﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:
florin said:
There are no Uk based dzogchen teachers i'm afraid.

Saoshun said:
That's what I did found but there is dzogchen bon teacher but opinions on him are not really good as lama, his name is Lama Khyimsar Rinpoche or something like that

http://www.dzogchencommunityuk.org/

http://www.simplybeing.co.uk/

Malcolm wrote:
Go to Tenerife.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: New Guru Rinpoche art by Alex Grey
Content:
Vasana said:
It's a shame the ཨཱཿ is incorrect, as you pointed out, Malcolm.

On the plus side, i think the new work will spark a wave of curiosity in his fans who aren't familiar with Guru Rinpoche or with this side of Dharma.


Malcolm wrote:
Painters make mistakes on thangkhas and paintings all the time, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Realizing emptiness is not realizing "dharmakāya." The realization of the dharmakāya is attended by the twin omniscience concerning the nature of what exists and all that exists. Now, if you wish to redefine, or dumb down, dharmakāya to make it seem more attainable, I can't stop you. But it is an error to do so.

Astus said:
No need to dumb down anything. All three knowledges/wisdoms are included in seeing the nature of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
That's it then, just see the nature of the mind and you are omniscient? If this is case, would you then claim that first stage bodhisattvas have not seen the nature of the mind? Because they are certainly not omniscient.

I suspect you are taking a short position on a stock that is going up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It balances the humors and is beneficial for all illnesses,
in particular, since it removes kapha, wind and combination illnesses,
among medicines, it is the supreme medicinal amrita:
the qualities of delicious booze are perfect.

fckw said:
From your experience as a Tibetan doctor, would you say alcohol indeed removes wind-related illnesses?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, 10 year old Tawny Port or a four year old red wine. One glass.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: New Guru Rinpoche art by Alex Grey
Content:
maybay said:
Unusual. I would have made the glow of the letters the same color as the letters. Letters are generally too prominent for my liking.


Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I think it is a pretty ugly painting. He has done much better work in the past.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that unlike poor schmucks like us, Buddha does not take rebirth in samsara [i.e. buddhas do not take afflicted birth]. Somehow, what is lost in this discussion is the existential purpose of the Dharma, ending birth in samsara, and aiding other sentient beings to do the same. Without these two aims, there is no Buddhadharma at all.

Arjan Dirkse said:
I agree, but is that extraordinary? In the end we all have Buddha nature, it might be the most supremely ordinary thing of all.

Malcolm wrote:
While buddhanature is not extraordinary, recognizing it is, and we should not fool ourselves as to how rare it is that it is recognized, let alone realized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
What is ordinary, what is extra-ordinary? In the end they're just subjective categories we make up to create divisions. Everything is just the way it is.

I don't believe Buddha is extraordinary, but I am not sure wether he is ordinary.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that unlike poor schmucks like us, Buddha does not take rebirth in samsara [i.e. buddhas do not take afflicted birth]. Somehow, what is lost in this discussion is the existential purpose of the Dharma, ending birth in samsara, and aiding other sentient beings to do the same. Without these two aims, there is no Buddhadharma at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: New Guru Rinpoche art by Alex Grey
Content:
Vasana said:
Alex grey posted this yesterday. Had to share!





Malcolm wrote:
The ཨཱཿ is painted incorrectly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two so called Prasangika views: the original one introduced to Tibet by Jayananda and his translator, Patsab Nyima Drag in the 12th century, and the later reformulation introduced by Tsongkhapa.

The differences in the view between the original formulators of the distinction, prasanga and svatantra, only referred to how emptiness was to be taught, not in any substantial difference in view of ultimate truth. The notion that there substantial differences in ultimate truth between the two approaches is a novelty introduced by Tsongkhapa.

Herbie said:
Then I have to add another meaning of the expression " inherent existence does not exist conventionally " which follows from the fact that the existence of phenomena/objects depends on imputation by individuals:
There are "common" objects only considering the merely linguistic means of expression in that a community uses the same language. However the formation of concepts is an individual matter because concept is the combination of "word + idea ". So while people of one linguistic community use the same words the ideas associated with these words vary on the level of individuals, inter-individually. And since all objects/phenomena only exist dependent on conceptual imputation there are actually no completely "common" objects because of the inter-individual variations in concept formation.
That is why " inherent existence does not exist conventionally " is often used to differentiate the Prasangika view from Svatantrika view because in Svatantrika philosophy it is assumed that when people use the same linguistical designator (word) the object which appears to all of them individually is identical. But this cannot be the case from a Prasangika perspective because that would presume inherent existence of the object discussed by several individuals, i.e. existence of the object by way of its own objective character independent of each individual's conceptual imputation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So my remark was about the seemingly black-and-white nature of this approach: enlightenment being immediate and complete, with a 'miss being as good as a mile'.

Astus said:
One is either a buddha, completely free from ignorance, or not. I think that's a fairly mainstream position even in the gradual paths. Similarly, if one has attained any level of nobility, there is no way back from that, as it includes permanent eradication of some defilements. Consequently, one has either realised the nature of mind, the dharmakaya, or not. That does not mean one cannot have concepts about the nature of mind, and even correct views.

Malcolm wrote:
And this, Astus, is the crux of the problem. Realizing emptiness is not realizing "dharmakāya." The realization of the dharmakāya is attended by the twin omniscience concerning the nature of what exists and all that exists. Now, if you wish to redefine, or dumb down, dharmakāya to make it seem more attainable, I can't stop you. But it is an error to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 10:58 AM
Title: Re: Cannibalism in Buddhism
Content:
Dundee said:
Is cannibalism strictly forbidden in Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Dundee said:
Our problems seem crazy because we lead the world and have world class level leadership struggles.

Malcolm wrote:
We only "lead" the world because we spend the most on guns...in every other respect, we are deficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
I'd thought that the character translated as Way in that instance ( 道 ), which is the same as Tao from Taoism, really does mean path, and is sometimes used to render the term Dharma.  I'd thought bodhi was rendered in another way.  Perhaps I'm missing some context here?

Astus said:
Yes, it is dao 道 translated as Way here. It has a wide variety of meanings in Buddhist texts.

A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms, William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous (excerpt)

A way, road; the right path; principle, Truth, Reason, Logos, Cosmic energy; to lead; to say.

佛教漢梵大辭典 (Chinese-Sanskrit Large Dictionary of Buddhism)

mārga, path, gati, pratipad; bodhi; bhikṣu; nyāya; adhvan, avacara, āśrama, gatika, gati-saṃdhi, caraṇa, cari, carī, caryā, jāti, dharma, naya, patha, pada, parāyaṇa, pratipatti, prahāṇa, bodhi-mārga, bhūmi, mārga-caraṇa, mārgaṇa, mārgatas, mārgatva, mārga-satya, yāna, rathyā, vartman, vidhi.

Malcolm wrote:
Then the question really is whether or not your reading "way" as "bodhi" is really justified.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Iconoclast said:
I don't know....I'm Canadian.

DGA said:
are you laughing about ten years of Steve Harper?

Iconoclast said:
I was laughing at this forum filled with unattached enlighten ones.

Seriously though, there seems to be a lot of clinging to Leftest political utopian idealism.

Malcolm wrote:
This forum is filled with a lot of people of seriously left wing sentiments, for example, I score almost off the board as a leftist libertarian, YMMV. In the West, Buddhadharma is dominated by liberals and leftists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Astus said:
"Studying the Way is to always contemplate the self-nature:
This is to be identical with all the buddhas."
(Platform Sutra, ch 7, p 53)

Malcolm wrote:
What does "this" refer to?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: The purpose of Aspiration prayers
Content:
Vasana said:
I'm looking for information on the purpose, or function of aspiration prayers, as well as your personal thoughts and experiences with them and the role they have played for you along the path.

Malcolm wrote:
More info can be found in Dasabhumika Sūtra.  since pranidhana pāramitā is one of the ten.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
The Buddha is not ignorant, but we are ignorant for failing to see that we are Buddha all along and never ignorant.

Malcolm wrote:
Where there is ignorance, there is no buddhahood. Ignorances and Buddhas are mutually exclusive.

jundo cohen said:
Buddha needs no cultivation for nothing is lacking. Only our endless cultivation allow us to embody that we are Buddha with no need of cultivation and nothing lacking.

Malcolm wrote:
Attaining buddhahood was never an additive process to begin with. Rather than adding something missing, it is a removal of something extraneous.

jundo cohen said:
It is possible to "get it" once and for all such that there is not one more thing in need of doing. All is done, the journey ended. One realizes that there was never need for a journey to begin with for all was ever present and whole, and nothing in need of doing. It always was so.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, standard Mahāyāna, stated quite plainly by Maitreyanatha.

jundo cohen said:
And at that point, one is well advised to "get going" and bring it to life, get on with the journey, by the cultivation of every word, thought and act.

Malcolm wrote:
No, at this point, "there is not one more thing in need of doing."

jundo cohen said:
The end result is something like a journey in which every step is arrival in the Buddha Land, and yet we press on. It is cultivation in which we plant a seed, water and (most importantly) pull weeds ... and yet the flowers have all been in bloom all along.

Malcolm wrote:
In the end, your Zen is just standard Mahāyāna gussied up in polyester brocade.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Klesha's
Content:
Pringle said:
I’m aware that Klesha's are 'defilements' or 'afflictions' that obscure the mind from seeing the true nature of things.

Malcolm wrote:
No, kleshas cause rebirth in the three realms.


The knowledge obscuration prevents us from seeing the true nature of things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Is that not how you tend to talk to people, Namdrol? You offer unbending opinions on Zen, Japanese clergy ...

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. My manner may be a bit direct, but I never tell people, that in essence, I think they are full of shit, everyone, but you that is —— because you so frequently let others know you think they are completely full of shit in the most rude way. And this has been pointed out to you again and again, and not by me. And quite frankly, despite my directness, I have never been banned from a single forum anywhere ever, unlike you, who has even made yourself persona non grata at Zen forums.

If you had even the smidgen of the respect for other Buddhist schools that I do for Chan and Zen, you would never talk the way you do.

BTW, I don't confuse your online persona with your persona in real life. People in really life are not usually the prigs they present themselves as online.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
The free flow of reasonable, civilly and calmly presented ideas should be allowed for true discussion and interchange to occur.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not possible when people like yourself greet every idea that does not conform to your concepts of reality with snorting derision that drips with condescension.

jundo cohen said:
However, ideas can be scary to some.

Malcolm wrote:
You have a mirror, why don't you use it for a change.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
All perception, apart from direct perceptions, are necessarily conceptual because they are governed by universals imputed from the perception of particulars [for example, all cows are perceived as cows by virtue of everything else being a non-cow, anyāpoha]

Herbie said:
your protest is caused by your view which is not Gelug view but Sakya view. Gelug view does actually accept apoha view of Dignaga/Dharmakirti but its interpretation differs from Sakya view.

Malcolm wrote:
Um, no. My understanding is not based on Sakya texts. It is based on Indian texts.
An absence of inherent existence, your "object of negation" does not even exist conventionally,
if it would exist conventionally then worldly people would know emptiness
Since this inherent existence to be negated does not even exist conventionally, it is merely a concept to negate, i.e. a conceptual negation.


therefore, it cannot be perceived directly.
What is direct perception when there is no common inter-individual object as in prasangika?
Supposedly, according to the Gelug system, the absence of inherent existence is the nominal ultimate, which is cultivated in order to lead to the yogic direction perception of emptiness. But nominal ultimates are necessarily conceptual, and are sustained through a conceptual awareness.
It is a  mere concept, like the color grue, which is entirely conceptual in nature.
Tsongkhapa, the philosopher, would totally agree:  objects only exist dependent on conceptuality
Then why are you negating the fact that your "absence of inherent existence" is merely a concept? You are being self-contradictory [as usual]. Further, you are not making a distinction between that which is absolutely false, such as grue, or inherent existence, and that which is conventionally true, such as blue-green or existence.
It cannot even be perceived via exclusion [since inherent existence does not conventionally exist].
inherent existence actually conventionally exists because people think it to inhere in objects of perception.
No, inherent existence does not exist even conventionally. If it did, Tsongkhapa would not have negated it, because it would be an over-negation. The reason why Tsongkhapa negates inherent existence rather than existence is because the former does not exist even conventionally, while the latter does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Hello . . .
Content:
Bhikkhu_YinRi said:
Hello everyone. Rather new to forums.

How is everyone.

Malcolm wrote:
Give up hope, all ye who enter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is just a poetic restatement of Nāgarjuna's trope about the non differentiation of samsara and nirvana, but it does not address the core of my point.

Astus said:
Your point seems to be that afflictions need to be fully eliminated first, and only then one has attained full enlightenment. But Huineng says:

"If one [tries to] use the illumination of wisdom to destroy the afflictions, this is the interpretation of the two [Hinayana] vehicles [held by] those fit for the sheep and deer [carts]. ... Ordinary people see brightness and ignorance as different, but the wise comprehend that they are nondual in their nature. ... One abides in the afflictions without disruption; one resides in meditation without serenity. Not annihilationist and not permanent, neither coming nor going; neither located in an intermediate location nor in the internal and external; neither generated nor extinguished, permanently abiding without movement—this is called the Way."
(Platform Sutra, ch 10, BDK Edition, p 80)

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas are not on a way. They have reached their destination.

And no, I dont mean that one hunts afflictions like a cat hunting mice. Those who are incapable of instant buddhahood naturally burn off the two obscurations over many lifetimes as a result their practice of gathering the two accumulations, unless of course they have access to special means.

Once upon a time, first bhumi realization was common, now it has become very rare.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Six Lamps and its commentary.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Awesome, thanks!

tomamundsen said:
I think https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Seeing-Perfection-Visionary-Renaissance/dp/0199982910 has a translation of that. Not sure if there are other English translations available?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 11:04 AM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
dreambow said:
1). I can drink.
2). I get groomed.
3). I go for a walk.
...I AM THE STALLION

DGA Where does that above quote or insert come from?

DGA said:
It's from a silly song called "The Stallion (part two)."  It's about someone who is a pompous fool--the kind who invents preposterous reasons to believe he's better than everyone else.  I made it my signature to celebrate someone's birthday (Aaron Freeman, the guy who wrote it), and I forgot to change it.  It's brown for a reason, too, but we don't have to get into that.


Malcolm wrote:
Even sillier:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

Dog goes woof, cat goes meow.
Bird goes tweet, and mouse goes squeak.
Cow goes moo. Frog goes croak, and the elephant goes toot.
Ducks say quack and fish go blub, and the seal goes OW OW OW.
But there's one sound that no one knows...
WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY?
Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
WHAT THE FOX SAY?
Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
WHAT THE FOX SAY?
Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
WHAT THE FOX SAY?
Joff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!
Joff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!
Joff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!
WHAT THE FOX SAY?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Hara
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Pending some actual evidence for the existence of "Hara", I would still take it as a useful and powerful phenomenon just on peoples' faith and belief alone, even if there is nothing there. In that way, it is still useful.

dharmagoat said:
Indeed, as can be said of many aspects of Buddhism.

I am constantly surprised by how many Buddhists require an absolute existence of such things.

Malcolm wrote:
Silly goat, it is the hypogastric plexus, as I mentioned above. This is just a channel system, it arises with the body, and perishes with it too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Caodemarte said:
...so different from much the childish sect bashing...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if jundo refrained from doing that, but that would be like coal turning white.

Caodemarte said:
Zen Buddhism is part of the Mahayana tradition, and would regard itself as teaching true Mahayana Buddhism (as would other sects).

Malcolm wrote:
Oh for lord's sake. I am a Dzogchen practitioner, that means, among other things, that I accept that Chan is based on definitive sūtras, as opposed to the gradual path advocated by Kamalashila in the Bhavanakrama.

Caodemarte said:
What do you mean by "Are there any Zen sources that describe what Buddhahood is, in an externally verifiable way?"  Do you mean the idea, sometimes taken literally that a Buddha has distinct, unusual marks that can be physically measured?  "I am an ordinary guy, buddha was an ordinary guy, and so are you. We are all also Buddha." is one Zen response to that.

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone here, who has half a brain, accepts that tathāgatas cannot be identified by marks, it says so in the Diamond Sūtra, very clearly. That is not actually the point at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 10:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus said:
While those who go with the second option say that one should just realise it for oneself immediately.


Malcolm wrote:
Nice theory, but that is about it, for the vast majority of persons, i.e. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 10:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, until they are burnt away, one can still take birth in the three realms. Buddhas do not take birth in the three realms at all.

Astus said:
Dogen writes in Shoji (SBGZ, vol 4, BDK Edition, p 299-300):

"If a person looks for buddha outside of life and death, that is like pointing a cart north and making for [the south country of] Etsu, or like facing south and hoping to see the North Star. It is to be amassing more and more causes of life and death, and to have utterly lost the way of liberation. When we understand that only life and death itself is nirvana, there is nothing to hate as life and death and nothing to aspire to as nirvana. Then, for the first time, the means exist to get free from life and death.
...
This life and death is just the sacred life of buddha. If we hate it and want to get rid of it, that is just wanting to lose the sacred life of buddha. If we stick in it, if we attach to life and death, this also is to lose the sacred life of buddha. We confine ourselves to the condition of buddha. When we are without dislike and without longing, then for the first time we enter the mind of buddha. But do not consider it with mind and do not say it with words! When we just let go of our own body and our own mind and throw them into the house of buddha, they are set into action from the side of buddha; then when we continue to obey this, without exerting any force and without expending any mind, we get free from life and death and become buddha."

Malcolm wrote:
This is just a poetic restatement of Nāgarjuna's trope about the non differentiation of samsara and nirvana, but it does not address the core of my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, when you say "I have refuted inherent existence" what you have done is engage in a conceptual exercise.

Herbie said:
yes, if your merely refute, this is merely a conceptual operation. But if you perceive its absence as a consequence of not projecting it then you have negated "the object of negation" for yourself. Communicating this to others may be more or less appropriate  and therefore lead to more or less justified rejections by others.

Malcolm wrote:
All perception, apart from direct perceptions, are necessarily conceptual because they are governed by universals imputed from the perception of particulars [for example, all cows are perceived as cows by virtue of everything else being a non-cow, anyāpoha].

An absence of inherent existence, your "object of negation" does not even exist conventionally, therefore, it cannot be perceived directly. It is a  mere concept, like the color grue, which is entirely conceptual in nature. It cannot even be perceived via exclusion [since inherent existence does not conventionally exist].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
But then ... this is perhaps where the "religious element" comes in which is represented by the concept of the bodhisattva bhūmis. Because if one perceives the object of negation for the first time one necessarily perceives emptiness - at least indirectly - for the first time.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you just perceive another conceptual construct.

Herbie said:
No, because the object of negation is the object observed by means of introspection. you should not confuse the concept with its referrent: when I say or write "sweet" the concept  "sweet" is valid although nobody has the taste of sweetness in their mouths when reading/seeing the word "sweet". Same applies to "object of negation".

Malcolm wrote:
An object of negation is a conceptual construct. For example, when you say "I have refuted inherent existence" what you have done is engage in a conceptual exercise since there is no referent at all, since unlike "sweet" inherent existence does not exist even conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
Do you have a particular (non restricted, or mildly) text you'd recommend in terms of this?

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN discusses sound, light and rays all the time. IN Buddhist Dzogchen it is mainly confined to discussions of the bardo experience.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Yeah, I remember some of that from Crystal and the Way of Light..I meant a Bonpo text specifically,if you had a recommendation.

Malcolm wrote:
The Six Lamps and its commentary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Is this something that once felt will always be remembered?

Herbie said:
Principally yes, BUT all habits must become aware as mere habits and if one gets again lost in the habits that one once has recognized as mere habits these habits again appear as truths.
But then ... this is perhaps where the "religious element" comes in which is represented by the concept of the bodhisattva bhūmis. Because if one perceives the object of negation for the first time one necessarily perceives emptiness - at least indirectly - for the first time.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you just perceive another conceptual construct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Panaesthesia said:
This then makes sense, for me, of what Guan Yin said in the Surangama sutra about the stage he went through at which "sound ended." I'm writing up a fuller explanation of that and why it is relevant to this meditation support, which I'll post sometime in the future on my blog.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to discover the sound of dharmatā. Then there is nothing left to understand about sound.

The Bon po Dzogchen Zhang Zhung sNyan rGyud teachings about sound, lights and rays are also very interesting and detailed. More detailed than what is "Buddhist" Dzogchen.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Do you have a particular (non restricted, or mildly) text you'd recommend in terms of this?

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN discusses sound, light and rays all the time. IN Buddhist Dzogchen it is mainly confined to discussions of the bardo experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Panaesthesia said:
This then makes sense, for me, of what Guan Yin said in the Surangama sutra about the stage he went through at which "sound ended." I'm writing up a fuller explanation of that and why it is relevant to this meditation support, which I'll post sometime in the future on my blog.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to discover the sound of dharmatā. Then there is nothing left to understand about sound.

The Bon po Dzogchen Zhang Zhung sNyan rGyud teachings about sound, lights and rays are also very interesting and detailed. More detailed than what is "Buddhist" Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Hara
Content:
Pero said:
Hara/dantien is quite real (though the meaning is different in different contexts). But it's something that has to be built (this goes for both some (internal) martial arts as well as some Daoist practices, don't know about its importance in Zen).

jundo cohen said:
I wonder what proof there is that it is real. I do not mean anecdotal proof, such as "I feel something when I concentrate there." I mean concrete proof for its existence. Can it be found in the human anatomy?

Gassho, Jundo

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

It roughly corresponds to this. More precisely, it is the hypogastric plexus, located in most people about four finger widths below the navel in the center of the abdomen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Hara
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I know that Meido is looking in here, and as a martial artist and Zen priest he will have a lot more to say than I will.

I believe that hara/tanden is largely a fiction

Malcolm wrote:
Because your opinions on what is real and unreal are so highly regarded around here...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Anyone else -- who knows about Buddhist vs. Vedantic takes on awareness -- find the OP to be accurate, off, on the right track, etc.?


Malcolm wrote:
The inseparable clarity and emptiness of the mind is regarded as ultimate. Mipham explains very clearly in Original Mind:
Beyond the extremes of conditioned and unconditioned, in the true stage of things, an emptiness devoid of luminosity cannot be perceived and a luminous mind devoid of emptiness cannot be perceived. When those two are realized as the objects of a personal knowledge of the realization of the true state, they are realized to be inseparable. If it is not realized, since the theoretical understanding arising in the mind that there is an empty object which is the demarcation of an object of refutation through exclusion and a subjective consciousness that possesses signs does not go beyond grasping signified phenomena that are conceptual objects of dualistic appearances as being real or unreal, it is not the true state. If the true state, original mind, is actualized, there will be personal knowledge of the nondual dharmatā that goes beyond the domain of all dualistic phenomena such as real or unreal, empty or not empty, and so on. [20/a] In that case, the division of emptiness, luminosity, knowing and emptiness, appearance and emptiness into dualities are mere expressions that does not stay in the partial extremes because of subsequent concepts, but there is no duality in the true state. Likewise, it is beyond all dualistic phenomena such as subject, object, and so on...Apart from actualizing this on the basis of the intimate instruction of the liberating method that possesses the yoga, it is not an object of analysis with intellectual knowledge. Therefore, it is valid to have confidence in those who have ascertained their own minds are nonarising. However, only foolish children assert that unconditioned sole emptiness turned into an object with the conditioned mind is the true state. Since not even a semblance of personal knowledge arises, since nothing is able to arising in the mind other than that, since one can be seduced by turning it into a conceptual tenet, give up looking in that direction. It is necessary to hear the instruction of the profound aural lineage from the mouth of the sublime vidyādhara gurus who follow the tenets of the Great Perfection or Mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
Rishin said:
Sorry folks but I have some more questions.

From what I've seen in the thread there are obviously levels of practice which one goes through after ordination. So with that in mind is it fair to assume that even ordained practitioners have continual training and a teacher?

DGA said:
Yes.

In Tendai-shu (this may be generalized across all Japanese traditions, but I'm not certain), one is ordained first, and then trained afterward.  Ordination in this case isn't like a diploma.  It's what you do when you first start out.  The kinds of training one will be expected to engage in varies from tradition to tradition, and also from temple to temple within traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
In Tibet, receiving the three vows [Hinyāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna] are not considered ordinations [aside from ordaining (pravajyā) as a novice or fully ordained monk or nun] at all. And all three come with any empowerment one might attend.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 19th, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The nonconceptual equipoise on emptiness. When you are in nonconceptual equipoise on emptiness, the latent afflictions which cause rebirth in the three realms are gradually burned away.

Astus said:
So you mean immunity in the sense that they are not activated, therefore they do not even come up to one's consciousness. But then, because they are latent, they are not active except in the right conditions anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, until they are burnt away, one can still take birth in the three realms. Buddhas do not take birth in the three realms at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Perhaps if you philosophize about these things so much you create complexity, distance, separation from Buddha, trouble, confusion.

