APPEAR to be???


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it appears so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: My father
Content:
KeithBC said:
My father left this life at 2:05 this afternoon, three weeks short of his 89th birthday.  If you feel so inclined, please join me in wishing him a safe journey to his next life, and fortunate rebirth.  He did his best in this life.

Om mani padme hum.
Keith


Malcolm wrote:
Om aḥ hūṃ bodhicitta mahāsukha jñanadhātu a


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Namdrol said:
yes.

Lhug-Pa said:
Thanks. I've got enough 'practices' lined up as it is, but if upon reading about the Longsal preliminaries we decide that it's more effective, then it can only help to adjust our practice for the better. Of course it's important too to work with what we have and stick to it, instead of going something like "Oh, I now have a Lung for this other better practice, I'd better learn it first before I start practicing." (note to self)


Pero

No worries lol

Ah I see, thanks again.


Malcolm wrote:
Who is "we".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: ‘How Yoga Wrecks the Body’ via The New York Times
Content:
Namdrol said:
The fact is that most of the people I know who have done a lot of yoga (of any kind) have seriously injured themselves, and this includes more than one high lama.

N

zangskar said:
Do you mind saying a bit about what kind of (permanent?) injuries? (Not who.)

Best wishes
Lars

Malcolm wrote:
Neck, back, knees.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
With having the Lung for Longsal preliminaries, can I practice the preliminaries until I receive the Longsal Empowerment as well?


Malcolm wrote:
yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: ‘How Yoga Wrecks the Body’ via The New York Times
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
If there is any danger in "Yoga", it's that most mainstream "Yoga" studios don't teach Hatha Yoga for its original purpose: To prepare the body for deep meditation.

It seems that most "Yoga" studios nowadays only, whether intentionally or unintentionally, teach people how to increase their vanity and lust; and charge an arm & a leg to boot (whether for overpriced classes, supplies, clothing, mats, etc.)

Better to learn Yantra Yoga instead, and from a qualified source.

Hatha Yoga can be very benecifial too though, that is with proper guidance (even if only from an authentic book) and Right Intention.


Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that most of the people I know who have done a lot of yoga (of any kind) have seriously injured themselves, and this includes more than one high lama.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
deff said:
masturbation is very dangerous?

Malcolm wrote:
Some people apparently think so -- they might go blind or grow hair on their palms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
If you are having a dream, and somebody in the dream comes up to you and tells you that you are dreaming,
since they are not "real", why should you believe them?


Malcolm wrote:
Who else wold you beleive if there are no real persons.

Anyway, this is a boring game of semantics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
If what you are experiencing is illusion, then how do you know it is illusion?

Malcolm wrote:
The same way you know you are dreaming when you are in a dream.

Not easy, not impossible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
There are other methods to reveal knowledge


Malcolm wrote:
There is all kinds of knowledge and all kinds of methods to reveal it -- Madhyamaka is intent on discovering the knowledge that completely pacifies suffering.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Tsering927 said:
My point is that they are not in union in bed

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are -- this idea is a total fantasy, I am sorry to say.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

Malcolm wrote:
The entire path, from the beginning until final Buddhahood is completely illusory, insubstantial, according to Haribhadra.

For example, afflictions are not substantial entities in the mind that must be removed. They have no more reality than the mind they are felt to afflict. Wisdom is not something substantial which is gained by the mind.

The whole network of dependent origination is insubstantial. There are no substantial members which belong to anything dependently originated. Substantiality is a deluded mental appearance.
N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Clarence said:
Namdrol-la,

You are allowed to teach Dzogchen. What if someone like Padma came to you with his story, what would you say? Why would he have to learn Tibetan (colloquial or Tibetan)? How would that get rid of his doubts? I know you don't want to teach but I am genuinely curious as Padma isn't the only one with doubt.
The advice to practice more seems not to work perfectly well either as the problem is doubt. Not just doubt about the whole tradition but also doubt about whether the practice is done right. At the same time we hear stories that if the practice is done wrongly, the results will be disastrous. So, the practice more exhortation does not work in this case. At least, that is what I think.

Just curious about your opinion.

Thanks, C

Malcolm wrote:
If someone comes to me with doubts, I generally send that person back to their teacher. In Padma's case, he should try and get his hands on ChNN's Upadesha on All-Penetrating Wisdom (ye shes zang thal), Longsal Series Volume three. If he attended the recent webcast, ChNN gave the Longsal transmission of Yeshe Zangthal in the last open retreat, not the lung, but the transmission. This book also contains the Longsal Ngondro for which ChNN gave the lung in the last retreat. So he should have no trouble procuring this text. I personally found this one short text to be something like a key that deepened my understanding of Dzoghen beyond tregchö and unlocked the meaning of many tantras.

BTW, in tregchö, that is it. All you are doing just totaly relaxing in a state of instant presence. It does not make anything better but if you are relaxed, you don't mind, also if things are better, you don't mind. If you are not being relaxed, then you are not understanding the main point of tregchö. So you must learn and apply the four chozhags. Cog (ཅོག) is an ancient Tibetan word that means all. It also means to have leisure. Shag (གཞག) means to let go. So this is why ChNN translates this as total relaxation. There are four points of cogzhag which should be applied together at the same time. It is not hard to learn what this means, as I recall ChNN talked about this in the last retreat.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


Namdrol said:
No, ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood.

N

PadmaVonSamba said:
Is that really true?


Malcolm wrote:
Word games. Not interested.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Orthodoxy in Vajrayana
Content:
Astus said:
What constitutes orthodoxy (including orthopraxy) in Vajrayana? What is its definition? Or is it that there are several definitions? What are they?

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

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

Malcolm wrote:
There are ten criteria that define a valid tantra, for example. But the Dzogchen tradition throws them away.

The real difference between sutra and tantra is the following: yoga tantra and highest yoga tantra has a method based on transmission of an example wisdom communicated by a guru, a physiologically based understanding of meditation and the path, a concept of wisdom being physicaly embodied in the center of the body, the theory of mind and vāyu interactivity; teachings on ṇāḍī, vāyu and bindu which is crucial to tantric praxis, the so called body method. All of these features are almost completely lacking in lower and non-Vajrayāna teachings.

As far as transmission goes, the Nyingmapas argue that all Mahāyāna teachings are treasure texts. The gsar ma schools were predicated on bringing back new Indian texts. So Sakya, Gelug and Jonang tend to emphasize the new tantras as being more authentic since they have a clearer Indian pedigree. Kagyus go both ways, historically -- that is to say. Nyingmapas have developed various polemics to defend continued text production. Basically, the Nyingma collection of tantras is not closed, the Kengyur and Tengyur are closed. I am a student of three different tertons who have produced "new" tantras.

One cannot separate transmission from the teaching. The transmission is true if a) the teacher teaching it has personal realization of the teaching, or his lineage is unbroken. The first is the best of course, but most people get the latter. Of course there are no guarantees at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
lol, thanks for point that out, Namdrol.

I think I should change my name to "the grappler"... I wrestle too much. seems to be how my brain is wired.


Malcolm wrote:
What you shoud do is learn Tibetan.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
btw, I was joking about throwing the mala in the toilet. Just venting and grappling with some shi-yot, per usual. I don't know why I bother, though, really. I already know everything, apparently, because I never hear anything new. :: pats self on back :: :: is know-it-all ::


Malcolm wrote:
There is a bit of a pun on the word māla and mala in this story. In prakrit, Indians tend to not pay attention to long and short vowels -- so māla means a garland of flowers, but mala means excrement. So he threw his māla in the mala.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
Well, I'm throwing my mala in the toilet.

Malcolm wrote:
Who needs a mala?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
Those who still cling to existents as real necessarily have shallower understanding of dependent origination than those who understand that the final implication of dependent origination is that existents, though apparent, are not real in any meaningful and ultimate sense.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Are those people really clinging? I mean, Really?
Is the fact of ignorance real?

Malcolm wrote:
No, ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
Those who still cling to existents as real necessarily have shallower understanding of dependent origination than those who understand that the final implication of dependent origination is that existents, though apparent, are not real in any meaningful and ultimate sense.

N

Virgo said:
And thus we have Madhyamaka.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Well, the main point is to help people overcome limitations, not erect a school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
I'm too tired to redesign religions.  The feeling of fatigue.  Sleep well.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to understand Madhyamaka, then I, among others can help you here. Some of us, like myself, have formal training in the field.

But there is nothing in Buddhism to redesign. Buddhism is all about understanding dependent origination. Some people's understanding of dependent origination is deeper than that of others. Those who still cling to existents as real necessarily have shallower understanding of dependent origination than those who understand that the final implication of dependent origination is that existents, though apparent, are not real in any meaningful and ultimate sense.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Unknown said:
If "Buddhism" means many schools of equal status

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't. Madhyamaka is definitive, the rest are not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
In other words, the Candrikirti interpretation you provide requires Buddhists to be antirealists --

Namdrol said:
Not all Buddhists, just Madhyamakas.

yadave said:
Guess I value a bigger Dharma, larger audience, higher number of liberated beings than you.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a term Madhyamikas, including Gelugpas, use for other Buddhist schools below Madhyamaka "dngos po smra ba" (vastuvadins) which roughly means "those who advocate things as real". This assumes of course that Madhyamaka is the ultimate Buddhist perspective.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
catmoon said:
Yup, us nasty, navel-gazing cowherders got better things to do. Fer Instance, I need to take a leak. Please notice how carefully I aim so it does not land on someone else's path.

Malcolm wrote:
My point was that this book is typical of Madhyamaka books these days that cannot escape the event horizon of Gelug -- but there is a whole neglected world of Madhyamaka out there that has nothing to do with Tsongkhapa and his opinions.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Candrikirti would reject his own formulation today.  QED.


Malcolm wrote:
You're reaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
In other words, the Candrikirti interpretation you provide requires Buddhists to be antirealists --

Malcolm wrote:
Not all Buddhists, just Madhyamakas.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Illusory body /rainbow body after death and rebirth
Content:
heart said:
I have no idea. But if you have a rainbow body rebirth just doesn't make any sense.

/magnus


Namdrol said:
Khyentse Wangpo managed it. Guess this begs the question -- when is rebirth not rebirth?

heart said:
Since he was Chetsun Senge Wangchuk in an earlier life?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
So you agree with MS and, for Candrakirti, a truth [satya] means an object, and each "object" is really two objects...

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly, a truth is "an object of a cognition" -- you cannot leave the cognition part off since it is integral to the definition. A truth is not merely an object, it is an object defined as relative or utlimate depending upon whether the cognition is deceived or undeceived. One object, two natures, hence two cognitions, correct and false.

This is an development over the Abhidharmic concept of a truth, in which a truth [satya] is a cognition, for example, a cognition of water is a relative truth, whereas a cognition of the characteristics of water, limpidity, wetness and coolness, are ultimate truths.

In other words, here,in Abhidharma, an ultimate truth is defined as the irreducible cognition that remains after something (such as a cup or water) has been subjected to complete analysis.

There really isn't than much difference between this and the Madhyamaka definition. The Madhyamaka definition might run something like "...an ultimate truth is defined as the object of an unmistaken cognition that remains after something (such as a cup or water) has been subjected to complete analysis."

The emphasis in both causes, both in Abhidharma and Madhyamaka is on the cognition. So no, I do not agree with the MS discussion in all respects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Illusory body /rainbow body after death and rebirth
Content:
heart said:
I have no idea. But if you have a rainbow body rebirth just doesn't make any sense.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Khyentse Wangpo managed it. Guess this begs the question -- when is rebirth not rebirth?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Clarence said:
It worries me when a relative Dzogchen newbie (who claimed earlier to be a Sotapanna) starts giving Dzogchen advice to other newbies. I don't know whether this should be the place for such things. Especially with the certainty that accompanies said advice.

Virgo said:
People are generally always worried about something.  But I am not concerned.

Kevin

heart said:
At you level of realization you should try to do something special to test your realization, here is a good example http://chronicleproject.com/stories_19.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, in this story, Trungpa just comes across as a clueless jerk.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:


Huseng said:
How is it that China, let alone the rest of the world, is going to transition from an economy and infrastructure that is based in its majority on fossil fuels to something that isn't?

Malcolm wrote:
Yak shit!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the whole point of madhyamaka is to deconstruct the abhidhharma phenomenology as anything other than arbitrary and illusory convention. once abhidharma loses its really existent simple dharmas, it collapses as anything other than a language game.


Malcolm wrote:
You've confused Madhyamaka with Wittgenstein.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the whole point of madhyamaka is to deconstruct the abhidhharma phenomenology as anything other than arbitrary and illusory convention. once abhidharma loses its really existent simple dharmas, it collapses as anything other than a language game.


Malcolm wrote:
No, the whole point of Madhyamaka is to bring abhidharma back into line with dependent origination by refuting abhidharma essentialism. Madhyamaka does not reject such things as the 5 skandhas, twelve āyatanas, and eighteen dhātus, the tweleve nidanas and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
where in madhyamaka texts does it talk like that?

Namdrol said:
Gorampa uses this term all the time in his Madhyamaka texts.

gad rgyangs said:
i mean indian madhyamaka texts, not post-dzogchen tibetan ones

Malcolm wrote:
Gorampa was not a Dzogchen pracitioner at all. He was a Sakyapa. He rejected the authenticity of kun byed rgyal po, and so on.

But anyway, it does not matter. Pre-Yogacara Madhyamakas [i.e. pre Shantarakṣita] accepted the standard cognitive model of Abhidharma, so for them it was proper to speak of objects, organs and sense consciousnesses. So in fact your whole line of inquiry is in vain. For them, there were, conventionally speaking, given objects in precisely the terms to which you object. For them, from Nagarjuna onwards, without the meeting of a cup, for example, and a healthy eye organ [i.e a functional patch of atoms in the shape of a flax flower in the back of the eye], and an eye consciousness operating through that sense organ, there could be no eye-consciousness of a cup at all. Three things are required for an instance of vision, in the Madhyamaka model.

Face it, my statement was just not a problem from a classical Madhyamaka point of view so I am not going to spend anymore time on this. Why? Because this is non-controversial.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
always means something like "object + a cognition".  If yours is the latter, I'll have to work on managing unusual expressions like "true relative truth."  (Seem simpler to just say "true cognition" is a truth, "false cognition" is a falsehood...)

Malcolm wrote:
For Candrakirti, a truth [satya] is always the object of a cognition (of which there are two kinds).

The reason why we say that there is a true and false relative truth, is as I explained it above. The former is mistaken concerning the nature of an apparent object; the latter is mistaken about the apparent object itself.

An ultimate truth is an object of an wholly unmistaken cognition.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:


kirtu said:
I am talking about inherently safe designs that cannot result in another Fukashima or Chernobyl.  As for spent nuclear fuel, we can either store it or send it into the Sun.  It's a matter of commitment.  We can really move to a completely electrical driven economy for this with the vast majority of electricity generated from renewable energy and the rest generated from nuclear sources.  Over time electricity costs actually drop to 0.

Kirt

Namdrol said:
Nuclear is one of the least efficient ...  energy sources.

N

kirtu said:
Nuclear fission exceeds all other power sources in terms of potential energy by at least 1M times.  So how is it the least efficient energy source?  Your statement is wholly unsupportable.

Malcolm wrote:
Because of the total amount on energy that goes into mining and refining fissionable material, in addition to the costs of disposing the waste (the sun, really? you have any idea how expensive that would be in terms of energy cost?), constructing the plants, etc.

Nuclear is totally unteneble.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
... if it does need the sentient being, then it is really just a mental appearance. if it doesnt need the sentient being, then its either being reified, or its some kind of alaya/paratantra.


Malcolm wrote:
According to classical Madhyamaka texts, a perception cannot occur if there is no object and no subject. I.e. the standard abhidharma triad, sense organ, object, sense consciousness. Candra rejects reflexive cognition, you may recall.

Remind me: with whom did you study madhyamaka?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
where in madhyamaka texts does it talk like that?

Malcolm wrote:
Gorampa uses this term all the time in his Madhyamaka texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
conceptual construction occurs after perception of an appearance.

gad rgyangs said:
what exactly is it that is "appearing"?

Malcolm wrote:
A clearly apparent non-existent or non-existent clear appearance (med par gsal snang), take your pick.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
yes but an apparent what? you can't say a table is apparent in any way beyond an arbitrary conceptual construction.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not true -- conceptual construction occurs after perception of an appearance. Otherwise, we would left with many ensuing faults. Please see Gorampa on this point.

gad rgyangs said:
"the given"

Malcolm wrote:
"Given" means when this specific chair is offered up for examination, this chair is the given chair. This is the kind of petty quibbling that really stalls meaningful conversation.

gad rgyangs said:
the statement about understanding the ultimate through the relative is didactic like saying to understand that mirages are illusions, you first have to be fooled by one.

Malcolm wrote:
No, first you merely have to see one, whether you are fooled by a mirage or not, still one perceives one, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
What Candrakirti is saying is that Nagarjuna is saying that any given entity someone perceives can be perceived either correctly or incorrectly.

N

gad rgyangs said:
entities are not "given" and if you are perceiving one, it is an incorrect cognition. this goes back to the prajnaparamita sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps we do not mean the same thing by entity. Here I am using "entity" simply to mean an apparent.

If you mean by an "entity" something which possesses being, then we are in agreement —  any perception predicated on perceiving an entity as existent is an incorrect cognition.

Apparents are a given, that is what it means when Nagarjuna states that one understands ultimate truth through relative truth. If they are not a given that the classical statement "Matter is empty, emptiness is matter..." etc., is unintelligible.

We have to have "given" objects because we do not reject appearances in classical Madhyamaka. We understand that appearances arise in dependence. What we reject about appearances is not the appearance itself, rather, that it has any underlying realty. For example, a moon in the water.

This is quite different than yogacara where appearances themselves in their totality are rejected.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


Mandarava said:
Namdrol where do you get the info that Saraswat is Shiva's wife? Can you quote it please as tradtionally she is  viewed as the wife of Brahma.
http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/saraswati.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
From the initiation text of the white Sarsvati cycle. She can also be Brahma's wife, just as she is Manjuśrī's consort. These goddesss have a busy schedule!

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
In terms of language or rhetoric, Nagarjuna's method works so well, and frustrates so many, because it is based on two truths, and two truths is effectively two contexts from which to interpret anything, be it the true/false value of truthbearers (like statements, perceptions, cognitions), or the real/unreal value of objects (like whether something exists).

So one cannot say "p is true" because it is not true in all contexts.  Similarly, one cannot say "p is false" because Nagarjuna again shifts to the other context.  Same method works for statements about existence.

Malcolm wrote:
What Candrakirti is saying is that Nagarjuna is saying that any given entity someone perceives can be perceived either correctly or incorrectly.

Among incorrect perceptions of objects there is a further subdivision; true relative truth and false relative truth. A true relative truth is somethat that is efficient and producing a result, for example, a wheat seed that produces a wheat sprout. Such observed efficiency provides the basis for consensus reality. False relative truths are conventional delusions, for example, a drunk who has doubled vision or a juandice patient who perceives everything as yellowed.

Ultimate truths are always true no matter the context. Relative truths are contextual. For example, the relative truth of the speed of light breaks down when gravitational conditions are altered the event horizon of a black hole, for example. However, we can connect these relative truths on a continuum by understand their context so they remain generally true even when they are not specificially true.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
as soon as you posit "something" that is either given an imaginary nature by erroneous cognition, or understood as empty of that imaginary nature by correct cognition, it is trisvabhava.

you said "the given apparent phenomena being perceived as an object", which is saying "something" ("phenomena") is being perceived as an object, i.e.  paratantra is being perceived as parikalpita.

Malcolm wrote:
No, what you said as that the imputed identity was parikalpita. Look back at what you said.

The three own natures have to do with how objects themselves are deluded cognitions (parikalpita) i.e. mental states (caittas) which arise from the activation of seeds (bijas) stored in the alayavijñāna (paratantra). When those appearances are recognized as being mere mental states, and non-existent in the ālayavijñāna itself, then the ālayavijñāna transforms into wisdom (parinispanna). Paratantra only refers to the ālayavijñāna.

Basically, if you want to talk about Yogacara this is not the thread to do it.

As I said, what I stated it basically pulled directly from MAv -- and as you know, Candra, later in this text, demolishes the three own nature thoery altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
Imagine being able to subdue monstrously powerful demonic manifestations to the point that you never stray from the realization that they are merely mental phenomena.


Malcolm wrote:
The most powerful demonic manifestation is the misconception of "I" that started the whole process of samsara.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Mr. G said:
Namdrol who translates for both Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Malcolm wrote:
I have done translations at the encouragement of ChNN, but I don't translate for the community.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
padma norbu said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
One's rigpa is embodied, it exists in a body. How it exists in a body is the root of understanding all Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
this is yogacara:

Namdrol said:
No, since Yogacara rejects the appearance itself as being a mere cognition.

Here, the appearance is not being rejected, only the correct or false cognition of the object.

gad rgyangs said:
paratantra is not a mere cognition.


Malcolm wrote:
Parikalpita, however, is. That is what appears in the three nature scheme. Madhyamaka on the other hand accepts external phenomena according to common consensus i.e. if it appears for everyone, it is not questioned further until analysis.

Basically, what I stated above is straight out of Madhyamaka-avatara.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
this is yogacara:

Malcolm wrote:
No, since Yogacara rejects the appearance itself as being a mere cognition.

Here, the appearance is not being rejected, only the correct or false cognition of the object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
Anyway, here is a potential problem with Nagarjuna's reliance on Ratnakuta Sutra:  If we just blindly "accept what the world accepts" then, on the conventional at least, "a Madhyamika's principal epistemic task [is] just to passively acquiesce and duplicate." (MS152.)

It is a trivialization of the idea of truth.  If truth means nothing, then qualifying it with "conventional" or "ultimate" adds little.

Regards,
Dave.

Malcolm wrote:
First things first -- truths (satyas) are objects of cognitions -- which can be either correct (ultimate) or false (relative). Since you are studying Gelug influenced discourse, this may not be immediately evident to you.

This means that if you see something that you identify as salt, and it functions as salt, this cognition is true in so far as it is efficient.

When you analyze that appearance for some fundamental saltiness in that appearance of salt, that cognition of salt fails because no fundamental saltiness will or can be found. In other words, relative truths are true so long as they are not investigated, that is, so long as the appearance which produces the cognition which lables that appearance is not analyzed to discover whether or not there is an essence which produces the identification of the given appearance in question.

A relative truth is the subject of a cognition that is not in possession of the fact that the given apparent phenomena being perceived as an object of said cognition lacks the identity imputed to it. An ultimate truth is an object of a cogniton which is in possession of the fact that the given apparent phenomena being perceived as an object of said cognition lacks the identity imputed to it and does not perceive the identity which is non-existent in that object of cognition.

The function of the two truths is to lead to the cessation of proliferation about identity. The lack of identity within phenomena and persons alone is emptiness and nothing else.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
I read online that "In the Ratnakuta Sutra, the thought of the Middle Way is developed, which later became the basis for the Madhyamaka teaching of Nagarjuna."  So Nagarjuna agreed with the Dalai Lama and we can relax.

Namdrol said:
But [Ratnakuta Sutra] doesn't [undermine Madhyamaka] at all.

yadave said:
I think some scholars disagree.  Probably just nasty Gelugpa nonsense but let me look up the problem again.

Malcolm wrote:
Reading Nagarajuna through the lense of 15th century Tibetans is inherently problematical.

The problem is not Tsongkhapa per se, but the extent to which modern Madhyamaka studies centers around Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
Page 151 of MoonShadows restates the Ratnakuta passage that Sunshine and I have been playing with here,

Candrakirti said:
The world (loka) argues with me. I don’t argue with the world. What is agreed upon (saṃmata) in the world to exist, I too agree that it exists. What is agreed upon in the world to be nonexistent, I too agree that it does not exist.

yadave said:
and explains how this undermines the Madhyamika project.

Regards,
Dave.

Malcolm wrote:
But it doesn't at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:


kirtu said:
I am talking about inherently safe designs that cannot result in another Fukashima or Chernobyl.  As for spent nuclear fuel, we can either store it or send it into the Sun.  It's a matter of commitment.  We can really move to a completely electrical driven economy for this with the vast majority of electricity generated from renewable energy and the rest generated from nuclear sources.  Over time electricity costs actually drop to 0.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Nuclear is one of the least efficient and most polluting energy sources.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Well, after skimming several chapters of MoonShadows,


Malcolm wrote:
Boring, just more warmed over Gelugpa navel gazing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Tsering927 said:
Does the human consort have to be there in physical form?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are practicing karmamudra, yes. If not, then you are practicing jñānamudra with an imaginary consort and your hand. You need to get an erection (or if you are female, aroused) somehow and develop physical pleasure. Otherwise the solo practice does not work and is just intellectual exercise not grounded in the bliss of the body.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: First cases of totally drug resistant TB in India, one dead
Content:
Huseng said:
I was in a hospital in India a few weeks ago where TB patients are also kept.