Malcolm wrote:
Your notion that simple, straight forward things are "philosophy" merely point to your lack of education in matters Dharmic. We are not discussing Madhyamaka here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Iconoclast said:
Is it theft for a Buddhist government to impose taxes upon the unwilling?

kirtu said:
What is it with Americas (presumably - but not necessarily - could be some English too) and the hatred of taxes?  "theft .... to impose taxes upon the unwilling" ????  For whom do the conjunction of those concepts make sense?

Kirt

Queequeg said:
Because our country (usa) got started as a protest against paying taxes (without representation)? And then when we got our own country, we immediately had an uprising when we tried to collect taxes ourselves (Whiskey Rebellion). Not wanting to pay taxes is as American as the 4th of July.

Malcolm wrote:
No one likes taxes, but like death, they are inevitable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Dudjom Lingpa never studied Dzogchen with a human lama...

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know why people keep on repeating this falsehood. It simply isn't true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Pardon me for saying, but the very fact that you (and perhaps Malcolm) think there is "contradiction" and "they can't be reconciled" is pretty much why you don't "get" Zen Teachings, if you ask me. This is perhaps THE mystery that opens into clarity for us.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you really think we are such idiots that we do not understand tathāgatagarbha theory?

jundo cohen said:
Well, I do not call anyone an idiot. However, something seems to be off key in some of what is said here.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, some people's gross addiction to bullshit rhetoric and disingenuous oratory.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of afflictions: kleśas and anuśaya; the former is active; the latter, dormant or inactive. By the end of the seventh bhumi all afflictions are totally eradicated, leaving only the knowledge obscuration, which is like an increasingly sheer veil.

Astus said:
What is immunity to afflictions then?

Malcolm wrote:
The nonconceptual equipoise on emptiness. When you are in nonconceptual equipoise on emptiness, the latent afflictions which cause rebirth in the three realms are gradually burned away.  Of course, if like some here, you do not accept rebirth, than Buddhadharma altogether just bullshit and the only possible reason you could be interested in it is for some nice relaxation meditation. But maybe a massage with a happy ending would be better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Pardon me for saying, but the very fact that you (and perhaps Malcolm) think there is "contradiction" and "they can't be reconciled" is pretty much why you don't "get" Zen Teachings, if you ask me. This is perhaps THE mystery that opens into clarity for us.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you really think we are such idiots that we do not understand tathāgatagarbha theory?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Right, this simply means that you are immune to the afflictions that you possess, not that you have eradicated them.

Astus said:
Do you mean "non-afflictive ignorance" / jneyavarana with immunity to afflictions? Otherwise, an affliction that does not afflict is not an affliction.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of afflictions: kleśas and anuśaya; the former is active; the latter, dormant or inactive. By the end of the seventh bhumi all afflictions are totally eradicated, leaving only the knowledge obscuration, which is like an increasingly sheer veil.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, if one still has afflictions, one is on the path of cultivation, at best. Buddhas have no afflictions, so Huineng's statement is pointing to ārya practitioners, not buddhas. Buddhas have no enervating afflictions to worry about at all, because they have been eradicated [by the eighth bhumi].

Astus said:
The teaching was addressed to a mixed group of lay and ordained people, so the audience should be considered ordinary beings, who all attain enlightenment at the end of the speech. The quote says that with the realisation of the sudden teaching the afflictions will be eliminated.

Here's the BTTS translation: "When you become enlightened to the Sudden Teaching, you do not grasp onto the cultivation of external things. When your own mind constantly gives rise to right views, afflictions and defilement can never stain you. That is what is meant by seeing your own nature." (若開悟頓教，不能外修，但於自心常起正見，煩惱塵勞常不能染，即是見性。)

Malcolm wrote:
Right, this simply means that you are immune to the afflictions that you possess, not that you have eradicated them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


DGA said:
Malcolm, would you please summarize the characteristics of someone who has attained the path of seeing?

Malcolm wrote:
They are capable of giving away their limbs without a second thought to anyone who needs them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Stay cool, don't get upset. Nobody is criticizing the Vajrayana. I am criticizing your presentation of the Vajrayana and great misunderstanding of Zen.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not talking about Vajrayāna, nor presenting it.


jundo cohen said:
The is what the Buddha taught in India, what the Buddha taught sometimes, what the Buddha taught to those who could not handle other truths, what the Buddha did not teach ... but there is also what the Buddha Taught! Can you hear that?

Malcolm wrote:
What I hear from you is more rhetoric and sad sloganeering by an ordinary guy who acts out his afflictions every day, all day. Start over, Jundo, find another teacher. Study with someone like Meido.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So, are you saying there's no possibility that you're not 'off a hair'?

Astus said:
I don't think this is a topic about me, even if it is a common trend to turn everything into personal matters.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is about you, Astus. If it is not about what you personally experience, it is just stale and dead words.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
So then, apparently the solution is to always remain seated, in equipoise [que obligatory rhetoric about being neither seated nor not seated, neither view nor nonview, neither equipoise nor nonequipoise, blah blah blah.]

jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

I believe that you say this because you do not understand and are trapped in divided thinking.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahahha, Jundo. Nothing could be further from the truth.

jundo cohen said:
In Zen one can learn to sit while sitting and sit while standing and moving.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, que rhetoric...the problem is rhetoric, Jundo.


jundo cohen said:
The reality is that the bhumis do not measure realization [this is a much misunderstood point], they measure qualities.
One realizes that which has all qualities and no qualities, and in which All Qualities and Signs of a Buddha are realized (and always were) right at the heart of Samsara, right as your heart too.

Malcolm wrote:
que rhetoric...again, how sad. A chance to say something meaningful squandered in blind sloganeering.


jundo cohen said:
The five paths are the measures of realization, and for āryas, there are three: the path of seeing [mounting the first bhumi], the path of cultivation [bhumis 1-10], and finally, the path of no more training [buddhahood].
This is blah blah blah that is a creation of your own mind.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, the Buddha taught it.

jundo cohen said:
Not a single one of us is in reality a Buddha
Of course we are! And you would see as clearly as day if were not for blinded ignorance and divided thinking.

Malcolm wrote:
No Jundo, you prove your non-Buddhahood every day when you come to the defense of Zen, cast aspersions about Vajrayāna, etc. As any game theorist will tell you, the only way to win is not to play. You might want to take a page out of Meido's playbook. At least he is mature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Astus said:
"If one is to be enlightened to the sudden teaching, one cannot cultivate externally (i.e., superficially): one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind, and the enervating defilements of the afflictions will be rendered permanently unable to defile one. This is to see the nature.

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, if one still has afflictions, one is on the path of cultivation, at best. Buddhas have no afflictions, so Huineng's statement is pointing to ārya practitioners, not buddhas. Buddhas have no enervating afflictions to worry about at all, because they have been eradicated [by the eighth bhumi]. 

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
In one traditional Zen Buddhist take on the 10 Bhumis, all are realized at once in the Emptiness of a moment of sudden realization or in a moment of Zazen. Since there was no where to get, and the ladder was Empty, the 10 Bhumis are Empty. As Taigen Dan Leighton notes on Dogen and the appearance of the underground Bodhisattvas in the Lotus Sutra ...

Malcolm wrote:
So then, apparently the solution is to always remain seated, in equipoise [que obligatory rhetoric about being neither seated nor not seated, neither view nor nonview, neither equipoise nor nonequipoise, blah blah blah.]

The reality is that the bhumis do not measure realization [this is a much misunderstood point], they measure qualities.

The five paths are the measures of realization, and for āryas, there are three: the path of seeing [mounting the first bhumi], the path of cultivation [bhumis 1-10], and finally, the path of no more training [buddhahood].

It appears to me that in some quarters, there is an excessive commitment in Zen/Chan to a rhetoric of immediacy, to borrow Faure's term, which results in a rather pyrrhic discourse of "all or nothingism" by people who have realized nothing at all. Not a single one of us is in reality a Buddha, and I find it odd that people without a single shred of noble realization present themselves as authorities on a buddhahood [i.e. Zen masters] they have never experienced.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 11:23 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Traditional Medicine
Content:
TaTa said:
Malcom where are you based? (country)

Malcolm wrote:
US


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Caodemarte said:
In Korean Zen there is a still continuing debate about Sudden Enlightenment/Gradual Cultivation vs. Sudden  Enlightenment/Sudden Cultivation.

Malcolm wrote:
These controversies are nonissues, and they exist in Tibetan Buddhism as well, most notably in Dzogchen, where we argue that the result that does not come from a cause, buddhahood does not come from mind, and our intimate instruction does not come from a text [because it is based on direct perception].

The issue boils down to capacity of an individual practitioner, and no abstract theory can make someone a buddha. The real point in having these kinds of discussions is to make it clear that theories are not practice. The sudden awakening theory of Huineng is fine, but the kind of people who fully awaken in an instant are quite rare — as it was observed by a 12 century Dzogchen master, he looked high and low for a cig char wa, a suddenly enlightened buddha, but apart from the founder of Mahāmudra in India, Saraha, and the founder of the Drugpa Kagyu lineage, Ling Repa, he never met anyone who he could say was fully awakened, a buddha, suddenly. Such people are as rare as stars seen at noon. 

I personally have no issue with the notion of someone attaining full awakening in an instant [the doctrine the Lanka is actually famous for and the reason it should be considered the foundational document of Chan], cutting through both obscurations at once, I merely doubt that it happens very frequently, maybe as frequently as an udumbara flower blossoms. In other words Chan rhetoric is fine, but I don't think the rhetoric matches people's practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
I think if you understand "equipoise" in the sense Malcolm does, which is the recognition of one's Buddha-nature, then my question about the Danxia quotation makes sense.

Astus said:
Seeing buddha-nature is being a buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, you are being dishonest, since you have written elsewhere many times that as far as you are concerned, buddhanature and emptiness are one and the same.

If however by buddhanature you mean dharmakāya, well, than yes, only buddhas can see that. But your language is so imprecise as to be deceptive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of realization, conceptual and non-conceptual. The realization of common people is the former, the realization of āryas, the latter. If this point is not well understood, not only will one err with regard to the path practiced by common people such as ourselves, but also the path of āryas will not be well understood.

Caodemarte said:
In Korean Zen there is a still continuing debate about Sudden Enlightenment/Gradual Cultivation vs. Sudden Enlightenment/Sudden Cultivation As I understand, in the latter position "initial awakenings" are not considered as awakenings at all,only "profound awakenings" count as awakenings. So "initial awakenings" are hardly denied, but not defined as true awakening by this group. At this point, the real debate with the Chinul influenced Sudden Enlightenment/Gradual Cultivation school begins, but is far too sophisticated for my pay grade, especially as it makes little difference in actual training (the most famous modern advocate of Sudden Enlightenment/Sudden Cultivation was known for his exceptionally hard post-enlightenment practice) and seems more of an "ontological" concern than a soteriological.

Meido said:
Nice, thank you.

Something overlooked in these discussions perhaps is that kind of fluidity with which the two supposedly rigidly opposed camps actually approach practice. For example post-kensho practice in Rinzai practice could be called gradual from one standpoint, but is actually experienced in terms of sudden leap-overs. The 5 Ranks are commonly considered a map of graduated progression, but within the practice tradition they're engaged with primarily as different ways of expressing realization, not as grades or steps.

Oral instruction - either living, or preserved in writings not publicly shared - is still a crucial part (to my mind, the crucial part) of what actually goes on in much of Zen.

~ Meido


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 9:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is exactly the distinction between an ārya's equipoise and post-equipoise. When in equipoise, one is in a state of realization, when not, then not, and one's realization remains at the level of a concept.

Astus said:
There is a difference between the two in that one can go in and out of equipoise, but realisation of buddha-nature is once and for ever (except for those advocating a sudden enlightenment followed by gradual practice system). So Danxia says, "Just eat and drink. Everyone can do that. Don’t harbor doubt."

Malcolm wrote:
Once you realize emptiness, yes, then one's eventual buddhahood is assured. However, the realization of emptiness is not sufficient for buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I know my ancestors back a few generations, but can you name your Grand Grand Grand Parents?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, on one side [paternal-matrilineal] back to the 9th century [Macnab clan], on another side [paternal-patrilineal] back to 15th century [D' Estes/Borgia], and on the other [maternal-matrilineal/patrilineal] to the 17th century [Engemons/Clan Hunter] and probably further.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
From the perspective of one in a state of equipoise, there is no progression.  From the perspective of one in a state of affliction, there is progression.

Astus said:
Such a distinction between equipoise and post-equipoise is not used in Chan. Rather, consider the third line from the http://terebess.hu/english/hsin.html: "Be off by a hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth." (毫釐有差天地懸隔) Dogen writes exactly the same in https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html: "And yet, if there is a hairsbreadth deviation, it is like the gap between heaven and earth." (然而毫釐有差天地懸隔) That is, you have either realised buddha-nature or not.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is exactly the distinction between an ārya's equipoise and post-equipoise. When in equipoise, one is in a state of realization, when not, then not, and one's realization remains at the level of a concept. For ordinary people, all their realization remains at a conceptual level.

And then of course we see all the blundering and errors of Zen masters in the west, people who have been declared by their lineage to be Buddhas. What can we possibly think of such a thing? Are Tibetan buddhist masters exempt from criticism on the same grounds? Of course not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
My frame of reference here is Seung Sahn Sunim's Compass of Zen.  But I think the first quotation you give in this post, the one by Moguja, articulates it succinctly.

Astus said:
Seung Sahn used a circle to describe a practitioner's progress. It goes gradually up to fully realising buddha-nature, so it's more like gradual practice, sudden enlightenment. Otherwise, he says in Compass of Zen when describing the purpose of Buddhism:

"If attain your mind—which means, if you attain your true self—then you become Buddha." (p 16)

"When you attain your true self, you become Buddha. But Buddha is not something special, and it is not something outside you. Buddha means that if you attain your true self, you attain your own mind." (p 25)

Malcolm wrote:
We all know how that worked out for Seung Sahn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Temicco said:
I don't know of any Chan texts that actually teach the two obscurations... Astus' characterization of the tradition is quite correct. You could probably argue that from a Tibetan perspective, orthodox Chan enlightenment is either a) incomplete, or b) asking a whole lot of its practitioners (anuttara-samyak sambodhi in this life being nbd), but neither of these ideas are really present within classical Chan literature. I think it would be a mistake to apply Tibetan conceptions of enlightenment upon Chan, instead of taking it on its own terms.

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite certain that Chan Buddhism contains the teachings about karma and knowledge obscurations. Why? Because they are discussed at length in the Lanka sūtra. Or has the Lankāvatāra Sūtra been demoted?

M

Temicco said:
It does indeed, but there's a couple things I think should be considered here.

In my eyes, Chan doesn't make a big deal out of obscurations like Vajrayana seems to. In sudden enlightenment, sudden cultivation schools (the orthodox Chan position), the only enlightenment discussed is anuttara samyak sambodhi. There's nothing to do after enlightenment; no obscurations to remove. Gradualist systems are acknowledged as valid, but the classical Chan position itself is vehemently sudden and utterly complete. Recognizing the nature of mind is said to be sufficient for this aim. As such, Chan is less concerned about discussing these defilements than Vajrayana seems to be. So outside the sutras (which Chan has a love-hate relationship with anyway), defilements are only really talked about when it comes to how students should conduct themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
This all ignores the most august and respected classical system of the five ranks, which are easily mappable to the scheme of five paths in classical Indian Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 9:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It does not matter much what it is called, the fact is that buddhahood requires the elimination of the two obscurations. That does not happen in one lifetime, in general.

Temicco said:
I don't know of any Chan texts that actually teach the two obscurations... Astus' characterization of the tradition is quite correct. You could probably argue that from a Tibetan perspective, orthodox Chan enlightenment is either a) incomplete, or b) asking a whole lot of its practitioners (anuttara-samyak sambodhi in this life being nbd), but neither of these ideas are really present within classical Chan literature. I think it would be a mistake to apply Tibetan conceptions of enlightenment upon Chan, instead of taking it on its own terms.

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite certain that Chan Buddhism contains the teachings about karma and knowledge obscurations. Why? Because they are discussed at length in the Lanka sūtra. Or has the Lankāvatāra Sūtra been demoted?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. There is a distinction between equipoise and post-equipoise which exists right up to the last moment of the tenth bhumi.

tomamundsen said:
Would this be in the Madhayamakavatara? Or somewhere else?

Malcolm wrote:
Dasabhumika sūtra, among other places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, what Huineng says is nothing special. The realization of a first stage bodhisattva is the same wisdom a Buddha fully realizes. The difference between an ārya bodhisattva and buddha is whether or not that realization is sustained 24/7/365. Bodhisattvas have equipoise and post-equiopoise phases, where they may still act out afflictively. Buddhas are only in equipoise.

What accounts for this is that veil of twin obscurations a bodhisattva must burn away with diligent practice, and of course, in every lifetime, bodhisattvas on the impure stages regress completely to the level of common persons, and need to begin again, albeit, advancing more rapidly. It is only when they reach the eighth bhumi that this regression ceases and they attain power over birth.

Astus said:
What you say is called in Zen "sudden enlightenment, gradual practice".

Malcolm wrote:
It does not matter much what it is called, the fact is that buddhahood requires the elimination of the two obscurations. That does not happen in one lifetime, in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Poor Jundo, retreating into religiosity when his rationality is challenged, not to mention his scholarship...

DGA said:
As the old law-school chestnut goes:

If you have the law on your side, pound on the law.

if you have the facts, then pound on the facts.

If you have neither the law nor the facts, pound on the table.

In this thread, the "table" has been insinuations of sectarianism, bigotry, fundamentalism, and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
The table was quite old and fragile...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Matt J said:
What about the viewless view?

There are plenty of such discussions of philosophy in Zen. Even by modern Soto Zen masters, such as Tenshin Reb Anderson, Steve Hagen, and Taigen Dan Leighton.

krodha said:
The "viewless" view is equipoise.

The point being made is that people are kidding themselves if they think they are resting in equipoise at all times, as only Buddhas do so.

Anders said:
actually, 7th stage bodhisattvas are in fulltime in that department.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. There is a distinction between equipoise and post-equipoise which exists right up to the last moment of the tenth bhumi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I could (but will not ) comment on how the decadence, doctrinal errors and outdated thinking of other Buddhist Traditions are doing even greater harms to Buddhism, and we could begin to compare "woeful state" to "woeful state" one to one.

DGA said:
This is a passive-aggressive way of making a claim without actually demonstrating it.  But since you are speaking in a hypothetical here:  if you did feel you could write with a free hand, in a hypothetical situation only, which "doctrinal errors" and decadence and outdated thinking would you point to as doing "even greater harms to Buddhism"?

For myself, I'm intrigued by the outdated notion of "modernity," modernization, and updating the teachings to match a modern sensibility (whatever that may mean).  When I see this idea raised, I'm reminded that the author of it must be of a certain age, because that idea has a certain vintage.  And it has caused real harm to Buddhists and to the practice of Buddhism.  Here's my reference on that.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756285.001.0001/acprof-9780199756285

Malcolm wrote:
Poor Jundo, retreating into religiosity when his rationality is challenged, not to mention his scholarship...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: How appearances arise
Content:
monktastic said:
This is a section from Thrangu Rinpoche's "Pointing Out the Dharmakaya."
It’s a lot like dreaming. So, to use a dream as an example, when you start to dream, the dream begins as a thought, like one you would have in the daytime. But you’re asleep, so the thought intensifies and becomes something like talk or gossip, and then the gossip intensifies or solidifies into images, and then you really think that you’re seeing people, seeing places, going places, and so on. And that is how it works with conventional appearances as well.
Is there a more detailed explanation of this process available anywhere?

Malcolm wrote:
In Mahāmudra, not so much. In Dzogchen, it is described in the topic of how sentient beings become deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
I know you are sincere.

Gassho, Jundo


Malcolm wrote:
And so the great Zen master admits defeat.

jundo cohen said:
I know you are sincere.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
There is just no way I am going to let you have the last word, so this will go on for some time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
BTW, there's another translation of this text available, published by Shang Shung:
https://www.amazon.com/Ornament-Thought-Nagarjuna-Clarifying-Madhyamaka/dp/B005KJUHQI

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, but Lopez's is better.

Mother's Lap said:
Does Chopel offer anything different from Mipham is his critiques?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. I think so. He offers an insiders critique of Gelug view, that is not dependent on Mipham, contrary to TK fans erroneous assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
In my impression, not with this style and analysis and philosophical tangle.

However, he had a poetic tangle of another sort.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
As I recall from my reading, he was pretty straight forward about these issues.

The above, by the way, is neither philosophical nor tangled, and is also straight forward, not complicated, easy to understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
But what I do have is a lot of training in Indian and Tibetan polemics, including Buddhist epistemology, as well as a lot of systematic training in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist texts, and if you are willing to admit that you don't want to debate me because you lack the expertise in the "case law" as it were, I am ok with that. That would be an honest admission on your part. But to dismiss it as mere religious debate, mere matters of opinion, that is disingenuous.

jundo cohen said:
I know you are sincere.

Gassho, Jundo


Malcolm wrote:
And so the great Zen master admits defeat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Matt J said:
Thanks, everyone. I've gone back over the first 1/3 of the Adornment for Nagajuna's thought and now I'm completely paralyzed.



Malcolm wrote:
Happy to oblige...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Tibetan style debating does follow its own insular. arcane and circular rules of proof and logic, so no reason to engage. What's the point? I went to Duke Law School for 3 years, won a few in Federal Appeals Court. I am not that concerned to jump around smacking palms, arguing angels on the head of a pin with you.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really doesn't. You are confusing Tibetan debate courts [a training program, not dissimilar to how law is taught today] with debate as a general scholarly practice in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism which goes back to Nāgārjuna and beyond.

As in arguing a case before a judge, you have to understand the case law, precedents, rulings and so in yes?

So too, in Buddhist philosophical debate one must be acquainted with the subject matter at hand.

Now, that said, I would never pretend I was competent to act as a lawyer. I don't have the training.

But what I do have is a lot of training in Indian and Tibetan polemics, including Buddhist epistemology, as well as a lot of systematic training in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist texts, and if you are willing to admit that you don't want to debate me because you lack the expertise in the "case law" as it were, I am ok with that. That would be an honest admission on your part. But to dismiss it as mere religious debate, mere matters of opinion, that is disingenuous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Iconoclast said:
Is this a Buddhist perspective of your personal view...which Buddhist teaching helped you to arrive at this conclusion?

Malcolm wrote:
A study of the Buddhist codes of personal conduct, in which, for example, when a Buddhist monk violates the laws of a kingdom, he is turned over to that kingdom for prosecution. It has been long acquiesced in Buddhism that a Buddhist is generally obligated to obey the laws of the country they choose to live in. For this reason, there is very little written in Buddhism on government and politics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
conebeckham said:
It seems to me that Jundo is arguing for cultural adaptation over Buddhavacana.

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo is not arguing, he is struggling to stay in the game....which is why he so repetitive...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Thank you, but I decline. I honor your Traditions and Beliefs, and leave you to them.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
You see, Jundo, in Tibetan Buddhism we have a very rich tradition of debate. There is not a single doctrine or a single school that goes unchallenged or undebated, and these debates continue to the present day. One famous monk, Ganden Chopel, even proved that Buddha was not enlightened (of course some other monks beat the shit out of him later) on the debate floor in the mid 1920's in Lhasa.

However, the reality is that in general, in the Buddhist world, Buddhist thought in general ossified in the 15th century, world-wide, until it encountered the West.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Iconoclast said:
Could you cite a text for someone new (me) to the study of Buddhism? Is it theft for a Buddhist government to impose taxes upon the unwilling? Is there a Buddhist text about how to govern? This opens up questions about the nature of Buddhist texts, there acceptance, authority, inspiration, etc. but I'll have to ask in another forum.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as the "unwilling." If you live in a country from which you receive services, you pay taxes, you have to. If the Gvt. is doing things that violate your conscience, there is tax protest, but that is different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I could (but will not ) comment on how the decadence, doctrinal errors and outdated thinking of other Buddhist Traditions are doing even greater harms to Buddhism, and we could begin to compare "woeful state" to "woeful state" one to one.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, you can't. You lack the necessary scholarship. But should you want to, by all means, lets start a thread on it and see how you fare.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Iconoclast said:
Does it increase another's suffering if you force them to give up their wealth, property, etc? If someone is blissfully ignorant due to their wealth and status...wouldn't it be evil to force them to do something? Just thinking out loud...do Buddhist countries tend to be Left learning? Does the Dharma change or can it be altered for the greater political good? Does Buddhism allow for the use of force or threat, for that's what the government uses when it collects taxes for those who do not want to pay them, to forward the Dharma and rid the world of greed?   Hummm.

Malcolm wrote:
The answer to your question is that in Buddhist texts it is made very clear that not paying taxes is theft. That should answer your question about citizen obligations according to Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, what Huineng says is nothing special. The realization of a first stage bodhisattva is the same wisdom a Buddha fully realizes. The difference between an ārya bodhisattva and buddha is whether or not that realization is sustained 24/7/365. Bodhisattvas have equipoise and post-equiopoise phases, where they may still act out afflictively. Buddhas are only in equipoise.

What accounts for this is that veil of twin obscurations a bodhisattva must burn away with diligent practice, and of course, in every lifetime, bodhisattvas on the impure stages regress completely to the level of common persons, and need to begin again, albeit, advancing more rapidly. It is only when they reach the eighth bhumi that this regression ceases and they attain power over birth.


Ignorance sustains them and prajñā eliminates them, but it is not the case that prajñā can eliminate all the traces sustained by ignorance in a single moment. This is why there are nine grades of affliction — from course-course to subtle-subtle— that need to be removed gradually, after one has realized emptiness on the path of seeing.

Astus said:
That is, in the role of wisdom eliminating ignorance there is no disagreement.

"You must realize that there is fundamentally no distinction between the buddha natures of the foolish and the wise—it is only because of delusion and enlightenment that [you think they are] different and that there are foolish and wise."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, BDK Edition, p 28)

So this is where we get really into the Zen part then, i.e. sudden enlightenment. Because Huineng also says (p 30):

"To be enlightened to this Dharma is the Dharma of prajñā, to cultivate this practice is the practice of prajñā. To not cultivate this is to be an ordinary [unenlightened] person. To cultivate this in a single moment of thought is to be equivalent to the Buddha in one’s own body."
And (p 31): "To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
Also (p 33): "If you recognize the self-nature, with a single [experience of] enlightenment you will attain the stage of buddhahood."

And a clear description of what this Dharma is (p 33-34):

"in wisdom’s contemplation both interior and exterior are clearly penetrated, and one recognizes one’s own fundamental mind. If you recognize your fundamental mind, this is the fundamental emancipation. And if you attain emancipation, this is the samādhi of prajñā, this is nonthought. What is nonthought? If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations. Just purify the fundamental mind, causing the six consciousnesses to emerge from the six [sensory] gates, [causing one to be] without defilement or heterogeneity within the six types of sensory data (literally, the “six dusts”), autonomous in the coming and going [of mental phenomena], one’s penetrating function without stagnation. ... to be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is for the myriad dharmas to be completely penetrated. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to see the realms of [all] the buddhas. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Queequeg said:
I spent a summer in Vermont. Loved it. Loved Burlington. Being from the Northeast, you grow up knowing of that real Yankee democracy up in New England.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, as a Yankee [born in NY state,but raised in MA], I feel you.

For libertarian municipalism, see:

Murray Bookchin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalism

Bookchin's final essay:

http://social-ecology.org/wp/2002/09/harbinger-vol-3-no-1-the-communalist-project/

Queequeg said:
"What these observations add up to is that Marxists, revolutionary syndicalists, and authentic anarchists all have a fallacious understanding of politics, which should be conceived as the civic arena and the institutions by which people democratically and directly manage their community affairs. Indeed the Left has repeatedly mistaken statecraft for politics by its persistent failure to understand that the two are not only radically different but exist in radical tension—in fact, opposition—to each other.6 As I have written elsewhere, historically politics did not emerge from the state—an apparatus whose professional machinery is designed to dominate and facilitate the exploitation of the citizenry in the interests of a privileged class. Rather, politics, almost by definition, is the active engagement of free citizens in the handling their municipal affairs and in their defense of its freedom. One can almost say that politics is the “embodiment” of what the French revolutionaries of the 1790s called civicisme. Quite properly, in fact, the word politics itself contains the Greek word for “city” or polis, and its use in classical Athens, together with democracy, connoted the direct governing of the city by its citizens. Centuries of civic degradation, marked particularly by the formation of classes, were necessary to produce the state and its corrosive absorption of the political realm."

Malcolm wrote:
And:
It is my contention that Communalism is the overarching political category most suitable to encompass the fully thought out and systematic views of social ecology, including libertarian municipalism and dialectical naturalism.8 As an ideology, Communalism draws on the best of the older Left ideologies—Marxism and anarchism, more properly the libertarian socialist tradition—while offering a wider and more relevant scope for our time. From Marxism, it draws the basic project of formulating a rationally systematic and coherent socialism that integrates philosophy, history, economics, and politics. Avowedly dialectical, it attempts to infuse theory with practice. From anarchism, it draws its commitment to antistatism and confederalism, as well as its recognition that hierarchy is a basic problem that can be overcome only by a libertarian socialist society.9
He didn't like Sanders much, because Bernie is not an ideologue and never hewed to an ideological discourse. He was always an organizer, rather than a theoretician. Bookchin's people definitely were a pain in Bernie's ass, but this is a good thing. They are quite as responsible for Burlington's flowering as Sanders, in reality. If it was not for fate, I would be living in VT right now.  As it stands, I am in Western MA, in the hilltowns.

While Bernie would never admit it, I think, I believe that his views tend towards Bookchin's Communalism more than they don't.

berniesanders.com.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Queequeg said:
I spent a summer in Vermont. Loved it. Loved Burlington. Being from the Northeast, you grow up knowing of that real Yankee democracy up in New England.
Well, as a Yankee [born in NY state,but raised in MA], I feel you.
I will need to look into this Municipal Libertarianism.
Murray Bookchin. He didn't like Sanders much, because Bernie is not an ideologue and never hewed to an ideological discourse. He was always an organizer, rather than a theoretician. Bookchin's people definitely were a pain in Bernie's ass, but this is a good thing. They are quite as responsible for Burlington's flowering as Sanders, in reality. If it was not for fate, I would be living in VT right now.  As it stands, I am in Western MA, in the hilltowns.
That's Trump's platform, too. We need a little more clarification.

Malcolm wrote:
berniesanders.com.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As long as one has not eradicated latent afflictions [anusayas], one continues to take rebirth in samsara, even after realizing emptiness

Astus said:
What maintains and what eradicates latent afflictions?

Malcolm wrote:
Ignorance sustains them and prajñā eliminates them, but it is not the case that prajñā can eliminate all the traces sustained by ignorance in a single moment. This is why there are nine grades of affliction — from course-course to subtle-subtle— that need to be removed gradually, after one has realized emptiness on the path of seeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Astus said:
When there is nothing seen to be attached to, how can affliction arise?

Malcolm wrote:
As long as one has not eradicated latent afflictions, one continues to take rebirth in samsara, even after realizing emptiness, Astus. Hence the distinction between the impure and pure bhumis.

jundo cohen said:
It strikes me that much of this discussion is starting to have little connection to Zen doctrines, although in the Zen section of the Forum.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
Really, you don't have a concept afflictions, rebirth, and freedom from affliction in Zen? I distinctly recall Dogen taking about all these issues and in very conventional terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is not liberation, Astus, that is a realization. But liberation and realization are not the same thing, though the two are often confused. Liberation is freedom from affliction that causes rebirth in samsara. If one does not understand this, one has understood nothing of the Dharma.

Astus said:
When there is nothing seen to be attached to, how can affliction arise?

Malcolm wrote:
As long as one has not eradicated latent afflictions [anusayas], one continues to take rebirth in samsara, even after realizing emptiness, Astus. Hence the distinction between the impure and pure bhumis, or for that matter, stream entrants, etc.

It seems that you believe that once you have realized emptiness, your job is done. This is an error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus said:
There are the five aggregates and six sensory areas. The only difference between buddhas and beings is whether there is attachment to them or not.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the difference between buddhas and sentient beings is the presence or absence of traces. In other words, the difference is more subtle than you admit. It is quite possible for someone to be free of grasping, but not to be free of latent afflictions [for example, someone on the path of application's level of patience.] This is why śamatha does not produce liberation. It merely suppresses the afflictions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
PS - Thank you to  Indrajala for, as always, some fine writing and commentary on the historical development of the Vinaya, Priesthood and Sangha, and how these things which seem solid, unbending and established all through the millenia were anything but.

Malcolm wrote:
They were pretty solid, Jundo. Jeff is writing about practices that were on the margins, outliers, as it were.

The fact that some monasteries in Gandhara were making wine has to do with Bactrian culture. Indians themselves were never known to be particularly adept at wine making, and imported most of it from Greek traders.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus said:
What is that meaning? To attain liberation. Just as I have acknowledged there. What does liberation mean? To fully realise that there is nothing in samsara that is worth clinging to.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not liberation, Astus, that is a realization. But liberation and realization are not the same thing, though the two are often confused.

Liberation is freedom from affliction that causes rebirth in samsara. If one does not understand this, one has understood nothing of the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
Grassroots means local politics...

What does Bernie brand local policy look like?
What does it mean for municipal employee hiring? School board? Public works? Zoning and land use?
I'm serious. What does Bernie's vision look like at a local level? Burlington?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure. Look at his tenure as mayor and everything he did for that city from bringing high-pyaing manufacturing jobs, to revitalizing the waterfront, to creating a housing trust that is enormously successful at providing excellent housing at affordable prices.

These are the kind of programs you can bet that Sanders will prioritize. BTW, you might want to look into Municipal Libertarianism. People might laugh, but in fact Vermont has one of the more enlightened political cultures in the United States. Oregon and Vt, are like mirror images of each other, in many ways.

Queequeg said:
What if we don't have UVM and Nectars? What if we're just a sort of crunchy metro bedroom community?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, than you have to wake people up out of their stepford, ambien/prozac/zoloft/wellbutrin induced hazes.

Queequeg said:
What if we're a rural manufacturing town?

Malcolm wrote:
Hence Sanders arguments about trade aggreements...

Queequeg said:
Need a.policy declaration to coalesce around.

Malcolm wrote:
"Enough is enough."
-- Bernie Sanders


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Marriage in Buddhist Cultures
Content:
sillyrabbit said:
I'd imagine that marriage was the realm of local beliefs/practices and death was the realm of Buddhism. But, those are just my imaginings...

Malcolm wrote:
"Marriage", as a declaration of contractual obligation, is mostly an aristocratic institution, historically speaking.

What we call "marriage" now has been for most of the past three millenia or more, a form of chattel bondage for women in Western Civilization.

And forms of "marriage" are even less clear outside of the Greco-Roman sphere (to which Islam also belongs). In Tibetan for example, marriage has been mostly based on shacking up. The term for "wife" is "chung ma," "little lady." And it even so, it was really only the bdag chens, the great lords, for whom weddings were really performed. For villagers, at most it might involve inviting two families together, some recitations, smoke offerings, some dancing, and drinking.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Madman's Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel (Buddhism and Modernity Series)
This is the most important book on Madhyamaka written in the 20th century.

dzogchungpa said:
BTW, there's another translation of this text available, published by Shang Shung:
https://www.amazon.com/Ornament-Thought-Nagarjuna-Clarifying-Madhyamaka/dp/B005KJUHQI

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, but Lopez's is better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Matt J said:
Following this thread, I'm lead to wonder whether there's much difference between Gelug "inherent existence" and non-Gelug "existence"; and "mere existence" as opposed to "mere appearance." Tsongkhapafan is even using the standard dream example to describe mere existence much the same way I've seen Nyingma/Kagyus describe appearances.

Bakmoon said:
I'm of the same mind. The way I see it, Je Tsongkhapa's teaching of 'mere existence' is just a technical formulation for illusory and mere appearance, so the whole issue is largely one of semantics.

Not to say that all the differences are purely semantic, but I think that a lot of the criticism of Gelug in regards to conventional existence is marked by both sides just talking past one another because they use words differently.

Malcolm wrote:
The real issue with Gelug view is their formulation of the ultimate solely as absence of inherent existence. This in fact does not go beyond the cessation of a śrāvaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 16th, 2016 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
But we are not talking about revising the Vinaya here, we are talking about changing the meaning of the term celibacy.  It is a little different.  One could just recognise the FACT that they are not celibate and just get on with life, instead of trying to bullshit people.

Indrajala said:
Japanese monks these days admit most members of their various orders are married and have children.

I personally don't feel that devalues their status as teachers and practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
No one ever said it did.


Indrajala said:
It is just different from the vinaya-based systems. That difference, I feel, shouldn't mean one gets a higher status in the order or precedence over the other. That's just my opinion, but I'm fairly ecumenical. If I were Christian I'd hope I could invite a married Protestant minister and Catholic priest to sit together at the same table as equals. The same principle applies to the Buddhist context.

Malcolm wrote:
But that is not how it is. The bhikṣu, etc., Sangha is entitled to some privilege because they represent the dispensation of Śākyamuni, the buddha of this time. Other Buddhas did not have a bhikṣu Sangha.

If you ordain tomorrow, even though you are first stage bodhisattva, you will still be seated in the order in which you were ordained. That is how it has always been. It's a good thing. Some traditions are worth preserving.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Marriage in Buddhist Cultures
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Lots of death rites in Dharma, none for marriage, that ought to tell you something about marriage in Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Indrajala said:
In short, married clergy are under no obligation to recognize the supposed religious authority of the vinaya sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
It is good that you acknowledge there is a difference.


Indrajala said:
Japanese monks are free to do as they wish and if other Buddhists don't like it then no sense trying to bully and belittle them into feeling otherwise. Japanese Buddhism has survived for several centuries without any vinaya tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
In matters of religion everyone is also free to do as they wish. However, it is hardly inappropriate to observe that Japanese Buddhist monastic practices simply are not normative, when compared with how things are run in the Mulasarvastivada, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravada Sanghas.

Further, there has been no twentieth century Vinaya revivalism in the Mulasarvastivada Sangha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Jeff H said:
I do agree that Gendun Chopel might provided a healthy balance. Georges Dreyfus speaks of him in The Sound of Two Hands Clapping and I found references online, but I don’t see a book with the word Madhyamaka in the title. Do you have a specific title for me to check out?


Malcolm wrote:
The Madman's Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel (Buddhism and Modernity Series)
This is the most important book on Madhyamaka written in the 20th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Jeff H said:
I certainly respect that you are so qualified, but for the time being my confidence has to lie primarily with what I am trying to understand my teachers are saying from a pro-Tsongkhapa perspective. I consider this to be my starting place and I need to have a firmer grasp on it before trying to adopt an alternative view, which I also only partially understand.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a mistake, and is not the way Tsongkhapa developed his own view.

Rather than becoming expert in someone's presentation dogmatically, you need, as the Buddha and Aryadeva state, to subject it to the same kind of analysis a goldsmith applies to gold.

Now then, Gelugpas are excellent scholars, and they love to debate. But their blindspot is revering Tsongkhapa so much that they deliberately ignore the many places where he directly contradicts Nāgārjuna, etc.

The goal of a someone studying Madhyamaka should be to understand Nāgārjuna's intention, not Tsongkhapa's. You should get Ganden Chophel's book on Madhyamaka as a healthy balance to your studies of Tsongkhapa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


boda said:
If someone actually were beyond front or back, or it wasn't important to them, they'd be perfectly content to sit in the back.

Malcolm wrote:
The unspoken subtext to the whole conversation.

Here's too the back of the bus, where I always sat, because the bumps were bigger, and the companionship more entertaining!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Gassho,  J

PS - Lovely poem by the way.

Malcolm wrote:
Its from the book you posted. I read really fast.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
... Moreover, through maintenance of different sets of precepts, with different expectations, the sect seeks to manage and systematize the divide between lay and [ordained]. The maintenance of different precepts by priests and laity is one way in which priests are distinguished from worldly individuals.
http://www.elibrary.ibc.ac.th/files/private/Japanese%20Temple%20Buddhism%20Worldliness%20in%20a%20Religion%20of%20Renunciation.pdf


Malcolm wrote:
Pretty grim book.
I am a priest.
Wearing my robes, my prayer beads in my left hand, I ride my bicycle.
I go from house to parishioner’s house and chant sutra.
I am a priest.
I have a wife, I have a child.
I drink sake, I eat meat.
I eat fish, I lie.
And, still, I am a priest.
A dirty, too dirty, priest.
When I call upon parishioners and accept their donations,
is this not theft?
Oh, the five precepts that Shakyamuni kept,
I have broken them all.
But, yet, I am a bodhisattva.
I travel the path of the bodhisattva.
I have faith in the Dharma, I sit in the palm of the Law.
I live in the Dharma, I live amongst the people.
Within endless life, I practice the way.
Hand in hand with other practitioners, I proceed down
this peaceful path, this path without equal
the path of Truth, the bodhisattva path.
I am filthy, and I have broken all of the five precepts but,
but, because of the Dharma, all will become Buddhas.
That path, that bodhisattva path.
I am standing on that path.
—Temple priest, c. 1980

While I can sympathize with the above, the situation described in the book you presented us with precisely outlines why it is important to make a distinction between Mahāyāna ordinands and Hinayāna ordinands, as well as Mahāyāna vows and Hinayāna vows (In fact, Vajrayāna vows are completely outside the scope of this discussion, and the attempt to involve Vajrayāna in this discussion is disingenuous).

The fact is that in terms of the three kinds of vows, bhikṣu and bhikṣuni, śrāmanera and śrāmanerika and upāsaka and upāsika, the first are the foremost. The bodhisattva vows are necessarily based on any of these three, but if one does not have bhikṣu or śrāmanera vows (or bhikṣuni and śrāmanerika vows), one may be a fantastic Mahāyāna practitioner, but one will never be included in the ordained (pravrajyā, lit. homeless) sangha since one will not meet be basic requirements of renunciation required for being a member of the ordained sangha, no matter how fancy one's robes are, whether one shaves one's head or not, or recites sūtras for "lay" people.

So, as I said above, you're stuck in the back of the bus with us regular unordained folks, Jundo. Better get used to our unwashed smell. We'll let you sit in front of us, but behind the five year old śrāmanera.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo said:
Let each person call themself what they wish, so long as their actions are sincere and helpful.

DGA said:
This is an interesting thought experiment.  What would happen if all Buddhist practitioners did as you say here, and adopted in all sincerity and with the intention to be helpful the labels they find most suitable?  Put differently:  What if after spending some time reading the Shobogenzo and reflecting on its meaning and practicing zazen to the best of my ability I decide to call myself a Soto Zen master, and start ordaining my own disciples?  I'm spreading the Dharma in this hypothetical situation, and that's good, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Based on Jundo's own statement, he would have absolutely no intrinsic or legal right to challenge your authority, authenticity or right to deem yourself a "Soto Zen master." But I am quite sure he would denounce you in no uncertain terms as a pretender.

I don't think anyone holds the trademark on the name "Soto Zen" in the US. The person who holds that trademark could conceivably bar anyone in the US from referring to themselves by that appellation.

BTW, Jundo, it is ironic that someone who uses this as a mission statement, " We intend to expand and develop our awareness of the ways we are conditioned to separate ourselves by socioeconomic class, nationality, race, age, creed, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability and other forms of identity," has been found to be so wrapped up in an identity. Conditioned much?

Thank goodness I have no aspirations to be anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 15th, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Let each person call themself what they wish, so long as their actions are sincere and helpful.

Malcolm wrote:
That did not fly very well in the third Century CE, which is why a third Buddhist council was called, and King Ashoka forced thousands of so called "monks" to "defrock."

The distinction that seems lost upon you is the distinction between Mahāyāna vows and Hinayāna vows. There are no Mahāyāna bhikṣu ordinations.

So you are going to gave to sit in the back of the bus along with me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:



Jeff H said:
The two truths are two isolates of one entity.

Malcolm wrote:
This is explicitly stated by Candrakīrti. All phenomena possess two natures, one relative; the other, ultimate.

Jeff H said:
From the ordinary perspective, that entity seems to have self-nature; from the ultimate perspective it seems not to exist.

Malcolm wrote:
Even Tsongkhapa admits that ordinary people are incapable of distinguishing inherent existence from existence. He therefore erects a third category called "mere existence" which is not to be analyzed.

Jeff H said:
Limiting ourselves to the conventional is eternalism; limiting ourselves to the ultimate is nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
What Tsongkhapa explicitly says is that things do not "not exist" in the relative, and they do not exist in the ultimate. Because of this, because of asserting the reality of things is an ultimate nonexistence, the Gelugpas are often charged with having a subtle view of annihilationism, and thus deviating from the true intention of the Prasangika position outlined by Chandrakīrti and his followers, Jayananda and Patsab Nyima Dragpa.

Jeff H said:
We experience entities and they function regardless of the fact that in meditative equipoise they do not exist. Tsongkhapa took Nagarjuna’s teaching that whatever is dependently arisen is empty and whatever is empty is dependently arisen to formulate a philosophy expressly unifying the two. But he didn’t address any ontological assertion about whether or not there could be a “true” ontology.

Malcolm wrote:
Wrong, he asserts that the absence of inherent existence which is the emptiness that is the nonexistence of the true existence of things is reality. This is his ontological position. He asserts this as ultimate truth.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


skittles said:
Pointing out that Ashkhenazi Jews are European is apt because Israel uses race in their nonsensical claims to land when in fact Palestinians are actual descendents of the historical Jews. There's nothing anti-semitic about pointing out the inconsistencies of a racist ideology like Zionism.

Genetically, many Ashkhenazis have no ethnic tie to the historical Jews. What religion they choose as individuals is something they determine and I haven't been talking about their religion other than that Zionism is not Judaism.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that Askhenazi Jews have DNA markers that place their origins in the Levant. Case closed.

rory said:
And when is Skittles, following his sincerely held beliefs,  going to give up his house and return to his native land, which I assume to be somewhere in Europe?
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
I have no clue, I was just refuting his idea that Askhenazi Jews are not of Jewish lineal descent from the region of Israel, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Lama's that teach 100% rentention
Content:
kirtu said:
following the practice of the layperson in the mode of Chandragomin is the other main sutric practice (unfortunately this has not entirely disappeared but practically no one hears anything about it).

Mother's Lap said:
The gomin lineage isn't dead? I know the anagarika is still available in Theravada.

kirtu said:
I was told that it still exists but perhaps the person was wrong.  In the Drikung lineage there is still a bhramacharya (total abstinence for a layperson) vow transmission.  A friend of mine holds these vows but he would not consider himself a gomin actually, but my reading is that he almost fits the definition (except he eats after noon and watches TV and sometimes sings and wears cologne and most importantly - not all of his time is devoted to the Dharma [but much of it is]).  So perhaps there is some confusion around the terminology.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, as Vasubandhu clarifies, the Gomin ordination never belonged to Sarvastivada lineage in general, and thus, it never really existed in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Keep your own views to yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not obligated to do so, and you never do.

jundo cohen said:
If you are not obligated to do so, than I am not obligated to cease from calling you a religious bigot and holier than thou hypocrite at every opportunity in response.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, Jundo, and through your continued insults, you will reveal yourself to be something like the Trump of Zen, embarrassing yourself at every turn, yet too vain to see it. Please continue, I won't reply in kind since I have no need to issue petty and personal insults.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Keep your own views to yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not obligated to do so, and you never do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
I am merely pointing out your blatant hypocrisy. You defend your own sect's seemingly wild and unique beliefs as beyond challenge, orthodox and the True Word, but decry others. Shame on you.

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, I have not discussed any of your beliefs, apart from the one in which you believe, and I maintain falsely, that your ordination is anything other than a Mahāyāna upāsaka ordination. I understand the context, and history, and so on for how Soto ordinations evolved as they did. I respect that. I just don't believe that apart from the five vows that all upāsakas maintain (theoretically), that your bodhisattva vows put you on the same level as a fully ordained bhikṣu in any of three surviving ordination lineages.

Some will argue, perhaps correctly, perhaps not, that someone with bodhisattvas vows who is lay person is superior to someone who holds only bhikṣu vows, and certainly in Mahāyāna, we maintain that the realization of a first stage bodhisattva, or even someone who has newly minted bodhisattva aspiration is far superior even to an arhat, but as I have exhaustively explained, in the wider community of Buddhadharma, where there are hundreds of thousands of fully ordained monks, the conceit that Japanese monastics of any stripe hold vows equivalent to a fully ordained bhiḳsu will just be met with tolerant disagreement.

Finally, I do not believe you actually possess the necessary scholarship or realization to challenge even the views of lower tantra, let alone the pinnacle of all Buddhadharma, Atiyoga. But you may try, if you feel up to it. But first I think you need to learn something about it. Maybe you should start with Tendai Mikkyo or Shingon, and work your way up from there.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Malcolm, I suggest you re-read the words of my question if you think you have in any way answered it.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand your question, and why you might find my answer unsatisfying. Nevertheless, the answer I gave is all the answer you are going to get.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Relgious bigotry posing as defense of the True Faith.

Malcolm wrote:
"Bigotry" means intolerance of others' opinions. I have expressed no intolerance of your views, merely a reasoned disagreement with them.

Your open slander of Vajrayāna on the other hand, is precisely the kind of bigotry you are complaining about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Again, not a response to my relatively simple question. If you do not want to respond to it and wish to discuss something else, that's perfectly fine. It is very strange that you would quote it if you do not want to engage with it.