The quality of healthcare in India, especially public hospitals, leads to these problems no doubt.

Malcolm wrote:
TB is not easy to get. You have to be malnourished, live in damp, cold conditions, and be continually exposed to it for a very long period of time. It is one of the hardest bacteria to culture.

TB is mostly a public health issue i.e. if people's living conditions are improved, their risk of contracting the disease lessens considerably. This is that reason that in the US most cases of TB are in the homeless population.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2012 at 2:14 AM
Title: Visionary Experience in Buddhism
Content:
AdmiralJim said:
So what are Buddhist experiencing when they get visions as a result of particular practices?


Malcolm wrote:
That really depends on how deluded they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
catmoon said:
It's an odd thing but I keep bumping into Ganesh in TB. There must be a reason for that.

kirtu said:
Ganesh seems to get around.  There was an article sometime several years ago in Tricycle written by a student of the Khenpo Brothers who kept seeing Ganesh.  They also told the author that Ganesh was considered a worldly deity under command of the Buddhas and gave some advice.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for example, there is a Ganapati sadhana that is part of the thirteen golden dharmas. Ganapati is a common worldly dharma protector in Nyingma, as is Shiva.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:


kirtu said:
But that conduct wasn't even real.  It was just a vision seen by some people.  Others saw other things (lamps, etc.).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
You can beleive whatever you like, Kirt.

He was also hanging out with prostitutes in bars before he got bounced from the monastery.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
I'm clueless there ^^^. It couldn't be referring to Jnanamudra or Vajroli Mudra, so maybe Namdrol took for a bunch of wankers and was only takin' the mickey.


Namdrol said:
Vajrayāna in India was an urban phenomena.

Lhug-Pa said:
Sure. But in reading Sky Dancer for example, I remember the said 'esoteric conduct' (Karmamudra) having taken place in more rugged settings.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in Tibet. Tibetans were very prudish about sexuality.

But not in India. For example, when Virupa was practicing conduct, he did so in his room in the monastery. This is why he got kicked out actually.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Caz said:
Tantric wanking ?
Isnt this why its not ment to be disscussed openly to prevent fits of giggles ?


Malcolm wrote:
It is a skillful means meant to make Buddhism appealing to teen football hooligans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Namdrol said:
In fact, to do consort practice, you have to inflame you and your partner's desire as much as possible, use very erotic language, candles, nice food, wine, clothes, scents, being as free from physical inhibition as possible, etc., and you have to do so for an extended period of time, weeks and months.

People who claim that it is some dry yogic experience free of desire obviously have never actually received actual detailed instruction on it, or done the practice.

Lhug-Pa said:
Karmamudra practice is at times combined with a Pancatattva-style Ganachakra or Ganapuja. Although didn't many of the Mahasiddhas do consort practice in places like caves and such, and therefore did not always have many of these kinds of ornaments for the practice? Yet considering that they were Siddhas and Mahasiddhas, they probably could have just manifested them out of thin air.


Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna in India was an urban phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Astus said:
What do you make of the similar magic techniques described in HYT like the Cakrasamvara Tantra? It becomes symbolic suddenly?

Namdrol said:
Oh, who really knows. The way these tantras are interpreted however is that they are all symbols.

kirtu said:
All symbolic?  Methinks this is a bit of an exaggeration.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
In the case of Cakrasamvara, Hevajra and so on, not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


Jangchup Donden said:
That's interesting.  So each hell being's delusional experience is unique to that hell being?

Malcolm wrote:
So it seems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Konchog1 said:
There are prayers to him (as Ganapati) I don't know if he is considered Enlightened or not. Same with Saraswati.

Namdrol said:
The fomer no, the latter, yes. She is Mañjuśri's consort as well as Shiva's wife.

Konchog1 said:
She isn't Brahma's wife?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.

For example, when the premission blessing is given, there is always a torma given to Parvati, who is Shiva's other wife, who because of her jealousy will otherwise afflict practitioners of White Sarasvati with poverty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Konchog1 said:
There are prayers to him (as Ganapati) I don't know if he is considered Enlightened or not. Same with Saraswati.

Malcolm wrote:
The fomer no, the latter, yes. She is Mañjuśri's consort as well as Shiva's wife.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
According to Berzin, Vasubandhu presents the Buddhist Cosmology in the Abhidarmakosha, "Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge", and it's intended to be understood to be as real as our current existence.

Namdrol said:
Yes, Berzin is correct, as far as the Kosha goes. However, in Vasubandhu's text, 20 verses as well as its commentary, the realms of ghosts and hell beings do not have the same level of conventional existence as animals on up.

Jangchup Donden said:
How can something be conventionally more or less real than something else?  It would seem like something is either conventionally real or not.  I find it hard to fathom something being 25% conventionally real.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that while animals, humans, gods, and asuras all share the same conventional universe; hell beings and ghosts do not. It means that experience of hell beings and ghosts is an unshared deluded vision.

Our deluded vision however is shared with animals, gods, and asuras.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Jangchup Donden said:
How is Ganesh viewed in Tibetan Buddhism?

I was recently given a (rather nice) jeweled painting of him and was wondering what to do with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Put it on your shrine. Ganesh is a worldly deity, under the command of Vajrapani.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Is it possible to be a Budhist and believe in God?
Content:
Nemo said:
How would you explain the Primordial Buddha Samantabhadra to a person lacking a strong background in philosophy?


Namdrol said:
The same way I would explain it to you -- Samantabhadra was the first person in this eon to wake up, did so without ever falling into samsara, hence he is the first (adi) buddha.

N

Caz said:
How can you wake up if your not asleep ? Like a Day dream ?

Malcolm wrote:
Samatabhadra possesed a non-afflictive ignorance. Simply put, he, like all of us, was in a state where he was not aware at the time of the  basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
wayland said:
Is it merely a case of imagination and visualization?

Malcolm wrote:
Jñ̄ānamudra is a visualized consort.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
According to Berzin, Vasubandhu presents the Buddhist Cosmology in the Abhidarmakosha, "Treasure House of Special Topics of Knowledge", and it's intended to be understood to be as real as our current existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Berzin is correct, as far as the Kosha goes. However, in Vasubandhu's text, 20 verses as well as its commentary, the realms of ghosts and hell beings do not have the same level of conventional existence as animals on up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


Namdrol said:
Anyway, it is a Yogacara idea.

Mr. G said:
Is there higher view which you prefer?

Malcolm wrote:
No, i think the yogcara idea is a good one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Mr. G said:
I don't think it is practical for the majority.  There's probably a handful of people who know how to properly practice karmamudra.  It can easily turn into some ego-trip where people think they are progressing on the path when in fact they are increasing afflictions.

Tilopa said:
Correct. Unless you can cause the winds to flow in the central channel consort practice will only increase bondage to samsara. It's a practice for yogis with a considerable degree of accomplishment.


Malcolm wrote:
Certainly that is how it is explained but certain people in Tibetan Buddhism.

Others explain it differntly i.e. it is method for inducing rapid accomplishment. For example, in Lamdre, there is union yoga both below and above the path of seeing.

This relates somewhat to what David Chapman was talking about in the Aro thread i.e. that "tantra" or the erotic elements in Vajrayāna have been somewhat suppressed.  Probably a necessary consequence of Vajrayāna in monasteries. But in reality, tantric practice in India was more liberal. There is also cultural issues -- Indians have a more eroticized culture than Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
thetrouserman said:
"Basically,Vasubandhu, in the Vimasatika, refutes the idea that Hells are real places because the hell beings (karma yamas) that one is tortured by would be gathering karma, but in fact they are not. They are just projections of the mind." --Namdrol

My own Buddhist teacher said that even this world is a projection of the mind, and yet it feels very real, and pain in it feels very real, so how is it not real in Tibetan Buddhism? Even here we have torturers who are collecting up bad karma.

Also could you tell me where I can find this information that you have given?

Malcolm wrote:
The differnce is that hells do not have a conventional or externaly perceivable location, unlike ghosts, animal realm, human realm, god realm, and so on.

Anyway, it is a Yogacara idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Namdrol said:
One of the funny things that people say is that lower tantra is more suitable for general public. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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

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

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

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, who really knows. The way these tantras are interpreted however is that they are all symbols.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Namdrol said:
in lower tantra there are many rites for attracting and seducing human and non-human woman,

wayland said:
Hi Namdrol,
In the absence of a flesh & blood consort, is a Jñāna Mudrā - a maiden created through the power of one's visualization - a viable alternative? I wondered if the non-human woman you mention above is similar?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, viable.

No, in kriya tantra such rites are just for having control over woman. Non-human in this case means yakshinis and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
'Tantric wanking' ?

Are you referring to Vajroli Mudra?

Vajroli Mudra, though it might appear to be like "wanking", is actually quite the opposite of wanking.

Edit: Of course there is also Jnanamudra; and there are also many variations of Vajrolimudra out there.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. That is different. Vajroli is training in drawing fluids into the urethra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
justsit said:
I was referring to wanking.


Malcolm wrote:
Unless of course it is tantric wanking since you lack a real consort, for example, monks. You still have to inflame your passion and so on. It is not just simple visualization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Sexual-misconduct like masturbation

Namdrol said:
Wanking is only sexual misconduct for monks.

justsit said:
It's still craving and attachment for everyone, yes?

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, to do consort practice, you have to inflame you and your partner's desire as much as possible, use very erotic language, candles, nice food, wine, clothes, scents, being as free from physical inhibition as possible, etc., and you have to do so for an extended period of time, weeks and months.

People who claim that it is some dry yogic experience free of desire obviously have never actually received actual detailed instruction on it, or done the practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
If people want to waste their energy through masturbation, that's their choice then. But I do not recommend it at all.

Anyway, in The Crystal and the Way of Light, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche implied that Karmamudra is not necessary for Dzogchen, but that it can be a great Semdzin practice.



Malcolm wrote:
Karmamudra practice is completley unnecessary in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
cloudburst said:
But we are having fun.

Malcolm wrote:
Strange idea of fun -- recycling endless borning conversations on the internet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
No, because it causes damage to the nervous system whether we are a monk or not.

Malcolm wrote:
Bollocks.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Sexual-misconduct like masturbation

Malcolm wrote:
Wanking is only sexual misconduct for monks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Also, if you have received the Direct Introduction of Dzogchen, you can perform Karmamudra as a Semdzin, without having to do any complicated visualizations.


Malcolm wrote:
That is not karmamudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
Jikan said:
Apropos of whether an invented history & lineage are problematic for Dzogchenpas:
I also saw lay tantrikas who had acted irresponsibly, old sorcerers, and ordinary people who had pretended to be lamas, inconceivable numbers of them vomiting blood and experiencing unbearable bodily pain.  I saw many carnivorous creatures devouring them and many denizens of hell hurling accusations of misdeeds at them.
This is from Delog Dawa Drolma's account of her experiences in the various realms, recorded in English in Delog (p. 82).  I assume this text has some authority in this forum and in this thread.

I would like to know if there is any plausible rebuttal to the position that our friends involved in a "vajra romance" with the Aro scene are, in fact, students of ordinary people who are pretending to be lamas, as Dawa Drolma puts it.  This is the primary critique against Aro, that it's phony.  It's clear to me from this and other sources that if it's phony, then it's a problem.  But the problem goes away if David or anyone else can show it's not phony.  Well?

Malcolm wrote:
This whole thread is ridiculous-- why? Because this was first discussed on the Trike boards. Then E-sangha. Now here. And it is largely the same people, and the same words.

It is very clear -- some people like Chogyam and his trip; other people think it is bullshit. So, nothing has changed. Some people like Dzogchen, other people think it is  bullshit. Some people like Mahamudra, other people think it is bullshit. Some people like Gelug, other people think it is bullshit. Some people like Lamdre, other people think it is bullshit.Some people like gzhan stong, other people think it is bullshit. Some people like Tibetan Buddhism, other people think it is bullshit. Some people like Zen, other people think it is bullshit. Some people like Buddhism, other people think it is bullshit.

So, we have gone nowhere further than discovering some people like Chogyam and his trip, and other people think it is bullshit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
Kriya tantra, such as avalokiteshvara tantra is more suitable for general public. This tantra is without consort and te conduct has to be extremely pure. No garlic and vegetarian.

Malcolm wrote:
One of the funny things that people say is that lower tantra is more suitable for general public. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


conebeckham said:
Mahamudra is at all times inseperable from the path of Tantra, in fact.   It's inseperable from all experience.

Malcolm wrote:
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.

-- Virupa


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: devotion in refuge practice
Content:
tomamundsen said:
That leads to the immediate follow-up question: should I even be doing the inner preliminaries if I don't have tremendous devotion for him yet? I mean, yea he has been guiding through the visualization and mechanics of the practice, but is there some sort of implicit agreement in Tibetan sanghas that you shouldn't actually begin ngondro until you can see him as a buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.
No.

While you are to understand the object being visualized as inseperable with your root guru, if you don't have a root guru, just focus on the object of refuge.

Do not contrive devotion you do not have. But by practicing you will develop devotion.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: devotion in refuge practice
Content:
tomamundsen said:
there actually a difference between the two? Even if there is no difference, I still feel like it will be two separate processes.


Malcolm wrote:
You always, no matter what, take refuge in your root Guru inseperable with the object of refuge you are visualizing, for instance, Guru Rinpoche or Vajradhara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:


David Chapman said:
Uh, no.  Are you referring to "No cosmic justice"?  That doesn't reject rebirth or karma at all.  (I understand that it could easily be misread that way if you start from the assumption that anyone who isn't altogether traditional will hold all modernist prejudices.  Maybe it needs some clarification and expansion.)

The page explicitly endorses a particular notion of karma, and says nothing about rebirth one way or the other.  The point is that there isn't an external, eternal mechanism of reward and punishment.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you might one to rework that one, than -- because there is nothing partiuclarly novel about the Dzogchen presentation of karma. There are novelties in Dzogchen, but that is not one of them.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
David Chapman said:
Adamantine, yes, the distinction between terma and other re-presentation is worth being clear about.  (Although, according to Guru Chöwang, ultimately, all Dharma is terma.)

Malcolm wrote:
No, Guru Chowang's point is that the whole universe is a treasure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Vimala or Agar
Content:
MalaBeads said:
What is the best way of obtaining some vimala or agar? There are no Tibetan doctors in my area.

Being conditioned by the western medical system, I have an assumption that a doctor would want to see me before prescribing but that may not be the case. I know some Tibetan herbs may be obtained via mail. If so, how and where would I send for them? What's the best way of going about this?


Malcolm wrote:
Vimala can be used by more or less anyone.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Namdrol said:
Mahāmudra is a result by whatever path you practice to get there. Sure, you can say "This is the road to New York". But being on the road to New York is not being in New York. Likewise, you can say "this is the path of Mahāmudra", meaning that if you practice this path, you will realize the result, mahāmudra.

Jinzang said:
Mahamudra is taught as ground, path, and fruition. This sort of logic chopping is not helpful to the practitioner.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure: Tilopa describes the ground, path and result mahāmudra quite concisely in this passage:


Beyond all objects of perception, the nature of the mind is luminous, [basis]
without a path to traverse, the path of Buddhahood is entered, [path]
if one cultivates without an object of meditation, one will attain unsurpassed awakening. [result]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


conebeckham said:
I understand this position, Namdrol, and I have had almost exactly the same conversation with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso myself, and have also heard him comment on it publically in a larger group, as well.  Nevertheless, if one takes the position, as you have in another thread, that Mahamudra REALLY means the "result," then can it not be said that all practices and techniques are really Mahamudra teachings, in a sense?  Granted, the contents of the teachings contained in the Sutra presentation focus on Mind's Emptiness and Nature, Qualities, Awareness, etc.  But even Serlingpa's Lojong tradition, which is surely a Sutra-based tradition with no Tantric content can be said to be part of the presentation.......

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really, because sutrayāna practice will not result in the realization of the 13th bhumi. The state of mahāmudra and the thirteenth bhumi are synonymous. The name of thirteenth bhumi, much less, mahāmudra, does not exist in sutra and is not really even hinted it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
tomamundsen said:
The truth is that if you just dig a little deeper and read some of the less popular fascicles in Shobogenzo, you'll see he talks about literal reincarnation, accumulation of merit, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes I know that. I have.

But in fact I disagree with you about the first point. I do not agree that Dogen is a gradual school adherent.

That is why I use the term "non-gradual" rather than sudden.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Universities/Buddhist Studies
Content:
lotwell said:
My fantasy is unearthing ancient texts in remote monasteries and translating them. In reality I would more likely but looking at sitting in front of a computer all day translating works no one will ever read.

Malcolm wrote:
The reality, if you can actually get a teaching position, is that you will spend your days teaching world religion classes to freshman who don't care and survey courses on Buddhism, and in the evening writing papers because of the publish or die phemomena that is pervasive in academia. You will get little translation done.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
heart said:
Protestant Buddhism expressing its true face as the degeneration of Dharma in our times. There can't be much of Dudjom Rinpoche left in Ngakpa Chögyam teachings if his students say this.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
In David's case, he explicitly rejects karma and rebirth and claims that the rejection of karma and rebirth is intention of Dzogchen, its "little secret".

Of course this is completely false since the concept of multiple bardos and so on come directly from the Dzogchen tantras.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Astus said:
Dogen... taught no enlightenment to be achieved but zazen itself became buddhahood for him.

tomamundsen said:
A common misunderstanding of Dogen.

Malcolm wrote:
Well then, there are tons of Soto Zen practitioners out there who misunderstand Dogen and there own tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
Soto is a gradual enlightenment school of zen


Namdrol said:
No, this is not so.

tomamundsen said:
Right, but it's not sudden either.

Malcolm wrote:
The best term is non-gradual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Title: Re: Are Karma and Rebirth Real?
Content:


Beatzen said:
I don't believe that we are the same "person" who is reborn.  The mind is the same, but the contents are more or less [dis]similar, though influenced by past karma.

Malcolm wrote:
Causes and effects are not the same, nor are they different.

The mind that takes rebirth is not as same as the previous mind nor is it different.

This is the reason why it is possible for sentients beings to experience serial rebirth through the appropriation of an infinite series of new physical bodies over time, relatively speaking.

By saying that there is no actual rebirth, one is committing oneself to a metaphysical position called ucchedavada i.e. annihilationism. Commiting oneself to the position that there is an actual self, person, or entity that is reborn is called śāśvatavāda, eternalism.

But when one understands that one instant of mind is neither the same nor different than the next instant of mind; since they are not the same, one avoids śāśvatavāda; and since they are not different, one avoids ucchedavada — thus one can understand the truth of rebirth, karma and its result, and dependent origination in the manner in which the Buddha intended and leave off the metaphysical speculations that plague non-Buddhists about such issues. One can then also understand that since the mind has no beginning, it never arose; and since it never arose, it never ceases.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
All of the sectarian criticisms from all quarters have already been voiced and addressed centuries ago.


Malcolm wrote:
You seem to have misaken me for someone who is sectarian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
Find for yourself whether it is true or not.
.


Malcolm wrote:
I already have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Title: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
Soto is a gradual enlightenment school of zen


Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
You are mixing up with what is called
Pure Mahamudra, and
Tantric Mahamudra.

There is no such thing called consort practice or deity yoga in Mahamudra, like what had been said by Virupa and Saraha.

Pure Mahamudra is free from all these tantric stuff, energy stuff, and free from ceremony etc. In this way, Shikantaza fits properly with pure Mahamudra practice.

Malcolm wrote:
What you are referring to as "pure" mahāmudra is based on a direct introduction as the Dohakosha of Saraha clearly states "The non-dual is demonstrated by the venerable supreme Guru".

In this respect it is nothing like Shikantaza in Soto Zen, since in Soto Zen there is no direct introduction.

The practice of Shikantaza is non-gradual. Sutra mahāmudra is gradual. So they are different in this respect as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Namdrol said:
There is no path of mahāmudra. Mahāmudra is not a path and not meditation. For example, the mahāsiddha Kotalipa states:

Do not cultivate a mental meditation,
also non-meditation is not a meditation.
Beyond meditation and non-meditation,
not existing in the mind, is mahāmudrā.

tomamundsen said:
This sounds a lot like shikantaza.


Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that this is based on direct introduction and consort practice. Kotalipa also said:


Bhadrapa said excellently:
“There is no instruction, meditation, or contemplation;
Buddhahood itself is attained
because of the beautiful consort possessing supreme joy.”

And:

When the sun and moon are seized by the eclipse
Buddhahood itself arises here
through the non-dual wisdom which
melts from the union of the prajñā and the vajra.

And:

Possessing the power of the ten wisdoms. 
The space of the sublime Prajñā Queen’s lotus
is the path upon which to travel,
to return to Bhadra’s stage.

But then of course we have Dombhi Heruka's Four Syllables:

The Upadeśa of the Great Bliss of Dharma
There are three essences, four commitments, three deviations and four methods of equipoise.

The three essences: 
Effortlessness; 
Without contrivance; 
Everything that occurs is understood as one's own mind. 

The four commitments: 
Afflictions are not abandoned because they are one's mind. 
Antidotes are not relied upon because the mind is non-dual. 
The true nature is not meditated upon because mind is without grasping.
A result is not hoped for, realizing the mind itself is Buddhahood.

The three deviations: 
If there is hope for Buddhahood, it is a deviation.
If there is fear towards Samsara, it is a deviation.
If there is attachment to appearances, it is a deviation.

The four methods of equipoise:
Just like the limpid quality of water when it is undisturbed, remain relaxed in uncontrived mind.
Just as a bird in the sky leaves no tracks, consciousness remains without support.
Just like the sun not concealed by clouds, remain in one’s own unobstructed state relaxing into the objects of the six sense organs.
Just like water always falling, remain undistracted at all times and in all activities.
The heart upadesha of the great master Dombhi Heruka called 'Four Syllables' is complete.
Translated by Lama Migmar Tseten and Loppon Kunga Namdrol.
© Drogmi translation Project 2006

Dobhi Heruka himself, however, achieved complete awakening through the empowerment.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:
mint said:
I just wish I had some sort of plan laid out for me like a syllabus explaining what I can and can't, should and shouldn't do.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no limitations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Sahaja Mahāmudra, according to the great Drugpa Kagyu master Gyalba Yanggonpa, is Gampopa's own system. So you really cannot claim that Kagyu Mahāmudra is any more Indian that the Dzogchen you are criticizing.

conebeckham said:
Well...although Saraha certainly practiced the Two Stages, he is often credited as the primary Mahasiddha source of Sahaja Mahamudra......which is presented as separate from the two stages.

Or so I've been taught.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two systems of realizing mahāmudra: the two stages or guru yoga. Mahāmudra is based on direct introduction in both cases. Apart from that, there is no other Mahāmudra.

Some people like to talk about a sutra mahāmudra, but it is very clear that was elaborated by Gampopa for people he felt were not ready for real Mahāmudra teachings. Not only have I read this, but this was also kindly explained to me by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso personally.

BTW, since this is just the "Mahāmudra" forum -- it is not the sole province of Kagyupas. Sakyas, Gelugs, Nyingmapas also have teachings on Mahāmudra. So in no way can the Kagyu perspective on Mahāmudra be considered definitive or all-embracing -- all schools of Tibetan Buddhism have lineages and teachings on Saraha's original Sahaja Mahāmudra. But only Kagyu and later, Gelug, have teachings on a system termed sutra mahāmudra. Sutra mahāmudra is not bad -- in fact, it is quite a good system -- but in reality it is just a name for perfection of wisdom teachings with some effort made to correlate the view of the tantras and the dohas with the view of sutra.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Z
Mahāmudra is not combined with tantric practice, it is the result of tantric pratice of the two stages.

Jinzang said:
Mahamudra is the result, but also a set of practices that lead to the result, and not just the development and completion stage practices. So says every Kagyu lama I have ever met, and their view ought to be definitive, and not the view of some critics of mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is a result by whatever path you practice to get there. Sure, you can say "This is the road to New York". But being on the road to New York is not being in New York. Likewise, you can say "this is the path of Mahāmudra", meaning that if you practice this path, you will realize the result, mahāmudra.