Malcolm wrote:
I have answered your question very precisely. There are only three valid monastic ordination lineages in Buddhism which have survived.

The rest are Mahāyāna ordinations, and that is how the Vinayadharas of all three lineages would see it. If you doubt me, go ask one of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
That is not a response to my question (really two related questions), which is: "Do any Tibetan monk teachers claim the authority to define what a monk "really" is or is not for different sects, outside of their own? Or is this is just a Western lay convert claim?"

Malcolm wrote:
It is an issue of distinguishing the three sets of vows, Hinayāna, Mahāyāna and Mantrayāna.

As such, there are Mulasarvastivadin Vinayadharas, Dharmaguptaka Vinayadharas, and Theravadin Vinayadharas. These are the people who have the proper authority to ordain monks, i.e. śramaṇeras or bhikṣus

All other ordinations outside of these are Mahāyāna ordinations, and their recipients who have not received śramaṇera or bhikṣu ordinations are upāsakas, lay people.

Unfortunately, most Westerners who decide to follow Zen are completely ignorant of these things, and upon shaving their heads, wrongly imagine that they are "bhikṣus", beggars, even though they marry, drink, and raise families, and as is often the case among the better off, drive very fancy cars, go to expensive restaurants, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Traditional Medicine
Content:


karmadrakpayeshe said:
well sounds like you do, thanks for you contribution. No I have not REALLY studied Tibetan medicine. As to wether or not tibetan herbs are more effective, well, I feel I have tried both traditions equally for my own health, and have better experience with ayurvedic herbs in the health problems I've dealt with.

But to discuss the herb variety matter; was it not a lot easier to get things from Tibet in India than the other way around? I am just asserting this might have influenced the way the traditions evolved. Logically if the poorer Tibetans could not get something from india, was too expensive, or caravans stopped coming, but Indians still had the incredible riches to get things from Tibet, wouldn't Tibetans have stuck with things they knew they could get, even when something they might not be able to might be better? Couldn't that have effected the tradition that continues on to this day?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, the kinds of medicines imported into Tibet from India were things that could bear portage, thus, things like triphala, etc., were imported and form an important part of Tibetan materia medica. But herbs proper could not survive the journey, and in any case, were not necessary, since the Tibetan plateau itself is astonishingly rich in wild flora. Rhodiola, for example, comes from the high Himalayas and so forth. Also the environment is purer.

Tibetan medicine manufactured in India is often of inferior quality to that which is manufactured in Tibet. I only stock herbs imported directly from Tibet.

And the Tibetans were not poorer by any means. Tibetans unloaded tons of gold on the Indians for the Dharma. Tibet mainly exported salt, however.

That said, I practice a mix of Tibetan Medicine and Ayurveda, matching the treatment with the patient. But because of their superior effect and purity, I tend to favor Tibetan herbs sourced from Tibet over Ayurvedic herbs sourced from India.

karmadrakpayeshe said:
I wonder why I had so little luck with Tibetan medicine. I went to doctors while living in Darjeeling(the institute of Tibetan medicine) and also in Boudhanath Kathmandu(shechen clinic). Maybe their herbs were from India I'm sure those are cheaper. Maybe I didn't take them regularly Enough and then I could have just not noticed they were helping me

Malcolm wrote:
It is also possible that you were not properly cared for. The wrong herbs wont get to the point of the disease. Also they tend to give westerners smaller doses since they think we are weaker.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 14th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Do any Tibetan monk teachers claim the authority to define what a monk "really"  is or is not for different sects, outside of their own?  Or is this is just a Western lay convert claim?

Malcolm wrote:
It is defined in the Vinaya. Only Japanese Buddhism is outside the norm we find in Tibetan Buddhism, Theravada and Chinese Buddhism for defining who or what is a "monk" (śramaṇera, bhikṣu). I really do not understand what is complicated about this.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Samantabhadra does not really have a penis at all, nor does Samantabhadri have a vagina. These are just representations for the limited human mind. If we were elephants, Samantabhadra/Samantabhadri would be a blue elephant couple.

jundo cohen said:
I was going to write something here as a reasoned retort ...

... but after reading such words, I truly feel that there is no need.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because in fact, while the Dharmakāya is beyond representation, it is represented as such through the symbol of the Adibuddha couple in union symbolizing the union of bliss and emptiness. They are naked, of course, because they are completely free of all fabrication.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
That's why I am now going to (re)pose a question to shake the Vajrayani's out there:

If a Bhikku/Bhikkuni was to engage in Kamra Mudra practice with a "real" partner, would this count as a Parajika offence?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, yes, but not always. It depends on the realization of the practitioners (both of them).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
One minute, you are talking about how things work "functionally" in the real world, the next you are telling me how Samantabhadra's penis has no front or back!

Malcolm wrote:
Samantabhadra does not really have a penis at all, nor does Samantabhadri have a vagina. These are just representations for the limited human mind. If we were elephants, Samantabhadra/Samantabhadri would be a blue elephant couple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Jeff H said:
... and that "can" in this one was not?
Malcolm wrote:
Relatively speaking, we can contrast the conditioned and the unconditioned, but not ultimately. Why? Because the very definition of the conditioned, born, become, made, etc., defines for us its opposite, unconditioned, unborn, unmade, etc., and renders the latter a mere relative construct that cannot be found according to an ultimate analysis.

Jeff H said:
In other words, I think you are saying that the unconditioned is the implied emptiness of the conditioned, and thus it (emptiness) is affirmed by ultimate analysis. (But if it is a relative construct, then it can't be found by ultimate analysis.)

Malcolm wrote:
Typo, should read:
However, all phenomena, whether conditioned or [unconditioned, cannot bear ultimate analysis, including nirvana (cessation due to analysis).


...
... and that "can" in this one was not? Relatively speaking, we can contrast the conditioned and the unconditioned, but not ultimately. Why? Because the very definition of the conditioned, born, become, made, etc., defines for us its opposite, unconditioned, unborn, unmade, etc., and renders the latter a mere relative construct that cannot be found according to an ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Hard to be a historical outlier since there is no reason to believe in time, nor limit the universe to vocabulary definitions.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, there is no reason to believe in time, or limit the universe to vocabulary definitions, nevertheless we do live in time, and function according to how things are defined functionally, according to causes and effects.

jundo cohen said:
(and I thought you are the guy who always lectures me when I say that the Sutras and such were probably not the words of the "historical" Buddha because, in your view, such are beyond all ordinary channels and concerns of time and what is reasonable and dictionary defined).

Malcolm wrote:
"Sutras" do not reside in the words written down on paper. Those are human documents, subject to change and transformation, editing and so no. Sūtras come from the dharmakāya, utter through the mouth of this and that nirmanakāya, to which there is no limitation. The words written down are just a reflection of that. The ones that help a person enter that knowledge of the dharmakāya are definitive, the rest are provisional, useful conventionally, but not ultimately. Our conversation about this is strictly conventional.

jundo cohen said:
Speaking of which, here is Samantabhadra getting it on. Is he a lay person now, or should we expel him from the Sangha?

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the real Samantabhadra. This is representation of the dharmakāya, showing that buddhahood is the union of bliss and emptiness. You can't expel the dharmakāya from the Sangha, since the all Sanghas come from the dharmakāya.

The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra opens:
That permeating kāya of pristine consciousness, the ultimate garbha, is present without restrictions, facing everywhere without front or back. He teaches sentient beings the meaning of not coming or going.
Nice try, but missing the point.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Herbie said:
Well the characteristic of Tsongkhapa's approach is - in contrast to other approaches - that it deals with "inherent existence" as the opposite of emptiness.
Yes, and this is well recognized.
His rational for this is that not identifying the existence to be negated as inherent existence entails "over-negating" common objects as non-existent when actually they do exist depending on imputation, i.e. exist dependently but not inherently.

Malcolm wrote:
Inherent existence is also an imputation. Therefore, what is the difference between the two imputations, existence and inherent existence?

It is for this reason that Nāgārjuna notes that there is no existence not included in inherent existence (svabhāva) and dependent existence (parabhāva). He then continues on to say that whoever has a view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence, or nonexistence has not understood the meaning of the Buddha's teachings.

The reason one negates existence is not to assert nonexistence. One negates existence in order to negate the nonexistence of an existent. This is all carefully argued in chapter 15 of the MMK. In fact, common people do not think cups and persons exist inherently, since they observe them to also cease to exist. This is why Nāgārjuna points out that "nonexistence" is the transformation of something that once was and now is not, according to common parlance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
Do you want to have a serious discussion or are you happy trying to derail the thread again?

jundo cohen said:
I am not sure how I have "derailed" the thread.

Malcolm wrote:
You haven't, you just have obscurantist tendencies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Everyone in Buddhism is an outlier to someone.

Malcolm wrote:
The issue is ordination. In this respect, as much as you try to obfuscate the issue, one cannot deny that Japanese Buddhism represents a historical outlier when it comes to the issue of so called "monastic ordinations."

The base line of the higher Hinayāna pratimokṣa in all Buddhist traditions, apart from the Japanese Buddhism, is the śramaṇera (novice ordination) and the bench mark is the bhikṣu ordination. Everyone else is a lay person.

For example, Vimalakirti was very highly realized, much more realized that Śariputra, Mahākaśyapa, etc. But he was always and will ever remain the gold standard for the Mahāyāna lay person. But he was not a monk, he was a simple upāsaka. Like me, and like you.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
But there is no 'norm'!

Malcolm wrote:
There is a norm. Japanese Buddhism just happens to be an outlier for the historical reasons I have mentioned. That has nothing to do with wether or not Japanese Buddhist clergy function effectively for their Sanghas or are spiritual people,etc. But in the context of the wider Buddhist world, as much as Jundo and others may wish to dispute this, they are a lay (upāsaka) clergy.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Traditional Medicine
Content:


karmadrakpayeshe said:
well sounds like you do, thanks for you contribution. No I have not REALLY studied Tibetan medicine. As to wether or not tibetan herbs are more effective, well, I feel I have tried both traditions equally for my own health, and have better experience with ayurvedic herbs in the health problems I've dealt with.

But to discuss the herb variety matter; was it not a lot easier to get things from Tibet in India than the other way around? I am just asserting this might have influenced the way the traditions evolved. Logically if the poorer Tibetans could not get something from india, was too expensive, or caravans stopped coming, but Indians still had the incredible riches to get things from Tibet, wouldn't Tibetans have stuck with things they knew they could get, even when something they might not be able to might be better? Couldn't that have effected the tradition that continues on to this day?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, the kinds of medicines imported into Tibet from India were things that could bear portage, thus, things like triphala, etc., were imported and form an important part of Tibetan materia medica. But herbs proper could not survive the journey, and in any case, were not necessary, since the Tibetan plateau itself is astonishingly rich in wild flora. Rhodiola, for example, comes from the high Himalayas and so forth. Also the environment is purer.

Tibetan medicine manufactured in India is often of inferior quality to that which is manufactured in Tibet. I only stock herbs imported directly from Tibet.

And the Tibetans were not poorer by any means. Tibetans unloaded tons of gold on the Indians for the Dharma. Tibet mainly exported salt, however.

That said, I practice a mix of Tibetan Medicine and Ayurveda, matching the treatment with the patient. But because of their superior effect and purity, I tend to favor Tibetan herbs sourced from Tibet over Ayurvedic herbs sourced from India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 12:04 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Traditional Medicine
Content:
karmadrakpayeshe said:
Consider how limited varieties of herbs were in Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
You really have no idea what you are talking about.


karmadrakpayeshe said:
Edit:you know what I am not going to argue with you about the merits of the two and which are greater. Let's just leave it at that really I am just recommending ayurveda to this person because of the readily available English literature on it. It is so ridiculously more accessible to anyone not Tibetan than Tibetan medicine I'm not sure how you could not support this recommendation. And did not Tibetan medicine take so much from ayurveda? Chinese also, but for the sake of this person, that is while probably more accessible to a westerner than Tibetan, not as accessible as ayurveda for study.

Malcolm wrote:
I was responding to your assertion about the "limited" varieties of Tibetan herbs. In reality, Tibetan herbs are plentiful, numerous, and much more effective than Ayurvedic herbs (it has to do with the altitude as well as the variety). Of course, tree medicines like haritaki, bibitaki, amalaki do not grow in Tibet, as well as things like nutmeg, etc., so they are imported.

But Tibetan herbal medicines, as well as shrubs, and trees that do not grow in India are extremely effective and plentiful. If you had actually studied Tibetan Medicine, you would know this. Now, for your information, I am a Doctor of Tibetan Medicine (Shang Shung 2009), and I am trained fully in Pañcakarma (by a doctor with a PhD in Pañcakarma in lives in South India) and other modalities, as well as Ayurvedic Herbalism as well. So I really do know what I am talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:47 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Traditional Medicine
Content:
karmadrakpayeshe said:
Consider how limited varieties of herbs were in Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
You really have no idea what you are talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


skittles said:
Pointing out that Ashkhenazi Jews are European is apt because Israel uses race in their nonsensical claims to land when in fact Palestinians are actual descendents of the historical Jews. There's nothing anti-semitic about pointing out the inconsistencies of a racist ideology like Zionism.

Genetically, many Ashkhenazis have no ethnic tie to the historical Jews. What religion they choose as individuals is something they determine and I haven't been talking about their religion other than that Zionism is not Judaism.


Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that Askhenazi Jews have DNA markers that place their origins in the Levant. Case closed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you define "real" as "the ability to withstand ultimate analysis," then yes, nothing is real since nothing can bear ultimate analysis.

Wayfarer said:
Well, thanks, that's helpful. But on what basis is 'the ultimate analysis' made?  If it's no basis, then how does is provide a foundation for analysis?

Malcolm wrote:
An ultimate analysis means analyzing a given thing such as a rock, or even nirvana, for any ultimate existence.

Wayfarer said:
I would have thought that 'conventionally existent' was a relative term - things are 'conventionally existent' in contrast to what is real. And furthermore that this is the basis of the two truths -  that conventional truth, saṁvṛiti-satya, is contrasted with ultimate truth, Paramārtha-satya. Is that not the case?

Malcolm wrote:
Satyas are objects of cognitions. For example, Candrakīriti defines an ultimate truth as the object of an undeluded cognition. A relative truth is an object of a deluded cognition. The emptiness of a rock, for example, or nirvana, is an object of a undeluded cognition, hence it is ultimate. The cognition of a rock, or nirvana, are is the object of a relative cognition.



However, all phenomena, whether conditioned or conditioned, cannot bear ultimate analysis, including nirvana (cessation due to analysis).
So this counts Nirvāṇa as a phenomena?
Yes.
Dharmas (phenomena) are of two kinds: conditioned and unconditioned.
I would be interested in your interpretation of the sutta I referred to above, from UD8.3
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
So is it the case that there is not 'an unborn'? I had always been inclined to read this verse literally. Am I mistaken in that regard?
[/quote]

Relatively speaking, we can contrast the conditioned and the unconditioned, but not ultimately. Why? Because the very definition of the conditioned, born, become, made, etc., defines for us its opposite, unconditioned, unborn, unmade, etc., and renders the latter a mere relative construct that can be found according to an ultimate analysis.

It if for this reason that Nāgārjuna declared, following the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, that not the slightest distinction can be made between samsara and nirvana since they are both relative constructs and cannot bear ultimate analysis in anyway.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And the quote you provide says all phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Where in this thread have I said anything contrary to that? I am contrasting 'phenomena' with 'the unconditioned', subject to the caveat that, strictly speaking, 'the unconditioned' is not something that can be spoken of.

Malcolm wrote:
This is your basic error, Dharmas (phenomena) are of two kinds: conditioned and unconditioned.

There are classically three kinds of unconditioned dharmas: space and the two kinds of cessations.

Space is absence of obstruction.

The two kinds are cessation are analytical cessation and simple cessation.

Analytical cessation is nirvana.

Simple cessation is the absence of a cause of arising.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
skittles said:
lol. Can I interpret that as an endorsement?

Maybe I should just keep quiet since Bernie Sanders is a better candidate than Hillary?

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that congressman have the ability to attach rider amendments. Such amendments will not halt the passage of a major bill. In congress, you make compromises. In order to pass legislation you support, you often are forced to vote for legislation you do not support. It is just the way of things, that is the point. A congressman who refuses to compromise in this fashion will swiftly lose their seat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Wayfarer said:
The unconditioned

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna wrote
Since arising, abiding and perishing cannot be established, the conditioned cannot be established. 
Since the conditioned cannot be established, how can the unconditioned be established?

Wayfarer said:
If this is saying that 'nothing exists', then I'm interested in understanding how this view avoids nihilism, which is the view that nothing is real. Buddhism generally and Nāgārjuna in particular, is often described as being nihilistic - how is that refuted?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not saying that something does not exist, it is saying that those states that we ascribe to the conditioned, arising, abiding and perishing, do not stand up to ultimate analysis. Since they do not stand up to ultimate analysis, neither does the unconditioned (space and the two kinds of cessation).

In other words, conventional phenomena are fine as long as they are not subject to ultimate analysis (and this is something all Madhyamakas agree with). However, all phenomena, whether conditioned or conditioned, cannot bear ultimate analysis, including nirvana (cessation due to analysis).

If you define "real" as "the ability to withstand ultimate analysis," then yes, nothing is real since nothing can bear ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
skittles said:
It doesn't sound smart to me to act like that.

Malcolm wrote:
run for congress.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When it comes to Sanders' record, you cannot just assume that what he "voted for" is what he actually voted for.

skittles said:
Malcolm, what you wrote is incomprehensible to me. What are you talking about? He voted to adopt.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, because you don't understand how Sanders works. He is does not always "vote" for things he is "voting" for. For example, he did not want billions of dollars sent to China by the Export Import bank for the their nuclear industry. So he attached an amendment to a bill that WOULD HAVE PASSED ANYWAY.

For example, he voted for the 94 Crime bill because he wanted money allocated to the Violence Against Women's act, while objecting to the general tenor of the bill as a whole.

He is a very smart legislator. And if you are smart, you will vote for him too.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
If the object to be negated actually doesn't exist at all is it something you can find?

Herbie said:
yes because inherent existence is the object projected/superimposed by a mental factor onto the object that then appears as if inherently existent.
Identification of the object of negation which is inherent existence presumes that it can be found as projection. But since it seems to inhere in the object it is projected onto it cannot be found as an isolated stand-alone object but only with the object onto which it is projected. Therefore only this alleged inherently existent object can be sought but of course cannot be found because an inherent existent object does not exist anywhere. However although the object onto which inherent existence is projected cannot be found by a rational consciousness the perception of the mere object still is there. So the difference beween the perceptual appearance of the object before non-findability experientially "happened" and after that event is what corresponds to "inherent existence".

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, but this notion of "inherent existence" is not a notion that common people have, which is why in general Madhyamakas, including Candrakīrti, are satisfied with negating existence, the coarse object of negation, and only discuss inherent existence, the subtle object of negation, as a fine point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He only agreed to vote for this bill provided it contained his amendment, AO11:
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It would
prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing corporate welfare for
the construction of nuclear power plants in China.
Mr. Chairman, I think the rationale for supporting this amendment is
obvious. At a time when we have a $7.7 trillion national debt and a
record-breaking Federal deficit, it is not only absurd, but it is
dangerous for the taxpayers of this country to be subsidizing the
construction of nuclear power plants in China.

{time}  1915

Mr. Chairman, amazingly enough, the company involved here,
Westinghouse Electric, which builds nuclear technology is owned by
British National Fuels which itself is a company wholly owned by the
British government. So we are dealing with the absurdity of American
taxpayers who are in the midst of a record breaking deficit,
subsidizing the British government, a nation which, to the best of my
knowledge, is not made up of starving, desperate people in the
developing world.
Mr. Chairman, there is no debate, but that when these four nuclear
power plants will be built at a cost which involves an Export-Import
loan of some $5 billion, that when these nuclear power plants will be
built, the Chinese will own the technology. And a question that every
Member of this Congress should be asking is, is it really in the best
interest of the United States of America to provide advanced nuclear
technology to China. Furthermore, the Chinese company which is building
these four nuclear power plants, the Chinese national nuclear company
has been tied to at least three instances of weapons proliferation
involving Iran and Pakistan.
Mr. Chairman, I do not always agree with the National Taxpayers
Union. But let me briefly summarize what they say in a letter that they
sent to me today.
NTU has long advocated total elimination of taxpayer funding of the
Export-Import Bank for the simple fact that American taxpayers should
not be forced to subsidize the overseas operation of U.S. corporation
or foreign governments. Considering the rapid pace of economic growth
in China and its emergence as a strong force in the global business
environment, it is particularly egregious to waste taxpayer dollars on
such a project.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/381/text

When it comes to Sanders' record, you cannot just assume that what he "voted for" is what he actually voted for.

Similarly, HR 5522 2007, is basically the same bill.


skittles said:
Muslims in MI aren't the measure of who is or isn't pro-Israel. The reality is that Bernie Sanders voted to send USA money and arms to Israel.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, what vote, when? Sources please.

skittles said:
HR 3057 - Foreign Operations FY 2006 Appropriations Bill for instance.
$2.28 billion for Israel plus $240 million for Israel

This particular present to Israel, a country that is smaller than New Jersey, happened during the 2006 Gaza-Israel conflict.

Take a look for yourself:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/89/foreign-aid

Bernie Sanders can say whatever he wants, he's still voting just as badly as the worst republicans on Israel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Wayfarer said:
The unconditioned

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna wrote
Since arising, abiding and perishing cannot be established, the conditioned cannot be established. 
Since the conditioned cannot be established, how can the unconditioned be established?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
skittles said:
I wasn't aware of that. I don't understand what you're getting at Malcolm. Maybe that was directed towards Rory who thinks Muslims are irrationally hateful of Jews?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am getting at is that Sanders is not a pro-Israel hawk.

skittles said:
Muslims in MI aren't the measure of who is or isn't pro-Israel. The reality is that Bernie Sanders voted to send USA money and arms to Israel.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, what vote, when? Sources please.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
skittles said:
I wasn't aware of that. I don't understand what you're getting at Malcolm. Maybe that was directed towards Rory who thinks Muslims are irrationally hateful of Jews?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am getting at is that Sanders is not a pro-Israel hawk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
rory said:
Skittles I'm sure you're right about Middle Eastern benevolence; I suggest you go visit Syria and wear a nice big Star of David pendant, I'm sure you'll get the rececption you richly deserve.

Dundee said:
I used to be Muslim and I have nothing against Jews and never did.

skittles said:
Rory is a pro-Israel xenophobe that has no experience with actual Muslims.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that American Muslims in Dearborn, MI overwhelmingly supported Sanders in the primary there this week, right?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
a)Vinaya, especially Pratimoksha.

jundo cohen said:
Are your saying that we don't uphold the Vinaya? Good. You are entitled. You can say we don't, we say we do.

Malcolm wrote:
You uphold lay pratimokṣa, personal liberation vows, the same five that all Buddhist lay people maintain, theoretically. These are a subsection of Vinaya, but not an important subsection.

You also have bodhisattva vows. These have nothing to do with Vinaya, and everything to with Bodhisattva training.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[Edited for the sake of focus and harmony.]

jundo said:
Good for those on the Continent, and more power to them. Good for how things were done for 2500 years. Stick to your own ways and judge your own ways for your own. Let them arrange the chairs and the titles as they wish inside their own temples, keep their values out of ours. Don't engage in doctrinal bigotry by judging others, judge yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not doctrinal bigotry to observe that Japanese Buddhism as a whole has changed to the point where its clergy no longer meet the same normative standards for monasticism observed in the rest of the Buddhist world. Therefore, it is hard to swallow that idea that ordinands such as yourself follow the Hinayana precepts necessary to be considered observant of Vinaya. Of course, no one would ever say that you were not followers of the Bodhisattva vows. I have them too. But Mahāyāna vows and Hinayāna vows are different, and that is why Saicho elected to discard the Hinayāna ordination in Tendai, which is the ancestor of your Soto ordination. There just isn't a single bhikṣu ordination rite based on Mahāyāna sūtras at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: What does "monk" mean? Who is a monk, and who is not?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hello,

There are some problems with the premises of the questions asked. First, the terms "priest" or "monk" are words that are pretty ill fitting translations for the original Japanese/Chinese or Pali/Sanskrit terms imposed when Judeo-Christian vocabulary was used in the 19th century and earlier by Western missionaries to roughly translate concepts that are different in important ways. "Priest" carries the feeling of working some power to intervene with God/the spirits. In Japan, most Zen "monks" only reside in monasteries for periods as part of their training ... so both words are not good fits except when the person is actually residing in a monastery and might be described then as a "monk". Originally in India, the life of a wandering mendicant was anticipated, and this later transitioned into a more settled monastic model in India and the rest of Asia. These days, most Japanese Zen and other Buddhist clergy marry!

Malcolm wrote:
Only in Japan.

jundo cohen said:
The rest depends on whose Ordination Precepts are considered the most complete, encompassing and superior. The answer to that is, for each school looking at its own Precepts, all are complete and encompassing and equally superior. In the Soto School, we undertake 16 Bodhisattva Precepts, and we believe that such encompass the entire Vinaya. We believe that modern marriage is also a form of Celibacy if the heart is cleansed of greed, anger and divisive thoughts in ignorance in which people are seen as two.

Some other folks may show up in this thread and criticize our 16 Precepts and married ways as not legitimate. I say, stick to you own ways, interpretations and Precepts and keep your nose out of ours. As far as we are concerned, all Buddhist Clergy everywehre sit shoulder to should ... no one more authentic or superior to another. Please keep your own views to yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
This again is a result of Japanese Buddhist history. The sheer number of sex scandals in which every important Japanese promulgator of Zen to America (except your own teacher, and perhaps Suzuki Roshi) has been involved points to the serious deficits in cultural understandings of Americans, our expectations, and indeed, in many cases, the ethical short comings (Eido Roshi, Sasaki Roshi, etc. come to mind) in the last generation of Japanese Buddhists who were instrumental in spreading Zen Buddhism to America and in many of their Western disciples (Gempo Roshi, etc.)

jundo cohen said:
Do not misunderstand the above to be some admission that we are "lay" ... for when we are Ordained, we are as Ordained as Ordained can be

Malcolm wrote:
But in the wider context of the Buddhist world, you are not, and never will be on par with a Bhikṣu/Bhikṣuni or a Bhikku/Bhikkuni, regardless of your standing within your own religious community. In a Tibetan setting, you might be seated among the bhikṣus out of desire to show respect or misunderstanding of your actual ordination, but from their point of view, you will never be part of the monastic Sangha, just like a Ngagpa like me isn't considered part of the monastic Sangha and will always be seated behind the monks. I think you will find the same attitude among Theravadins. Basically, if you have sex, you are not a bhikṣu. You can offer all kinds of fine reasons for why this isn't fair, is not accurate and so on, but in the eyes of the broader Buddhist world, while you may be an "ordinand" in the sense that you underwent a kind of ordination, it will never be regarded as serious as a bhikṣu ordination, or for the matter, even a śramaṇera (novice) ordination. Why? Because you drink wine, have a family, and continue, one supposes, to be sexually active.

This is not pointed out to you out of some wish to slight you or other Zen ordinands (and Tendai, Pure Land, Nicherin, etc. ordinands) or create a category of higher and lower, it is just that outside of the insular and historically unique world of Japanese Buddhism, this is how a majority of Buddhists see it.

Now from my point of view, I don't see much how the monastic Sangha can survive in a serious way in the west without corporate sponsorships (or ethnic community sponsorship), so indeed it is very likely that the lay ministry (to which you actually belong though you dispute the distinction) will come to dominate the way most Buddhist communities in the West are ministered, and this is not a bad thing. It is just not the same thing as having a community lead by celibate (and theoretically, ethically superior) monastic Sangha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 13th, 2016 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
skittles said:
Queequeg, you want me to kill myself because I can see with my own eyes that Ashkhenazi Jews are Europeans? Well guess what, it's not going to happen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Let me see if I understand what you are saying: You are saying that a zygote is a human being because a consciousness enters the zygote when the ovum is fertilised, but then the consciousness ceases and does not kick off again until the 24th week?  Is that what you are saying?


Malcolm wrote:
It is latent, but present. In other words, a zygote has a faculty of body, mind, and a faculty of life, but since it has no sense organs, it cannot engage in any mental processes and there is no input to stimulate mental processes. Something like a candle in a room with no windows and no doors. In the 24th week, after the six sense gates are fully developed, it experiences pain and pleasure. You can make a direct equation in the chain of dependent origination in this way, from the point of conception, it is the link of consciousness; from then until the 24th week, name and form, after this we have six sense organs, contact, sensation, etc.

Karma Dorje said:
So without functioning sense organs and their fields, how do zygotes differ *at an experiential level* from any other aggregation of cells or conversely from any other bardo being without a physical body? We seem to only be differentiating based on the potential to develop these. Nobody gets upset at the cells that are killed during cancer surgery or an appendectomy, though surely even single cells have a mode of consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that the single cell formed from the merging of the spermatozoa and the ovum have been appropriated as a body by a consciousness seeking rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
kirtu said:
This again.  Everyone was there and we all know that people charged into the Zen forum(s) and did exactly what Jundo claims.  You were tarred with/accused of some of this but that was fallout from your objections to Nonin  Chowaney, which were also standard Zen statements about Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the old "One moment of zazen is a moment of Buddhahood" debate. Well, we saw how Nonin Chownaney went on to erect an internet Zen regime infinitely more repressive than anything at E-Sangha, even our old buddy Jundo was purged.

Well, the entire history of Buddhadharma has never been free from challenges to "orthodoxy." Why should we begin now?

I mean, it is all well and good to have silos where people can waffle on and on unchallenged in anything they put forth, but occasional challenges to "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxy" are healthy. As you know, there is a great amount of polemics in Tibetan Buddhism.

You will observe I rarely drop into the Zen forum, but when I do, I really do.

So when someone produces the trope "Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow," we can just watch in bemusement as people waffle on with the standard verbiage, or we can inject some liveliness into the discussion with a challenge to the basic assumption the statement portends.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Which Longchen Rabjam text should I buy?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Any.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
skittles said:
It seems he has voted to send large sums of money to Israel, but then so has just about every politician that can because of AIPAC. An uncorrupt law enforcement would have found AIPAC illegal as it's a treasonous organization that harms American interests and interferes with our political processes.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know why you think this.

skittles said:
In 1991, Sanders voted to withhold $82.5 million in U.S. aid for Israel unless it stopped settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That motion was rejected on a 44-378 vote.

...

A decade later, he was the only Jewish member of Congress not to back a House resolution condemning the Palestinians and expressing solidarity with Israel after two Palestinian suicide attacks killed dozens. Sanders voted present, and the measure passed, 384-11.

...

Although he has recently tempered his criticisms of Israel, Sanders is still not considered an ally by Washington’s pro-Israel community. Briggs did not respond to a question about when Sanders last visited Israel. And he has not recently spoken to AIPAC's annual conference, which reliably draws top Democrats who pledge their strong support for Israel's security.

...

And when word leaked in early 2015 that Netanyahu would deliver a March 2015 address to a joint meeting of Congress that was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without the advance knowledge of the Obama White House, Sanders was the first senator to announce he would not attend the speech.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-israel-218149


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Non Dem/Rep Candidates list
Content:
skittles said:
What non democrat/republican candidates have caught your eye?


Malcolm wrote:
Bernie, followed by Jill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


skittles said:
So is Bernie an American Jew or an Israeli Jew?

Malcolm wrote:
He is an American Jew.

skittles said:
“Well, no, I do not have dual citizenship with Israel,” Sanders said. “I’m an American. I don’t know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I’m an American citizen, period.”

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Where-does-Bernie-Sanders-the-Jewish-candidate-for-president-stand-on-Israel-412448


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Just consciousness, not perception/sensation?

Malcolm wrote:
After the gandharva enters fertilized ovum( from allopathic pov), it becomes unconscious, without sensations until the 24th week, as above. In reality, all three things have to join together at once for conception to occur. And this is a universal doctrine in Buddhist sutras and tantras.

Sherab Dorje said:
Let me see if I understand what you are saying: You are saying that a zygote is a human being because a consciousness enters the zygote when the ovum is fertilised, but then the consciousness ceases and does not kick off again until the 24th week?  Is that what you are saying?


Malcolm wrote:
It is latent, but present. In other words, a zygote has a faculty of body, mind, and a faculty of life, but since it has no sense organs, it cannot engage in any mental processes and there is no input to stimulate mental processes. Something like a candle in a room with no windows and no doors. In the 24th week, after the six sense gates are fully developed, it experiences pain and pleasure. You can make a direct equation in the chain of dependent origination in this way, from the point of conception, it is the link of consciousness; from then until the 24th week, name and form, after this we have six sense organs, contact, sensation, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So, for you, a fertilised ovum is a human being?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. It cannot be fertilized without the entrance of a gandharva. No gandharva, not conception.

Sherab Dorje said:
Just consciousness, not perception/sensation?

Malcolm wrote:
After the gandharva enters fertilized ovum( from allopathic pov), it becomes unconscious, without sensations until the 24th week, as above. In reality, all three things have to join together at once for conception to occur. And this is a universal doctrine in Buddhist sutras and tantras, as stated above, in the Medicine Tantra. Not sure why you are having a hard time with this. It is standard Buddhist doctrine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Unknown said:
In a study of 15 volunteers, all having positive experiences with psilocyben in the past, scientists noticed unconnected regions of the brain showing a connected behavior that was, otherwise, seemingly impossible.  Long range connections were being made activity that were synchronized tightly in time; long-range connections that the brain is ordinarily incapable of.  The scientists believed that, rather than a dreamlike state, produced only by a slowed brain, psilocyben was actually causing the brain to enter a state similar to synesthesia (a sensory condition in which certain sense stimuli are paired with another).  This is why people on psilocyben may report seeing color while listening to music or hearing sounds while looking at certain things.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/549409458833334272


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because a gandharva, a consciousness seeking rebirth, has entered the fertilized ovum.

Sherab Dorje said:
So, for you, a fertilised ovum is a human being?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. It cannot be fertilized without the entrance of a gandharva. No gandharva, not conception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
And where do I get such an assertion? Not only from Zen doctrine. By pure chance or Karma (really completely unintended by me), when I reached in almost at random to the library of Tibetan resources online and copied earlier an obscure (to me anyway) text to show the difficulty of insider lingo, I happened to take this one by Tilopa ...

Malcolm wrote:
Which is not a practice open to ordained monks. They are barred from using a karmamudra and must instead rely on what is termed a jñānamudra.

jundo cohen said:
Well, not all Tibetan Teachers seem to agree with you on that.
Actually, they do.
However, it is outside my field. I have great GREAT criticisms and doubts about the whole Practice anyway, but since I am an outsider to Tibetan Buddhism I will keep my mouth shut, and not go over to that thread and set you all right about how wrong it is.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the great Dzogchen master Longchenpa, (14th century) such practices exist primarily for people with too much desire, as a distraction, until they are ready for real practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
And where do I get such an assertion? Not only from Zen doctrine. By pure chance or Karma (really completely unintended by me), when I reached in almost at random to the library of Tibetan resources online and copied earlier an obscure (to me anyway) text to show the difficulty of insider lingo, I happened to take this one by Tilopa ...

Malcolm wrote:
Which is not a practice open to ordained monks. They are barred from using a karmamudra and must instead rely on what is termed a jñānamudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I mean it in the same sense we say a seed is viable, i.e., given proper conditions it will produce a plant.

Sherab Dorje said:
Fair enough.  In which case we can say that a zygote MAY be viable given proper conditions.  Does that make it a human though?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because a gandharva, a consciousness seeking rebirth, has entered the fertilized ovum.

If the zygote is not viable, it will not survive implantation. But conception cannot occur without three things, as the Medical Tantra states:
First, from a man and women’s non-defective semen and blood, and a consciousness impelled by action and affliction, the five elements assemble, the cause of conception, in the womb. For example, it is equivalent with fire produced from fire sticks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They can also be frozen, kind of a hellish bardo state, but what the hell. Samsara.

Mother's Lap said:
The being is unconscious at that point in gestation isn't it?

kirtu said:
I don't know why Malcolm affirmed this.

Malcolm wrote:
It is because the gandharva has only three indriyas when it enters the fertilized ovum, according to the The Nanda-garbhavakranti-sūtra:

Nanda, in the nineteenth week, the four organs of the fetus in the womb mother’s womb, the eyes, the ears, the nose, and the tongue fully formed. In the beginning when entering the womb initially only three faculties were attained, these being the body, life and mind.




Sensations, according to Desri Sangye Gyatso's commentary on the Medicine Tanta, occur only in the 24th week:
In the twenty-fourth month the “moving everywhere” wind clear matures the functional and  hollow organs. At that time,  also the thoughts of happiness and suffering, the objects of sensation, become known.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They are viable since when they are implanted a human being comes out.

Sherab Dorje said:
Sorry dude, but without the presence of a functioning uterus they are not viable.  No matter how you frame it.

Queen Elizabeth II said:
I sense that the two of you are just using 'viable' in different ways. In one sense it means capable of maintaining a separate existence, and so would only apply to a child after birth or one in the womb that had developed enough that it could survive if born prematurely. But in another and more recent sense it simply means capable of growing and developing and would apply to any fertilized ovum, even one in a petri dish. The former sense is the dominant one in embryology and the latter in botany (esp. with regard to seeds) but sometimes the latter is used even in embryology.

Malcolm wrote:
I mean it in the same sense we say a seed is viable, i.e., given proper conditions it will produce a plant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
In the Japanese lines, we believe that our Ordinations stand head and shoulders ... not in front nor behind ... with Buddhist Ordinations of any kind any where on the continent. Most Japanese priests do not consider themselves lay persons, nor less than any Buddhist Ordained anywhere. Please respect that ... in any section of this Pan-Buddhist Forum, but especially here.

Malcolm wrote:
And as I explained at the time, the issue was how to negotiate this within the wider context of the Buddhist world where the term monk = celibate ordinand.

Hell, Jundo, I also have special vows which are not part and partial of what average Tibetan people who practice Vajrayāna follow, since I am an ordained "Ngagpa," which is something somewhat comparable to a Shugendo priest. So I don't cut my hair (it's a commitment), among other things, as a sign of my ordination. But I am not a monastic, even though I am "ordained."

Monastic ordination was quite changed by Saicho, who dispensed with Hinayāna ordinations, and by the time the nineteenth century rolled around, there really was no such thing as a bhikṣu in Japan anymore.

But within the wider world of Buddhism, there remains a celibate ordination, and this was the original path that Buddha taught. Even Mahākashyapa was a celibate monk. Outside of the little world of Soto and Rinzai Zen, this is what you have to negotiate.

But just as external signs cannot indicate to someone who is a buddha and who is not, likewise, external signs of ordination cannot indicate who is a "beggar" (bhikṣu) and who is not. It is better to give up robes and trappings, since they are really just traps.

jundo cohen said:
I mean, you consider yourself a doctor and healer of sorts, although it is an unusual and unorthodox (outside its little part of the world) field of medicine your Practice. I respect that.

Malcolm wrote:
There is not much difference between what I do, and what internists do today, I mostly listen, make sure my patients have seen Western doctors with regard to their complaints, etc., and help out with things that Tibetan Medicine and Ayurveda are good at addressing.

Western Medicine advanced beyond the level of Tibetan Medicine and Ayurveda because of the invention of anesthesia and then Xrays, primarily. But circa, 1850, it was actually quite behind Tibetan Medicine in particular, since Tibetan Medicine has a germ theory of disease, understood circulation, the nervous system, and all of this understanding dates back to the 9th century CE at least.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drollo Practice
Content:
conebeckham said:
But I don't know if this is the case in CNNR's system.

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, you have to "produce the function of the main mantra", which you test by applying the action mantra after doing a retreat of a week, two weeks, three weeks. If it does not work, then more main mantra is required. And generally, if you manage to produce the function of one mantra, all other mantras will be easier to accomplish.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
The Buddha is completely free of afflictions, and he is us. In a moment of awakening there is all modes of knowledge. There is no suffering, no actions, no afflictions. I am claiming Buddhahood for myself, yourself, hisself and sheself ... all no self.

Malcolm wrote:
Reality check...

This said by a guy who once threatened to sue people whose words on the internet he did not like.

Conduct is the gauge of view and meditation. It is how one checks one's progress.

M

jundo cohen said:
No, I simply complained about another now defunct Buddhist forum where admins and moderators and folks such as yourself would regularly come into the Zen section, offer your criticisms of Zen doctrines, then delete explanations of Zen doctrine from actual Zen folks that you did not agree with. Some of the criticisms of Zen schools and practices were quite prejudiced, especially when presented without opportunity for rebuttal. At least here, you charge into the Zen section and offer your criticisms and opinions on Zen schools you do not belong to and teachings you do not understand, but we Zen folks at least get to say something in the Zen section without censorship. That is a big step in the right direction. In the old days, you would also tell new folks interested in Zen Buddhism about all that was wrong with Zen Buddhism, without telling them that you were not yourself a Zen Buddhism (in fact, leading many of them to believe you were, since you did so in the Zen Section. You guys pulled all kinds of games like that. My complaining about it got me banished, and thus ...

... but all past history.

(I have been told that am not allowed here to go into the Tibetan Buddhist sections to offer my criticisms of Tibetan Buddhism by the way, not that I would. So, you can come here, but I cannot go there and do the same, not that I would. Still, does not seem fair).

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
I am not offering criticisms of Zen. I am offering critiques of your and Astus' statements.

That was not my policy, and for the record, I never deleted any one's explanations of anything. What other mods did then, not my actions nor my problem.

The rest of your charges, frankly, are as false as they are indemonstrable.

For the record, the basic dispute that you and I had, you will recall, was over the question of whether Zen Priests with only bodhisattva vows were actually distinguishable from any average Tibetan lay person who had also taken bodhisattva vows. Our disagreement was over what consisted of a monastic ordination. As such, you regarded it as a challenge to your authority as a monastic (it was) and went ballistic (understandable for a person still dominated by afflictions).

I rest my case.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are a bundle of afflictions who continually blunders through samsara because your afflictions generate actions which result in your own suffering.

Astus said:
That's it! We look at ourselves and see only all sorts of mundane, vulgar, basic, coarse, and totally ordinary things. While at the same time we think the Buddha is completely the opposite. The path is to go from mundane to supramundane, from delusion to enlightenment. As for the paths, in Zen there are all sorts of ways to categorise teachings, but the ultimate one is always sudden enlightenment. Among other things it means realising that afflictions are bodhi, to quote a general Mahayana concept. It also means the insight into the dharmas being unborn.

Malcolm wrote:
Very easy words to have on your lips, but if you still act out those afflictions, the afflictions are not bodhi, they are just afflictions.

There are hundreds and thousands of texts written about this, but at the end of the day, if you are churning out verbiage with no change in yourself, then, you are just a parrot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
The Buddha is completely free of afflictions, and he is us. In a moment of awakening there is all modes of knowledge. There is no suffering, no actions, no afflictions. I am claiming Buddhahood for myself, yourself, hisself and sheself ... all no self.

Malcolm wrote:
Reality check...

This said by a guy who once threatened to sue people whose words on the internet he did not like.

Conduct is the gauge of view and meditation. It is how one checks one's progress.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 12th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Au contraire, the Buddha was quite different from us. He was completely free from all afflictions, and had knowledge of all modes of awakening. Can you say the same? If not, then you must admit you and the Buddha are different.

Astus said:
What am I and what is the Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
You are a bundle of afflictions who continually blunders through samsara because your afflictions generate actions which result in your own suffering.

If you deny this, you are either being dishonest, or claiming Buddhahood for yourself, which is also probably a lie, because I cannot imagine a buddha would waste their time on Dharmawheel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Astus said:
As I have written here before, the point of stating that "Just recognize that Shakyamuni was an ordinary old fellow." is to know (識得) that he was no different from us.

Malcolm wrote:
Au contraire, the Buddha was quite different from us. He was completely free from all afflictions, and had knowledge of all modes of awakening.

Can you say the same? If not, then you must admit you and the Buddha are different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 11th, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
Bernie has a problem on immigration. His economic platform is basically socialist economic nationalism (conceptually similar to Trump's policy, but aesthetically more polished). No matter how you cut it, unrestrained immigration of low skilled workers undermines an economic nationalist agenda. We can't have good wages and and strong social net policies if there is also a bottomless pool of labor and open enrollment for all comers, legal or illegal - and you can't really turn people away from the programs once they're in the country. These social programs will bankrupt us unless we strictly limit access.

Malcolm wrote:
Bernie opposed 2007 immigration reform for exactly the reasons he stated: the guest worker program amounts to indentured servitude and it causes American workers to join a race to the bottom in wages.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

You can see that Sanders plan is much more comprehensive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Simon E. said:
Well, I had dealings with 8 or 9 people who had such episodes following that festival.

Malcolm wrote:
I wonder how many of them were later diagnosed schizophrenic or bipolar?

Simon E. said:
These to the best of my recollection were not suffering from any of the major psychoses, and the episodes that they reported did not lead to any of those psychoses. But were highly distressing.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure. But in my case, when I noticed that I could see patterns and traces days and weeks after tripping, I thought it was cool -- it never worried me. But you know, I was highly self-educated about psychedelics before I started taking them. I read Kesey, Don Juan, etc. when I was eleven. And of course when I started tripping at age 13 (1975-76), I was fully convinced it was for spiritual reasons. Forward, never straight!!!




Simon E. said:
On a lighter note, a colleague was on duty at Reading Rock in the 'Bad Trip Tent' when the tent collapsed in a thunder storm. The ensuing screaming pandemonium can only be imagined.

Malcolm wrote:
Now that is freaking hilarious...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I like to call it Sanders' Northern Strategy. Clinton was convinced that the Black vote was going to sail her into the White House, but she forgot that 43% of the electorate is Independent. Clinton won the Dem vote by 16% last night in Mich, but it was independents who gave Sanders the win.


DGA said:
On the significance of the Sanders win in the Michigan primary:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/
my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset. In that contest, the polling average had Walter Mondale beating Gary Hart by 17 percentage points, but it was Hart who won, with slightly more than 9 percentage points over Mondale.

Indeed, my initial thought was to compare the Sanders upset with Clinton’s over Barack Obama in the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary, but that undersells what happened Tuesday night. I was in New Hampshire when Clinton won in 2008 and sat in stunned disbelief — Obama lost by about 3 percentage points, when the polling average had him ahead by 8 percentage points. In other words, tonight’s error was more than double what occurred eight years ago.
And to put THAT into context, Sanders still lost on the evening overall in terms of delegates, because Clinton overwhelmingly won Mississippi.  I think it's safe to say that Sanders has momentum and that the really unfavorable states for Sanders have already voted.

When the "superdelegates" already pledged to Clinton begin to peel away and commit to Sanders, then it will be clear to everyone that the machine is starting to view a Sanders victory as somewhere on a spectrum from "likely" to "immanent."

Parenthetically, I find it contemptible that a party that calls itself "Democratic" has such a ridiculously undemocratic system for selecting a nominee.  Superdelegates?  Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
My experience tells me otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I just don't believe you, Greg.

Sherab Dorje said:
Too bad...

Malcolm wrote:
HPPD is one thing, but full blown "Oh god, now I am tripping, I wish I could come down...." kind of flashback, no, I don't believe this, and there is simply no scientific evidence to support the existence of such a phenomena.

If something like this happened to you, well, I think someone maliciously dosed you (it does happen, and more than you think).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh, there is power in being a monastic in Asia, if you think otherwise, well...as I said, follow the money...also the idea that monastics living in monasteries are not interested in girls...well if you think that is true, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn...real cheap...

Sherab Dorje said:
Well, there is nothing wrong with being interested in girls, it is what you do with girls that has bearing on whether the title "monastic" fits or not.

Malcolm wrote:
From personal knowledge, I can tell you that so called Tibetan monastics do a lot with girls, especially the teenage ones...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Simon E. said:
Sorry Malcolm.
I have vivid memories of dealing with the fallout from one particular  Reading Rock Festival (one of the UK's biggest) where particularly pure acid was freely available.
TWO YEARS later we were still having referrals of young men (mostly) whose ongoing hallucinatory episodes dated from that time and place.
It's all well described in the literature.

Malcolm wrote:
This is anecdotal, Simon, like the rest of the flashback phenomena. I have been around people who used LSD all of my life (literally), and I have never, ever once, among the people I know (between the ages of 50 and 80) who took (a lot of) LSD back in the day, met even a single person who suffered from "ongoing hallucinatory episodes" unless they were schizophrenic.

So, regardless of what the literature might say about it dating from the early 70's. I suspect it is attended by a great deal of misinformation and hysteria. With all due respect.

DGA said:
I know one person who has, to the present, a temporarily distorted visual field whenever the lights go down in a theater (among other triggers) that he attributes directly to a very strong self-administration of good ol' LSD.  Tracers and so on.

The brain is very complex.  The truth is that neuroscience is only now coming to grips with how complex the brain is, and therefore how little they actually know about it.  Who knows what is behind these experiences?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is called HPPD. From the article I posted:
Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD), the clinical term for seeing weird, trippy things like geometric hallucinations, flashes of color, afterimages and false perceptions of movement after taking psychedelics. To be considered a candidate for HPPD, the type of visual phenomena that occurs during an acid trip has to spontaneously reappear "long after the use of hallucinogens has stopped," cause significant distress, and not be explainable by any other mental disorder or medical condition. For many, it's less of a sudden "flashback" and more of a continuous disturbance of vision.
This is not a flashback.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh come on, give me a break. There is no such thing. A memory of tripping is not a flash back.