The two stages are not the only way to realize mahāmudra. There is also Guru Yoga.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Z

Tantric yoga is combined between Mahamudra practice + deity yoga + guru yoga , and so on.

That is the point I want to make it clear by putting all this Saraha, Virupa song.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is not combined with tantric practice, it is the result of tantric pratice of the two stages.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
This is even scarier.

What is the use all master explaining the PATH of mahamudra?

Again, we need to know the place when we are talking realization and when we are talking the practice part to realize that.

Please don't mix them.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no path of mahāmudra. Mahāmudra is not a path and not meditation. For example, the mahāsiddha Kotalipa states:

Do not cultivate a mental meditation,
also non-meditation is not a meditation.
Beyond meditation and non-meditation,
not existing in the mind, is mahāmudrā.

And Virupa states:

That great profound term “mahāmudrā”, 
whatever it’s basis of designation is, also has the label “empty”;
as moments are empty by nature who realizes selflessness?
There is no realizer, just a name, a term, a label,
Also that is not perfect, a projection of disciples, 
also in disciples there is no self, similar with illusions and emanations,
“Mahāmudrā” is a mental imputation of the childish.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:


wisdom said:
My financial situation sucks too. I make 10$ an hour, live with a room mate who has pretty heavy delusions, I take public transit to work. I haven't even been able to afford to join the DC yet, let alone buy a pile of books and DVDs. My family is poor, my father is basically homeless. On top of this I have about 10 grand in debt from various stupid things. Most of that is from a single electric bill and the IRS, despite being minimum wage they think I owe them thousands of dollars and I can't afford to fight it. I have no schooling to show for it, and can't afford to attend the Buddhist college I want to go to because they don't accept FAFSA. I can't ordain to become a monk because you have to be debt free, and I would actually do that for a few years if I could and learn Tibetan, then go off to a 9 year college in Tibet. If I had only 20k, I could begin to make all my dreams a reality. As it stands most likely none of them will ever happen, and such a small barrier in reality exists between them being a fantasy and reality. Such is life.

Malcolm wrote:
Acually, what you have to do is file for bankruptcy. Chapter 7. Really. They will just clear your debts. Includiung your tax debt, as long as you filed.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
In this case you are saying there is no meditation in Kagyu lineage.

Please note we are now talking not in the ultimate sense, but in relative sense. If we just mix them without knowing the place, it simply brings confusion.

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot meditate on mahāmudra.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:


Beatzen said:
that's what makes it fun.  And also fun is playing ball with the teacher where teacher constantly knocks down all your bullshit opinions about the meaning.


Malcolm wrote:
The meaning of the heart sutra is very simple -- it is about the inseparability of samsara and nirvana. That is simple, but it is also profound.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
tomamundsen said:
I thought all beings in Kamadhatu had form bodies?

Namdrol said:
Basically,Vasubandhu, in the Vimasatika, refutes the idea that Hells are real places because the hell beings (karma yamas) that one is tortured by would be gathering karma, but in fact they are not. They are just projections of the mind.

tomamundsen said:
Ah, thank you for the clarification Loppon-la. But in the Kosa, he presents it as a physical place, right?


Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


Caz said:
Basically,Vasubandhu, in the Vimasatika, refutes the idea that Hells are real places because the hell beings (karma yamas) that one is tortured by would be gathering karma, but in fact they are not. They are just projections of the mind.

This wouldnt not make it any less real would it ? Just like the dream that you never awake from. I wouldnt assume that hells where physically existing places but rather like the bardos no ?


Malcolm wrote:
In other words, they have no physical location, they are not x number of yojanas below the ground.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
thetrouserman said:
I learned from two of my Theravada teachers that hell is a real place of torture that you go to when you die if your karma is bad enough to merit going there. What is the Tibetan Buddhist view of hell? Is it the same?

Namdrol said:
In Tibetan Buddhism, in Mahāyāna in general, it is considered a mental state, but not a real external place.

tomamundsen said:
I thought all beings in Kamadhatu had form bodies?


Malcolm wrote:
Basically,Vasubandhu, in the Vimasatika, refutes the idea that Hells are real places because the hell beings (karma yamas) that one is tortured by would be gathering karma, but in fact they are not. They are just projections of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:
Pero said:
Otherwise most of us here could go balistic half the time Namdrol posts something.

Malcolm wrote:
....

Half the time people do...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:


mint said:
I'm scared to practice Dzogchen...


Malcolm wrote:
This is like being scared of recognizing your own face in a mirror.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
thetrouserman said:
I learned from two of my Theravada teachers that hell is a real place of torture that you go to when you die if your karma is bad enough to merit going there. What is the Tibetan Buddhist view of hell? Is it the same?

Malcolm wrote:
In Tibetan Buddhism, in Mahāyāna in general, it is considered a mental state, but not a real external place.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:
mint said:
I hope, after reading this thread, people will exercise more discretion when pushing people into things which they themselves acknowledge that they're not ready for!

Malcolm wrote:
No one pushed you to do anything.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Expanding Samadhi
Content:


Beatzen said:
Can you also give me a rundown of the other mental factors, for my learning?

Malcolm wrote:
Here is a good list.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Fifty-one_mental_states " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As for discovering mind's root, that doesn't sound like Zazen, and I'd like not to be tempted to shop around after these couple years of study with the Zen people.  I have a hard time with a meditation where you "look" for things.  Not my personal style.
Discovering the root of the mind eliminates the need for Zazen or any other form of contrived meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
All are complete path. If not complete, Saraha and Virupa will not criticize these practices in this Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
What you seem to fail to understand is that for Saraha and Virupa, there is no meditation of Mahāmudra at all. Mahāmudra is a name for the result, buddhahood.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: I Believe in Literal Rebirth - Poll
Content:
Beatzen said:
Well I'm certainly not going to apologize for that, Ad.  I've always regarded pali sources as more authentic when it comes to the words of the buddha.  I value the prajnaparamita sutras, but when it comes to teachings on dependant origination, and other technical concepts - I usually look for the pali reference.  Just an ideosyncracy I have.


Malcolm wrote:
The Pali Canon (as well the Agamas) does not tease out the nuances of dependent origination and emptiness

That is where Mahāyāna sutras and tantras are important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
I see, so for you, the most profound practice and the high point of India Mahāyāna is the two stages with their result, Mahāmudra as taught by Virupa, Tilopa, Naropa, etc. from the Hevajra, Cakrasamvara, Kalacakra and other annutarayoga tantras.

Jnana said:
Yes, of course. And also the teachings of Maitrīpa and Atiśa, and so on.


Malcolm wrote:
Ok -- well, I find the 17 tantras and Nyinthig more interesting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Why I said Shikantaza and Mahamudra is similar is because of the direct path meditation.

Not all Mahamudra needs ceremony. They can be as plain and as simple as Shikantaza.

Malcolm wrote:
Sutra Mahāmudra also has rather elaborate system of introduction.

All Mahāmudra is based on introduction, because ultimately Mahāmudra is a Vajrayāna system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: How is Mahamudra different from Shikantaza
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Virupa mentioned:
"Some are completely tortured with empowerment rites,
some always count their rosary saying hūm phat,
some consume shit, piss, blood, semen and meat,
some meditate the yoga of nadi and vāyu, but all are deluded."

Funny, this is my translation from which you are quoting.

You are missing a crucial point. This Doha for example, of Virupa is not an expression of mahāmudra as a path. It is an expression of Virupa's realization of the result from following the path of the two stages of creation and completion based on his practice of Nairatmayogini (the consort of Hevajra).
At the end, I just want to say that Mahamudra meditation is a meditation free from visualization, it is a direct path to realize this clear light. Can you see the conflict with Tantra - generation Path, where actually we PURPOSELY do visualization? They are conflicting each other.

Malcolm wrote:
These three mahāmudras are regularly practice by Karma Kagyus without conflict (This elaboration of three mahāmudras is mostly Karma Kagyu approach, BTW, in Drugpa and Drigung, they practice a different system that comes from Phagmo Dru called five-fold mahāmudra). In fact they are considered to be mutually supportive.

But in all of this you are missing one crucial point -- sutra mahāmudra that you cite, according to Kongtrul, is elaborated for those who do not have the capacity to practice the two stages. This meditation is does not rely on mantra and visualization because it is sutra path of the perfection of wisdom.

The middle one, is classical Indian tantric practice of the two stages of creation and completion.

The last, essence mahāmudra, is the mahāmudra which is solely based on a direct introduction and finds its justification in the mahāmudra chapter of the Jñānasiddhi by Indrabodhi. Through this, the disciple realizes the essence of the nature of the mind and remains in that state.

But Darwid, this far, while I have received teaching on Zen, Mahāmudra, and Dzogchen, I am not sure what teachings, if any you are have received from anyone. If you have not received any real teachings on these things, you are like a blind man talking about colors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
So you really cannot claim that Kagyu Mahāmudra is any more Indian that the Dzogchen you are criticizing.

Jnana said:
Again, the teachings of the Indian mahāsiddhas (Tilo, Naro, etc.) is the high point of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and hasn't been surpassed by anything that came later, including Kagyu mahāmudrā.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so for you, the most profound practice and the high point of India Mahāyāna is the two stages with their result, Mahāmudra as taught by Virupa, Tilopa, Naropa, etc. from the Hevajra, Cakrasamvara, Kalacakra and other annutarayoga tantras.

If I did not know better, I would say you were a Sakyapa.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


Astus said:
Zen doesn't require anything special, there are no transmissions,

Malcolm wrote:
This is the main different between Zen on the one hand, and (Kagyu) Mahāmudra and Dzogchen on the other. It is also the main difference between sutra and tantra i.e. the presence or absence of direct introduction. Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are based on direct introduction. This does not exist in any school of Zen, much less sutra.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
However, IMO the teachings of the Indian mahāsiddhas (Tilo, Naro, etc.) represent the high point of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and nothing else has surpassed them in any way (contrary to the claims of certain Tibetan doxographies, and so on).

Malcolm wrote:
The path of such Indian mahāsiddhas was the two stages. Mahāmudra was the result experienced by these Indian mahāsiddhas from practicing the two stages which is why Saraha,  Tilopa and Naropa passed on so many tantric practices (especially, Cakrasamvara, which begins with Saraha).

Sahaja Mahāmudra, according to the great Drugpa Kagyu master Gyalba Yanggonpa, is Gampopa's own system. So you really cannot claim that Kagyu Mahāmudra is any more Indian that the Dzogchen you are criticizing.

In fact, if anything, the Dzogchen you are criticizing is, from a western textual perspective, a bit earlier than Kagyu Mahāmudra. Chetsun Senge Wangchuk achieved rainbow body in 1128, having passed on his teachings to lCegom Nagpo and Shangton, just to put things in perspective. By this time the 17 tantras and the Dzogchen Nyingthig system were fully articulated. Milarepa passed in 1135. Milarepa's teachings became famous, in part, because his student Gampopa spread the fame of his teacher among Kadampas and secured the reputation of the Kagyu school. Nyinthig continued in obscurity in western Tsang largely, I imagine, because it became a family lineage of the lCe clan (Lcegom Nagpo, etc) and the Zhang clan (Zhangton, his son Zhangkhas Nyibum, etc.).

While I am not going to knock the practice the two stages, for me, Dzogchen is more interesting.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Well, except that modern authors, like Dudjom R., ridiculed the Tibetan tendency to dismiss "Tibetan" tantras just because they were "Tibetan", pointing out there was no good reason to assume that Indians were more realized by nature than Tibetans.

gregkavarnos said:
But then doesn't the concept of lineage just fall apart at the seams?  I mean, so much time and energy is spent by all trying to trace the lineage of their teaching back to its (normally) Indian source and suddenly...

Doesn't a statement like this leave the whole deal open to tantras that do not have an Indian origin (or at least a lineage to back them up), like the English language tantra of the Aro mob?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, not at all. If a full realized Tibetan produces a tantra, then it should be accepted as a valid teaching -- same goes for a fully realized American, African, European, etc.

The fact is however, is that there is very little to "reveal" -- so there is not much point in producing new texts that say the same stuff over and over again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
And how is this different than Mahāyāna in general?

Jnana said:
It isn't. As I've already said, it's the same boring recurring theme in the long history of Buddhist polemics: Move the goal posts, invent new rules, create a lineage history going back to some authoritative source (preferably Indian), then claim that yours is a superior game. It's like arguing over the quickest way to arrive at the Garden of the Hesperides.

[/quote/

I wasn't making a polemical argument -- I was making a taxonomical statement, which for some reason you insist was polemical -- even though it is not.


Namdrol said:
Generally speaking it works like this -- if you read books by Kagyus, Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are the same.
And this is the crux of the issue, given that this thread is in the Mahāmudrā sub-forum. I've offered explicit statements by a number of teachers who have trained in both systems, as has Astus. I think that their analysis is cogent, and that yours is not.

Malcolm wrote:
And I can offer citations by masters who have trained in both systems who assert the presentation of the basis in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra are not the same, and that it is an error to conflate them based in superficial similarities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Is it possible to be a Budhist and believe in God?
Content:
Nemo said:
How would you explain the Primordial Buddha Samantabhadra to a person lacking a strong background in philosophy?


Malcolm wrote:
The same way I would explain it to you -- Samantabhadra was the first person in this eon to wake up, did so without ever falling into samsara, hence he is the first (adi) buddha.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
You reckon if we keep thrashing it we will finally break it down to its essential particles?

wisdom said:
I for one want this horse to look like its been through CERN!

Seriously though, because I'm not well read enough to know about these subtle distinctions, and since I have both Dzogchen and Mahamudra books, its nice to see how people think they are the same and different


Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking it works like this -- if you read books by Kagyus, Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are the same. If you read books by Nyingmapas, they are different, and Kagyu Mahāmudra is just Dzogchen sems sde in drag. Sakyapas happily admit Dzogchen and Mahāmudra are different (where they are not shunning it as a Hashang deviation) and charitable Gelugpas like HHDL try to convince everyone that the fundamental mind of clear light and Dzogchen are the same.

Me, I stick with what ChNN says about the issue (i.e. Dzogchen and Mahāmudra are completely different, with different paths and so on).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Title: Re: Is it possible to be a Budhist and believe in God?
Content:
AdmiralJim said:
This idea that 'Buddhism' is strictly atheist is a western invention used to please secularists

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all -- there are detailed refutations of God in all sorts of classical Buddhist texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
In this case, we are simply back to the square.

Ok then, let it be.



Malcolm wrote:
Ball is in your course, since the initial assertion was yours.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
To them, to call a teaching "Tibetan" rather than "Indian" was the ultimate put down.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, except that modern authors, like Dudjom R., ridiculed the Tibetan tendency to dismiss "Tibetan" tantras just because they were "Tibetan", pointing out there was no good reason to assume that Indians were more realized by nature than Tibetans.

Now then, there is certainly good reason to dismiss a "Tibetan" teaching if you find that it does not meet your criteria for a useful teaching.

ince I have no vested interest in harmonizing this or that teaching with some other teaching, I am free to examine each teaching based on its merits and from its terminological perspective.

The fact is that I think that Dzogchen is more interesting than other teachings and more relevant and more profound for a ton of reasons space will not allow me to expand upon.

Jñāna seems to think that just because people use similar terms they must mean the same thing or have the same path. But we know this is a very faulty and problematical perspective. This kind of thinking has lead to reams of improper refutation -- for example, Gelugpas refuting Lamdre and Dzogchen on an equal footing as mind-only school proponents, (not to mention Kagyu Mahāmudra) because both Dzogchen and Lamdre use the term "ālaya" (albeit in different ways)

My sole point which set this off is that the basis discussed in dzogchen and the basis discussed in mahāmudra are not the same since the path is not the same. Is it the case that tregchö  and mahāmudra are very similar? Yes -- but tregchö is not summum bonum of Dzoghen.

But according to Jñāna, we should ignore tögal because, according to him, it and man ngag sde has no "Indian" antecedent (as if that is even important).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
There is no dispute in the view of mahamudra. So, we are not discussing mahamudra here. My view about Mahamudra has no conflict with all proponents of Mahamudra here.

Malcolm wrote:
Your view of mahāmudra is in conflict with mine.

DarwidHalim said:
Since you can say Zazen is less direct than Mahamudra, you have must a solid base to say it out. We want to know your this solid base about Zazen.

Malcolm wrote:
Since you obviously think Zazen is the same as Mahāmudra, "you have must a solid base to say it out. We want to know your this solid base about" mahāmudra.

N

PS, everyone can see by now this conversation is fruitless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
It's rather hilarious that something which was never a significant part of Indian Buddhism is now proclaimed as the apex of all things Buddhist!

Malcolm wrote:
And how is this different than Mahāyāna in general? Just what exactly is it about Indians that make their insight intrinsically more valuable than those from Oddiyāna, or Khotan, or Gilgit or even Tibet -- not to mention China or Japan?

At least when I dismiss something, I don't do so on the basis of its national origin. I try to do so based on what is actually being said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
What Tibetan and Sanskrit term are you using for natural state?

Jnana said:
Buddhist soteriology doesn't require a specialized language. But take your pick: gnas lugs, gshis kyi gnas lugs, gshis kyi babs, etc., etc..

Malcolm wrote:
Well, yes it does. Dharmatā for example, does not have the same meaning in every system, correct?

Mahāmudra has its terminology based on its path; Dzogchen,  its terminology based on its path; they are different paths and their terminology is not commensurate because of that.

Jnana said:
The Dzogchen Tantras fall into the same category of scriptural apocrypha as the Vajrasamadhi Sutra and other non-Indian sources.

Malcolm wrote:
When did you become an Indiophile, or have you always been and I just never noticed?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
It is fair isn't it? If we want to say something we must Know what we are talking in great detail. Please then elaborate.


Malcolm wrote:
As our Norwegian friend said, apply the same standard to yourself, then we can talk. For starters, please tell us who gave you instruction in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Namdrol said:
My initial point, which prompted this flood of comments, was to disabuse someone of the notion that the meditation of mahāmudra, dzogchen and Soto Zen are more or less the same. This assertion could not be more mistaken.

gregkavarnos said:
So, to clarify the situation for me, what you are saying is that the methods differ but not the outcomes?  Am I understanding you correctly?


Malcolm wrote:
All Buddhist paths lead to buddhahood, some sooner, some later.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Honestly, I think this analysis by this master is a bit misleading -- he is trying to assert that gzhi described by Dzogchen has an equivalent counterpart in the kun gzhi of the Mahāmudra system.

Jnana said:
The natural state is the natural state.

Malcolm wrote:
What Tibetan and Sanskrit term are you using for natural state?





Namdrol said:
The system of differentiating mind and wisdom (sems and ye shes) in Mahāmudra is not the same as differentiating between mind and vidyā in Dzogchen and does not have the same intention.
I suspect that the Indian mahasiddhas would have had no problem satirizing these Tibetan maneuvers. As would the Chinese Chan masters.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Ok, I will repeat one more time for the benefit our readers, since you are clearly not interested in having any kind of reasonable discussion -- these differences in presentation depend on respective differences in paths.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Unknown said:
Tsele Natsok Rangdröl indicates otherwise. The Circle of the Sun:...


Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, I think this analysis by this master is a bit misleading -- he is trying to assert that gzhi described by Dzogchen has an equivalent counterpart in the kun gzhi of the Mahāmudra system. However, if you read any straight mahāmudra manual, for example, Dagpo Tashi Namgyal's texts or Sakyapa presentations and so on, for them the basis [gzhi] is the all-basis [kun gzhi], the clear and empty nature of the mind. It is called the all-basis because when it is not recognized, it is the basis for samsara, and when it is recognized, it is the basis for nirvana.

On the other hand, you have Dzogchen texts that systematically differentiate between gzhi and kun gzhi. The reason for this is not arbitrary and have everything to do with the path of Dzogchen. These topics are not mentioned at all in any system of Mahāmudra since they form no part of Mahāmudra practice. The system of differentiating mind and wisdom (sems and ye shes) in Mahāmudra is not the same as differentiating between mind and vidyā in Dzogchen and does not have the same intention.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: rTsa, rTsal, and the Fruition of Trekchö
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Are there Tibetan (or even Sanskrit) words that would fill in the following blanks?


Trekchö - Kadag - Dharmakaya - Thigle - Essence - Sounds

Thögal - Lhungrub - Sambhogakaya - Lung - Nature - Lights

Yermed - ________ - Nirmanakaya - rTsa - Energy - Rays

Malcolm wrote:
samapatti; viśhuddhi, dharmakāya,tilaka/bindu, svabhāva, śabda
xxxxx ; nirabhogana/anabhogana, sambhogakāya, vāyu, prakriti, ābhāsvarāḥ, prabhā
asaṁbhedaḥ, karuna, nirmanakāya, nāḍī, kāra, raśmi


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
there are different views possible, or something else?

Malcolm wrote:
There are different views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
kalden yungdrung,

The topic of lights, energy and bardo are covered under the six yogas of Naropa. In that sense, it is the path of transformation and not the path of liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
You should read Dudjom R. You are suffering from more misconceptions than I have time to remove.

Astus said:
Also note what Jnana has referred to here before, that the whole tögal teaching with the lamps, etc. is a later development in Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
You know what? We really do not know this to be a fact. All we know for sure is that the earliest texts we see for these practices (klong sde and man ngag sde) that we have access to seem to date from around the mid 10th century onward. But it is very hard to date this material. There is also a kama transmission for thögal which is held to date to the 8th century that consists of just a page or two where it forms part of the completion stage of KIlaya/Yangdag.

Anyway, even if man ngag sde did prove to be a later elboration, it does not matter. Jñāna seems to evince a preference for Indian authored material. That's ok, but I do not see Indian authorship as proof of superior content, or Tibetan authorship of inferior content.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Namdrol said:
My initial point, which prompted this flood of comments, was to disabuse someone of the notion that the meditation of mahāmudra, dzogchen and Soto Zen are more or less the same. This assertion could not be more mistaken.

gregkavarnos said:
So, to clarify the situation for me, what you are saying is that the methods differ but not the outcomes?  Am I understanding you correctly?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a question of directness. Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are more direct, Soto less, but in the end, all Buddhist paths lead to complete liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Nevertheless the distinction is crucial.

Astus said:
Crucial to what?

Malcolm wrote:
To the path of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
then claim that yours is a superior game.


Malcolm wrote:
You know what? I didn't say anything of the kind in this discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
What is the Sanskrit term for gzhi?

Malcolm wrote:
According to Khyenste Wangpo, sthāna.


Jnana said:
The basis in mahāmudrā is not limited to compounded, momentary minds. Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje, Mahamudra: The Ocean of Definitive Meaning:
[Ground mahamudra] is what is realized and actualized by the nondual mind of the buddhas and noble individuals. It is the basic state (gshis kyi babs) of the three realms of samsara and the true nature of all phenomena from the beginning. It is connate wisdom (lhan gcig skyes pa'i ye shes), which pervades the entire ground.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, this is not the same thing as the gzhi. Tilopa describes this as the nature of mind:

As such, the nature of the mind resembles space from the beginning,
there are no phenomena not included in it...

This is still the ālaya. As the third Karmapa writes in The Profound Inner Topics:

The cause is the beginningless nature of the mind,
which does not fall into any partialities, 
yet from its unceasing play --
the essence emptiness, and the nature, clarity--
all kinds of aspects arose.

Not recognizing itself, 
the movements of mind’s formations
are like waves moving on water, 
from which object and apprehender both appear,
itself focusing on and apprehending itself;
that mind moves outward; from the apparent aspect
the consciousness that apprehends objects in external objects appears.

This is the ālaya but it is not the gzhi as described by Dzogchen.

The terminology of dzogchen and mahāmudra are not commensurate with each other because the paths are different.

Jnana said:
Neither mahāmudrā nor dzogchen require tögal (cf. all of the dzogchen teachings composed prior to the development of the man ngag sde class).