Sherab Dorje said:
My experience tells me otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I just don't believe you, Greg.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
DGA said:
There's a recent thread around here in which Astus, Jundo, and some others discussed the relative merits of using the elaborate discursive forms that are impossible to translate of classical Ch'an literature, or attempting to speak plainly.  I can't find it because I suck at the internet, but I assure you all, it was a winner.

As near as I can tell and working from limited experience, the Zen teaching situation is in part about creating a kind of context for encountering something.  So all kinds of outrageous and confusing things can happen:  the teacher charges in and kills a cat in front of everyone, for example.  What was THAT about?  I think the attempts to mobilize the literary figures of ancient Ch'an masters in the present are attempts to introduce someone to this kind of learning environment.  Whether it's effective or not is knowable only after the fact--if it worked on the intended audience.


Malcolm wrote:
Its off topic, I know, but this is why I like the terse style of Indo-Tibetan texts, more like an algebra of liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Simon E. said:
Sorry Malcolm.
I have vivid memories of dealing with the fallout from one particular  Reading Rock Festival (one of the UK's biggest) where particularly pure acid was freely available.
TWO YEARS later we were still having referrals of young men (mostly) whose ongoing hallucinatory episodes dated from that time and place.
It's all well described in the literature.

Malcolm wrote:
This is anecdotal, Simon, like the rest of the flashback phenomena. I have been around people who used LSD all of my life (literally), and I have never, ever once, among the people I know (between the ages of 50 and 80) who took (a lot of) LSD back in the day, met even a single person who suffered from "ongoing hallucinatory episodes" unless they were schizophrenic.

So, regardless of what the literature might say about it dating from the early 70's. I suspect it is attended by a great deal of misinformation and hysteria. With all due respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are no such thing as flashbacks. I ought to know. Do you have any idea how many times I tripped when I was a kid?

Sherab Dorje said:
I have had flashbacks. I know. Do you have any idea how many times I tripped when I was a kid?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh come on, give me a break. There is no such thing. A memory of tripping is not a flash back.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fyi-can-acid-trip-really-give-you-flashbacks
Sherab Dorje said:
And though scientists know HPPD exists, they still don't know exactly what causes it. "I've spent my life studying this problem and I don't know, is the short answer," Abraham says. "There are a number of clues--they come back to the core concept, it's an imbalance within the inhibitory circuits of the visual processing system."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
conebeckham said:
Who said anything about money, or cars, or girls?

Sherab Dorje said:
Me!  What's a career if it doesn't land you money, power or chicks?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, there is power in being a monastic in Asia, if you think otherwise, well...as I said, follow the money...also the idea that monastics living in monasteries are not interested in girls...well if you think that is true, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn...real cheap...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They can also be frozen, kind of a hellish bardo state, but what the hell. Samsara.

Mother's Lap said:
The being is unconscious at that point in gestation isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, but who said hell was only a sensation?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
conebeckham said:
Alright, I'm not Malcolm.....

But I feel qualified to comment.  Two of my brothers-in-law are monks.  I have spent a good deal of time with Tibetan monks in monasteries, and with ex-monks as well.  Some of my best friends were monks, frankly.

If one understands by "career paths" a lifestyle and culture that allows for basic human necessities to be met (food, shelter, clothing, social interaction), in exchange for living within the rules and structure of monastic life, it should be clear that being a monk is indeed a "career path."  Some monks work for the monastery for their entire lives, in exchange for these necessities.  Some go on to become Lamas, which, frankly, is also a career path.

Here in the West, for the most part, we don't have the monastic infrastructure that will support careers like these.   But for centuries a monastic career has been a viable choice for Tibetans and those in the Himalayan region in general.  (Mostly men, I must say......before anyone rushes to point it out).

There is a high incidence of monasticism in Buddhist countries--not merely in Vajrayana countries.  That's a point worth understanding.

Sherab Dorje said:
I don't buy it my dear Cone.  There are MUCH easier ways to make money.

MUCH, MUCH easier ways that also provide many more fringe benefits (cars, girls, etc...)

Malcolm wrote:
Just follow the money, Greg.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Generally yes, since they are all viable human births.

Sherab Dorje said:
They are not viable, they are in a petri dish for crying out loud, how can they be viable without the presence of uterus???

Malcolm wrote:
They are viable since when they are implanted a human being comes out. They can also be frozen, kind of a hellish bardo state, but what the hell. Samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that LSD can "damage the brain." This is pure propaganda. Total nonsense. When you take LSD, the the plasma half life of the drug is about 5 hours, and generally most measurable traces are gone the body within 24 hours.

Sherab Dorje said:
With the emphasis on the term "measurable".  What about LSD metabolites though?  And how do you explain "flashbacks"?

Malcolm wrote:
Metabolites are gone within with two weeks.

There are no such thing as flashbacks. I ought to know. Do you have any idea how many times I tripped when I was a kid?

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The  Buddha made the precept against alcohol because some people can't handle their booze. If you can handle your booze, what is the point of following that precept?

Sherab Dorje said:
If you can "handle your booze", ie only become slightly intoxicated, then that's okay?  I don't remember the Buddha saying anywhere that some degrees of intoxication are wholesome, and other degrees are not.  But what is the point of drinking of it doesn't effect you anyway?  Let's face it:  people normally drink to get intoxicated, except in some rare cases where they want to savor the flavour.  But if you just want the flavour then a sip is enough, correct?  Wine tasters goes as far as to spit out the sip they take.

Malcolm wrote:
Greg, the Buddha said in the Medicine Tantra:
Alcohol is sweet, sour, bitter, its post-digestive taste is sour. It is sharp, warm, rough, subtle, and slightly laxative. It ignites warmth, generates conviviality, increases sleep, and removes phlegm and wind. 

Overuse alters the mind, one lacks shame, and modesty is destroyed.  The first kind of drunk is stays in shameless places, overcome by evil thoughts, he thinks he is happy. The second kind of drunk is like a intoxicated elephant, committing misdeeds and staying places that violate his discipline. The final kind of drunk is mindless and lies like a corpse, not knowing anything at all, like a place of darkness.
Then of course there is Longchenpa's famous praise to booze, where is shows that a) alcohol has many praiseworthy qualities and b) there are a lot of Buddhist hypocrites out there who drink but like to pretend they do not in public.

My goal in drinking wine is conviviality and warmth. Your mileage may vary. I am aware of the the faults of overuse. Wine tasters spit because when you are tasting three hundred wines, well, you get the picture.




Sherab Dorje said:
And even alcohol is permissible to monks who are ill, as medicine.
And heroin is a great analgesic... So what?  Now you are being obtuse.  Nobody said that medicinal use is negative.  It is one thing to smoke dope (for example) in order to relieve chronic pain caused by cancer and another thing to get baked every night in front of the t.v.
Therefore, I see no reason at all why psychedelics cannot play a valid and useful role in many conditions where recent research seems to indicate that there is much benefit from them.
I don't think anybody argued to the contrary.  And, to tell you the truth, if Garab Dorje was my teacher and he said "Hey Greg, drop this tab.  It'll help your practice."  Who am I to argue?  But the reality is that I have not come across a single legit teacher that is into dealing DMT and LSD.  Have you?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, famously there is Trungpa. And I have heard of other teachers who have tripped with their students, but I won't say who.


Sherab Dorje said:
Then of course, in the Amazon, Ayahuasca is mainly sought out by people for healing purposes, and the general role of shamans is healing (but not only that). It is very different from the fad of pharmahausca in the US and so on, where the substance has been removed from its cultural context.
And that, my dear Malcolm, is the problem:  the Western (urban, in most cases) Shaman scene is a minefield of quacks, full of half-baked mix and match spirituality, that requires the use of drugs in order to elicit experiences that starry eyes neophytes consider spiritually valid.  ie to legitimate the scene's existence.  But as we know VERY well that in Buddhism, experiences are no big deal.  Actually they can be real obstacles on the path.  So...

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Experiences are never a problem, understanding them is the problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The  Buddha made the precept against alcohol because some people can't handle their booze. If you can handle your booze, what is the point of following that precept?

Ayu said:
Because - for some people - alcohol affects the mind even subtly, so that the spiritual practice gets distrubed. They might be able to handle the booze but drinking makes them aggressive nevertheless.

Malcolm wrote:
If booze makes someone aggressive, they can't handle their booze. But most of the people I know become happy, friendly and relaxed with a glass of wine or two, or even three.

Ayu said:
And hallucinogenes are not less dangerous, even if they do not create a physical addiction. The brain and its functions can be damaged seriously, not only for the abuser but for his offspring also.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that LSD and so on can create genetic damage is total nonsense, debunked years ago. Of course, if you bathe cells in pure LSD for weeks, you will see chromosome damage, the same can be said of milk or any ACIDIC substance. But the average does of LSD, 100 micrograms, is far too small to create teratogenic effects, even in pregnant women.

There is also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that LSD can "damage the brain." This is pure propaganda. Total nonsense. When you take LSD, the the plasma half life of the drug is about 5 hours, and generally most measurable traces are gone the body within 24 hours.

LSD is a serotonin agonist, which is why when people are having bad LSD experiences (yes, it does happen), they are generally given serotonin antagonists such a Clozapine, etc. because of their action on 5-HT2A/2b receptors in the brain — LSD, etc., are 5-HT2A agonists.

For whom is LSD risky? People with histories of schizophrenia in the family who take the drug in their late teens and early twenties are at risk of unmasking undiagnosed schizophrenia, when schizophrenia typically expresses itself anyway. Present research on schizophrenia indicates that in patients at risk for schizophrenia, the brain does not sever neural connections used in brain development in people 18-6 because the switch that tells the brain to sever hormonally those connections is not turned on, and so therefore, there are a large number of neuronal connections in the brain which are still active in adult schizophrenics which do not exist for those whose brains developed normally. Therefore, when people express schizophrenia from taking from taking LSD, this should be regarded as a symptom in a differential diagnosis, rather than a cause. In short, there is absolutely no evidence at all that people who are not at risk will develop schizophrenia from taking LSD, let alone any other brain based malady of mental illness, such as bipolar disorder. Thus, the conclusion is that if you have a family history of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and so on, perhaps it is better if you abstain from LSD and other psychedelics. Similarly, if you have a family history of alcoholism, it is probably better that you do not drink.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 10th, 2016 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Anders said:
Although the only Chinese comments we have cited here are pretty plain spoken.

Malcolm wrote:
I was referring to the replies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
So Buddhists shouldn't do that kind of IVF?


Apparently the zygotes can be stored and donated

Malcolm wrote:
If they do, they should donate the other zygotes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Are zygotes humans?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Would zygotes be considered human life under Vajrayana embryology?

Would IVF treatments which involve generating multiple zygotes and only implanting one be against Dharma?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally yes, since they are all viable human births.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty clear from these statements, that "Buddha is an ordinary guy" simple means that the conduct of the Buddha, an awakened person, was completely unfabricated. Jeez, you Zen guys make everything so damn complicated and wordy. Must be a Chinese cultural thing.

Astus said:
From Jingde Chuandeng Lu, vol 14 (T51n2076, p311, a4-17):

Zen master Danxia Tianran entered the hall and addressed the monks, saying,
“All of you here must take care of the temple and monastery. Things in this place were not made or named by you, and have they not been given as offerings? Formerly I studied with Shitou, and he taught me that I must personally protect these things. This is not to be discussed further.
Each of you here has a place to put your cushion and sit. Why do you suspect you need something else? Is Zen something you can explain? Is a buddha something you can become? I don’t want to hear a single word about Buddhism.
All of you, look and see! Skillful means and expedience, the unlimited mind of benevolence, compassion, joy, and detachment—these things aren’t received from someplace else. Not an inch of these things is evident. Skillful means is Manjushri Bodhisattva. Expedience is Samantabhadra Bodhisattva. Do you still want to go seeking after something? Don’t go using the Buddhist scriptures to look for emptiness!
These days Zen students are all in a tizzy, practicing Zen and asking about Tao. I don’t have any Dharma for you to practice here! And there isn’t any doctrine to be confirmed. Just eat and drink. Everyone can do that. Don’t harbor doubt. It’s the same everyplace!
Just recognize that Shakyamuni was an ordinary old fellow. You must see for yourself. Don’t spend your life trying to win some competitive trophy, blindly misleading other blind people, all of you marching right into hell, floundering in duality! I’ve nothing more to say. Take care!”
(tr. A. Ferguson: Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 129)

Alternative translation by Beishi Guohan:

Chan Master Danxia Tianran entered the hall and said,
“All of you here have to take good care of your own spiritual treasury, which is not attainable through labeling and describing by the effortful-effort of your deluded mind, and there is even no need to talk about attainment and non-attainment. ... You neither need to rely on the sutras and teachings, nor to fall into nothingness. These days Chan practitioners are all in a tizzy, investigating Chan and inquiring into the Way. Here in my place, there is no Way to be cultivated and no Dharma to be realized. Merely drink when you're thirsty and eat when you're hungry by way of clear awareness without self-referential deluded thinking. Just always act with this Mind in all places in your daily life to realize that Shakyamuni is the ordinary person.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Greg, intoxicants are not inherently unwholesome, nor is taking them.

Sherab Dorje said:
Nothing is inherently anything. The precept against intoxication is the sole precept which is a precept based on prohibition rather than being based on the ten natural non virtues. And you know, what, like all five lay precepts, it is optional whether or not one wants to follow it.
Sure.  But it's not like the Buddha woke up one day and said to himself:  "Hmmmmmm...  I think I'll make up a totally arbitrary and useless rule so that people in the future can argue as to whether it is applicable or not..."  Somehow I think his choice would have been based on logic and concern for sentient beings, not out of a cruel whim to torment us.  And yes, of course observing any of the precepts is completely optional, the results that arise from not observing them though are compulsory.

Malcolm wrote:
The  Buddha made the precept against alcohol because some people can't handle their booze. If you can handle your booze, what is the point of following that precept?

And even alcohol is permissible to monks who are ill, as medicine. Therefore, I see no reason at all why psychedelics cannot play a valid and useful role in many conditions where recent research seems to indicate that there is much benefit from them. Then of course, in the Amazon, Ayahuasca is mainly sought out by npeople for healing purposes, and the general role of shamans is healing (but not only that). It is very different from the fad of pharmahausca in the US and so on, where the substance has been removed from its cultural context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
That's false. There's no real liberation without the practice of Highest Yoga Tantra since it is impossible to abandon self-grasping ignorance completely without engaging in completion stage meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Take it up with the Buddha. The difference is not in ultimate liberation, but rather length of time to liberation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's also incorrect. The only path that leads directly to liberation and enlightenment is Highest Yoga Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
If you mean in a single lifetime from soup to nuts, then we agree. But if you mean that the other paths of the six lower vehicles do not lead to buddhahood, not only are we in disagreement, but you have slandered the Dharma, and in particular the Dharma taught in the Dzogchen tantras. Think carefully before replying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: Vain enough to give, not generous enough to receive
Content:
maybay said:
Question is, why do we wait until we're dead to be generous?

Malcolm wrote:
Taxes.

maybay said:
Even death wont protect you from taxes. But is it a calculating decision or just an unquestioned social norm? Buddhists are excited to claim Jobs as their own. But I wonder about a person who will only give once the offering is useless to them. They've given nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
Calculated decision. Inheritances are taxed differently than income.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
I saw many Nyingma Tulkus in my live and they were all monks. Maybe some Tulkus were also Tertons and therefore non monks. Who knows which more non monks combinations we could have in Nyingma, to prove that the status of non monk is satisfying to certain Dzogchen views, which i doubt greatly as Bonpo Dzogchenpa.
[/color]

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the teachings that Nyingmapas practice are all terma.

Also, in Nyingma, status of Ngagpas and Monks are the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 11:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Not only this, but each of the nine yānas is an independent means of liberation, self-contained and self-sufficient.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's false. There's no real liberation without the practice of Highest Yoga Tantra since it is impossible to abandon self-grasping ignorance completely without engaging in completion stage meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Take it up with the Buddha. The difference is not in ultimate liberation, but rather length of time to liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:


qwerty13 said:
So what is the advantage of being a monk in one of the traditions of tibetan buddhism?

kalden yungdrung said:
Without being a monk, like certain Dzogchenpas think, that could be a Master too. Well that could be an exception but is certain not the standard in the Tibetan Traditions.
Y

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, this is not true in Nyingma, where the most important lineage holders are Tertons, who almost always are not monks. And you cannot be a terton unless you are a master of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
Virgo said:
For a Vajrayana or Dzogchen practitioner it is unnecessary and arbitrary.

Sherab Dorje said:
Arbitrary?  You must be fraking joking!?  How do you explain the incredibly high incidence of monasticism in Vajrayana countries then???

Malcolm wrote:
Career paths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
So underlying issues are the cause when meditation is the topic, but in the case of psychedelics it's the drugs themselves? Excuse me while I boggle.


Sherab Dorje said:
If you cannot discern between wholesome and the unwholesome actions, then that is your issue to deal with and not mine.

If you believe that the techniques taught by the Buddha are the same as dropping a tab, then that is your issue and not mine.

If you want to be responsible for spreading confusion and ignorance, go for it...

You are obviously well beyond dualism, I personally am not.

Malcolm wrote:
Greg, intoxicants are not inherently unwholesome, nor is taking them. The precept against intoxication is the sole precept which is a precept based on prohibition rather than being based on the ten natural non virtues. And you know, what, like all five lay precepts, it is optional whether or not one wants to follow it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
_R_ said:
Malcolm,

yes.

Malcolm wrote:
With due respect to your esteemed lamas, I don't agree with them. My esteemed guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, has a different opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
_R_ said:
It's easier to practice, if you're a monk. I think I've asked that from at least three lamas.

And now that I'm married and have three kids, I kind of agree with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Easier where? Eaisier when you are in a busy monastery? Easier when you are western monk having work full time, pay rent? And who says lay people must have kids? I dont.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
Kelwin said:
Yup. And to do that, it might be extremely useful to become a monk.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends very much on the person, the time and the place.

Kelwin said:
Agreed, hence I said 'might be'. Just saying that understanding Dzogchen, and experiencing it to some degree, doesn't mean being a monk cannot be useful to actually progress to stable realisation.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually given how restricted a monastic life is, it will undoubtedly serve as a barrier for most Western people when it comes to working with circumstances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
And another thing ... Renowned scholar and activist Noam Chomsky declared this week that the GOP and its far-right front-runners are "literally a serious danger to decent human survival.”
Speaking with The Huffington Post on Monday, Chomsky cited the Republican Party’s refusal to tackle—or even acknowledge—the “looming environmental catastrophe” of climate change, thereby “dooming our grandchildren.” ...
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomsky-why-republican-party-threat-human-survival


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
So why would I vote for the international cheerleader of fracking, Hillary Clinton?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/06/demdebate_bernie_sanders_crushes_hillary_clinton_on_fracking.html
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/hillary-clinton-climate-change-president

In short, she is not an environmental candidate, Sanders is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
qwerty13 said:
... in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and ...

Kelwin said:
Yup. And to do that, it might be extremely useful to become a monk.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends very much on the person, the time and the place.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
If there are no monks or nuns, there is no Sangha and no Dharma. It's not optional.

Je Tsongkhapa showed that if someone is serious about practising Vajrayana, it should be done so on the basis of taking pratimoksha vows which can be either the lay or ordained vows.

Malcolm wrote:
This is false, for example, the Buddha Sikhin never ordained monks or nuns.

Not only this, but each of the nine yānas is an independent means of liberation, self-contained and self-sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:


qwerty13 said:
Maybe some people lack understanding of Vajrayana and based on that they become monks. But on the other hand Lama Tsongkhapa was a monk. He ordained at the age 21 and of course he must have had profound realizations in the meaning of tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
By age 21? I don't think so.

qwerty13 said:
Oh sorry, I was careless. Berzin says

( http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/lineage_masters/short_biography_lama_tsongkhapa.html )
Although some accounts say Tsongkhapa took full monk vows at age 21, it is uncertain in which year this actually took place. It was probably later in his 20s

Some sources say he took vows at the age 21. But more likely this happened later. So somewhere in he`s 20s. I just read the first part of he`s sentence when i was checking this information.

Malcolm wrote:
What I meant was is that I do not think that Tsongkhapa was profoundly realized in Vajrayāna in his twenties.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Unknown said:
Groundbreaking research at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine has provided insight into the benefits of mediated doses of psilocyben, the active psychedelic compound found in "magic" mushrooms.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/552472993125638144


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?

qwerty13 said:
Maybe some people lack understanding of Vajrayana and based on that they become monks. But on the other hand Lama Tsongkhapa was a monk. He ordained at the age 21 and of course he must have had profound realizations in the meaning of tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
By age 21? I don't think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
maybay said:
Its your parsimonious rhetorical strategy that intrigues me.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a strategy. I just don't like to waste words where they are not needed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun
Content:
qwerty13 said:
I used to think that being a monk is something very important and it would be best that vajrayana practitoiners become monks and uphold more than 200 pratimoksha vows instead of being a lay person. I thought that when Buddha said that you can attain buddhaood as a lay person was just a provisional teaching and it was meant to guide those attached to lay life more gradually to the fact that best thing to do is to become a monk.

But today I understood that in Vajrayana and of course in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and maintain your samaya and do daily sadhana practice and that is all you need for buddhahood. There really is no need to take many pratimoksha vows to limit activities of body (like sitting on luxurious chairs, dance and sing etc..).

But now question arises. In Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelug schools we have monks. And they all practice HYT / inner tantras.
So if daily sadhana practice, awareness and samaya is all you need in vajrayana and dzogchen, why should you become a monk? What is the advantage here?

Lama Zopa for example seems to praise the merits of becoming a monk. I used to think that way too. But having practiced under Namkhai Norbu and studied precious vase I no longer understand the advantage of being a monk.

You visualize yourself as the yidam just the same way as a monk tantrika as you would as a lay person.
You practice contemplation just the same way as a monk dzogchenpa as you would as a lay dzogchenpa.
The only difference is that the other one has monks vows to hold.

So what is the advantage of being a monk in one of the traditions of tibetan buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
Jeff H said:
I have to agree with maybay on this. America doesn't have a true democracy and in the expression, "the will of the people", our socio-political system is very adept at manipulating both the people's will and the people who vote. Power and authority arise largely from those manipulators.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends very much on what you mean by true democracy. Where I live, we have the town meeting system. You never saw a more pure expression of direct democracy anywhere. I agree, in other places in the US, it is less democratic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
maybay said:
I had a boss once who never wanted to talk about values. He would get quite angry when I brought it up. He liked to talk about people. He was a simple person who liked to play the balance of power game.
Power is another thing from authority though. Surely power comes from "the people", since this is one thing and from solidarity comes power. No single value could hold people together. Values are truly a divisive topic. Without values though, a political system is impoverished, and it will rot.


Malcolm wrote:
You really need to read a Theory of Justice by Rawls, and then follow that with Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick. Then to top it all off, Social Ecology by Bookchin. Followed with Ecology of Wisdom by Naess.

Then you will understand Democracy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Critical Mass - The Hundredth Monkey
Content:
Saoshun said:
So we need to reconsider this or recalculate because Kali yuga always starts for anything old vs new and this cannot be consider as kali yuga but just wack excuse.

for example for communists kali yuga started with democracy, for monarchists kali yuga starts with communism etc.


I highly doubt we are kali yuga because in kali yuga everything should be very dark, bloodshed, no compassion or good people around etc. like really horroric things much worse then in happen in regular wars.

Malcolm wrote:
No, The Kali yuga gets progressively worse as time goes on, it does not start as a shit show, that does nit happen until we enter the age of weapons and famine, which we are on the brink of.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
maybay said:
The fact is that any government is constantly renegotiating who and what it governs over. When that changes quickly, the systems of accountability can have difficulty adapting. That's when you get things like a sub-prime mortgage crisis or an Arab spring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation

People have no authority as such. It is the legal bureaucracy from which a democracy derives authority, rather than judgements based on traditional values, or a flow of charismatic edicts. A legal bureaucracy is considered authoritative in large part because it is rational.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in every instance in a democracy power comes from the people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Democracy is a system of governance which derives its authority from the people.

Sherab Dorje said:
^^^zackly!^^^

maybay said:
It couldn't be more vague. If nothing is distinguished, what is really being said? What is meant by "the people"?

Malcolm wrote:
As in, We, The People of the United States...." etc., the people, the commoners, the subjects, དམངས, the demos, etc.


Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of democracy
plural de·moc·ra·cies
1
a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority
b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
:  a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
:  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
:  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Donatas said:
it's interesting to read all the comments about what happens and should I do it or not, but what was I aiming for here, is the buddhist perspective on that stuff. I mean, f.e. how would a buddhist monk see this? Is it considered ok or is it a thing that you shouldn't do this lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
As unnecessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 7th, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Farewell
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day
Keep smiling through
Just like you always do
'Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away

So will you please say hello
To the folks that I know
Tell them I won't be long
They'll be happy to know
That as you saw me go
I was singing this song

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day

We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day
Keep smiling through
Just like you always do
'Til the blue skies
Drive the dark clouds far away
So will you please say hello
To the folks that I know
Tell them it won't be long
They'll be happy to know
That as you saw me go
I was singin' this song


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 1:13 PM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The book, Singing to the Plants, by Steven Beyer and the accompanying website, http://www.singingtotheplants.com, is an excellent, scholarly resource. The author of the book is also the author of the seminal "Cult of Tara." He is also the author of a very important book in Tibetan linguistics.

In this book he analysis the culture and dynamics of mestizo shamanism, various trends, etc. It is really quite excellent.

Vasana said:
Ideally you want way more than just 1 week of the diet. 2 weeks minimum but more if you can. It's tough and means adopting very bland and boring eating habits for a couple weeks but it's more than worth it. The cleaner your body is going in to it, the less physical discomfort you'll feel. There will still be some physical discomfort either way so you need to mentally prepare for that. Remove as much physical tension in your body before hand too.

Have in mind the specific areas of your life that you're looking to bring some healing and clarity too. Which emotions or afflictions bring the most harm to yourself and others in your life? Which conscious or subconscious thought patterns bring yourself and those you interactive with the most harm? Which ideas and behaviors do you hold on to that act against your highest spiritual-good and the highest spiritual-good of those in your life?

It's not been mentioned much in discussions on Dharma and psychedelics/plant-medicine , but if you sincerely combine the intention and aspiration of Bodhichitta to your journey/ceremony, then whatever happens, you'll know that your intention was at least sound.

In the long run, this is about more than just you as it can potentially change how you view the world and interact with others, but at the same time, it's also a very personal experience and opportunity to access parts of the psyche that are usually double or tipple veiled by symbol and imagery. Speak and ask constructive questions to the medicine and your own awareness to guide the journey forwards beneficial insights.

Integration of the experience afterwards is just as important as the experience it's self. Record the experience in words and potentially pictures while it's still fresh.



Ivo said:
All questions regarding Ayahuasca would be better directed to forums where you have knowledgeable people with vast experience on the topic and not to Buddhist boards where this is still considered controversial and is met with prejudice. Here you will get a lot of advice by people who have never done it and who have strong opinions against it based on belief systems alone. There you will find mature, tolerant and knowledgeable communities which have members who have done hundreds or even thousands of trips on Ayahuasca, DMT, Mushrooms etc. and who can offer real advice, encouragement and who will approach you on a friendly manner as a fellow human being and not judge you from a fundamentalist religious viewpoint. They will share with you the real safety warnings in a supportive way. So, to the OP, I would highly recommend that you direct your questions to the following websites:

https://dmt-nexus.me - for Ayahuasca and DMT related discussions, although there is a good general section.
[some other links removed]
On these forums you will find all kind of folk, but there are members with 40+ years of experience in shamanism and entheogen use. You will be amazed at the quality of some discussions and the vastness of the information you can find.

[some other links removed]

Do yourself a favor, go there and spare yourself the indoctrination. Do your own research and form your own opinions responsibly. Have common sense and be safe. Finally, my personal advice would be for you to consider Ayahuasca for your first trip and to avoid MDMA for now, as it requires a different kind of knowledge and can cause more problems if improperly used, not to mention that it would be very difficult for you to know exactly what you are taking. If you decide to go on with this, stick to Santo Daime and follow their recommendations to the letter, as they have genuine lineage and knowledge about this, not to mention that you will be getting the real brew. Follow the regimen strictly.

{Moderator note: the Nexus forum is uncritically enthusiastic about Ayahuasca and other drugs to the point of irresponsibility. Its advice is therefore far less balanced than readers will find here on DW and should be approached with caution.]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 11:09 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarianism, Splitting, and Buddhadharma
Content:
maybay said:
The objective of authoritarianism is to consolidate power. The objective of democracy is to restrain power through institutions of accountability that preserve the power dynamic. Authoritarian leaders appeal to traditional forms of authority, democracies only to the present demographic.

Sherab Dorje said:
Hate to be the one to point it out to you, but in some parts of the world democracy is the traditional form of authority.

maybay said:
Democracy is a system of government not a form of authority.

Malcolm wrote:
Democracy is a system of governance which derives its authority from the people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Dundee said:
Politicians do lie.

Malcolm wrote:
Not Bernie.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Dundee said:
The United States already kills innocent men, women, and children.

Malcolm wrote:
Not as a matter of policy.

Dundee said:
Obama did not change anything about that. I don't see much good about Trump but just like you think you will suffer as a super liberal it's the same under Hillary if somebody is a "super predator" as she put it and she won't be helping black families or stop mass incarceration if we look at her record.

Malcolm wrote:
I am a Bernieorbuster. I won't be voting for Clinton. Never have, never will. I don't vote for neoliberal, neoconservative warmongers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Traditional Medicine
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
How much can a person realisticly learn about TTM from books and online courses and in person when possible to be able to be of practical use to oneself and others?

My younger brother is going through alot of stress and I want to gain knowledge about TTM myself as I start researching people for treatment.

Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
You need to learn TTM from a doctor. It is the only way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump is sexist, racist douchebag. He is also completely dishonest, lies stream out of his mouth at an astonishing rate. He is also a weakling and a coward.

Dundee said:
I understand that you have your opinion, but I don't agree with it. We are all entitled to our opinions in this country, and if we aren't then something will need to happen so that might be why people are voting for Donald Trump.

Malcolm wrote:
People who vote for Trump are idiots.

Dundee said:
Where I sit, honestly white liberals are afraid of him the most and yet white liberals prove to be racist again and again.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, lets get something straight. I am not a liberal, I am much, much, worse than a liberal.

So you support his murderous plan to kill innocent women and children? Guess your commitment to Buddhadharma just flew out the window.

Dundee said:
So who is the coward is another difference of opinion and we will have to settle it in this country. I hope it is peaceful but we all know history, so we will have to wait and see.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump has no problem turning his thugs out to beat on black folks who come to his rallies. And when he went to Texas he would  not go ten miles near the border because it was "not safe." Given that his father was arrested at a KKK riot, I am not surprised at all when Trumps followers resort to Nazi-style violence at his rallies. Plus — you gotta love this — he is going to cripple the first amendment so he can sue the papers and "make lots of money." What a pathetic excuse for a candidate. No wonder the Republicans are desperately trying to figure out how they can get him out of the race.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 6th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Dundee said:
I really do like Donald Trump. He makes me laugh. I don't know if I would vote for him, but he would be as good as anyone else and maybe an improvement in many respects. Now we have come a long way in America to inspire the rest of the world to be better and wiser and to seek justice and compassion. This whole world has changed and we are never going to be the same. Sometimes, though, we have to really look back at what we lost on the road to improvement and get it back, and we need to get back to strong leadership and honesty. Trump is a man's man and America doesn't remember what that was like. I has been a very long time indeed and maybe not a moment too soon.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump is sexist, racist douchebag. He is also completely dishonest, lies stream out of his mouth at an astonishing rate. He is also a weakling and a coward.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2016 at 12:17 PM
Title: Re: Critical Mass - The Hundredth Monkey
Content:


Queequeg said:
More seriously - can you elaborate on that?

Malcolm wrote:
The idea being that the deeper we move into the Kali Yuga, the more necessary the most essential teaching will be for sentient beings. During the Golden age, when food literally drops off of trees into our mouths, there is not much need for essential teachings since in general, everyone is pretty happy and content.


Saoshun said:
How did you calculate that? We are far from Kali Yuga, we are now moving into Dwapara not Kali Yuga


Malcolm wrote:
According to Buddhist sources we have been in the Kali Yuga for some time now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2016 at 12:14 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Wayfarer said:
The destruction of indigenous cultures would be one consequence of such views, but there are many others.

Malcolm wrote:
I was under the impression it came from racism...an old Western value, indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2016 at 11:44 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Wayfarer said:
It has to do with the collapse of traditional values in Western culture.


Malcolm wrote:
Ahahahahahah, you mean the very ones that lead to the ongoing genocide of indigenous people around the globe?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 5th, 2016 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Donatas said:
Hey. I have been recently invited to aya ceremony. Any thoughts on it? I saw a huge discussion about LSD, but what about aya? It's considered a sacred plant and it really takes you somewhere. as far as i've been told.

Malcolm wrote:
To do ayahuasca properly, you need to follow a special diet for many days, etc. It is not just "something" to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Simon E. said:
That is a specious comparison.  Neither you nor anyone else has any way of demonstrating a link between the widespread use of an upaya even in a reduced form, and a reduction in the prospects of Enlightenment for large numbers of people. It is equally possible that that a reduced anapanasati provides a bridge to more firm ground.
It is doubly specious to make a comparison between that reduced upaya and the use of neurotoxins ..and while we are at it lets lose the use of euphemisms like 'psychotropics' in this context..not least because Buddhadharma does not recognise a 'psyche' in the terms implied.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Simon:

LSD is not a neurotoxin, nor is Psylocybin, nor DMT.

Not endorsing their use as a Buddhist upaya (other than the narrow means identified by Garab Dorje), just clarifying the terms.

M

Simon E. said:
But they ARE so classed Malcolm. The active agent in Psilocybin for example is an alkaloid shown to directly affect neurotransmission by modifying the structure of serotonin.
You may advocate a reclassification of these substances. But medical science sees them as neurotoxins.

Malcolm wrote:
LSD has no known toxicity level. The toxicity level of Psilocybin is so low, you would have to take the amount of psilocybin found in 45 pounds of mushrooms in order to experience any toxic effect. DMT also has no known toxicity level. And if you ingest it raw, without a catalyst, it just passes through your digestive tract with no effect at all (which is why people smoke it or combine it with an MAO Inhibitor).

I suspect these things are defined as neurotoxins as a result of Gvt. policy rather than scientific definition.  Alcohol is a neurotoxin of much greater strength than Psilocybin, and as I pointed out, LSD and DMT have no known toxicity levels. Even the putative toxicity of THC is a result of bathing neurons in pure THC for days at a time, hardly a real world application.

Anyway, we both agree such substances have virtually no application in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
I say "may" for two reasons:  First Anapanasati falls under the category of Right concentration in the Noble Eightfold Path, I guess that would make it a source of wisdom accumulation.  So while it is true that Anapanasati and LSD are both samsara, some things in samsara are considered wholesome and others (intoxication, something that goes against the 5th precept) are considered unwholesome.

Malcolm wrote:
Alcohol is permitted as medicine even for monks. Therefore, therapeutic uses of LSD, etc., are permissible, even for Buddhists in general. For example, if I have cancer, and I am experiencing nausea, I will definitely smoke weed without hesitation. Also Marijuana has many uses, especially for chronic pain. Everything is equally medicine and poison, it just depends on how it is used.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Simon E. said:
That is a specious comparison.  Neither you nor anyone else has any way of demonstrating a link between the widespread use of an upaya even in a reduced form, and a reduction in the prospects of Enlightenment for large numbers of people. It is equally possible that that a reduced anapanasati provides a bridge to more firm ground.
It is doubly specious to make a comparison between that reduced upaya and the use of neurotoxins ..and while we are at it lets lose the use of euphemisms like 'psychotropics' in this context..not least because Buddhadharma does not recognise a 'psyche' in the terms implied.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Simon:

LSD is not a neurotoxin, nor is Psylocybin, nor DMT.

Not endorsing their use as a Buddhist upaya (other than the narrow means identified by Garab Dorje), just clarifying the terms.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
This is very true, but you know what I am seeing on this thread?

It seems to me that those who report on the positive outcomes of drug use are being hailed, while those that mention the negative effects are being hounded.

Hmmmmmmm... I wonder why?

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of acid, shrooms and dmt, the vast majority of the negative effects are caused by parents and authorities freaking out on kids who they find are tripping...

And where people seem to have problems with these drugs, it is usually a result of other, unworked out issues that they are having, not the drugs themselves per se.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


Ivo said:
I am talking only about 3 substances, out of these hundreds out there, most notably DMT and Psilocybin, the former of which is circulating in our blood right now as we are typing our replies. It is part of human metabolism and there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest that it is responsible for dreaming, meditation states and even everyday alertness and attention. In effect, you are on a small dose of DMT as you are reading this. The current opinion is that it is produced by several glands, possibly the pineal, among others, and it is found right now in your blood, brain, liver, kidney, lungs. There are excellent research papers on this subject, notably by Dr. Rick Strassman but by other scientists as well, along with research on the somewhat similar compounds of Psilocybin and Psilocin, which, although not endogenous in humans, have similar psychoactive properties. And, which have been used by humans long before the appearance of Buddhism. These substances, including LSD, have well documented clinical uses for treatment of many stress and addiction related disorders, and active research is ongoing and actually gaining momentum.

On Psilocybin, please see the anthropologic research of Dr. Paul Stamets and also the current studies by the: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00302744?term=NCT00302744&rank=1, http://www.nyucanceranxiety.org/, http://www.bpru.org/cancer-studies/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17196053?dopt=AbstractPlus, http://www.heffter.org/research-unm-alc.htm, and, most notably, please see the Johns Hopkins Medical Center study on Psilocybin and Spirituality - PDF here - http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

DMT is even more powerful than Psilocybin, it is endogenous to us and seems to have these same applications.

Please do your own research. I respect your opinion, but it is misinformed in this particular case.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, these kinds of drugs are great for therapy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Ivo said:
Malcolm is giving a reference to the removal of the two obscurations...this is not really part of the language of Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


Ivo said:
The Great Perfection has it's own specific language. In my opinion it is not good to mix it with the language of the paths which use other principles. At least, I do not like to do that. Some substances are suitable secondary means, not unlike postures and gazes. They can be very useful in very specific context. That's all I have been saying.

Malcolm wrote:
For therapy, and unlike postures and gazes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 12:12 PM
Title: Re: Critical Mass - The Hundredth Monkey
Content:


Queequeg said:
The terminology I've been exposed to is primordial state not primordial knowledge. Knowledge suggests something static, an object to be known. A degree of abstraction is irreducibly implied in 'knowledge.' The state, as ive found it described, suggests a dynamic experience, something that is irreducibly part of the subject.

Malcolm wrote:
The term "primordial state" is gloss for a few different Tibetan terms which all amount to the same concept, "the original basis."

The basis itself is in fact a pristine consciousness (ye shes, jñāna), completely untainted and immaculate. It is called the basis because it has not been realized. When it is realized, the basis is called "the result."


Queequeg said:
As I understand, guruyoga is not just some secret knowledge that we are made privy to, but rather a shared experience between teacher and pupil.

Malcolm wrote:
Direct introduction, specifically the mind transmission (which is based on the symbolic and oral transmission) is a state of knowledge about the basis shared between teacher and disciple. Guru yoga is a way of recapitulating that knowledge.


Queequeg said:
So, it still follows, what happens when half the people in a town are aware, and are at various stages of perfecting the state... Are people not going to pick up on it unless they've formally been introduced? And is it possible that a person surrounded by realized beings would not be perfumed by their proximity?

Malcolm wrote:
Unless they have some serious obscuration, it is likely they will become interested. But it also has to do with one's own merit. If one has much merit, than introducing people to the teachings is easy. If one has little merit, than it is hard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Ivo said:
Drugs like DMT do not produce anything on their own. They can remove constraints and depending on the merit, capacity and degree of development of the individual they can make it easier or more difficult to recognize the natural state. They can also make it easier to apply the methods of the path of transformation for someone who has this inclination and capacity. For someone tho is still perceiving phenomena as external in a stable way they can strengthen this division too. In my personal view these substances only remove a certain matrix of pathways which are connected to the physical body and usually channel the mind in a particular way. They do not remove karmic imprints, they just allow the experience of a bardo-like state with more possibilities. Apart from that, very high doses of DMT and LSD certainly lead to total ego dissolution and rikpa glimpses. To what extent things stabilize again is completely individual and there seems to be a lot of degrees. But very few people actually take such high dosages. This is all what I have discovered myself and what I have been able to corroborate with some of my teachers so far.

Malcolm wrote:
At base, friend, liberation is the result of eliminating the afflictive obscuration, and omniscience is a result of eliminating the knowledge obscuration. There simply does not exist any drug which can enhance this process, no matter how large a dose you take or how long it is sustained.

Ivo said:
At base, there is nothing to be enhanced, produced or eliminated. I am not talking about any such kind of process. Going into Dorje Drollo destruction mode will not help in this case

Malcolm wrote:
If someone wishes liberation and omniscience, that is the only process that there is. There is no secret teaching by which one can bypass these two things, not even Dzogchen.  If you are a sentient being, you have two obscurations; if you are buddha, you do not. We can discuss all kinds of things, differences between this path and that path, this method and that method, and so on, but they will never transcend the need to deal with these two factors. All 6.4 million ślokas of the Great Perfection, the inner tantras, outer tantras, the tripitika and so on all bear on these two points.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Ivo said:
I watched the Reggie Ray video. What a nice person! However I do not agree with what he is saying, and for different reasons than Malcolm. For ordinary people with no meditation background and using recreational doses it may be true to an extent. However for a meditator this doesn't seem true. Also, to say that all psychedelic use never creates a bridge from the ordinary to the altered state is simply completely false.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a drug that can produce a supramundane mind, free of obscurations. You can alter an afflicted mind as much a you want, and it will still be an afflicted mind. There is no drug that can produce the path of accumulation or application, much less the path of seeing.

Ivo said:
Drugs like DMT do not produce anything on their own. They can remove constraints and depending on the merit, capacity and degree of development of the individual they can make it easier or more difficult to recognize the natural state. They can also make it easier to apply the methods of the path of transformation for someone who has this inclination and capacity. For someone tho is still perceiving phenomena as external in a stable way they can strengthen this division too. In my personal view these substances only remove a certain matrix of pathways which are connected to the physical body and usually channel the mind in a particular way. They do not remove karmic imprints, they just allow the experience of a bardo-like state with more possibilities. Apart from that, very high doses of DMT and LSD certainly lead to total ego dissolution and rikpa glimpses. To what extent things stabilize again is completely individual and there seems to be a lot of degrees. But very few people actually take such high dosages. This is all what I have discovered myself and what I have been able to corroborate with some of my teachers so far.

Malcolm wrote:
At base, friend, liberation is the result of eliminating the afflictive obscuration, and omniscience is a result of eliminating the knowledge obscuration. There simply does not exist any drug which can enhance this process, no matter how large a dose you take nor how long it is sustained.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: Entheogens and Bon
Content:
DGA said:
Back in the ill-starred LSD thread, I posed this question.  It seems better to post it here, since it's Bon specific.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=21412&start=200#p326690

If the Indian Buddhists knew little of entheogens beyond datura, what about the Bonpos?

Malcolm wrote:
Even less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Ivo said:
I watched the Reggie Ray video. What a nice person! However I do not agree with what he is saying, and for different reasons than Malcolm. For ordinary people with no meditation background and using recreational doses it may be true to an extent. However for a meditator this doesn't seem true. Also, to say that all psychedelic use never creates a bridge from the ordinary to the altered state is simply completely false.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a drug that can produce a supramundane mind, free of obscurations. You can alter an afflicted mind as much a you want, and it will still be an afflicted mind. There is no drug that can produce the path of accumulation or application, much less the path of seeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Critical Mass - The Hundredth Monkey
Content:


Queequeg said:
More seriously - can you elaborate on that?

Malcolm wrote:
The idea being that the deeper we move into the Kali Yuga, the more necessary the most essential teaching will be for sentient beings. During the Golden age, when food literally drops off of trees into our mouths, there is not much need for essential teachings since in general, everyone is pretty happy and content.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Critical Mass - The Hundredth Monkey
Content:
Queequeg said:
Is there anything in Dzogchen teachings (or related teachings) suggesting there is a critical mass point where the primordial state would become normalized throughout a community?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen teachings predict that it is the last teaching to spread widely among humans prior to the age of weapons, famines and epidemics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
That does not make sense, because for a monk or nun there is no "proper orifice". The distinction was not made for monastics but for lay practitioners, no play on words intended.

Sherab Dorje said:
No, it doesn't make any sense, but the Vinaya is undeniably the monastic code.  Maybe the original rule defined a specific orifice and had to be elucidated upon because monastics were taking advantage of it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is defined as the penetration of one's member in any part of a body་— vagina, mouth, ass, ears, nose, etc་— for the purpose of sexual gratification by more than one inch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Really?  Where?  In all the traditions of the Vinaya?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Sherab Dorje said:
Really I thought it was a Tibetan cultural accretion.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Please consult Abhidharmakośabhaṣyam, chapter four, etc.

You will not find any detailed discussion of this issue in suttas, though you will find discussion of this Mahāyāna sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 4th, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Reggie Ray was recently asked about psychedelics in one of his webcasts:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]



The video should begin at the right point if you click the play button above, but if not the relevant portion begins around 1:06:00.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, Reggie, there is no transcendence through LSD, Ayahuasca or any thing else; and one thing they certainly do not do is propel you, even momentarily, beyond your traces/habitual tendencies. But they sure are good for dismantling pianos.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Ayu said:
(...)
"They where going wild completely", a spokesman of the hospital explained.
Imagine: Homeopaths and aroma therapists dismantling a waiting room.


Malcolm wrote:
Sounds fun. Some friends and I dismanteled a derelict piano under influence of Peyote once. We should have recorded it...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
skittles said:
I don't see why anyone would think Buddhists would have a particularly valid opinion about LSD.

It's a chemical that Buddhists historically don't have any experience in using or evaluating.

Malcolm wrote:
Speak for yourself, kiddo. Evaluated it, moved along.

Better things to with my time now, like argue with someone who has wrong on the internet...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 3rd, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


Ivo said:
It is obvious that there was very little knowledge about entheogens during the early period of Buddhism in India...

Malcolm wrote:
I would go with this. Why? There is not virtually no mention of them in Ayurvedic Herbals as well, apart from datura.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 4:45 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Simon E. said:
Gulp...from this side of the Atlantic, President Trump looks likely...Any reassurances you chaps?

Malcolm wrote:
If so, we will be invading England next.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarian personality
Content:
maybay said:
And what if they hear the teachings and they aren't freed. Then what?

Malcolm wrote:
Then you keep supporting them until they are, and that, my friend, is the role of a real teacher. The rest is all bullshit.

maybay said:
What do you mean by support?

Malcolm wrote:
Continuing to try, with many methods, to introduce the student to their own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I don't know, but she is definitely a http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/A-Hindu-wedding-for-a-US-lawmaker/articleshow/46884373.cms.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. We live in a border land, so what to expect, though she represents more buddhists than anyone else.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, maybe she can be an honorary Bernisattva.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, maybe a worldly emanation of the Berniekāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
I've been impressed with Tulsi Gabbard for a while now... This makes me like her even more.

There goes her prime time slot at the Convention.

Anyone know if she's named after Tulsi Das?

dzogchungpa said:
I don't know, but she is definitely a http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/A-Hindu-wedding-for-a-US-lawmaker/articleshow/46884373.cms.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. We live in a border land, so what to expect, though she represents more buddhists than anyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarian personality
Content:
maybay said:
And what if they hear the teachings and they aren't freed. Then what?

Malcolm wrote:
Then you keep supporting them until they are, and that, my friend, is the role of a real teacher. The rest is all bullshit.

Taco_Rice said:
This seems like an interesting tangent to pursue briefly, and it potentially relates somewhat to the subjects of both authoritarian personalities and Dharma in a general sense. Please expound, if you would good sir, on the authority of the teacher in your tradition, or even Buddhism in general, for our edification.


Malcolm wrote:
A teacher in my tradition is authoritative only in relation to their experience in the teachings. Of course, this can be difficult to negotiate, since anyone can say anything about their experience. But fundamentally, a teachers sole authority, in my tradition, is to assist their students' liberation. Beyond that, they have no authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarian personality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If someone hears the teachings and is thereby freed, that is sufficient.

maybay said:
And what if they hear the teachings and they aren't freed. Then what?

Malcolm wrote:
Then you keep supporting them until they are, and that, my friend, is the role of a real teacher. The rest is all bullshit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, they are dharmas, the four unconditioned dharmas.

Astus said:
There are other nominal dharmas as well, like speed (java), number (samkhya), and syllables (vyanjanakaya).

Malcolm wrote:
That is entirely besides the point. These three are included in the dharmāyatana, along with the mental factors because they are solely objects of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So space, emptiness and the two cessations are not dharmas? Really?

Astus said:
As http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=326065#p326065: "All four denominate types of absences, and as such they are not different from common concepts like the blankness of a screen."

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, they are dharmas, the four unconditioned dharmas.

I really question whether you actually understand these basic terms at all when you spout nonsense like dharmakāya = dependent origination. The more we converse about this issue, the more confused you seem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Virgo said:
Whether you see them or not, those physical phenomena are still there.

Astus said:
If it is not experienced, it is not a phenomenon, as it does not occur to us.