Malcolm wrote:
However things may have been prior to the 11th century, since then tögal is the main thrust of Dzogchen practice. And since this is so, the way the basis is described is different, necessarily so. And so I still do not agree that similarity in terminology indicates similarity in intention.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
It is amazing how this can be brought to quite a different discussion by picking out a single word and then setting up a whole view on it.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless the distinction is crucial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Could it be that if the latter is referring to Kun gzhi, this is in relation to the Chittamatra view ?
KY[/color]


Malcolm wrote:
the all-basis (kun gzhi, ālaya) is not the all-basis consciousness (kun gzhi rnam par shes pa, ālayavijñāna). The former is the mere clarity and emptiness of the mind; the latter is an afflicted, impure consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
Here are a few quotations regarding view and meditation from teachers who have trained in both systems. Tsele Natsok Rangdröl, The Circle of the Sun:
In short, what dzogchen calls 'endowed with the threefold wisdom,' the wisdom of the primordially pure essence, the wisdom of the spontaneously present nature and the wisdom of the all-pervasive compassion, is described by the followers of mahāmudrā as the nonarising essence, the unobstructed nature, and the variously manifesting expression. '

Namdrol said:
I don't agree with this point. The former is referring the basis (gzhi), the latter is referring to the all-basis (kun gzhi). The gzhi and kun gzhi are completely different.

N

heart said:
Tsele Natsok Rangdrol don't mistake the gzhi and the kun gzhi, in fact he makes a big point of the distinction between these in the two first chapters of Circle of the Sun. So maybe he don't think that essence, nature and expression in Mahamudra is referring to the kun gzhi.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have this book, so I cannot really comment further about his perspective. But I can say that in Mahamudra, there is no distinction made between gzhi and kun gzhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
If the natural state is the same thing, how can you meaningfully assert that the basis recognized is different?

Malcolm wrote:
The alaya is the inseparable clarity and emptiness of the mind.

The gzhi, in Dzogchen, has nothing to do with the mind.

Another point I want to make is the reason for basis [gzhi] being described the way they are in these two systems as everything to do with their respective paths.

Tregchö is not the path in Dzogchen. It is the ground for practicing the path. The path in Dzogchen is thögal. Hence, the way the basis is explained in Dzogchen reflects the actual path in Dzogchen, thus the explanation of the basis in Dzogchen is completely different than that of Mahāmudra.

A Different basis is elborated because the paths are very different.

The point of tregchö and mahāmudra is basically the same i.e. the instant of unfabricated awareness [ma bcos shes pa skad cig ma]. But in Dzogchen, this only the starting point -- it is not the path, which is why in general, no-one is considered to achieve rainbow body (yes, I know there are some theorectical formulations which might contradict this assertion) only through tregchö.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
The western academic consensus is that there are none.

Jnana said:
Yes. And I would suggest that the Kagyu mahāmudrā system is generally using older Indian terminology as used by Saraha, Tilopa, Naropa, and Maitripa. This difference in terminology doesn't entail a different basis.


Malcolm wrote:
Look, if you decide that Mahāmudra is an older terminology, then you have to accept that the authors of man ngag sde class (which defines essence, nature and compassion) were familiar with this older terminology of the ālaya/kun gzhi, found it lacking and had a different aim in their writing. In other words, you have to accept that Dzogchen terminology is different and has a different intent on the basis of the claim that it is different. You have to accept the fact that the  Indian-derived Sarma notions of the all-basis was inadequate for the purposes of Dangma Lhungyal and Chetsun Senge Wangchug, for example (should we take these persons to be the original authors and collators of the 17 Tantras and Vima Nyinthig), and that therefore, these authors chose to elaborate a terminology to express their differences.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Namdrol said:
I don't agree with this point. The former is referring the basis (gzhi), the latter is referring to the all-basis (kun gzhi).

Jnana said:
Tibetan polemics....

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.

Jnana said:
But more to the point: Where is the Indian pedigree for dzogchen as we now have it with the inclusion of tögal instruction? That is, Indian texts written in India by Indians (i.e. not tantras or termas composed by Tibetans).

Malcolm wrote:
The western academic consensus is that there are none. As you know already, according to the annals of the upadesha class, the Indian Panditas kicked Dzogchen out of India and sent it to Tibet with Vimalamitra because they could not deal with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jnana said:
Here are a few quotations regarding view and meditation from teachers who have trained in both systems. Tsele Natsok Rangdröl, The Circle of the Sun:
In short, what dzogchen calls 'endowed with the threefold wisdom,' the wisdom of the primordially pure essence, the wisdom of the spontaneously present nature and the wisdom of the all-pervasive compassion, is described by the followers of mahāmudrā as the nonarising essence, the unobstructed nature, and the variously manifesting expression. '

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with this point. The former is referring the basis (gzhi), the latter is referring to the all-basis (kun gzhi). The gzhi and kun gzhi are completely different.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


AlexanderS said:
Namdrol can you point me to a thread or info, that explains the differences betweeen Dzogchen and Mahamudra? Also would you say that Dzogchen is superior to Mahamudra?

Malcolm wrote:
The state of Dzogchen and the state of Mahāmudra are not two different states. They are the same thing.

The path of Dzogchen and the path of Mahāmudra are completely different.

The superior path is whichever one you will actually practice.

My initial point, which prompted this flood of comments, was to disabuse someone of the notion that the meditation of mahāmudra, dzogchen and Soto Zen are more or less the same. This assertion could not be more mistaken.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Shikantaza are just same method of meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Not even remotely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:


Beatzen said:
Actually, it isn't.  I know from my studies of history that the Zen philosopher Mo Ho Yen was banished from Tibet by the "buddhist" government there for exactly this difference.

Namdrol said:
If you wish to be more informed, read the blog "Early Tibet" -- it will add layers of nuance to your understanding.

N

Huifeng said:
Yeah, that is a fairly complicated issue.  Reading Hvasang Mohoyen as somehow representative of Chinese Buddhism as a whole is highly problematic.  But, we've already discussed this one to death before ...

~~ Huifeng

Malcolm wrote:
Right, Hasahang only represented a strand of Northern Chan, now extinct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Huifeng said:
Yes, I am fairly uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.


~~ Huifeng

Malcolm wrote:
I was talking to Beatzen actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Nangwa said:
In my opinion Mahamudra and even more so Dzogchen have very little in common with Zazen.
So much so that I think it is really odd that folks think they have a lot in common.
If you ask me they are all three completely different animals.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, actually I disagree, I think Kagyu Mahāmudra and Chan/Zen have a great deal in common.

Dzogchen on the other hand is a different animal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Nangwa said:
In my opinion Mahamudra and even more so Dzogchen have very little in common with Zazen.
So much so that I think it is really odd that folks think they have a lot in common.
If you ask me they are all three completely different animals.


Beatzen said:
it's probably my western naivete.  I know these two things.

I thought the taoist-influence of 'naturalness' in zen meditation had some bearing on the 'natural state' that mahamudra and dzogchen allude to.


Malcolm wrote:
There is much less Taoist influence on Zen/Chan than most people realize. In particular, most people do not realize that so called Zen arts in Japan, really come from the Neo-confucian artistic revival of the Sung dynasty. Calligraphy, and martial arts such as swordsmanship and archery, as well as riding, and so on, are the arts of the Confucian gentleman.

"Natural state" is a translation of a term "gnas lugs", which in turn is a translation of the Sanskrit term "tattva" or bhutatā, both meaning "reality".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Expanding Samadhi
Content:


Beatzen said:
There's only been a few times when I've actually experienced samadhi

Malcolm wrote:
That is not true. You are experiening samadhi all the time. Why? Samadhi is a natural function of the mind, called a "mental factor".

The problem is not samadhi, the problem is how to move your mind from its tendency to rest on afflictive objects to path objects.

But rather than worrying about all these contrived meditations it is more more intresting to discover the root of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Beatzen said:
Just for myself, what do you mean by "sharp"?

Namdrol said:
neither agitated nor lethargic

Beatzen said:
That's what I thought you meant.  What's the longest period of your life you had mental silence?  (I heard an interview someone asked pema chodron this question.  She said 'a year')


Malcolm wrote:
Never. The mind's job is to think and have thoughts. Thoughts are not a problem.

If what she said is true, I wonder how she managed to make to the bathroom, or eat food.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Beatzen said:
Just for myself, what do you mean by "sharp"?

Malcolm wrote:
neither agitated nor lethargic


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Beatzen said:
I don't know why, but Alan Watts is one of my heros.  Next to Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo.  I wish I had the balls to spend 12 years living like a hermit in a cave.  That's Nuts!


Namdrol said:
I did not do 12 years, but i lived alone for three years and half years in a cabin in the woods and never left. And for the final year and a half, I spoke to and saw no one.

It is not hard, but not east to readjust find work. and so on

Beatzen said:
That, to me, is so interesting.  You must have emerged from that quite changed.

Malcolm wrote:
Being in retreat was very interesting. One of the happiest times of my life. I was very relaxed. That experience has informed my practice ever since.

Most important point of practice is to be relaxed but sharp.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Pero said:
But how did you get food then?

Malcolm wrote:
It was delivered once a month.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Namdrol said:
I did not do 12 years, but i lived alone for three years and half years in a cabin in the woods and never left. And for the final year and a half, I spoke to and saw no one.

Pero said:
But how did you get food then?
It is not hard, but not east to readjust find work. and so on
Yeah that's what would worry me most if I'd go on such a retreat. Did it take long for you to get back into the rhytm of "normal" life?


Malcolm wrote:
I never did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Beatzen said:
I don't know why, but Alan Watts is one of my heros.  Next to Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo.  I wish I had the balls to spend 12 years living like a hermit in a cave.  That's Nuts!


Malcolm wrote:
I did not do 12 years, but i lived alone for three years and half years in a cabin in the woods and never left. And for the final year and a half, I spoke to and saw no one.

It is not hard, but not east to readjust find work. and so on


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
I remember watching an old documentary following an extremely elaborate Tara puja (possibly Nyingma, but definitely not Terma) in which namkhas were used to construct a mandala of sorts. I wish I remembered more about it, but it certainly seemed to be an old Tara Tantra, just judging by the complexity of the ritual.


Malcolm wrote:
Not a tantra, a rite called "grol ma gyul ldog" i.e. The rite of Tara for repelling Armies


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


Beatzen said:
I was very interested in the Vimalakirti sutra until I came across Pruning the Bodhi tree, which is based on the arguments of Matsumoto Shiro and other dissenting Soto masters

Namdrol said:
And what does it say there?

Beatzen said:
That the Vimalakirti sutra is heretical and is one of the contributing factors in the degradation of Zen Buddhism.  Along with infiltration of certain Shinto influences.


Malcolm wrote:
How can a sutra be heretical?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: are karma and rebirth for real?
Content:
Beatzen said:
My understanding will change, and I may come to trust in the reality of rebirth for myself.  I don't see how admitting that I don't understand it yet makes me a heretic.

Virgo said:
Forgive me if I have missed a post or two that might contain the answer, but, do you believe that nothing happens at death?  It's just "black"? or do you believe in some form of permanent afterlife (perm heaven or hells)?

Either way, there is no point in spiritual (Buddhist) practice if you believe either of those.

Kevin

Beatzen said:
I haven't made up my mind.  I was hoping that I would gain a meditative insight.  I won't share my thoughts on the subject, first of all because I take my thoughts with a grain of salt, and secondly because I don't want to get flamed for expressing "un-buddhist" views.


Malcolm wrote:
Listen -- you will have to forgive us. These endless discussions about rebirth are tiresome. We don't care. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't fine. But there is no doubt that rebirth was the Buddha's teaching. People who cannot accept that, cannot accept must of the other teachings of the Buddha.

And please spare us the "buddhas teachings were not written down until..."First of all, this is false. Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years.

Mahayana sutras were almost certainly later compositions.

Tantras later than that.

But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.

All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:


Beatzen said:
I was very interested in the Vimalakirti sutra until I came across Pruning the Bodhi tree, which is based on the arguments of Matsumoto Shiro and other dissenting Soto masters

Malcolm wrote:
And what does it say there?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Beatzen said:
I mean a state which is tranquil, space-like.  I would almost say a fusion of subject and object, but I know from experience and from my own study that the Buddhist view on this state leaves the wiggle room for a capacity to investigate the nature of the self which experiences the state that I describe.  I don't know which school characterizes what I mean.

[edit] I'd like to know, as a student, why tantric methods are any more expedient than the method I am describing.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna methods are more expedient than sutra based methods because of the profound understanding of the relationship between the body and the mind present in Vajrayāna, and the employment of that understanding in practice.

Dzogchen is more profound still.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Reincarnation, Zen, etc.
Content:
kirtu said:
The perceived world is functional and is more or less really composed of atoms, etc. (essentially the Vaibhasika view but Zen is also heavily influenced by Mind Only teaching).

Beatzen said:
How does this relate to the Taoist concept of fluidity and movement?  I have only been earnestly studying for two years now, and I suppose if one were to pose the model of modern physics, Zen conceives the world more as waves then particles.

I can't really respond to Namdol's question of which form of Samadhi I was talking about, since I don't completely comprehend what is meant by "tantric."  Remember, I'm not familiar with that branch of Buddhist terminology. I will explain, however, that I am under the impression that we are discussing a similar experience of yogic, or non-dual awareness and eventually, certainty (perhaps ultimately, a clear comprehension of relative and absolute truth simultaneously) that arises from meditation on emptiness in whatever i mean by "samadhi"


Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by nondual? From which point of view, Buddhist or Hindu;  if Buddhist, Yogacara or Madhyamaka?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Reincarnation, Zen, etc.
Content:


kirtu said:
Tibetan meditation runs the gamut from traditional analytic meditation, basically skips over zazen as it is presented in the Japanese and Korean traditions (but possibly not the Chan tradition - I haven't had Chan instruction) and then focuses directly on wisdom or an example wisdom experienced during empowerment.  Practitioners develop familiarity with that wisdom or example wisdom during deity yoga practice where the deity is an example of a fully enlightened Buddha manifesting in some form that can be glossed as highly symbolic.  The peaceful deities in particular are often more accessible as they can often be seen directly by beginners in this tradition as Buddhas and Arya Bodhisattvas.  In fact they are an example of ultimate wisdom manifesting in a relative way through the mind of the practitioner.  So deity yoga samadhi could just be at a mind level for a practitioner and in this sense is no different from zazen samadhi esp. if the practitioner is basically just doing samatha (so shamatha based on a mental image of a deity or on an external physical representation like a statue or a thangka).  However Tibetan Buddhist meditation also directly uses the human energetic body.  This is done in a different way that in yoga and in Taoism and has different results.  Basically the starting point in Tibetan Buddhism is the vision of the Avatamsaka Sutra - they entire universe is a manifestation of the Buddhas and it is our perception that causes beings to experience it as a place of suffering.  Interdependence is mostly but not entirely glossed - it's exposition tends to be muted.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
And then of course, there is Dzogchen, which is completely different than all of this.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Of course.

Although the term "aliens" is derogatory, so better to refer to them as http://gnosticteachings.org/topics/extraterrestrials.html.


Malcolm wrote:
Right, if you call them aliens they will be subject to deportation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Lojongs, Rushens, and Semdzins
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Do all of the explanations of the practices in The Precious Vase contain complete instructions?

...

But I'm wondering if the Six Lokas practice as presented in The Precious Vase is still complete in itself.

Malcolm wrote:
As for one, you can always find more instructions.

And for two, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Reincarnation, Zen, etc.
Content:
Beatzen said:
3. Again, how is Samadhi different between Zen and Tibetan Buddhist experiences of it?  Tibetan Buddhists are often quite aggressive about the superiority of their method to insight.

Malcolm wrote:
Which school of Tibetan Buddhism; do you mean samadhi in a sutrayāna sense, or in a tantric sense?

Your question is so broad as to be meaningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Reincarnation, Zen, etc.
Content:
Beatzen said:
If you do not accept rebirth, this simply represents a defect in your present understanding of Buddhadharma.
I don't think of myself as defective.  But feel free to do so yourself.  I'm simply open about the fact that I haven't had an insight into it's reality while in meditation, which is the way to investigate it, is it not?  From one buddhist practitioner to another, I wasn't expecting to be judged like that.  I think it is better if we support eachother towards realization than characterize eachother as defective.

This has nothing to do with my question.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say you were defective, I said your understanding was. You are not your understanding, no? It can change, correct?

The state of non-arising and rebirth are not contradictory. In fact, the former makes the latter possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Reincarnation, Zen, etc.
Content:


Beatzen said:
2. I read a Zen teacher on Zen International responding to Namdrol's sectarian arguments on here concerning the inefficacy of Zazen to produce "full awakening"  Since Tibetan Buddhism is more of a path of moral/ethical self-edification than of self-knowing (in stark contrast to Zen), can Namdrol really make such a claim?

Malcolm wrote:
Hard for me to reply to a response of something I may or may not have said. You would need to reproduce here what I said, and their "response".

As to your second contention, Tibetan Buddhism is not a monolithic tradition.

If you do not accept rebirth, this simply represents a defect in your present understanding of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:


Beatzen said:
Actually, it isn't.  I know from my studies of history that the Zen philosopher Mo Ho Yen was banished from Tibet by the "buddhist" government there for exactly this difference.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to be more informed, read the blog "Early Tibet" -- it will add layers of nuance to your understanding.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: what is the cause of Avidyā(ignorance)?
Content:
Huifeng said:
Avidya and samskara play a mutually supportive role,
with vijnana right there too.

Try not to think of the links of pratityasamutpada as
a line or circle, it isn't that simple.

~~ Huifeng

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is that simple.

--> Affliction -->Action --> Suffering --> Affliction...etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Huifeng said:
It's kind of interesting in one way.  But what is perhaps more interesting in my mind is how many conceive of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism as distinction from each other in the first place, and that a combination is therefore "ecumenial".

Beatzen said:
This might sound rather sectarian...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it just sounds rather uninformed about Tibetan Buddhism.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Just wondering about any personal-experience stories: has anyone on this forum actually constructed and empowered a Namkha for themselves? If so, did you see a difference in your life afterwards, any noticeable benefits that you would attribute to it?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
They may have written about some of their teachings in terms that 19th century scientific materialists could relate to, however to say that the Mahatmas were materialists in that sense would be incorrect.

Also, the quote you posted of the Mahatmas regarding Matter would have to be in reference to Mulaprakriti (notice how they are referring to and affirming Parabrahman, etc. as well), not mere "matter" in the 19th century 'scientific' materialistic context.

Moreover, H.P. Blavatsky would have rejected them had they been 19th century 'scientific' materialists, considering that nearly half of the content of her books is dedicated to exposing 19th century 'scientific' materialism as being actually unscientific in many ways (i.e. according to Theosophy, Occult Science is the only true science; whereas materialistic or profane science is limited at best).

For the Mahatmas to have been 19th century 'scientific' materialists, would mean that they would have had to have had rejected Parabrahman, astral projection, transmigration, reincarnation, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I read more than a few of those letters -- they are filled with a naive physicalism.

But you have rose colored glasses on, and refuse to see what is in front of your eyes.

But there is no point in further dicussing the irrelevant opinions of invented masters and and their nineteenth century "representatives".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Acchantika said:
He encouraged actions which reduced suffering. So, if we have to choose between killing an aphid and killing a steer, we should choose whichever creates less suffering.


Malcolm wrote:
Since a steer can feed many beings, and an aphid, very few, one to one, it seems the benefit of killing steer outweighs that of killing an aphid since the suffering of hunger is reduced for many by killing a steer and the killing of an aphid reduces the suffering of hunger for no one, apart perhaps from that of an aphid wasp's progeny*, oh and the humans that eat the produce form farms where aphid wasps and other creatures are employed to eradicate pests.

Your argument just does not work.

The subfamilly Pemphredoninae also known as the aphid wasps...As with all other sphecoid wasps, the larvae are carnivorous; females hunt for prey on which to lay their eggs, mass provisioning the nest cells with paralyzed, living prey that the larvae feed upon after hatching from the egg.

In short, you cannot compare the suffering of one sentient being with another and state as an absolute fact, this being suffers more than that when it comes to ending the life of one given being vs another given being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:


Virgo said:
As far as I know, these instructions were given to Rinpoche in a mind ter.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Oh Ok, so they are considered a proper Buddhist practice then? I just haven't seen them ever on home shrines of my friends in Nepal, etc.. is it something that used to be more widespread or is more practiced in certain areas?

Malcolm wrote:
This is something very specific to Dzogchen Community and Norbu Rinpoche's transmisison. It is not common.

Thread crosses are commonly used in Buddhist ransom ceremonies (glud) where they represent the energy of the person's five elements.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
rai said:
hello, do you think Namkha could be printed on paper (i  made one in a graphic program) or it has to be made of stick/strings/threads to have a function ? thank you!


Malcolm wrote:
You need to manufacture it or have it manufactured for you. But it better to do it yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
Adamantine said:
I have the book compiling ChNN's teachings on the meaning of and how to make a Namkha. . in the introduction, it seems to imply this is primarily a Bon practice. Is this true? I was thinking of making one and getting it blessed by one of my Nyingma Lamas but if it is primarily a Bon thing he may not know much about it or even approve.. does anyone have any insight? The book alludes to similar practices being widespread among indigenous cultures around the world, which is interesting..

If it is mainly Bonpo, is there an equivalent and effective practice among Buddhists to harmonize the elemental energies of the individual?


Malcolm wrote:
Not it is not just a Bon thing, but if you are going to make a Namkha then you should just do the right to authenticate it yourself, there is no need to bring it to a Lama at all.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
When someone uses one being to kill another being on purpose, how is this different than asking a butcher to kill a steer for your family?

Acchantika said:
Because unlike higher-order mammals, insects lack pain receptors, a thalamus and all the other necessary structures to enable them to experience pain and, thus, suffer.

Malcolm wrote:
Insects do not suffer? They do not feel pain? Of this you are certain?




Acchantika said:
So the question is whether it creates more suffering to indirectly encourage the killing of highly evolved mammals versus encouraging the use of organic pesticides.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't recall anywhere in Buddha's teaching where he says "You can kill all the bugs you like, there is no problem".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Universities/Buddhist Studies
Content:
lotwell said:
Dear all,

I'm interested in doing a masters in Buddhist Studies and have a few questions.

What are some of the best programs? In the US, I know Emory has a Tibetan partnership and there is Naropa. What about other countries?

It seems like you need to choose a language and a field as part of your specialization ... perhaps someone who has completed a MA in Buddhist Studies could speak to this.

Thank you!

Lowell

Malcolm wrote:
University of Virginia probably has the most balanced program. Harvard has the most language intesive, it is the most "European". Colombia's is very Gelug heavy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


wisdom said:
Think about it like this. Non local, non organic food has many harmful elements.

Malcolm wrote:
I agree with pretty much everything you have said. I just wanted to add one clarification.

Most organic farms use pesticides when necessary, they also employ insects like ladybugs and wasps to kill "pests". Organic pesticides are used to protect human and livestock health, not to protect the lives of "pests".

When someone uses one being to kill another being on purpose, how is this different than asking a butcher to kill a steer for your family?

If someone should argue that buying meat encourages the killing of steer, and so on; is it not also true that buying vegetables encourages the killing of "pests"? And if it is argued that one is participating in the killing of steer through buying meat in a market, is not also true that one is participating in the killing of pests by buying say apples and other fruit in the market?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
...looks like it is in reference to Prakriti or Mulaprakriti.


Malcolm wrote:
No, the Mahatmas were followers of current 19th century scientific materialism.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
catmoon said:
All killing is not the same. There is killing in self defense, killing for survival, killing for vengeance, killing just for the sheer hell of it, killing with intent and without, with regret after and with rejoicing after. From a karmic POV they are quite different beasts.

Namdrol said:
But all lack compassion.

PadmaVonSamba said:
There is a story about the Buddha in a former life who is on a boat with many people, and he knows that one of the people is going to kill the others, so he kills that person out of compassion (before he kills anybody else) because he is aware of the suffering that person would otherwise reap from killing all the people on the boat.


Malcolm wrote:
That is not killing, that is liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America
Content:
Will said:
Namdrol translates: " It was truly spoken 'May all rely on this in order to stop and be parted from afflictions, the cause of suffering that is not desirable in any way, and properly progress on the excellent path'"
"This" refers to what exactly?


Malcolm wrote:
I assume the book, but there is no explicity reference to a book in the Tibetan text itself.

BTW, I note that you avoided addressing the explicit materialism declared in the Mahatma letters.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

Virgo said:
What is the need for warming food products under these circumstances Loppon?

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
well, yantra can be quite demanding physically, as can tummo, so you need rich nutritious heavy warming food to prevent vata disorders and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
Namdrol said:
If you wish to believe in HPB's mahatmas, go ahead.

I think that these letters and personal accounts are part and parcel of a wide-spread nineteenth century occult literary culture that had certain norms, conventions, and experiential expectations, fueled by nineteenth century philology, and fueled by a European colonial orientalism, attitudes adopted also by Western Educated Indians.

I regard these accounts at worst delusions, and at best, fantasy writing. But I cannot take them seriously.

N

Will said:
No need to take anything seriously; but most of the witnesses were Hindus, who were hardly Western educated or even sympathetic, at first, to theosophy or Blavatsky.

Malcolm wrote:
If they could write in English that well, they were highy educated Hindus who had excellent western educations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
The Panchen Lama and H.H. 14th Dalai Lama on H.P. Blavatsky's The Voice of the Silence:


https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5830#p65050 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




Will said:
The late Geshe Gyeltsen translated this Panchen Lama quote for me around 1979, if I can ever find it I will post it.  Or maybe Namdrol can translate it?


Malcolm wrote:
It says, " It was truly spoken 'May all rely on this in order to stop and be parted from afflictions, the cause of suffering that is not desirable in any way, and properly progress on the excellent path'"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
catmoon said:
All killing is not the same. There is killing in self defense, killing for survival, killing for vengeance, killing just for the sheer hell of it, killing with intent and without, with regret after and with rejoicing after. From a karmic POV they are quite different beasts.

Malcolm wrote:
But all lack compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Blavatsky on Buddhism in America
Content:
catmoon said:
I wonder, Will, have you read the Book of Mormon? It opens with a similar testimony of multiple witnesses. They were witnessing something quite different though. This might tie in with what Namdrol said about the nature of the times.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes Will, do please compare:


http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
LastLegend said:
If people are going to eat meats, try hagal meats by the Muslim farmers as these farmers have a special way of killing the animals. They pray for the animals for they kill them. At least that is a more compassionate way of killing.


Malcolm wrote:
Killing is killing, there is nothing compassionate about taking a life.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to believe in HPB's mahatmas, go ahead.

I think that these letters and personal accounts are part and parcel of a wide-spread nineteenth century occult literary culture that had certain norms, conventions, and experiential expectations, fueled by nineteenth century philology, and fueled by a European colonial orientalism, attitudes adopted also by Western Educated Indians.

I regard these accounts at worst delusions, and at best, fantasy writing. But I cannot take them seriously.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:


Namdrol said:
Will: As for phony Mahatmas, here is testimony of others who knew them:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chelas_on_the_mahatmas.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These accounts are about as beleivable as Benjamin Cream's "Maitreya".

Will said:
And just what would it cost you to believe these testimonies N.?  Why would all these people lie?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think they were lying, Will, I think they were deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
catmoon said:
Maybe we can shift the grounds of these arguments, since I don't see any agreements coming anytime soon. While slogging through five pages of this stuff, I could not help but wonder, since when is it Buddhist practise to correct someone over and over again, when they have made it patently clear they are not interested in the advice offered? Now, I can see it being encouraged in evangelical Christianity, or in Maoist-era "education" sessions, but in Buddhism?

It is hard to see that any good is being done by pursuing the topic. Everyone is talking, no one is changing their point of view, and animosity is encouraged. If pursued to a logical end, the arguments will not lead to resolution, but to the creation of a vegan sect, a vegetarian sect, an ovolactarian sect and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
This already exists.

My personal opinion is that the Vegetarianism in Mahāyāna sutras and lower tantra is largely a product of a cultural response and an appeal to dietary trends in Indian culture, and need not be taken as "gospel". They are not definitive teachings.

Thervadins, Japanese Buddhists and Tibetan Buddhists by a large eat meat.

Chinese Buddhists do not.

Many Tibetan Buddhists feel bad about it, because they also follow Mahāyāna; but because Anuttarayoga tantra is more important, they eat meat.

Chinese Buddhists are very shrill and agressive about not eating meat and many Tibetan Lamas with lots of Chinese students have succumbed to pressure not to eat meat (which is undoubtedly better for their health).

In the US, there is trend for yoga practicing Buddhists to eschew eating meat. Also amongst some younger Tibetan Buddhists there is a trend to stop eating meat -- which is ironic, because virtually all instructions of yantra and tummo recommend that one eat some meat, especially lamb and yak, which are quite warming.

There are lamas like the Karmapa and Chatral Rinpoche, that advise everyone to stop eating meat. Then there are Lamas like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, who advise everyone to eat meat.

I also have gone through periods of revulsion towards meat. But in the end, my conclusion is that diet is mainly important for maintaining one's health. Therefore, one should eat whatever is best for one's health, and that is a state that changes with age, with the seasons, and with illness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
Will, I'm not sure it was Bell, I only recall it was a British officer she had tea and a frank talk with.  You can look it up in:
"Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race For Empire In Central Asia", by Karl E. Meyer and Shareen B. Brysac.  The same chap provides some interesting insight as to why the Roerichs weren't allowed to go to Lhasa, in spite of having a Tibetan visa that included Lhasa. The book's a good read.
Will said:
Tenzin1,
It would be so helpful if, when slandering someone, the source of the slander could be given.  Where did Charles Bell write that he met Blavatsky?
Are you also "not sure" Blavatsky said she was a fake?  You made the charge, you look it up & you provide the supporting quote.

As for phony  Mahatmas, here is testimony of others who knew them:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/chelas_on_the_mahatmas.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
These accounts are about as beleivable as Benjamin Cream's "Maitreya".

In any case, the "Mahatmas" are clearly materialists, as this letterand others show:

"In other words we believe in MATTER alone, in matter as visible nature and matter in its invisibility as the invisible omnipresent omnipotent Proteus with its unceasing motion which is its life, and which nature draws from herself since she is the great whole outside of which nothing can exist."

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: The essence of Dzogchen
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek ,

Stupid question maybe, but what be the essence of the Dzogchen (Teachings)?


Mutsog Marro
KY


Malcolm wrote:
Knowing your own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Nemo said:
The statements about it's health benefits are rather dubious, but it is a compassionate choice.

Malcolm wrote:
For people who have severe cardiovascular disease, there is little choice -- they should immediately switch.
For people who are prone to various kinds of cancer, they should switch.

The China Study is an excellent book that demonstrates quite well that people who eat large quantities of meat and dairy are have an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:
mint said:
I haven't practiced Guruyoga in a couple of days,

Malcolm wrote:
When you feel like it practice; when you don't; don't.

You better learn to enjoy groundlessness, because it your real state anyway.

Happy new eon of self-liberation!


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:


Namdrol said:
By itself, metta has no force to lead to liberation, as Dharmakirti points out.

Mr. G said:
Hi Namdrol,

Do you recall which work of his that I can read this?


Malcolm wrote:
Pramanvarttika, I beleive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Huseng said:
The whole global infrastructure depends upon oil and even with alternative energy sources online they still won't pack the same power punch.

With declining standards of living we're likely to see a lot of social problems arise. The utopian ideas of some Buddhist thinkers in the past century will prove infeasible and this will visibly be demonstrated, too.

Malcolm wrote:
We agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 2:22 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
I see one extreme form of vegetarians that condemn meat eaters and consider them to not be Buddhist. And then there is another extreme of meat eaters who believe all vegetarians are really Jains and that all vegetarians are "holier-than-thou" and are not real Buddhists and need to be forced to eat meat.

Malcolm wrote:
I dont think anyone suggested that those who choose not to eat meat should be force fed meat.

Sakya Pandita pointed out that meat eating was acceptable in the Śravaka schools, forbidden in general Mahāyāna and permitted in Highest Yoga Tantra.

And in Dzogchen, there are no rules at all, other than knowing your own situation and working with circumstances.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Title: Re: Is it possible to be a Budhist and believe in God?
Content:
Ervin said:
Peace. Thanks, PadamaVonSamba. That has cleared up a bit my knowledge. Creator of everything that exists God is what I had in mind,  omniscient and omnipotent.

Thanks


Malcolm wrote:
No, does not exist in Buddhism, despite what this or that deluded person cares to believe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Heruka said:
Abiotic Oil


Namdrol said:
And as I showed elsewhere, this theory had been completely and thoroughly repudiated.

It is completely obsolete in Russia as well.

Heruka said:
was deepwater horizon bp oil spill an attempt to establish a deep drilling abiotic oil head? after 5,000 feet of water and then drilling is pretty deep, but not that deep.

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazine/15-09/mf_jackrig " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The mother lode of oil in the deepwater Gulf is so significant that Tahiti and other successful fields in this region are expected to soon produce enough crude to reverse the long-standing decline in US oil production of about 10 percent per year.

the USA is flush rich with oil in alaska and gulf coast, but hey lets use mid east oil first...drive up the price by implying a shortage in supply with peak oil narative..

supply and demand, oldest con in the book.


Malcolm wrote:
Peak oil is a very misunderstood term. Peak oil refers not to the total amount of oil in the ground, rather it refers to the total amount of _easily recoverable oil_(or any other mineral resource).

There is a relationship between the high price of oil and drilling for oil in places where it expensive to recover, or the cost of extracting it (think shale oil and hydro fraking (which is not just about gas)) is very high.

When the price of oil rises too high however, it triggers recession, demand drops off, prices decline, and it becomes too pricey to drill for oil in exotic places (like the deep gulf).

Basically, what peak oil is really about is the energy return on energy investment (EROI). In 19th century, the ratio was roughly 50 to one i.e. for barrel of oil or equivalent amount of energy, one could recover fifty barrels of oil. Presently, the EROI is between one to five barrels of for each BOE invested.

What peak oil theory is actually about is not the actual amount of oil that exists in the ground, it is a critique of the economic feasability of extracting oil from ever more difficult places to reach it.

Hubbert's basic contention is sound:

"Our principal constraints are cultural. During the last two centuries we have known nothing but exponential growth and in parallel we have evolved what amounts to an exponential-growth culture, a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of nongrowth."

When EROI drops below one BOE, it becomes very unfeasible to invest in any new petroleum recovery. That is what peak oil is actually about. When it is no longer profitable for oil companies to recover oil, then all the dominos begin to fall...

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
i always hoped that, if nothing else, Buddhists understood the importance of compassion, not as some abstract concept, but rather as concrete action in the world.

Malcolm wrote:
What we have discovered about you is that your notion of compassion is very hemmed in by conceptual limitations concerning proper diet.

But if you wish to be a disciple of Devadatta, than that is your choice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Heruka said:
Abiotic Oil


Malcolm wrote:
And as I showed elsewhere, this theory had been completely and thoroughly repudiated.

It is completely obsolete in Russia as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: distinction between common & uncommon preliminaries
Content:
kirtu said:
Manjushri is the archetype for the Shepherd Bodhisattva.
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
That would be Avalokiteshvara, AFAIK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
Bodhicitta is the direct cause of buddhahood.
By itself, metta has no force to lead to liberation, as Dharmakirti points out.

Astus said:
Bodhicitta is the intention to become a buddha, but there is a path to be followed and without that path there is no buddhahood. If bodhicitta were the direct cause of it there would be no need of a path.

Malcolm wrote:
For a bodhisattva, bodhicitta is an intention and the path as well.

This is why, in terms of relative bodhicitta, there is both aspiration and engaged bodhicitta.

In terms of utimate bodhicitta, there is śamatha and vipaśyāna.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Kalu Rinpoche shocking news!
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
He's spoken publicly of sexual abuse? When was this?

Malcolm wrote:
First reteat I was ever at, 1992, Buckland.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"If peak comes around 2010, production in 2040 will likely equal something not far from production in 1980 (about 20 billion barrels). The oil produced in 2040 will have to meet the needs of a much larger global population and a world in crisis, but 20 billion barrels is still a lot of oil. In the same way, as reserves are depleted and production continues to slump over the decades that follow, the available oil will fall further and further below the levels needed to maintain a modern industrial society, but for a long time to come there will still be some petroleum available.

...

In the long term, the challenge is to get through the Long Descent with as much useful information and resources as possible, and to transmit them to the successor cultures that, to judge by past models, will begin coalescing sometime in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

John Michael Greer. The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age


Huseng said:
This basically means energy will no longer be abundant and the cost of it will increase. Unless some miracle technology is produced, industrial civilization will over time come to an end and we will more or less return to pre-industrial conditions. No more commercial aviation, private automobiles, mass production or industrial food production.

Namdrol said:
But that will take about 300 years if you follow in reasoning in Greer's Long Descent.

Huseng said:
If I'm not mistaken he accepts Hubbert's peak oil plot:



In a few decades we'll have a lot less oil than now with a lot more demand.

The final end of industrial civilization will come later, but a lot of industrial goodies like industrial healthcare and commercial flights will become unavailable sooner rather than later.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Kalu Rinpoche shocking news!
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
Have you heard otherwise?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, otherwise, I would not mention it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:


Huseng said:
This basically means energy will no longer be abundant and the cost of it will increase. Unless some miracle technology is produced, industrial civilization will over time come to an end and we will more or less return to pre-industrial conditions. No more commercial aviation, private automobiles, mass production or industrial food production.

Malcolm wrote:
But that will take about 300 years if you follow in reasoning in Greer's Long Descent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: distinction between common & uncommon preliminaries
Content:
Namdrol said:
No, this is the standard presentation of two of the three main kinds of bodhicitta. In Tibetan Buddhism, we mostly use the royal bodhicitta -- i.e. I will attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

In Zen and Chinese Buddhism in general, they mostly rely on the sheperd kind.

gregkavarnos said:
Skewed from the angle that once again Tenzin is trying to set up a hierarchy: Shepherd and Helms-man like Bodhisattvas are deluded because, whether they like it or not, they will get enlightened anyway, thus king-like is (actually) the only way to go, by default.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, actually the Shepard bodhicitta is considered to most superior. The king the most practical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: distinction between common & uncommon preliminaries
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
According to this view shepherd-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha until all beings are not totally liberated and helmsman/ship captain-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha if all beings are not ready to be totally liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course this is your somewhat skewed view of the teaching, yes!
[/quote]


No, this is the standard presentation of two of the three main kinds of bodhicitta. In Tibetan Buddhism, we mostly use the royal bodhicitta -- i.e. I will attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

In Zen and Chinese Buddhism in general, they mostly rely on the sheperd kind.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Kalu Rinpoche shocking news!
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
He said he was sexually abused. That's why this video is generating so much discussion all around the internet.  It's the first time an insider, a Tibetan from a monastic background, has spoken of this.

Malcolm wrote:
That's not true. ChNN has talked about this for many years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
even if you get eaten at a ganapuja (after all, there has been vajrayana in those parts from centuries ago)?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, first of all, this is not necessary, since you are human being -- there are other methods in Dzogchen to guarantee your samsara is finished in this lifetime.

Secondly, there are laws against cannibalism, so you have to work with circumstances, sorry.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
.

Using meat in ganapuja guarantees that animal's course in samsara is ended.

N

gad rgyangs said:
hey, maybe i'm gonna go to New Guinea like Michael Rockefeller, get killed and eaten, and then my course in samsara will be ended! fast-track!


Malcolm wrote:
No, that won't work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
It is actually the opposite, this passage shows that metta cannot lead to liberation since it is "is fabricated & intended".

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

Malcolm wrote:
Bodhicitta is the direct cause of buddhahood.

By itself, metta has no force to lead to liberation, as Dharmakirti points out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
The former does not have the capacity to bring you to liberation, since it is a mundane meditation.

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

Malcolm wrote:
No, what liberates here is insight into the nature of the impermanent.

"'This awareness-release through good will is fabricated & intended. Now whatever is fabricated & intended is inconstant & subject to cessation.'"

It is actually the opposite, this passage shows that metta cannot lead to liberation since it is "is fabricated & intended".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, ChNN just mentioned the "miserable compassion" of sutra and lower tantra at 9:50 am ET or so in open webcast.

Using meat in ganapuja guarantees that animal's course in samsara is ended.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Huseng said:
One thinker I appreciate a lot is Michael Greer. His ideas can be summarized like this:

Malcolm wrote:
https://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
All your yānas are belong to us


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:


tobes said:
And, that many westerners tend to adopt that stereotype, which has damaging implications on their practice.

:


Malcolm wrote:
Thankfully we have ChNN, who completely avoids this type of stereotyping.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:


kirtu said:
Well they could have been following Guru Rinpoche and trying to save the world from being overrun by the rakshas living on Cannibal Island (North America and Europe).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Then they were a few centuries much too late. Fait accompli.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Adamantine said:
Or, we could all move to the mountain caves and practice chulen, live off the essences and stop harming all life-forms?
Sound like a plan?

Malcolm wrote:
The sgra thal rgyur tantra has a a section on the chu len of meat.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Huseng said:
The unfortunate reality of samsara is that we must create negative karma just to survive...

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.




Huseng said:
One other factor in support of vegetarianism is that while meat production is carried out with the express intention of killing an animal, agriculture, provided it is organic, can be carried out without having the intention to kill.

Malcolm wrote:
As I have shown, the minute you want to protect a crop for your own consumption,  this is impossible. Of course, you can simply allow all your crops to be taken over by insects, rodents, and so on -- but even organic farmers will not permit this. Therefore, the idea that you can engage in agriculture without deliberately killing some being is mistaken. So this argument is rejected.



Huseng said:
The meat eater who simply buys their meat from another party may not directly participate in the act, but they are a supporting member in a collectively sanctioned intentional action (i.e., collective karma)...

Malcolm wrote:
No, not if the meat would have been slaughered in any case. For example, I buy meat, but I do not rejoice in, support the aims of, etc. of the meat industry. So this argument is rejected.


Huseng said:
Clearly, a consumer of meat is sharing in the responsibility of the intentional act of killing when they purchase the product.

Malcolm wrote:
Only of they request or see the animal being slaughtered. So this argument has an incomplete reasoning.



The difference with agriculture is that provided it is done without pesticides then the parties involved, consumer and grower alike, are not intentionally killing sentient beings.



Huseng said:
As shown above, the production of meat is not tied to demand, at least, it is not tied to consumer demand.
Nonsense. If people didn't eat meat, there would be less meat produced.

Malcolm wrote:
This, unfortunately, is just false as I claimed above and as kirt demonstrated.


Huseng said:
Look at China or Japan -- in the last few decades they have acquired much wealth and it has enabled them to be able to afford meat everyday, and meat consumption AND production has consequently increased.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the fact of modern market economies that worldwide we discard half the food we produce.

The demand for meat is not actually tied to its production. Meat is provided to the market in large quanities which outstrip actual demand so that it is always available.


Huseng said:
Your defence of meat eating is disappointing given that some years ago on eSangha you were advocating vegetarianism and calling meat eating sinful.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is true. I still advocate vegtarianism (primarily for reasons of health). Meat eating as done by ordinary persons is a bit sinful.

But I was addressing the argument that being a vegetarian is less harmful (it isn't) to living beings and the contention that practitioners who eat meat are not assisting the unfortunate sentient being who lands on their plate, as well as the contention that eating meat ipso facto makes one culpable in the act of killing (rejected by Bhavaviveka and also by me).

If you recall, on E-Sangha, I asserted that eating meat for one's health was acceptable, and that following the protocol of the ganapuja was not negotiable, at least not for me.

I am not so much defending the eating of meat as I am pointing out the error of "the compassionate vegetarian" argument -- it is total bollocks.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Huseng said:
Being a vegetarian lessens harm to sentient beings in the form of helping to decrease environmental destruction which meat production contributes greatly to. Much more than vegetable gardens or wheat fields.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, industrial meat production is very environmentally destructive. So is growing corn for ethanol.


Huseng said:
If you don't eat meat, you don't contribute to the industrial production of meat, which is bad for the animals AND the environment.

Malcolm wrote:
As shown above, the production of meat is not tied to demand, at least, it is not tied to consumer demand.

BTW, personally, I do not purchase any industrially produced food stuff as much as possible. Given where I live, that is very possible.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 1:16 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
Everyone who gardens does so with full knowledge they are harming living beings. The same is true of farmers -- killing is still killing whether motivated by malice, craving or ignorance. If you are arguing that meat eaters participate necessarily in the intent to kill; then so do vegetarians. Why? Because it is impossible to eat any food during the production of which no sentient being was harmed. When an organic farmer applies an organic pesticide to save his or her crop from an aphid infestation, this is no less a deliberate act of killing than leading cattle, pigs or fowl to a slaughter house.

gad rgyangs said:
killing as an unfortunate by-product of farming, and intending to minimize it as much as possible, cannot be compared to the horrors of the sufferings deliberately inflicted on animals in abattoirs.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it can -- have you ever seen an insect die from insecticide -- now you are just engaging in rationalizations.


gad rgyangs said:
plus, it is conceivable that technology, say in the form of an electromagnetic field, could be developed to repel insects from crops without harming them. you cannot eat real meat without killing.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are engaging in fantasies -- that is not the real condition of farming -- you do know why monks cannot farm, right? Because if they dig in the ground they will harm creatures.



gad rgyangs said:
when one chooses to eat meat, there are many causes and conditions that entail from that decision. the absence of consciousness in the already-dead meat is not the point.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is.


gad rgyangs said:
it is both the past suffering of the animal that was killed so that there would be a piece of meat for you to eat, as well as the message your eating that piece of meat.. sends into the socio-economic nexus of the food industry.

Malcolm wrote:
Then this is true of eating a veggie burger too.

gad rgyangs said:
there is no way to divorce your action of eating meat from the killing

Malcolm wrote:
Then this is true of a veggie burger too.

The fact of the matter is this, if your criteria for being a vegetarian is to lessen harm to sentient beings, than you are completely fooling yourself. The millions of birds, rodents and insects that are killed during the production of food don't really care if you are not eating meat. They still die because you eat at all. You are not saving a single animal from a miserable death by being a vegetarian. If you think so, you are kidding yourself or living in a fantasy.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if nobody bought meat, the industry would disappear. be the change you want to see in the world.

Malcolm wrote:
Ah, the idealism of zealotry.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
There are, in breif, two points, arguments ChNN makes, with which I am sure you are familiar:

One, the production of vegetables, grains, fruit and so on is not free from harming creatures, whether organic or conventonally produced. Thus the belief that one is being less harmful to living beings by being a vegetarian is a mistaken delusion.

gad rgyangs said:
this has already been easily defeated on the grounds that there is no intent to kill sentient beings in vegetable farming, indeed the intent can be to try and minimize it as much as possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone who gardens does so with full knowledge they are harming living beings. The same is true of farmers -- killing is still killing whether motivated by malice, craving or ignorance. If you are arguing that meat eaters participate necessarily in the intent to kill; then so do vegetarians. Why? Because it is impossible to eat any food during the production of which no sentient being was harmed. When an organic farmer applies an organic pesticide to save his or her crop from an aphid infestation, this is no less a deliberate act of killing than leading cattle, pigs or fowl to a slaughter house.

gad rgyangs said:
On the other hand, the whole point of the exercise in meat eating depends on deliberately killing sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, if your argument is intent, merley consuming meat does not equate with the intent to kill sentient beings. That only follows if one slays or requests the slaughter, of a given sentient being. Purchasing meat does not satisify this criteria.

Your argument is actually the specious one, rejected quite thoroughly by Bhavaviveka. If one does not kill an animal, request it's death, or see it being killed, since there is no consciousness in the flesh of dead animal, there is no karmic consequence to eating meat. Nor is there any reasonable moral reason not to eat such meat. The only reason not to eat meat under these circumstances is aesthetic choice.



gad rgyangs said:
so should we encourage butchers to kill animals..

Malcolm wrote:
Encouraging the slaughter of animals would be be to engage in killing. This is forbidden. But eating meat that one has not killed, requested the slaughter of or seen slaughtered bears no fault. And, if one is a practitioner, the consumption of such meat has an added benefit of creating a positive cause for that animal.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Virgo said:
I hope that someday you can understand that you cannot stop butchers and other people from killing animals.

gad rgyangs said:
not as long as you keep buying the carcasses for your parties, thats true.


Malcolm wrote:
Whether you buy meat or not, the abbatoirs will still keep churning out carcasses. Not buying meat does not prevent killing.

Buying it does not increase the level of killing. The meat industry has targets set for how many animals they must kill in order to keep meat fresh in markets, and it bears no relationship, at this point economic history, with actual demand in the marketplace. Far more meat is discarded everyday than is purchased from markets.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
re: "my kind of vegetarianism" as "miserable compassion". i'd love to hear an excursus on that.

Namdrol said:
Someday, I am sure you will.


gad rgyangs said:
i'm ready.


Malcolm wrote:
There are, in breif, two points, arguments ChNN makes, with which I am sure you are familiar:

One, the production of vegetables, grains, fruit and so on is not free from harming creatures, whether organic or conventonally produced. Thus the belief that one is being less harmful to living beings by being a vegetarian is a mistaken delusion.

Second, when a practitioner consume the flesh of animals who have been killed it creates a cause for that animal to meet the teachings. Indeed, it is held that the animal accrues merit because it's body contributes to the well-being of a practitioner. Eschewing such food lacks compassion since no connection is made with said animal.

Therefore, ChNN desribes vegetarianism based on the idea that one is being more compassionate and less harmful to sentient beings as a form of "miserable compassion" -- his words, not mine -- wholly divorced from reality.



N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:42 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
re: "my kind of vegetarianism" as "miserable compassion". i'd love to hear an excursus on that.

Malcolm wrote:
Someday, I am sure you will.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
As far as ChNNR goes, I'm sure he would be more open to a discussion of the issue that you give him credit for. as i said, next time i see him i will try to bring it up.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah sure, I would love to see this -- especially after he referred to your kind of vegetarianism as "miserable compassion" during the Tenerife retreat.

Yes, please, try and condition Norbu Rinpoche to your point of view, good luck.

I have heard ChNN extol the virtues of pracititioners eating meat again and again since I first took teachings from him in 1992. I am quite sure you will not dislodge him from his perspective on this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you mean like swallowing a live goldfish?


Malcolm wrote:
That would equal killing, of course. So no, not like that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Your words? Indeed. The cult of vegetarianism.
The parts of your lama's advice that don't agree with your pre-established ideas about diets are thrown away as bullshit. First and foremost: diet! Then Dzogchen and your master. You'll go far with that attitude.

gad rgyangs said:
its not a cult its called morality 101: non-killing. you've heard of it perhaps?


Malcolm wrote:
Eating meat does not equal killing -- I suggest you review Bhavaviveka's argument on this subject.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
are you claiming you agree with everything he says, no questions asked? do you believe he is omniscient?


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN is an awakened person, one of the few in the world and he is my root Guru.

If he is not your root Guru, it is ok.

Everyone is free. Your are free not to eat meat, I am free to eat meat.

I have argued both sides of this issue extensively. In the end, however, I just follow my teacher's advice since he is an awakened person, and I am not.

As far as antinomian goes, that was not my point -- my point was to what extent you were taking your convictions. Certainly there are many now who beleive that meat as well as alchohol is not really needed in a ganapuja.

They can think that if they like. I have never agreed with this point of view. AFAIC, these two things are somewhat indispensible for various reasons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
this seems to be the crux of what you are saying, all I can do is remind you that this theory is far from being accepted in buddhism in general. is it true? i certainly have no way of knowing. does my teacher ChNNR teach this? yup. do I buy it? not really.

Namdrol said:
Well, that's your problem.

N

gad rgyangs said:
i got 99 problems but eatin' meat aint one.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the problem to which I was referring, this was:

"does my teacher ChNNR teach this? yup. do I buy it? not really."
But of course, you are free. But instructing people to be vegetarians in direct contradiction to what your teacher teaches...

?

And then piling another teachers POV on top of that?

?

Next you will be telling us we schould eschew meat in the ganapuja...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
this seems to be the crux of what you are saying, all I can do is remind you that this theory is far from being accepted in buddhism in general. is it true? i certainly have no way of knowing. does my teacher ChNNR teach this? yup. do I buy it? not really.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that's your problem.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
According to your opinion, what are the difference among metta in Theravada vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana?

Malcolm wrote:
The former does not have the capacity to bring you to liberation, since it is a mundane meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Teachings by Khenpo Namdrol
Content:
phantom59 said:
In early 2009 Khen Rinpoche gave a commentary on a short text by Mipham, "Lion's Roar: Buddha Nature in a Nutshell" to students of the Rigpa Shedra East
http://www.knamdrol.org/mipham-stong-thun-senge-ngaro-g.avertin.pdf " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


cloudburst said:
these teachings have many reference numbers in the three and four hundreds, do you know what they refer to? for example,

"Because  in  fact,  there  only  appears   to   be   a   progressive   liberation   from   the   obscurations   that   veil   self-­‐‑ appearances
(rang   snang),   while   the   actual   essence   remains   in   its   primordial   state   free   from   any  obscuration.  [393]  "

thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
Probably the page number of the edition of the text he was using.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:
heart said:
But Namdrol, the so called "American Buddhists" are arrogant and think they know the Dharma better than the Tibetans and this interview was directed at them.

Malcolm wrote:
Really? Who are these so called "American Buddhists"?


heart said:
Also the whole world consider the Americans more arrogant than any other country in the world in political matters.
/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Don't confuse the actions of a small corporate controlled faction controlling our government with the American people. Thanks.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:
Adamantine said:
There's a lot in there, what do you not accept? All of it? Or just the part about Western Dharma teachers?

Malcolm wrote:
"Because Americans are very arrogant and their capitalism’s-habit is to think they are very superior to everyone else. They don’t respect other races, and other cultures. They are nationalistic. National - how do you say? Chauvinistic. It is another manifestation of a nihilist view. But the West has no pure Buddhist lineage because they don't respect sublime beings, and they don't believe in teachers.Whatever they do not understand deeply, then they reject, and they say, "This is useless". The problem is how pure Buddhist teachings can flourish in the west.
...
I cannot say, neither they are or are not because I am not a sublime teacher. But main problem is that almost all Western teachers of Buddhism are nihilists.

This is what I do not accept. I know many Americans, the vast majority of them are not arrogant and do not think they are better than anyone else.

If nationalism is a fault, it applies to all -- including, and especially Tibetans.

The western Buddhists I know respect sublime persons and they do beleive in teachers.

If we are not understanding some teaching deeply, that is the fualt of the teachers. But the way many Tibetans want it, is that one should have total faith before receiving teachings. This will not work in the West. And this was also not Buddha's intention.

So I find myself in disagreement with this point of view.

I also do not accept the blanket condemnation that almost all Western teachers of Buddhism are nihilists.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:



Adamantine said:
That's fine, but I don't think that's what was happening in this interview. I mean look at the spectrum from Stephen Batchelor to Dennis Merzel or Roach... and so many others that fall to extremes based on the underlying pervasive influence of the nihilist or eternalist conditioning of their cultural context. I think he was generalizing to make a point, based on real examples, and warn us of a dangerous trend. You don't have to make it all about you! Anyway, I have a feeling the entire interview would read differently, as Lama Tharchin expressed, and you are reacting to the manipulated-by-Tworkov fragments..

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I just don't accept TNR's analysis of our situation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:
Namdrol said:
but I am neither and eternalist nor a nihilist.


Adamantine said:
Yup I wouldn't peg you as either. . . but this isn't really about you... I mean there's not too many of you around.


Malcolm wrote:
I guess I object to the persistent stereptyping of Americans by Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
But....there are two kinds of buddhahood discussed in Dzogchen; buddhahood that reverts to the cause and the buddhahood that does not revert the cause.

Those whose buddhahood was incomplete can still fall into sentient being hood if they do not recognize the arising of the basis as being their own display.

Mr. G said:
Hi Namdrol,

Why do they call the Buddhahood that reverts to the cause Buddhahood if it's incomplete?  Shouldn't another term be used?  Does incomplete Buddhahood put one on the path to complete Buddhahood eventually?

Malcolm wrote:
There are, if you recall, three stages of Buddhahood. Since the first two stages of Buddhahood do not realized all phenomena as the display of their own wisdom, the eleventh and twelfth bhumi are not complete buddhahood, this true even in Sarma schools.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:


heart said:
Ah, I think no one have except maybe Tricycle. There was some conflict connected with this interview, can't remember what.

/magnus

Adamantine said:
You can see the conflict from reading Lama Tharchin's letter, and knowing the editorial bias of Tricycle in general, which is fairly obvious if you've ever looked at a few!

Silent Bob said:
There was actually a mini-scandal over the way the editor, Helen Tworkov, had manipulated Norbu Rinpoche's responses in the published copy of the interview to reflect badly on him and on Vajrayana in general. Tricycle lost quite a few subscribers, including myself, over that little lapse of judgement and I believe the magazine printed a carefully worded not-quite-apology afterward.

Chris

Malcolm wrote:
Yup -- you see, Tworkov, so I understand, was a disgrunteled ex-student of TNR's who had defected to Zen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:


Adamantine said:
but hardly an over-exaggeration. . . at least, from my POV.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not a realized person, but I am neither and eternalist nor a nihilist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:


Namdrol said:
You can say the same thing about watching porn.

catmoon said:
Different intentions, different results.

Malcolm wrote:
IN both cases, limitless samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:
kirtu said:
Mind training, the basis of all of Buddhist practice, is valuable even if it starts as a contrived method.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
we are not talking about mind training -- at least I am not. I am talking about fake bodhicitta. It is better for people to admit that they don't want to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings if in fact they really do not have that kind of compassion.

Otherewise, bodhicitta just turns into a bunch pious foppery.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:


kirtu said:
That's true but I was thinking of Mahayana sutras and I also threw in the "mostly".

As a concrete example, Atisha provides a Bodhisattva Vow practice in his Lamp on the Path.  He meant literally that Manjushri had a former life as a monk named Ambaraja and that in that lifetime he took the Bodhisattva Vow quoted six times a day with his right knee bent, etc.  This story and this practice quoted from  a sutra are meant to be taken literally both as an actual practice from Bodhisattva Manjushri's former life and as a practice for us to do as well.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am sure he did.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:
kirtu said:
...but in general the second publication supported the statement in the original that basically most Western teachers were either nihilists or eternalists.

Kirt

Namdrol said:
A bit of of an over-exaggeration I'd say.

N

heart said:
I think the point is that without realization you will always tend to fall towards nihilism or eternalism.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Then the comment should have been extended to cover almost all Buddhist teachers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:
sangyey said:
I also wanted to ask in this thread that Maitreya's definition of bodhicitta given in his Ornament for Clear Realization is to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of others but did the Buddha give a teaching on what bodhicitta is or as Kirt put it the extraordinary cause for Buddhahood? I mean Maitreya's definition is given a lot but I am uncertain where Buddha actually spoken or taught about such.


Malcolm wrote:
There are 22 types of bodhicitta mentioned in the beginning of the Abhisamaya-alamkara.

Basically, intellectually contrived bodhicitta is just a facsimile, since it does not have actual compassion as its basis.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
Huseng said:
Literature on precepts have seldom been taken literally, both in present times and historically.

kirtu said:
Well that depends too.  The sutras dealing with precepts are mostly meant to be taken literally.


Malcolm wrote:
Not  by Mahāyanists unless they are Mahāyana sutras, and even then, it depends.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: words to the west
Content:
kirtu said:
...but in general the second publication supported the statement in the original that basically most Western teachers were either nihilists or eternalists.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
A bit of of an over-exaggeration I'd say.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Long Life Practices and Rites
Content:
rai said:
thank you Namdrol! very very helpful!

also i read on your blog that "...also when we consider the winds that course through the body and regulate sensory functions, the elements are present in those winds in an even more refined manner. And finally, we can understand that since the winds and the mind are inseparable, the four or five elements are even present in consciousness."

Is this why we can visualize the absorbing/restoring of the elements and it actually works?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. As long as your practice is functioning well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Yes, the sutra's are to be taken literally?
Content:
Will said:
Most sutras these days are used as nests by insects.

N
Thus proceeds the Dharma Ending age, with Dharma Lite, denial of rebirth etc.

Malcolm wrote:
What I mean, Will, is that they are not read by anyone but people like myself, Huseng, Huifeng, and so on. There are thousands of copies of the Kenjur and Tenjur that just sit on shelves.

They are brought out once a year, their titles read, rewrapped, etc. eventually, not even this happens. Eventually, they just become bug nests. This is a commonly stated observation in Tibetan Buddhist texts.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
Will said:
Namdrol: You cannot follow all sutras, much less tantras, literally. It is completely impossible.
Quite true, but I did say or think that.  What I do know is true (from 30 years of feeble practice) is that "One can follow literally & practice those parts of all shastras, sutras & tantras that fit one's present point on the path of stages."  Or "One can follow literally & practice primarily one sutra or shastra or tantra."

Malcolm wrote:
The original question was "are sutras to be taken literally". The answer is no. They cannot be. There is too much internal contradiction in Buddhist texts for this ever to be possible.




Will said:
I didn't say texts were useless. But they have no life on their own, dharma solely lives in practice.
You do see the high possibility Namdrol, that putting "personal experience" as most important and teaching that the Tripitaka texts "have no life of their own" can easily be misunderstood as meaning that "texts are useless"?

Malcolm wrote:
On their own, texts are of little help. One needs a teacher. Why? Because a teacher has experience.



Will said:
After all, sutra recitation & sutra copying are ancient practices and cannot be done other than "literally". I will not even accept that sutras have "no life of their own".  They are hardly as powerful as being in the presence of the author, but they are not dead piles of paper.


Malcolm wrote:
Most sutras these days are used as nests by insects.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:


Will said:
Then the Tripitaka was a silly notion and Nagarjuna, Asanga, Chandrakirti, Je Tsongkhapa & hundreds of sages were fools to write or have their disciples write down their teachings and further advise the close study and pondering of said texts.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say texts were useless. But they have no life on their own, dharma solely lives in practice.

I say this Will, because as you know, I have read thousands and thousands of texts, and practiced for the past two decades.

For example, the real Kalacakra tanta is not the book. It is the experience of mandala. The real Prajn̄āpāramita is not the several volumes of texts in the Tripitika, it is experience of inexpressible emptiness. The real Vinaya is not the rules and stories about the rules, the real Vinaya is not harming sentient beings.

You cannot follow all sutras, much less tantras, literally. It is completely impossible.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
It seems that Namdrol is dealing with all Sutra in the same manner as the 6th Patriarch Huineng, when he advised the nun seeking explanations on the MahaParinirvana Sutra to look past the finger and see the moon.


Malcolm wrote:
Not just all sutras, all written texts.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
Will said:
Focusing on step one; it says put your personal experience of the literal Dharma first - not the person who explains it for you. But in order to do that, one must have enough confidence or faith in the plain sutra text as authoritative as is. The fact that we (most of us) deal with translations and much innate ignorance is no excuse for fobbing off responsibility for our initial understanding to another.

Step One: Follow the [scriptural buddha] dharma, not the person [who dazzles with his spin].

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not saying follow the literal words of a given text. Dharma does not live in texts.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:


Namdrol said:
None. Completely inauthentic and not connected at all to sentient beings real situation, which is that they are suffering because they do not know their own nature.

All the contrived conceptual wishful thinking about how nice it would be to save sentient beings does not help them, or oneself, even one little bit.

I am not saying "don't be nice to people" -- of course one should be nice. But one shouldn't paint being decent with religious fantasies.

N

xabir said:
One of the major differences said to differentiate bodhisattva and arhat is that bodhisattva has bodhicitta, which I thought has to do with the aspiration for full Buddhahood and the wish to liberate other sentient beings. If you say bodhicitta is simply realizing one's true nature, what exactly then is the difference between an arhat and a bodhisattva?

Malcolm wrote:
You misss the point completely. Uncontrived bodhicitta is based on one's personal experience of the nature of the mind, and from that stems limitless compassion for others.

What I am saying is that intellectually cultivated bodhicitta is next to useless.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:


Will said:
I am not advocating "reliance" only on scripture, but just in the four-fold sense, where the first step is literal acceptance, with deeper views coming later.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this leads to far too many contradictions because there are far too many contradictory sutras. For this reasons, in terms of sutra hermeneutics we are given the famous formula:

Follow the dharma, not the person;
the meaning, not the words;
the definitive meaning, not the provisional meaning;
wisdom, not conceptuality.

Again, the ultimate authority is personal experience.

In terms of what I offered you, since it is hard to understand the sutras and tantras, you need to rely on oral instruction. In order to rely on oral instruction, you need a teacher. But in order to confirm the teacher's instruction is correct, you need your experience of the path. So again, in the end, experience is the final authority in dharma.

And Buddha wanted it that way.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:


TMingyur said:
Not every concentration is right concentration

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of awakening, they are more or less the same.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:
Namdrol said:
Real bodhicitta comes from realizing your nature. The rest is just contrived bullshit conceptual bodhicitta that is of no use at all.

TMingyur said:
I would not express it so drastically. There certainly has been contrivance through reification of thought and further conceptual fabrications.
However if you take into account the teachings of the Buddha then you will recognize that practicing (conceptual) bodhicitta follows the scheme of entering into samadhi in that it follows the scheme of applied thought and sustained thought (vitakka/vicara).


Kind regards


Malcolm wrote:
You can say the same thing about watching porn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:


Jangchup Donden said:
No use at all?

Malcolm wrote:
None. Completely inauthentic and not connected at all to sentient beings real situation, which is that they are suffering because they do not know their own nature.

All the contrived conceptual wishful thinking about how nice it would be to save sentient beings does not help them, or oneself, even one little bit.

I am not saying "don't be nice to people" -- of course one should be nice. But one shouldn't paint being decent with religious fantasies.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta Aim
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Real bodhicitta comes from realizing your nature. The rest is just contrived bullshit conceptual bodhicitta that is of no use at all.

wisdom said:
Bodhicitta has many levels. The highest is "I will enlighten all beings" without any consideration of whether or not one is a Buddha beforehand. If one can't honestly cultivate this level of Bodhicitta one should still want to, and hope for a time when they have the resolve to do so.

Bodhicitta should be aroused before hearing, reading, practicing or teaching Dharma. Equally important is dedicating the merit accumulated from these actions (even reading WOMPT). In reference to why we dedicate merit and what happens if we do not, 'The Way of the Bodhisattva' says:

"All the good works gathered in a thousand ages,
Such as deeds of generosity,
And offerings to the Blissful Ones—
A single flash of anger shatters them."

And in regards to this passage, Dudjom Rinpoche states-

"It only takes a single cause for exhausting merit—a surge of intense anger directed toward a special object, or similarly a wrong view—for one’s store of virtuous deeds to be depleted. But by dedicating them to enlightenment, they will never be exhausted but grow greater and greater."

So basically even the highest Bodhicitta aspiration will come to nothing without dedication.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
Will said:
Is not putting personal experience primary and written Dharma secondary, a fundamentalist view?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. The Sakya school, for example, teaches four authorities: text, oral instruction, guru, and experience.

Of those four, it is only the last that confirms the first three as authoritative. This is why the buddha instructs us that he cannot remove our suffering, or hand us liberation, but only show us the path.

And for that reason, I instruct my students to rely on their experience rather than some words in a book. Why, because I am a practitioner who has  confirmed the truth of the essence of the dharma in my own experience, and that was not based on some words in a book.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Mandalas and your place in them/ Namdrol inspired thread
Content:


AlexanderS said:
Namdrol, are pure lands like sukhvati any less real to us with no realisation than places like our planet earth?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since we live here and not there and we have no realization, which means we grasp as real that which we sense.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So, like, in the good ol' days there was a fiction and non-fiction section in the Dharma library for readers to choose from then?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, there was a my sutra/not my sutra section.

You see this all the time in Indian scholastic debates where one person says in such and such as sutra it says x and the reponse is "we don't read that sutra so your point is irrelevant"

Sutras and tantras are secondary to personal experience. This is why a Buddhism fundamentalism is impossible. We can certainly use sutras to illustrate our points, but there is no settled 'canon". Gzhan stong pas have their scriptures, Gelugs have theirs, Zen has another canon; Theravada theirs, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Long Life Practices and Rites
Content:
rai said:
regarding the Long Life practices and rites i was wondering

is the life force the same as "life sustaining wind"? then how is it possible that we can restore or gather the life force (which is something physical) just by chanting or visualization?

wouldn't it have more sense to do some yoga and improve our diet instead of doing long life practices?


Malcolm wrote:
Good question.


Life force i.e. srog or jiv is connected with our tshe or ayus. Ayus refers to longevity, and to have a long life, we need to reinforce our jiv, our life force.

The reason we use an arrow during long life rites is that it is a symbol of the karmically projected span of our life i.e. in Abhidharma is states that longevity is like an arrow shot from a bow; and when the force impelling the arrow is exhausted, the arrow falls to the ground.

Now the principle of longevity is based on three factors: merit, karma, and life force itself. If you exhaust your merit you will die. If you meet with karmic circumstances, you will die. If you exhaust your lifeforce, you will die.

One's merit is a factor in one's longevity, and so therefore, when one's longevity is threatened, merit-making activities can reinforce it, thus practice. This can also theoretically delay a karmic disease and so on. Also since one's life force is physical, yoga, praṇayāma, diet, and so on can reinforce it.

To answer your first question -- no, Jiv is not the same thing as praṇā vāyu; however, without breathing you will quikly die, and so respiration is called "life sustaining" vāyu or wind. Jiv is assciated with the heat of the body. When you cease breathing, your body slowly loses its heat which is the sign that you have lost your life and your life force is gone. Actually, your body starts losing its heat even before you die, and coldness in the extremities is a sign of death. You can read about signs of death, both distant and near in texts on the bardo as well as in the chapter on the signs of death in the translations of the medicine tantra.

N

Almost all major cycles of long-life practice have praṇāyāma, rasāyāna and dietary recommendations, and all systems of yoga are oriented towards disease prevention and life-extension. So long life practices are a perfect combination of religious practice, yoga and diet which serve to extend life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Unknown said:
Most Tibetan Buddhists I know take zero interest in things outside TB. They might be Gelug-pa and while Nyingma or Kagyu practices and teachings might be absorbed, they'd never think to go study under a Chan teacher. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I believe people should do what they feel appropriate given their karmic circumstances. Still, Buddhism underwent a massive holocaust in the last century (in the 19th century Buddhism was probably the largest religion in the world), and unity and fellowship is, in my mind, important to cultivate.

I suppose, though, it depends not so much on institutions, but people's karmic propensities and relations. Some feel great connection to Theravada and nothing else, others feel a connection only to TB and little else.

Malcolm wrote:
Once you have settled on whatever practice you are interested in, there is not much point, apart from academic interest, in pursuing other school's teachings.

Also there is a question of terminology and hermenuetics -- Sino-Japanese hermeneutics are not compatible to a large degree with Indo-Tibetan hermeneutics -- their interpretive criteria are simply too different to make comparisons meaningful. For example, take the perennial debate about Chan in Tibetan Buddhism. Anyone who has studied Dzogchen deeply knows that Dzogchen and Chan are not related. But for all of that, there is superficial rhetoric that causes people to consistently conflate the two.

Also the deep differences between Tibetan Buddhism and Sino-Japanese Buddhism sometimes render influences of one upon the other hard to see, for example, underlying current of debt Kagyu Mahāmudra systems own to Chan Buddhism via such texts as the Vajrasamadhi sutra. It is also a contention of certain Tibetan scholars that Chan is influenced by Dzogchen (via Tun Huang).

Whatever the case may be, what we usually observe is people moving through schools and practices until they find people they like and with whom they feel comfortable. I know many people who like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's teachings, but do not feel welcome in Dzogchen Community, and so they do not stay -- the DC simple does not address their emotional and social needs. And these two latter factors, the meeting of emotional and social needs, I would argue, are far more important than doctrine in terms of why people select the practices and lineages they do, over all.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
the pureabode isnt apart of the 3 realms of samsarasan its a place of NON RETURN NONE RETROGRESSION,


Namdrol said:
Perhaps in Theravada it is not considered part of the three realms. However, in Sarvastivada it is.

N

Huifeng said:
Still is in Theravada, too.

Though, non-return (anagamin) =/= non-retrogression (avinivartaniya).
The former is a term for sravaka-phala, the latter as a stage on bodhisattva path.

~~ Huifeng

Malcolm wrote:
rIght, I know, but I don't think our friend, Buddhaputra, is much interested in listening to anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
then the same can be said about those in amitayus pureland because they are not enlightened they have not eradicated all unusayas they are also still apart of the triple realm.


Namdrol said:
It is difficult to say that the buddhafields are part of samsara. They are more like an inverse image of purgatory.

N

Ryoto said:
According to Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
The notion of buddha fields is complicated -- there are pure buddha fields, like Sukhavati, and impure buddhafields, like this Saha universe (Shakhyamuni's buddhafield). Preparing a buddhafield is part of the deeds of a bodhisattva -- and in the case of Bodhisattva Dipamkara, his buddhafield, Sukhavati, came with certain gaurantees. One main difference between for example the Śuddhavasas, the realms of non-returners, and Sukhavati, is that one can take rebirth here or elsewhere.

There is of course a teaching about buddhafields in Dzogchen, but it is quite different than this.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 1:19 PM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:



Son of Buddha said:
in the bdk english tripitaka the 3 pureland sutras translated inagaki hisao
on page 65 he translates amitayus pureland as PUREABODES

Malcolm wrote:
A buddha kṣetra is not a śuddhavasa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 12:15 PM
Title: Re: Neuropathology and Buddhism?
Content:
steveb1 said:
He maintained that there is virtually nothing in the traditions/monastic orders or in the Dharma itself that deals with the mental effects of brain disease/brain injury.


Malcolm wrote:
This is because he has no knowledge of Tibetan medicine where brain injuries and nerve disorders are treated rather extensively.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 8:53 AM
Title: Re: Bodhicitta in the Lam Rim Chen Mo
Content:
Konchog1 said:
In the last chapter of the Lam Rim Chen Mo, Lord Tsongkhapa says to develop experience in Bodhicitta and confirm it "with the rite" and then study the Bodhisattva deeds, what to discard and adopt, and to take the vow of engaged Bodhicitta.

So there are two separate Bodhisattva vows? One for Aspiring and one for Engaged? What deeds? What should be discarded and adopted?

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an novel position of Tsongkhapa's. In general, in the other schools it is sufficient to take the bodhisattva vow in teh Madhyamaka tradition. But in Gelug, it is considered important to also supplement that with the Yogachara system.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: Ligmincha Institute : 2 Year Yeaching on Soul and Life-Force
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
the Bonpo Soul and Lifeforce Retrieval practices could have some extra benefit that other Long-Life practices don't have.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: Ligmincha Institute : 2 Year Yeaching on Soul and Life-Force
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
The fact that this is a two-year training course that includes four five-day retreats, tells us that there's most likely more to it than what one would get out of other Long-Life practices.

Malcolm wrote:
These kinds of ritual arts are not so complicated.

Anyway people are free to do what they like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Ligmincha Institute : 2 Year Yeaching on Soul and Life-Force
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
Sounds like anti-Bon bias, to me.  Sectarian rears its ugly head.



Malcolm wrote:
Why pay hundreds of dollars to learn a rite that is a common to almost every long life practice?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Dbu ma rtsa ba shes rab kyi 'grel pa 'thad pai rgyan
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Namdrol (and others),

I came upon this text, Dbu ma rtsa ba shes rab kyi 'grel pa 'thad pai rgyan by Rma bya Byang chub Brtson 'grus, published with an English translation as Ornament of Reason. It appears to be a line by line commentary by Rma bya of the Mulamadhyamaka-karikas, and since its author is Sakya and I've become quite a fan of Gorampa's Madhyamaka, I thought it might be in a similar vein and worth reading.

Any familiarity with this text and/or this particular translation? If so, do you recommend it?


Malcolm wrote:
Good read. Pre-sectarian Tibetan Madhyamaka.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Are sutra's to be taken literaly?
Content:
Huifeng said:
The only question then, is which sutras are which - and that's where most disagree.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, duh, it is the ones I like.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: My Reincarnation
Content:


kirtu said:
A compelling glimpse into Namkhai Norbu's life, family and activity and unintentionally an expose of the lack of maturity and confidence in many Westerners in Dharma Circles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Title: Re: Ligmincha Institute : 2 Year Yeaching on Soul and Life-Force
Content:
phantom59 said:
Ligmincha Institute is excited to announce a new two-year training program in Soul and Life-Force Retrieval. This unique program, offered in four five-day sessions in the spring and fall of 2012 and 2013, will provide the in-depth knowledge and experience needed to perform the Bon Buddhist practice of soul and life-force retrieval for oneself or, with the instructor's permission, for others

https://www.ligmincha.org/news-releases/soul-retrieval.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
What a ripoff.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2011 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Curing sesame oil
Content:
Nemo said:
Who makes good Ayurvedic massage oils? I still have my stash of ancient ones. Sandalwood and camphor and Himsagar Taila were two of my favourites. I have actual snake oil as well, an old Mogul recipe. Very effective.

What I would really love right now is Mahlakshmi Vilas Ras with Gold. But you have to be very careful who you buy alchemical medicines from. I used to love taking it when I was young with chandan nadi. You would almost glow and your whole body would smell of sandalwood. Then I went into a retreat eating only black mercury and warm milk and honey. Regained my health. I was so sickly before. Does anyone still do these things? Making money and getting a career was such a mistake. Now I am just bored, worn out and old. I should go back to being a Dharma bum as soon as my youngest daughter turn 20.


Malcolm wrote:
Sarada and Tri-health make the best that are avaiable in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2011 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
Thanks.  That also answers the point about one school's superiority over another, as Dzogchen seems outside of any school's  'ownership' and thus universally attainable with the right instruction and guru/disciple relationship.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct -- no one school "owns" Dzogchen, though since it entered Tibet in the old promulgation period, and is associated with the treasure tradition, it has come to be seen as a "Nyingma" teaching.

These days "Dzogchen" has come to be seen and treated as a "school", but this is incorrect. Dzogchen is a personal experience — not a school, not a religion, and not a philosophical position.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2011 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:


Blue Garuda said:
Does Dzogchen rely upon attainment of the nine yanas?  If not, then is it 'above' or simply 'beyond' the nine? If not linked as a progression, then are the Nine and Dzogchen complementary or not associated at all, like a staircase and an elevator?

Namdrol said:
The nine yānas is one way of presenting Dzogchen i.e. as the result of a gradual progression.

But there there is Dzogchen proper, which is beyond the nine yānas because it and of itself, Dzogchen is not gradual in anyway.

N

Blue Garuda said:
Ah, thank you. I guess that equates to 'developmental' and 'revelatory', where the latter may occur at any time?

Malcolm wrote:
The latter is dependent on the instruction of the master and the confidence of the student.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2011 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Hormonal imbalance
Content:
Mandarava said:
Can anyone tell me if T.M can help with hormonal imbalances in women?


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what kind of imbalance you mean.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2011 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:


Blue Garuda said:
Does Dzogchen rely upon attainment of the nine yanas?  If not, then is it 'above' or simply 'beyond' the nine? If not linked as a progression, then are the Nine and Dzogchen complementary or not associated at all, like a staircase and an elevator?

Malcolm wrote:
The nine yānas is one way of presenting Dzogchen i.e. as the result of a gradual progression.

But there there is Dzogchen proper, which is beyond the nine yānas because it and of itself, Dzogchen is not gradual in anyway.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
While it is good to be honest, and I commend people for being so, it is also good to be tactful.  If i am not aware that this is a basic analysis found in the Nyingma teachings then when somebody makes the statement it basically just sounds like they are puffed up full of pride, boastful and demeaning.  For me it is a matter of tactfulness (look who's talking, many will say ).  I am sure that other schools and traditions also have their hierarchical analysis where they are numero uno, but to use it as a show piece?



Malcolm wrote:
But you see, here, in this forum, Greg, there is no one who does not understand what the Nyingam POV is, so there is no point in chiding Sonam for stating what we all know to be the case i.e. that the Nyingmapas place every practice on the nine yānas, and in fact, place Dzogchen above that nine yāna scheme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:
Sönam said:
Sure you are all right ... it's just that I had recently a "hard" discussion with a Gelugpa on what is non conditionned, pretending that Dzogchen is so and so, using HHDL quotations.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Well, a "Gelugpa", and a Gelug Dzogchen practitioner are entirely different animals. The former cannot be expected to understand Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika
Content:
Mariusz said:
Followers of non-sectarian Rime know the fact I posted above that Je Tsongkhapa had visions of Manjushri at least considering Yamantaka Single Hero practice of HYT.


Namdrol said:
This lineage actually starts with Lama Umapa. Nevertheless, it is preserved in Kongtrul's Dam sngags mdzod in the Kadampa section.

N

Mariusz said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34036423/The-Union-of-Bliss-and-Emptiness-By-Dalai-Lama page.24; The Union of Bliss and Emptiness. Teachings on the Practice of Guru Yoga by Dalai Lama:

Here is brief explanation of the short lineage. In secret biography by Jamyang Choje Tashi Pelden, Tsongkhapa had many visions of deities even as a child and after he came to central Tibet received many instructions from Manjushri. Then this transmission was handed down to Togden Jampel Gyatso...Then to Baso Chokyi Gyaltsen...then mahasiddha Chokyi Dorje...

Further Dalai Lama even wrote: Gelug as the practice of 3 types of Manjushris: Manjushri, Yamantaka, Kalarupa from Tsongkhapa


Malcolm wrote:
BTW, I was mistaken, the practice is preserved in Khyentse Wangpo's Collection of All Tantras, and it is as I said, the lineage starts with Umapa.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen view of Pure Land practice?
Content:


heart said:
In the bardo, if you don't recognize you nature in the  luminous bardo of dhamatha which is like the primordial pure ground then the  sounds, rays and lights will arise along with the peaceful and wrathful manifestations and this is like the ground manifestations. I guess you can call that wisdom display.

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds, lights and rays are the bardo of dharmatā. If you do not recognize those, then you pass into the bardo of rebirth.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 2:27 PM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND NOW???????

Malcolm wrote:
We already understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
majjhima nikaya mahasihanada sutta 12 the pureabodes is not apart of the 5 transmigations of rebirth in fact once u get to the pureabodes u dont EVER have to be reborn again verse57-59


Malcolm wrote:
Once you get to the Pure abodes you never have to be reborn in the desire realm again -- that is the meaning of "never-returner", as opposed to say "once returner". It does not mean that the pure abodes are not in the triple realm. They are.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
the pureabode isnt apart of the 3 realms of samsarasan its a place of NON RETURN NONE RETROGRESSION,


Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps in Theravada it is not considered part of the three realms. However, in Sarvastivada it is.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
then the same can be said about those in amitayus pureland because they are not enlightened they have not eradicated all unusayas they are also still apart of the triple realm.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, the point of Amitabha's "pureland" (the term is a misnomer which derives from Chinese Buddhism) is that one does not even have to be a stream entrant to be reborn there. This, of course, is the general appeal of Buddhakṣetra buddhafields doctrine of Mahāyāna (for example, Sukhavati), as opposed to the Pure Abodes common to the Shravaka schools.

A buddhakṣetra does not require stream entry or attainment of the first bhumi, or anything beyond faith in the Buddha that cultivated that buddhafield. It is the same for Bhaisajyaguru's buddhafield, Akoṣobhya's, and so on.

It is difficult to say that the buddhafields are part of samsara. They are more like an inverse image of purgatory.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
hey namdrol

no thats incorrect a once returner comes back to the realms of human one more time
one who goes to the pureabodes/pureland is a (NONE RETURNER) who will not return to samsarasan but will stay in the pureabodes till he reaches enlightenment he stays in a state of non retrogression.

Malcolm wrote:
You just agreed with what I said, only anagamins (never returners) can take birth in the pure abodes. They are still part of the triple realm however, because one has not eradicated all anusayas.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Amitabha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In order to be reborn in the pure abodes one must be a never-returner.

N


Son of Buddha said:
hey mister g man

actually not quite in the majjhima nikaya(i used to be thervadan before i became mayahana) the pure abodes is a realm of gods JUST like amitayus pureland(we are reborn as gods in amitayus pureland as his vow we will all receive vajra god bodies)

in sources i posted in the pali in samsarasan we will be reborn in either hell,ghosts,animnals,human,gods these are the realms of samsdara the PUREABODES is seperated from the 5 transmigations and is given its own realm (strictly for Buddhists with faith)(the desrtuction of the fetter of DOUBT)(true faith)

the pure abodes is a palce of non-retrogression just like mahayana pureland it is a place where you go and are NEVER reborn back to samsara it is a resting place for people tilll they become enlightened there.

the other source i gave you was of a laity man who died (killed by a cow) and was reborn in the pure abodes to stay till he became a Buddha.

the pureland and pureabodes is the same thing (abodes) TRANSLATES to (land) from sanscrit to the chinese launguge(pureland/pureabodes)
so the pureland can be found in the pali canon in every single nikaya the only thing that is different is the 5 fetters must be desroyed and the mahayana warns of the 5 burnings (same things) the amitayaus pureland is easier to get into.

so the foundation of pureland can be found in all Buddhist suttas/sutras
(amitayus cannot be found in tbhe pali canon but the pureloand(abodes) can be found in them.

peace and love


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Title: Re: How do demon like beings operate acording to Budhism?
Content:
steveb1 said:
1) But can't beings be released from Karma by a Buddha or an enlightened being?

Malcolm wrote:
No.



steveb1 said:
Didn't Buddha essentially liberate the infamous killer who made a necklace with the fingers of his victims... as well as liberating in this life... many other people?


Malcolm wrote:
All a buddha can do is give you teachings. The rest is up to you.



steveb1 said:
If the above propositions are generally correct, then is it unreasonable to think that some demons can be liberated, if not while existing in a hell realm, but - say - from a living person by way of exorcism? If memory serves, is not Tibetan Buddhism deeply infused with native Himalyan shamanism? And doesn't shamanism's chief concern lie in knowing the spirits, living, dead, good, bad, theriomorphic/totemistic, etc . ... and being deliberately possessed by spirits (the famous "Oracle" scene in Kundun comes to mind) - as well as performing exorcisms?

Malcolm wrote:
In point of fact, it is rather the other way around. Tantric Buddhist ritual provided a structure and syntax around which Himalayan "shamans" constructed many rites derived from Buddhism. But to some extent it was also a two way street, with aboriginal poeples in India and the Himalayas being influenced by Tantric ritual and influencing Tantric ritual. It is mostly the former, however, and not the latter.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:
pemachophel said:
Sonam-la,

Someone has already answered about H.H.'s being Gelugpa and a Dzogchen practitioner/Teacher. Are you suggesting being a monk is somehow antithetical to being a "real" Dzogchenpa?

Sönam said:
Being a monk not ... being a Gelugpa possibly, because of particular Gelugpa's view about what is "real"

Sönam

Malcolm wrote:
Sonam,

Jigme Lingpa's Madhyamaka view was Gelug, as was Shabkar's -- so it is pretty clear that one can hold Gelug Madhyamaka view and still be a realized Dzogchen practitioner.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Namdrol said:
People can always find a reason not to like something.

gregkavarnos said:
This is sooooooo... true, but my issue is:  why GIVE them a reason?


Malcolm wrote:
Because, if you dissemble, pretend that you think everyone's pratice is the same, people will eventually find out you are schmoozing and they will think you are dishonest.

If you take the other approach, which is to admit up front that our tradition has some major triumphalist rhetoric, then people may not like it, but they can't fault you later when they do find out that it is true.

In other words, since this type of hierchical approach to Buddhist teachings exist in Tibetan Buddhism from the start, it is better to just be open about it.

Now, you personally may not buy into it, but since the nine yānas hierarchy is there, and since it is embedded into our tradtion, it is a little too much to insist that people not speak from the point of view of the teachings they follow. To be quite honest with you, as far as I am concerned, it gives an honest assessment, if terse, of the key points of the teachings of various schools and shows what their limitations are.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:


gregkavarnos said:
Let's, for the sake of the discussion, say that the stated hierarchy is actually objective and valid.  That it is a true hierarchisation based on objective praxis.  Even if that were the case, if one was interested in a truly ecumenical approach to Buddhism based on mutual respect of each tradition and the practitioners in each tradition (individuals that truly believe that what they are doing is valid, useful AND leading to ultimate liberation) wouldn't it be more "intelligent" or "diplomatic" to not publicly state the position?

Malcolm wrote:
All Yanas are valuable and useful, hence the term "yāna".

The best approach is honesty. Everyone thinks their version of Buddhism is the best, otherwise, they would not practice it. A true ecumenical spirit recognizes this. We are not trying to sell anything. Your stated approach seems to bear with it a concern for the consumer. The reality is that people wind up with the practice and teachers they have a connection with and no other.

Whether it is three yānas of the new tantra school, or the nine yānas of Nyingma, and so on, we don't need to worry about people being turned off to this or that. People can always find a reason not to like something.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Namdrol said:
He didn't. He made a standard remark about the relationship between the nine yānas and the two accumulations.

gregkavarnos said:
Yes, just that the standard remark is derogatory, since the standard is not exactly a standard, but a particular subjective view of the relationship of the nine yana to the two accumulations.  One that sets a hierarchy of capacity and ability.


Malcolm wrote:
Greg:

The nine yānas sets out a heirarchy of capacity and ability. That is the whole point of the system -- to grade various Buddhist practices in a hierarchy.

They are not arbitrary assignations, incidentally, but assignations found in the tantras.

If you want to consider the Nyingma system derogatory, please go ahead by all means. And yes, Vipassana, Madhyamaka, Zen, Pure Land, Kriya Tantra, Yoga Tantra and so on all find their place within the nine yānas somewhere, and of course, none of them are at the head of it.

N

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika
Content:
Tom said:
Since for Tsongkhapa the ultimate truth and conventional truth are two different aspects (conceptual identities)  of one ontological entity why should this follow?  Just because we see one aspect of an entity why should it follow that we perceive all the other aspects?

I would have expected instead the critique that this position holds emptiness as not beyond existence and non-existence, but as existent.

Malcolm wrote:
I was addressing the notion that the two truths were one entity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:



asunthatneversets said:
And also be keen on distinguishing Dzogchen from the lower vehicles. Don't get caught up in the bullshit.


Namdrol said:
Lower vehicles are not bullshit.

N

asunthatneversets said:
Whoa! Never said the lower vehicles are bullshit... What's going on in this thread?! I'm in the misconstrued twilight zone


Malcolm wrote:
Your statement is not very clear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:



asunthatneversets said:
And also be keen on distinguishing Dzogchen from the lower vehicles. Don't get caught up in the bullshit.


Malcolm wrote:
Lower vehicles are not bullshit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2011 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika
Content:
Namdrol said:
But false perception is mthong brdzun, so what Candrakirti is clearly saying is that false/faulty/incorrect perception is relative, or totally obscuring, truth.

5heaps said:
seems like this blockhead understanding of Chandra leads to the following idea:

Namdrol said:
The two truths are about how objects are perceived. They can be perceived in only two ways, correctly and incorrectly. Perceiving them incorrectly, a false perception of them is called relative truth. The word brdzun pa means "to lie" as well.

5heaps said:
for in gelugpa the two truths are divisions of reality. what do you think about the two truths being 1 entity? for me it seems super air-tight so it would be good if you could find a sharp barb to sink in!


Malcolm wrote:
If the two truths are one entity, seeing relatives truth would be seeing ultimate truth and all commoners would always have correct perception.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Things won't get fixed in the US because there is too much money to make with things being broken.

However, it is really not as bad as you think. You just happen to live in one of the the worst parts of the US.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Garlic, leeks and onions
Content:


Blue Garuda said:
You cite Hevajra as an example and write that the level is the key -just to check,  would this be true for any HYT practice such as Vajrayogini?


Malcolm wrote:
I think if you are an HYT practitioner, you can eat whatever you like, meat, garlic, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
The whole point of rang byung is that it arises from your own state.
N

gad rgyangs said:
ye shes/rig pa does not arise from your own state, it is your own state. since it is uncaused, it is described as "rang byung"


Malcolm wrote:
If you insist. I gave you a countervailing example -- but have it your way.

Incidentally, there is no contradiction.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
only if its a bad translation, or if the word in untranslatable, in which case it is usually left in the source language.

Malcolm wrote:
Not true. This is why the explanation of any translated Dharma text requires special skills.

One has to strike a balance between readability and over-glossing a term. In many cases, it is better to select a simple translation that indicates to the explainer a broader range of meaning, which then can act as a hook to remind the person who has received the explanation of the text in question of the broader explanation.

Take a term like mngon sum. It means completely different things depending on how it is used -- but in general, always refers to actually witnessing an event. Sometimes, as in logic, direct perception is better. Sometimes, like when discussing a visionary experience, "personally saw guru rinpoche" meaning that Guru P actually showed up and you saw him in person, as opposed to a dream. Or in Dzogchen, when discussing the first of the four visions, here it means having a personal experience of vidyā as a visual phenomena, seeing a thigle.

In the latter case, if you translate chose nyid mgon sum as direct perception of dharmatā, someone who has no idea about Dzogchen will understand this to be a reference the path of seeing (which it is not).  For that matter, even the meaning of dharmatā is different, which is why in so many dzogchen texts, when discussing dharmatā ala sutra style, the term stong pa nyid is always appended i.e. chos nyid stung pa nyid, to make the distinction between dharmatā as ye shes or rig pa in the visions.

Ideally of course you would want everything to be easily understood, but in practice this is far more difficult than you imagine. Something simple have to be explained beyond the translation equivalent you select.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
Anyone who really understands how rang byung is being used in these texts would read it that way. rang byung ye shes is so called because it does not arise from other than one's own experience, it is not given to you, it does not arise from someone's instruction, etc. It is the wisdom that comes from within oneself. Vida the fourth empowerment of Hevajra "You yourself are its father".

gad rgyangs said:
I'm sure that ChNNR understands how it is being used in the texts, but that is not the way he translates it.


Malcolm wrote:
How things are translated and what they mean are two entirely different things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
also, isn't saying "the wisdom that arises from oneself/one's self" problematic because A) surely it doesn't arise from the conventional self, and what other kind of self is there? and B) the whole point of rang byung is it is arisen without causes or conditions, and your rendering is in an "A arises from B" format.


Malcolm wrote:
The whole point of rang byung is that it arises from your own state.

When you have read sufficient amount of texts this will be more clear to you. For now, just go with the conventional reading.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
The basis is not rigpa.

gad rgyangs said:
you said earlier:
at the time vāyu stirred in the basis, the three wisdoms were not recognized
wisdoms = ye shes? If ye shes/rig pa is a "knowingness", then who or what did or didn't recognize them?

Malcolm wrote:
Wisdom = ye shes.

This is a subtle point of Dzogchen most people do not pay attention to. There is very little difference between Dzogchen cosmology and Abhidharma cosmology. But there is a slight difference. In Dzogchen cosmology all sentient beings achieve buddhahood.

But....there are two kinds of buddhahood discussed in Dzogchen; buddhahood that reverts to the cause and the buddhahood that does not revert the cause.

Those whose buddhahood was incomplete can still fall into sentient being hood if they do not recognize the arising of the basis as being their own display.

According to the commentary on the སྲས་གཅིག་པུ་རྒྱུད by Garab Dorje in the Vima Nyinthig, the basis arises because of traces of latent affliction and action left over from the previous eon. At that time, one either recognizes the stirring of the basis or not.

N

When the


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
yes like in the chod sadhana where it says that beings are in samsara due to not recognizing "rang byung gi rig pa" as the ultimate refuge,

Namdrol said:
This should be read as "the vidyā that arises from oneself", and is how I read it.

N

gad rgyangs said:
interesting. is that an original reading or would 4 out of 5 Lopons recommend it?

Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who really understands how rang byung is being used in these texts would read it that way. rang byung ye shes is so called because it does not arise from other than one's own experience, it is not given to you, it does not arise from someone's instruction, etc. It is the wisdom that comes from within oneself. Vida the fourth empowerment of Hevajra "You yourself are its father".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
If its the same, then is it holographic, as in each individual (rang) rig pa is the "same" as the whole, or is there a hypostatization of "miniature" rig pas "proceeding" from the "big daddy" rig pa?

Namdrol said:
Everyone's knowledge is unique to them, so there is no "big daddy" rigpa

gad rgyangs said:
so what is the rig pa of the basis?


Malcolm wrote:
Your individual knowledge of the basis. The basis is not rigpa.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
If its the same, then is it holographic, as in each individual (rang) rig pa is the "same" as the whole, or is there a hypostatization of "miniature" rig pas "proceeding" from the "big daddy" rig pa?

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone's knowledge is unique to them, so there is no "big daddy" rigpa


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
yes like in the chod sadhana where it says that beings are in samsara due to not recognizing "rang byung gi rig pa" as the ultimate refuge,

Malcolm wrote:
This should be read as "the vidyā that arises from oneself", and is how I read it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
kirtu said:
Now Americans can't produce anything of quality because the focus is strictly on lowering costs.

Namdrol said:
Americans can't produce anything because the manufacturing jobs have all left.

kirtu said:
No - American's in general can't produce anything of quality because of the exact reasons I gave.  The managers and accountants justify everything based on time to market and costs of improving quality, etc.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
This applies everywhere in the world -- the quality of goods worldwide has gone downhill, not just in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: syllables on bell
Content:
dakini_boi said:
What are the 8 syllables that go around the the bell, and what do they signify?  Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
depends on tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:


gregkavarnos said:
Don't you think that it's strange that you feel justified in making derogatory comments about practitioners of other traditions

Malcolm wrote:
He didn't. He made a standard remark about the relationship between the nine yānas and the two accumulations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
Namdrol said:
And take for example the "organic" brand. Given two tomatoes in a market, side by side -- which will you choose? Organic or non-organic?

kirtu said:
Given no other information I would pick the organic tomatos.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
kirtu said:
Now Americans can't produce anything of quality because the focus is strictly on lowering costs.

Malcolm wrote:
Americans can't produce anything because the manufacturing jobs have all left.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Garlic, leeks and onions
Content:
Adamantine said:
It clearly makes someone super stinky, so yes, it pollutes the air. It is the equivalent to noshing on a skunk.

In addition, in Ayurvedic and yogic theory it raises the passions-- i.e. increases the intensity of desire and anger, etc. which generally for Yogis is not considered a positive thing.
If one has developed some capacity to transform the passions in the highest yoga tantras of Vajrayana, then I would imagine this is a reason why one may be encouraged to eat more meat, garlic, etc. . because you need fuel for the fire so to speak.

It is also generally considered to reduce the power of one's mantra, yes... but this is also probably due to how it affects the subtle nerves, and is related to how it is considered to raise the passions, etc.

I am sure Namdrol could explain from a Tibetan Medical perspective, if he hasn't already in another thread. In this http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5006&hilit=garlic thread he mentioned it is used medicinally in Tibetan Medicine... but I suppose this may be the same as in ayurveda: it is a medicine for certain conditions but it is not considered to be a good food.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Hevajra practitioner, for example, you have no dietary restrictions at all -- you can eat anything. But if you are a lower tantra Tara practitioner, you have many. Food restrictions are specific to which level you are practicing at.

Garlic and onions are frowned upon mostly because they smell bad and are associated with lower castes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:


kirtu said:
I don't see how branding creates a perception of limited supply at all.  A brand implies that there will be a continuing supply of whatever they are marketing.

Malcolm wrote:
I can't help your lack of vision.

Not necessarily.

And take for example the "organic" brand. Given two tomatoes in a market, side by side -- which will you choose? Organic or non-organic?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: The Neurotic Zen of Mint
Content:
mint said:
I don't believe that instant presence is possible, but it makes for good reading.

Malcolm wrote:
Without instant presence, reading would not be possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
Namdrol said:
The purpose of branding is to create demand. Branding creates a perception of limited supply, hence ramping up demand.

gregkavarnos said:
Or the perception of a qualitative difference where no fundamental qualitative difference exists.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:


kirtu said:
But supply and demand function outside of some complexity about a item for sale or trade.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with branding.

If I frequent a market and tomato seller X has the lowest prices and the freshest tomatos then I buy from them one week.  If next week tomato seller Y has the tomatos according to my criteria then I buy from them. The tomato sellers are trying to sell their tomatos to me in response to a perceived demand by me and others. In no way has branding taken place.

The case of branding would be if I am habitually attached to a particular seller for some reason.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of branding is to create demand. Branding creates a perception of limited supply, hence ramping up demand.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
Jikan said:
but merely that the intensity and the particular qualities by which this sort of thing goes on now is conditioned by commodity-logic.  By consumerism, in you like that language better.


kirtu said:
Nothing has changed. Commodity logic has always driven human activities, all of them.

Malcolm wrote:
How would you define commodity logic?  Just reacting by liking something or being attached to it for some reason isn't a form of logic although we can propose rules and advance explanations for this behavior (already done in psychology and economics).

Kirt[/quote]


Supply and demand...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Sex in pureland?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I think that you will find that in the abovementioned tantra the yogi is to go beyond the objectification of all dualising discrimination ... 7.jpg

Malcolm wrote:
The padmini is not explicitly described in this tantra, however, like them all it says to the male student:

"Now then, one should offer the attractive, youthful, decorated female prajñā" etc.

As to your general point, yes, all women are to be regarded as embodiments of yogini, just as all men are to be regarded as embodiments of heruka.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


Namdrol said:
For the most part, in Dzogchen, rang byung often just means "comes from oneself", and rang rig nearly always just means "one's knowledge".

N

gad rgyangs said:
rung byung ye shes usually refers to the basis, no? rig pa is associated with individual sentient beings? what exactly is the relationship between the two, or are they synonyms?

Malcolm wrote:
As for one, not necessarily -- but you know, you have to find a context. As for two, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: PTSD
Content:
Paul said:
How does Tibetan Medicine deal with PTSD and how effective is it? A relative of mine may go to see a Tibetan doctor about it, so I thought I'd get some information.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no specific diagnosis for PTSD; but whatever associated disorders of the "humors" there are can be treated.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
In any case, the essential point is that vidyā and avidyā are completely different. Avidyā depends on vidyā in the sense that the three wisdoms of the basis are the "cause" of ignorance. They are the cause of ignorance in the sense that at the time vāyu stirred in the basis, the three wisdoms were not recognized and samsara and nirvana started from that point.

gad rgyangs said:
If the basis is prior to rigpa/marigpa, then is there no sense of knowing-ness/awareness/cognizance/ye shes in the basis? how would one account for the innate responsiveness (thugs rje) if there is no cognizance? How does the (rang byung) ye shes (wisdom/gnosis) of the basis relate to the rang rig (pa) of sentient beings?

Malcolm wrote:
As for your first question, the basis possesses a "shes pa lung ma bstan", a neutral awareness -- when the lights are recognized as one's own appearances, that neutral awareness becomes discriminating wisdom (shes tab); when not, that neutral awareness becomes consciousness.

For the most part, in Dzogchen, rang byung often just means "comes from oneself", and rang rig nearly always just means "one's knowledge".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Sex in pureland?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Nevertheless, the definition of the ideal woman partner, laid out in countless tantras, is the padmini i.e. prominent, large breasts, narrow waist, etc., i.e., completely sexist.

N

simhanada said:
i.e. Dolly Parton.....


Malcolm wrote:
I think this is more what they had in mine:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
First, this is defining the all-basis, based on a citation from the sgra thal gyur:

The definition: "all" (kun) is a collection;
basis (gzhi) is accumulating and gathering...

So here, ignorance is being defined as the all-basis. When that all basis is divided into four, the first is "...the ever-present actual all-basis is the aspect that arose at the same time on top of vidyā from the start, like gold and tarnish, the avidyā that depends on vidyā (rig pa la ltos nas ma rig pa), i.e."

The point is not different than what I outlined above, there is never ignorance in the basis; even though ignorance can cover over the basis. That ignorance is called the "all-basis". The basis and the all-basis are completely different.

After giving the definitions of the four types of all-basis, Longchenpa then goes on to analyze assertions such as the assertion that the all-basis is stained vidyā, etc.

gad rgyangs said:
the point that interests me is the "arose at the same time" and "from the start" (ye thog dang po'i dus nas). Otherwise, there is this implicit assumption that "first" there was vidya, then there was a "fall" and then you get "avidya". To say that they arose together from the very first does not mean that there is avidya in vidya, but rather that they are inseperable. No samsara without nirvana, no nirvana without samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they arose together -- there was a state prior to both. When Samantabhadra recognized his state, we did not recognize ours.

Actually, an argument can be made that avidyā precedes vidyā because even Samantabhadra experienced the innate ignorance.

In any case, the essential point is that vidyā and avidyā are completely different. Avidyā depends on vidyā in the sense that the three wisdoms of the basis are the "cause" of ignorance. They are the cause of ignorance in the sense that at the time vāyu stirred in the basis, the three wisdoms were not recognized and samsara and nirvana started from that point.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Sex in pureland?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Funnily enough you laid the trap via your narrow definition of what the positive characteristics and attributes of a woman are.  The feminine wisdom element of the dakini is to be found in ALL female forms.


Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, the definition of the ideal woman partner, laid out in countless tantras, is the padmini i.e. prominent, large breasts, narrow waist, etc., i.e., completely sexist.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Conceptuality in Buddhism
Content:
Tom said:
So I understood you - for you the Nirmanakaya is uncaused.

gregkavarnos said:
Seems, to me, to be uncaused.  I am open to other options if you care to explain them. My thought was that this position is difficult to hold if you consider the Nirminakaya as the appearance to an ordinary mind.
Appearance of a manifestation.  Theoretically (and once again, please correct me if I am wrong) for one to sense, there has to be a sense object.

Just to be clear, I am making this s**t up as I go along based on my meager knowledge.  Please feel free to prove me wrong.


Malcolm wrote:
In general Mahāyāna, the dharmakāya comes from the wisdom accumulation while the rūpakāya (both the sambhogakāya and the nirmankāya) arise from the accumulation of merit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
Namdrol said:
Nothing has changed. Commodity logic has always driven human activities, all of them.

gregkavarnos said:
I disagree, there were, and are, countless and constant instances of non "commodity logic" based societies (and individual actions) throughout human history.


Malcolm wrote:
Let me rephrase, in societies with markets (most agricultural societies, the only ones Buddhism has evolved in), commodity logic has driven most human activities.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Branding and Buddhist Institutions
Content:
Jikan said:
but merely that the intensity and the particular qualities by which this sort of thing goes on now is conditioned by commodity-logic.  By consumerism, in you like that language better.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]


Nothing has changed. Commodity logic has always driven human activities, all of them.

The struggle between the terma tradition and the important new translation schools is an instance of consumer appeal.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Sex in pureland?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
but just for the firmness of their posterior, or the size of their breasts,

Malcolm wrote:
They're out there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


Namdrol said:
Annihilationism is the assertion that something existent becomes non-existent.

dakini_boi said:
Thank you, Namdrol.  I'm still a bit confused - I thought nihilism was defined as the view that nothing exists.  (which ignores the fact that things do appear)  But I gather from your posting, this is an imprecise definition?


Malcolm wrote:
Ucchedavada (literally "advocating cutting off") is the view that an entity which exists (such as a self) becomes non-existent (thus negating rebirth, karma and so on).

If you cannot find any existent there is no reason to propose non-existence.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


Namdrol said:
Wisdom can serve as a "cause" for ignorance in the sense that it comes from the non-recognition of wisdom. But even the example you give shows that ignorance is not a part of wisdom no more than the tarnish is a part of the gold.

Also you did not provide enough of the citation -- you need to supply what comes after the སྟེ་, in order for me to understand the entire sense of the passage (or a page number).

N

gad rgyangs said:
i've attached the page 53v. Isn't it saying though that the rigpa and marigpa are equally primordially arisen? like two sides of the same coin?

Malcolm wrote:
First, this is defining the all-basis, based on a citation from the sgra thal gyur:

The definition: "all" (kun) is a collection;
basis (gzhi) is accumulating and gathering...

So here, ignorance is being defined as the all-basis. When that all basis is divided into four, the first is "...the ever-present actual all-basis is the aspect that arose at the same time on top of vidyā from the start, like gold and tarnish, the avidyā that depends on vidyā (rig pa la ltos nas ma rig pa), i.e."

The point is not different than what I outlined above, there is never ignorance in the basis; even though ignorance can cover over the basis. That ignorance is called the "all-basis". The basis and the all-basis are completely different.

After giving the definitions of the four types of all-basis, Longchenpa then goes on to analyze assertions such as the assertion that the all-basis is stained vidyā, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


Namdrol said:
The nature of appearances is empty, that is correct. But then you have to ask the question: do appearances arise? They seem to , but do they? Do appearances remain, they seem to, but do they? Appearances seem to vanish. They seem to, but do they? When you understand that appearances do not arise, remain, or vanish, then you understand the emptiness of appearances. If appearances do not in reality arise, remain or vanish, how could their emptiness arise, remain or vanish?

N

dakini_boi said:
Namdrol,

How is this view different from nihilism?

Malcolm wrote:
Annihilationism is the assertion that something existent becomes non-existent.

To discover whether the view above is annihilationism, we have examine how appearances arise. First, if an appearance is an existent, can it arise from another existent? Or does it arise from a non-existent? As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms; and the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible. To address this, Nāḡrjuna writes:

An existent does not arise from an existent;
an existent does not arise from a non-existent;
a non-existent does arise from an existent;
a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent —
where then can there be an instance of arising?

If the arising of existents is not established, the arising of appearances is not established. If arising is not established, remaining is not established, and likewise, perishing is not established. If the three, arising, remaining and perishing, are not established, then there is no reason to accept the charge of annihilationism since I never suggested that there was an existent entity that could perish.

All we are left with is empty appearances: they are not real because no existence, etc., can be ascertained regarding them; they are not unreal since they appear. All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence.


N
N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
what about this from tshig don mdzod:?

Malcolm wrote:
Wisdom can serve as a "cause" for ignorance in the sense that it comes from the non-recognition of wisdom. But even the example you give shows that ignorance is not a part of wisdom no more than the tarnish is a part of the gold.

Also you did not provide enough of the citation -- you need to supply what comes after the སྟེ་, in order for me to understand the entire sense of the passage (or a page number).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
heart said:
And CC is the sock puppet of alwayson.

/magnus

deff said:
and alwayson was the sockpuppet of Enochian?

heart said:
Yeah, could be.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
And Enochian was a sock puppet of Namdrol BwaHahahahahahahahahahahah Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

(kidding)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
sangyey said:
Namdrol, I know in another post somewhere on this board you had mentioned that the elements can come from conciousness but conciousness does not come from the elements. It would seem that on a large cosmic scale at some point say the earth element would have had to spun off from the basis of someone's delusional mind and become a seperate entity. For instance, right now there is a wooden chair in my room and so speaking if we trace back the origins of the elemental parts they would have had there basis from someone's mind or perhaps the solidification of one of their 5 wisdoms transforming out of delusion into say the earth element?


Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the way it works is that we do not recognize the wisdom of equality for what it is; that non-recognition solidifies our perception of the yellow radiance  of the wisdom of equality, and the external earth element arises from that misperception.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Parting from the Four Attachments in Tibetan?
Content:


kirtu said:
Does tib_o.jpeg
always result in  ö then or are there exceptions?

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on suffix. O in འཁོར་sounds like "core"; o in ཡོངས་sounds more like so; འོད་ or བོད་sounds more like ö.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Parting from the Four Attachments in Tibetan?
Content:


kirtu said:
I had thought that the ། marked sentence ends?

Kirt


Namdrol said:
No, they mark where one should take a breath when reading the text aloud.

kirtu said:
So text's were primarily composed for recitation?

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
No, but Tibetans, until recently, did not read silently.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
sangyey said:
Does everything in the phenomenal universe come from the five wisdoms becoming more solidified due to ignorance?


Malcolm wrote:
Everything in the universe is created out of the delusion of not recognizing the basis, yes.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:



asunthatneversets said:
From the perspective of avidya(ignorance/dualistic perception) the notion that one is in 'bondage'(samsara) governs one's point of view...


Malcolm wrote:
No, generally speaking sentient beings have no idea that they are in bondage or suffering from some kind of mistaken perception about anything. The Rosary of Pearls explains:

Having been gripped by the apprehending subject and apprehended object
in the aggregates, elements and gateways,
one remains in samsara itself for a long while,
within the belly of the three realms
 one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]
bound by the chains of ignorance,
covered with dense black darkness of samsara,
attached to the spicy taste of passion,
one is bound by the noose of confusion,
tormented by the hot fire of hatred,
one’s head is covered by pride,
the gates of jealously are locked,
surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,
tied about the neck with the noose of apprehending subject and apprehended object,
stuck in the swamp of past traces,
one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,
the mother of karma is joined with her child,
one following the other just like a water wheel,
alternating between good and bad bodies,
born in different forms,
and through heightening one’s self-grasping
one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering, 
one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies, 
one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions. 
Fire appears as water to hell beings,
as hunger and thirst to  hungry ghosts,
as fog to animals.
the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,
those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,
as weapons and armor to asuras,
and as desirable things to gods. 
For example,  just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel
one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.
Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope
since what isn’t there is held to be there,
both the outer and inner container and contents form,
and if that is investigated, it is a rope,
i.e. the container and contents are already empty
the ultimate with the form of the relative.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen cuts straight to the point and states that experience is fundamentally pure from the very beginning.

Malcolm wrote:
Delusion is not a part of the basis and is not fundamentally pure.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen accounts for this error by discouraging futile attempts at intellectually understanding and states that ALL is a reflection of the base and is inseparable from the base

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen states that basis is free from ignorance from the very beginning. All of our deluded experience comes from not recognizing the basis itself. There is no ignorance in the basis. The Transcendence of Sound states:

“Ignorance” is not possible
in the essence, the wisdom of original purity.

The Letterless states:
Since my self-originated wisdom is pure of delusion from the start, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being.

Also the Luminous Clarity states:

The essence, the wisdom of original purity,
is free from the stain of ignorance

The Rosary of Pearls states very clearly:

The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
wisdom said:
Just to play devils advocate for a moment, but also to ask a legitimate question because I don't really know the answer...

Isn't it said that appearance and emptiness are dependent on one another. Without one, the other does not exist? Wouldn't this imply causality? From emptiness arises appearances, appearances are of the nature of emptiness, which gives rise to appearance, which is of the nature of emptiness, and so on and so forth, and beyond the arising of appearance from emptiness, and beyond the emptiness of appearance, would be the unconditioned state itself (and therefore also the Middle Way), which would be free from the extremes of emptiness and appearance?

If this dependence on one another, emptiness giving rise to appearance, and appearance giving rise to emptiness, is not described as causality, what is it described as? Is this basically what is meant by DO?

I'm way in over my head with this one, thanks in advance!


Malcolm wrote:
The nature of appearances is empty, that is correct. But then you have to ask the question: do appearances arise? They seem to , but do they? Do appearances remain, they seem to, but do they? Appearances seem to vanish. They seem to, but do they? When you understand that appearances do not arise, remain, or vanish, then you understand the emptiness of appearances. If appearances do not in reality arise, remain or vanish, how could their emptiness arise, remain or vanish?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
how can any of us say this is just some innocent old man tweeting then put in jail for 10 months for a suspect charge....


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that he was not guilty of the crime for which he was arrested.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: What should practitioners do when someone passed away
Content:
Jotham said:
I am sure almost (if not all) of us experience death within our home.  The problem is that the deceased may be a non-buddhist or a buddhist (who have taken refuge in the Triple Gems) who does not practise diligently.  They may not have received the phowa teaching and hence unable to perform the phowa themselves.  Some are too sick and may have passed on in their sleep.  I know qualified Rinpoches, Khenpos and Lamas may not be easily available or accessible.  In this light, what should we (as practitioners) do to assist the deceased when such thing happens in the house?


Malcolm wrote:
Do shitro for them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
Not to get to absurd with this thing...but Bernie Madoff was released upon bail.

Malcolm wrote:
Madoff could afford his bail bond. Cassidy could not.

You can find out all the gory details of Cassidy's past conviction pretty easily if you care to look.

Basically, he was convicted of arson in Los Vegas in 2003 or so. He was put on probation for this.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2003/nov/06/ex-goodman-aide-pleads-guilty-to-arson-battery-cha/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After he first met Alyce Zeoli, he got in trouble with his probation officer (the precise details) escape me. He spent a year in jail because of that.

The other thing the prosecution was unable to prove is that a single tweet issued from an account that was opened by Cassidy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: America's Disappearing Post Offices
Content:
Quiet Heart said:
I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's in a small dairy farming village in western Massachusetts. The total population of our town was probably 1000 people at the best.

Malcolm wrote:
Where? I grew up in Ashfield, and live there presently.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Date problems
Content:
Daniel Arraes said:
How come some sources state Kamalashila lived between 713 and 763 c.e., whereas the Samye debate took place supposedly arround 794 c.e?
Is there any hypothesis like there being two kamalashilas?


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans were very fuzzy about dates, and imperial dates used to be considered 60 years earlier than we think of them now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
Then....why no bail? Why was this a cash only bail? Ten months for a stalking accusation seems a bit unusual...wouldn't you say?
What then was the bail?

Malcolm wrote:
Because it was a federal charge, because he had a previous felony conviction, and because he frequently travelled abroad, so the DA managed to convince the judge he was a flight risk, and so a rather high bail was set that he could not meet.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:



ronnewmexico said:
So that is the situation not that this person did not engage in criminal behavior....if he did not why the ten months served?
He was apparently convicted. Then released upon appeal...the appeal being of a free speech issue not on the merits of the criminality.

Malcolm wrote:
I am very familiar with the particulars of this case -- the reason he was in jail for ten months is that he could not make bail. He was not convicted of any crime in this case.

The case was tossed out because the definition of "stalking" defined by this statute was not met and the Judge decided that the prosecutor had not correctly understood the language of the statute.

Hence, no crime of cyber-stalking was committed.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
In Taoism, perhaps the best way to begin to understand Chi at least intellectually would be to look at how Jing, Chi, and Shen are interrelated.

Is there a difference between Vayu and Prana in Tibetan? Or are they both translated as rLung?


Malcolm wrote:
Praṇā is srog i.e. life; vāyu is rlung i.e. air. Praṇā vāyu is the basic vāyu from which all the others arise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Parting from the Four Attachments in Tibetan?
Content:


kirtu said:
I had thought that the ། marked sentence ends?

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
No, they mark where one should take a breath when reading the text aloud.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
Namdrol said:
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the energy that new age folks are talking about is what we call "rlung", vāyu or "wind energy". No, because they do not understand this point at all.

kirtu said:
Ch'i in Taoism is physical but subtle and there are many different kinds (including geomantic).  So is ch'i synonomous with rlung/vāyu or is  rlung/vāyu a subset of ch'i as understood in TCM?

Malcolm wrote:
These two concepts have points of intersection, but not completely identical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
That the district court judge saw fit to throw out the apparent conviction, on a  point of legal consideration, free speech rights.... in no manner shape nor form infer that there was not criminal conduct being displayed.

Malcolm wrote:
That is exactly what it shows -- no criminal conduct. No crime was committed.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


mint said:
Is this energy "real" - in the sense that, though it is the manifestation of my primordial nature, it has the ability to affect me, help me, harm me?  Is there any objectivity to a brick, for instance?  Is there any objectivity to a brick hitting me in the head?  Or is it all just a manifestation of energy from my primordial nature?

Malcolm wrote:
It is objective because you are in the grip of duality, and therefore, subject to karma.


mint said:
Second question, is there any objectivity to the people in my life?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Conventionally speaking.


mint said:
Third question, is there any relation between the so-called energy field that the new agey people talk about and the energy that Dzogchen talks about?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the energy that new age folks are talking about is what we call "rlung", vāyu or "wind energy". No, because they do not understand this point at all.


mint said:
Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

Malcolm wrote:
Everything manifests through sound, light and rays.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
needless to say subsequent to that I received a call from a police detective telling me that although they are hindering my ability to do business by filling my messageing with useless messages....I may not call them back telling them repeatedly to not call me as that impinged on their ability to do business.


Malcolm wrote:
You were being scammed. Robocallers have a legal obligation to remove you from their call lists if you so request it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Willam Cassidy, Charges Dismissed
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
Agreed.... but a blog may not be disregarded if there are 8000 posts

Malcolm wrote:
The 8000 number comes from the number of times Cassidy's tweets were retweeted by others, specifically Alyce Zeoli's supporters.

Of course, no one has bothered to mention the ample evidence of harassment of Cassidy by Zeoli's supporters which you can read in the comments section on his blog.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Mr. G said:
You don't understand cessation or annhilationism.
Annhilationism is an absence of causes, by definition.

Center Channel said:
Annihilationism is the mistaken belief that an existent thing becomes non-existent, for example, a self.
But this fact has not stopped any of the Indo-Tibetan Madhyamikas from treating emptiness as an object and running it through a 7 point Prasangika analyses (or similar) to prove that emptiness is conditioned.  This is part of Madhyamaka's charm.


Malcolm wrote:
The Tarkajvala asserts the following.

"The unconditioned is the two cessations, space and suchness"

The unconditioned is analytical cessation and non-analytical cessation, space and suchness. Analytical cessation is discriminating wisdom i.e. having analyzed and extinguished the evident afflictions, that analysis and cessation is given the name "nirvana". Non-analytical cessation is when a given thing is never separate from cessation by any means. Space opens up room and has the characteristic of being unobstructed. Suchness previously did not exist, nor come to not exist through destruction, is not [presently] mutually dependent and has no basis. Those four are permanent because their nature is unchanging.

Since emptiness and tathāta are synonyms, it is a little hard to prove that emptiness is conditioned.

N