Malcolm wrote:
So space, emptiness and the two cessations are not dharmas? Really?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
How do you account for nonconceptual perception in your scheme? You can't. Since you can't, you are, prima facie, denying there is such as thing as a direct perception. Direct perceptions, for example, the direct perception of a blue vase, are nonconceptual by definition.[/quote

All experiences of the five physical categories are nonconceptual, as you say, as thoughts are attributed to them subsequently. The difference is that by direct perception you seem to mean an interaction between subject and object, while I say that it is an appearance. However, even in the 18 elements scheme the perception happens only once contact is made and a sensory consciousness occurred, that is, an experience. So in the end there is no difference between the two.

Astus said:
Astus, now you are contradicting yourself:
...a form exists either as a concept produced by the bifurcation of experience to subject and object, or as a subsequent concept about the object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A thing must be visible, a priori, in order to be seen.

Astus said:
Visibility is a quality attributed after it is seen to the concept of the object. That is, a form exists either as a concept produced by the bifurcation of experience to subject and object, or as a subsequent concept about the object.

Malcolm wrote:
How do you account for nonconceptual perception in your scheme? You can't. Since you can't, you are, prima facie, denying there is such as thing as a direct perception. Direct perceptions, for example, the direct perception of a blue vase, are nonconceptual by definition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus said:
A bodhisattva should not have the concept of sentient beings anyway.

Sherab Dorje said:
This statement is figurative, not literal.

Malcolm wrote:
And it applies only to equipoise, not post-equipoise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
The email scandal is probably worse than Clinton will admit. Less significant than the avowed critics will admit.

It probably is a crime, but more than having legal significance, it gives us a view of the Clinton camp's internal thinking.

Manjushri Fan said:
I agree with you on this, the email scandal needs sorted before the elections and the final nominations
No offense, but if your not American or immersed in our political news, you really have no chance of understanding what's happening here now. This election is a radical departure from anything before. There is a revolution afoot.
I wouldn't take offense at this, I have tried to understand them but it's such a different culture I think I'm going to stop bothering


Malcolm wrote:
What you are observing is the meltdown of the 2 party system in the US. This is a good thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But no, this is not the case, the five sense objects exist independently of the body as objects for the five senses, conventionally speaking.

Astus said:
There is no disagreement on the conventional concept of independent external objects.
But the form is not something that only exists when it is seen.
What makes a form form? That it is seen. What is it when not seen?

"What is the characteristic of the form element? The form element is that which becomes visible when it is seen by the eye, and over which is exercised the supremacy of the eye element. The characteristics of the elements of sound, odor, taste, tangibility and the mental object are like that of the form element."
(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p 4)

Let's take an apple as an example. We can agree that conventionally an apple does not come from any of the faculties, but it's grown on a tree whence it reaches our kitchen table in a complicated way, and during that time there is the apple travelling from there to here. Once we have that apple, it can be sensed by all five physical faculties. When we look at it, we see the form of the apple. Is that form what's come from the orchard to the kitchen? Is that form even the apple? The answer to both are now, because even by abhidharma terms the apple is conventional, and dharmas, like form, are momentary. So, it seems to me that form is only what and when it is seen.

Malcolm wrote:
What a strange interpretation you have. All the Samuccaya is saying is that a form becomes visible to oneself when it is seen by the eye. What is a form? Visible matter, i.e., form is color and shape, and also there are 20 secondary forms. Seeing something does not grant it visibility, as you suggest. Things are visible (or not) to our eyes due to the condition of light, dark, obstruction and so on. A thing must be visible, a priori, in order to be seen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point, Matt, is that Astus, in attempting to defend his thesis dharmakāya = dependent origination, has concocted a theory of perception which is incoherent.

BTW,  Candrakīrti affirms that there cannot be sight in absence of a form, an eye and an eye consciousness. This does not mean he takes them to be real.

M


Matt J said:
This sounds like naive realism, which has largely been debunked. What is a sound, conventionally? The vibration of particles in a medium, most commonly, air particles. So what is present is the vibration, not the sound. The sound is created once the vibration interacts with a specific organ --- such as the ear drum. The ear drum vibrates, sending electrical signals to the brain, which then creates a sound. If there are no ear drums, the being won't hear a sound. If they have a sensitive body, they may feel the vibration. Not only that, but sound waves are one of a nearly infinite variety of waves and radiation, much of which is not picked up by our five senses.

From a Buddhist POV, Mipham argues that the appearance is a result, in large part, of the karmic traces and obscurations of the being perceiving them. In the Beacon of Certainty, Mipham points out

On the basis of outer and inner conditions,
One does not see the thing itself as it is,
But in the manner of seeing horses and cattle
In the place of wood blessed by illusion mantras.
(trans. John Petit)



Malcolm wrote:
But no, this is not the case, the five sense objects exist independently of the body as objects for the five senses, conventionally speaking.

There can be no sight unless there is an eye, an eye consciousness, and an object of the eye (form) that come together. But the form is not something that only exists when it is seen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Authoritarian personality
Content:
maybay said:
Of course you do...

Malcolm wrote:
Are you saying that I want our disciples to be "unswervingly devoted."?

If so, you are mistaken.

maybay said:
When some people hear of devotion all they can think of is obedience. Its quite tragic.

Malcolm wrote:
Your mileage may very, but my guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, insists that the purpose of a guru is to free their students. If someone hears the teachings and is thereby freed, that is sufficient. If there is anyone who should be devoted, it is the teacher to the student, rather than the other way around.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The five sense objects, one half of the material aggregate.

Astus said:
And those objects exist when they are sensed, that is, they exist in the continuum of experiences. So, while nominally they are external, it does not mean they are somewhere out there.

Malcolm wrote:
So before they are sensed, they do not exist? So in effect you are arguing that sensation produces the objects of the senses while they are being sensed.

For you, the scent of the incense does not exist until it is smelled.

But no, this is not the case, the five sense objects exist independently of the body as objects for the five senses, conventionally speaking.

There can be no sight unless there is an eye, an eye consciousness, and an object of the eye (form) that come together. But the form is not something that only exists when it is seen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarian personality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nope. We want out chela to be completely free and awake.

maybay said:
Of course you do...

Malcolm wrote:
Are you saying that I want our disciples to be "unswervingly devoted."?

If so, you are mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


Astus said:
What is external in the five aggregates?

Malcolm wrote:
The five sense objects, one half of the material aggregate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
eminent domain

Queequeg said:
Trump has no problem with eminent domain... something I suspect a lot of his supporters might have a problem with... but Trump can just pivot and start with, "We're going to start winning again. We're going to win so yuuuuge. So yuge. You won't even believe it. Believe me." [Crowd drowns out the rest with "U.S.A.!" chant.]

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know Trump has no problem with this. His followers are really crazy, though.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So there is no sound which is not an experience? And what is thinking about that sound? Then "we have ideas?" etc.

Astus said:
Have you encountered any sound that you have not heard? I haven't. Thinking of a sound is another matter, and one can mentally listen to whole symphonies, but that's a function of imagination (can't think of a better word now).

Malcolm wrote:
So unless you hear it, a sound is not a sound? Unless you see it, a tree is not there?



Astus said:
As far as I can tell, I was simply giving a description of a kind of epistemological phenomenology, i.e. appearances as experience, in line with the teaching that the scope of Buddhism is within the boundaries of the five aggregates and six sensory areas.

Malcolm wrote:
The five aggregates, 12 sense gates and 18 elements all include external and internal phenomena.

Astus said:
But either I'm doing a really bad job at expressing myself

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.



Astus said:
That chain of conditioned appearances is conventional, and depends on conventional dualities to function. To bring it back around — dharmakāya is unconditioned, and so it can never be a conditioned chain of appearances.
If you set up that separation, as unconditioned it does not have any function nor any relation, and that makes it as inert as space.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakāya can never be a conditioned chain of appearances. But I suggest you go and review the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra and the dialogue where it is explained how dharmin and dharmatā are neither the same nor different. You assertion that dharmakāya = dependent origination is not only wrong, but it also violates this principle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus said:
I see, so for you one mind appears to another mind, unrelated?
An experience is already what is later conceptually separated to subject and object, viewer and viewed, but there is actually no need to establish various minds or even one mind. For example, there is a sound, that's an experience, an appearance. The sound is then followed by thoughts identifying the sound. Again, thoughts are experiences, caused by the sound. Then we have an idea of what kind of sound we heard, and further thoughts (feelings, intentions, etc.) come based on that idea. Like when the sound is identified as the doorbell and then we are happy because somebody we were expecting has arrived. That is a chain of conditioned appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
So there is no sound which is not an experience? And what is thinking about that sound? Then "we have ideas?" etc. Seriously? Are you drunk?

Astus said:
That is a chain of conditioned appearances

Malcolm wrote:
That chain of conditioned appearances is conventional, and depends on conventional dualities to function. To bring it back around — dharmakāya is unconditioned, and so it can never be a conditioned chain of appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 1st, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Queequeg said:
Trump gets a pass because he is the only one directly addressing the issue with the kind of simplistic solution that naively makes the most sense. (I don't think the reality of this policy has been thought through by Trump's supporters - the expense of building a wall,

Malcolm wrote:
The wall thing is really hilarious. Its been law (to build one) since 2006. But can't be built in the Rio Grand Flood plain, vast stretches of Arizona make it impossible, not to mention the acreage that US Gvt. is tide up in court, trying to seize eminent domain of.

Queequeg said:
Meet and Greets with foreign dignitaries. Appoints judges and bureaucrats. Make policy speeches. Has some military power, but can only go so far without congress's support (which makes Hilary's support for the Iraq War a serious question about her judgment) Maybe the most important thing is to propose a budget that embodies the policies in the speeches.

Malcolm wrote:
If you have been watching Bernie, you know that this is not how he will run his presidency.



Queequeg said:
Bernie is the only real alternative to the showman - he speaks and acts from conviction... the only question is then, does he have enough people who share his vision and are not too cynical to throw their vote to Hilary simply because they can't be sure that he has a chance in a general election.

Malcolm wrote:
After today's, "We came, we saw, he died," I hope people will have the decency not to vote for Clinton.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is the "whatever" that is under scrutiny here. You claim experiences are the mind, and at the same time, deny they are the mind.

Astus said:
It all depends on what you mean by mind. Here I used it simply as another term for experiences in general.

Malcolm wrote:
But according to you, there is nothing experiencing experiences. In this case then, experiences are impossible.


Astus said:
In order for there to be dependently originated appearances, there must be conditions.
Conditions are between appearances, i.e. appearances are conditioned by appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
So, there can't be any invisible conditions?


Astus said:
actually what you have said is that appearances are the experiences themselves. This can only be the case if the mind is its own appearances, appearing to itself, independently of any other cause or condition.
Again, what do you call mind? You seem to use it as if it were a single entity ("appearing to itself"), and that I do not do.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

I see, so for you one mind appears to another mind, unrelated?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So there are phenomena existing outside of mind that are apprehended via the sense organs (given the existence of certain conditions like light, space, etc...) and then defined by the mind(s).  It's the classic abhidharma/abhidhamma approach.

Astus said:
Appearances are what is experienced. While we may assume external phenomena, it does not change that all we have are perceptions, but it splits (categorises) the experiences to internal (subjective) and external (objective).

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually what you have said is that appearances are the experiences themselves. This can only be the case if the mind is its own appearances, appearing to itself, independently of any other cause or condition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And we set them up from what cause? How does this setting up even happen? How can there be relations if there are no entities apart from the mind?

Astus said:
Whatever we perceive are what we experience. To imagine something behind/beyond what is experienced is only conjecture and irrelevant. At the same time, attributing independence to perceptions, separate existence from experience, is how substantiality is established and suffering ensues.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the "whatever" that is under scrutiny here. You claim experiences are the mind, and at the same time, deny they are the mind.

In absence of external objets, at least Yogacara posits the that appearances of subject and object arise from activated traces (vasana). You however fail to even give that much of an account. You cannot even explain the dependent origination of appearances, much less how it is that dependent origination = dharmakāya. In order for there to be dependently originated appearances, there must be conditions. But your experiences/mind just does not account for conditions at all. Your theory is incoherent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 6:05 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
muni said:
Freedom from I and its' biased perception = no form, no feeling, no perception, no impulses... Then no eyes, no nose, no ears, no body, no tongue, no mind...no object of mind = no grasping-no clinging. Not conditioned.

Then seeing, hearing, smelling..............I-less no clinging.

Suffer and harm due to the sense or apprehended belief in "I -thought" = sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Bases on this plant clearly qualify, since they defend themselves...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trees exhibit both discrimination and knowledge hence, they have minds, as do other plants.

undefineable said:
To show this, the patterns of electrical signals in trees would have to bear some relation to the pattern of electrical signals in human brains while those humans are engaged in tasks involved in disrimination and knowledge.

Until [or unless this is!] that time, who knows?

Malcolm wrote:
That Rubicon has already been crossed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
One problem with sentient beings perhaps (at least the human kind) is that they are so sentient that they spend their days and days arguing about what is a "sentient being" ...

On the other hand, plants (whether sentient or not) do not spend their time arguing about what are "plants." Perhaps because they know just who they are, or are just what they are. They simply grow toward the sun in Spring.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, Jundo, thats all they do?

jundo cohen said:
Even if that is "all they do", that is certainly enough. Growing, flowering, returning to the earth, then to repeat in the Spring. Perhaps all that is more productive than such a discussion!

If you want to know if they ponder doing any more, you had better ask the plants.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, Jundo, such a reductionist view...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


seeker242 said:
Kinda like if you don't want to acknowledge equivocation taking place, just deny it!

Malcolm wrote:
When it concerns plant intelligence, there are just whole areas that you refuse to accept just because it does not correspond with your preconceptions.

seeker242 said:
Agreed! I refuse to accept it's possible to say a tree has a mind, without first redefining what the word "mind" means.

Malcolm wrote:
Mind mean mind, there is no reason to redefine it. Minds are discriminating and knowing. Trees exhibit both discrimination and knowledge hence, they have minds, as do other plants.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
One problem with sentient beings perhaps (at least the human kind) is that they are so sentient that they spend their days and days arguing about what is a "sentient being" ...

On the other hand, plants (whether sentient or not) do not spend their time arguing about what are "plants." Perhaps because they know just who they are, or are just what they are. They simply grow toward the sun in Spring.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, Jundo, thats all they do?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Right, you and the climate change denial people. If you dont like the science, just deny it.

seeker242 said:
Kinda like if you don't want to acknowledge equivocation taking place, just deny it!

Malcolm wrote:
When it concerns plant intelligence, there are just whole areas that you refuse to accept just because it does not correspond with your preconceptions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: Hello, bright people
Content:
Donatas said:
Hello everyone. My name is Donatas and I am really new in Buddhism. First thing that grabbed my attention to it really hard was "The Tibetan Book of the Dead". Since then I'm studying that book as much as I can and together with that I try to learn about Buddhism as much as possible. Hopefully this forum will boost the speed of learning!

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to understand this book you need the empowerment, instructions and so on, more importantly, a qualified guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


daelm said:
Fella, those have been the definitions of the English words for centuries. What the Sanskrit has been applied to or not applied to is irrelevant to the research community under discussion. Take that up with (a) the people who translated into the English terms, and the (b) the community if use who applied the Sanskrit to whatever is has been applied to.

The facts are fairly straight forward. They're not dependent on whether you like them. The research into plant sentience indicates plant sentience. There is evidence for further research. And there are questions about what kind of evidence would be conclusive. Thats the state of things.

If you were the person in the parent thread bitching that plant sentience had no science our reason behind, you should now be thoroughly aware that it does, and what that is. Next time just say "oh, I never knew that."

The fact that this places you on conflict with your preferred beliefs is not the research community's problem. It's yours. They're are many ways you can try deal with it, but the weakest and shabbiest is to refuse to acknowledge their work and cast aspersions on definitions that make you uncomfortable. If you don't want to engage with the actual material and the debate, that's great. You are not required to. Many people bow out. No issue with that.

d

seeker242 said:
I'm sorry, I do not consider the redefining of terms to be reasonable, not in the slightest. It's not reasonable to redefine terms in order to fit the research goals. That's just poor science. I'm quite aware that there is "science" behind it. I don't not agree that it's reasonable science...not in the slightest.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, you and the climate change denial people. If you dont like the science, just deny it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In general, you have asserted that all objects are merely projections of the mind itself.

Astus said:
In the sense that it is through categorisation that we set up things and relations between them.

Malcolm wrote:
And we set them up from what cause? How does this setting up even happen? How can there be relations if there are no entities apart from the mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This does not solve anything, since you have effectively ruled out all causation for the mind, you are effectively left with an inherent causeless mind, which is also insentient since there is no objects which it can cognize.

Astus said:
I don't see how, unless you mean a cause for the mind-stream that is something else than mind.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, you have asserted that all objects are merely projections of the mind itself. But there is no way these projections of the mind can be projected, there is also no basis for their impression. Since you have rejected subject and object even conventionally, you cannot account for cognition at all, and so therefore, your emptiness/mind is just a blank absence with no awareness at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
experiences supported on what? Are those experiences the same as or different than the subject experiencing them?

Astus said:
Experiences are streams of phenomena on what we project subject and object. It is like paratantra of the three svabhavas.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not solve anything, since you have effectively ruled out all causation for the mind, you are effectively left with an inherent causeless mind, which is also insentient since there is no objects which it can cognize.

At best, you have wound up with the passive purusha of Saṃkhya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Doesn't make them not Buddhist, just means they are ignorant in this instance, hopefully not willfully ignorant, but sometimes I wonder.

Malcolm wrote:
It makes them someone who associates with evil friends, which destroys their refuge. Hence, they can no longer be considered followers of the Buddha's Dharma until they see the faults in the object with whom they are associating, and regret their association utterly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you are proposing a nondependent consciousness then, since experiences are just mind, are indivisible from the mind, and are therefore, caused by the mind itself, without reference to any other cause or condition. You just argued yourself into the Vedanta corner.
Not even yogacara abandons external objects conventionally.

Astus said:
That would apply if I talked of a single mind. What I said, however, is that dependent appearances - all dharmas - occur as experiences.

Malcolm wrote:
experiences supported on what? Are those experiences the same as or different than the subject experiencing them?

And what the three dharma that be construed of as experiences, or even as appearances, at all?, space and the two cessations; four if you add emptiness to the those three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Is it possible to be a practitioner of the buddhadharma while at the same time supporting Trump?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Authoritarian personality
Content:
maybay said:
Interested or cynical? It makes perfect sense to me why people would want this. Isn't it what we want in a guru-chela relationship? Total unswerving devotion.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. We want out chela to be completely free and awake. Not unswervingly devoted. Chelas are not dogs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So appearances are outside the mind?

Astus said:
No. There is just mind/experiences. From what did you conclude that?

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you are proposing a nondependent consciousness then, since experiences are just mind, are indivisible from the mind, and are therefore, caused by the mind itself, without reference to any other cause or condition. You just argued yourself into the Vedanta corner.

Not even yogacara abandons external objects conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how-close-was-donald-trump-to-the-mob/
Being a loudmouth bigot, the Archie Bunker of 2016 who says what people are too afraid to say, is working well for Donald Trump. But it’s time to hold his feet to the fire. This is a man who did a significant amount of business with mass murderers whose plunder of public and private funds added up to billions. What did he know about them? Maybe more importantly, what do they know about him?

We need to welcome Donald Trump to his new place in serious national politics with a cold, hard look at the crooks, conspirators, and criminals who peopled his early career. Either the Donald will attempt to weather such scrutiny, or he will disappear from the race under it. Either way, that scrutiny needs to start now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump uses illegal laborers:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/27/nyregion/judge-says-trump-tower-builders-cheated-union-on-pension-funds.html
They were Polish immigrants who suffered low wages and long hours, lived on junk food and sometimes slept at the work site -- all in the interest of meeting the deadline to build Trump Tower, the gilded centerpiece of Donald Trump's real-estate empire, which has all but disintegrated in recent months.

But now, after years of legal wrangling, the empire must pay.

In a ruling released on Thursday, a Federal judge found that Mr. Trump, a group of his associates and a union official conspired to avoid paying pension and welfare-fund contributions by hiring the immigrants to demolish the old Bonwit Teller building on East 57th Street at Fifth Avenue to make way for Trump Tower.

The ruling, by Judge Charles E. Stewart Jr. of the Southern District, found, in the behavior of the various defendants, "a conspiracy to deprive the funds of their rightful contribution."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What is the difference between space and mind?
You are missing this point.

Astus said:
There is no space outside the mind, so I do not propose some inanimate thing. Appearances are experiences - i.e. the five aggregates (PP8000 12.2), the six sensory areas (SN 35.23). In other words, the emptiness-awareness of the mind is emptiness-interdependence, where awareness is consciousness of appearances (not an independent awareness without phenomena). Using basic terminology, no-self is that there is no self in the aggregates, it is a description of the aggregates, and not an entity called no-self.

Malcolm wrote:
So appearances are outside the mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 29th, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakāya is a result of seeing the nature [dharmatā] of those things, it is the subject.

Astus said:
True, it is a term used for the nature of buddhas. Still, their nature is not different from the nature of appearances. How could they be separated, since beings themselves are appearances?

Malcolm wrote:
What is the difference between space and mind?

You are missing this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump on KKK:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/28/cnns-jake-tapper-presses-donald-trump-to-condem/208862

JAKE TAPPER (HOST): I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be treason to your heritage. Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?

DONALD TRUMP: Well just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know, did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.

TAPPER: But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is even if you don't know about their endorsement there are these groups and individuals endorsing you, would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don't want their support?

TRUMP: Well I have to look at the group. I don't know what group you are talking about, you wouldn't want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about; I'd have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong, but --

TAPPER: The Ku Klux Klan?

TRUMP: -- you may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups, and I'll let you know.

TAPPER: OK, I mean I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but --

TRUMP: I don't know any -- honestly I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him, and I just don't know anything about him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Mother's Lap"It's a designation for the realisation of an enlightened being, which cannot be pointed at as a 'thing', correct? If the realisation could be pointed to as a 'thing' or object, it would lead to the fault of taking the dharmakaya as something 'out there' as you pointed out above.[/quote]

Well, it can be considered a dharma, but not a thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
The dharmakaya emanates the rupakayas in order to operate within the conditioned, but how does the unconditioned fundamentally manifest/interact/operate with the conditioned, i.e. jump the un/conditioned barrier?

Malcolm wrote:
The rūpakaȳas are emanated as a result of realizing dharmatā; the dharmakāya is just the the total realization of the unfabricated nature of the mind — it is not like there is some dharmakāya out there, issuing forth avatars like Vishnu.

Mother's Lap said:
Right, so the appellation of 'unconditioned' is little more than prapranca (as the Madhyamakalamkara demonstrates the three unconditioned dharmas to be)?

And to bring it back around, do Nyingmapas and Sakyapas believe that enlightened beings can emanate unenlightened beings?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not merely prapañca, it is a conventionally important distinction. Confuse conditioned and unconditioned and you confuse basis, path and result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If Trump by some insane karma gets the Presidency, we can expect to see much more of this:

Muslim-American men shot dead in Indiana

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/muslim-american-men-murders-barely-ripple-160228003914813.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


seeker242 said:
Yes, this is why they are redefining the term sentience as well. The "definitional heavy lifting" as you call it, is what I would call "equivocation".
Definition of cognition in English:
noun
[mass noun]
1The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cognition
Cognition has always been considered a mental action. And of course, a mental action, by definition, requires a mind. Therefore, cognition requires a mind. Since trees do not have a mind cognition for a tree is impossible. Unless of course you were to redefine what a mind is. But if you do that, that's just more equivocation. If one says cognition does not require a mind, then you are changing it from "a mental action" to something else. AKA a redefining of the terms.
simon's point, above, makes this evident.
The point above only appears to make this evident by leaving out important information. Which is the fact that the sanskrit Saṃjñā has never been traditionally attributed to life forms in Kingdom Plantae.

Malcolm wrote:
If, as you do, argue, from first the dogmatic first principle that trees do not have minds (which is simply a bald assertion), then of course they will not have cognitions.

What is presently being contested the the idea that trees and plants in general do not have minds. When we speak of plant intelligence, we do not mean something without a mind, like AI.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
The dharmakaya emanates the rupakayas in order to operate within the conditioned, but how does the unconditioned fundamentally manifest/interact/operate with the conditioned, i.e. jump the un/conditioned barrier?

Malcolm wrote:
The rūpakaȳas are emanated as a result of realizing dharmatā; the dharmakāya is just the the total realization of the unfabricated nature of the mind — it is not like there is some dharmakāya out there, issuing forth avatars like Vishnu.



Veering a little off topic here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
dmr82 said:
Trump has already won. It's obvious. He knows it and it's dawning upon most of you by now. He's just going through the motions for show.

The thing is most of the haters are people locked up in their mental prisons and suffering from comfortable inertia who are absolutely shocked at the display of power they are witnessing. Here is someone standing before the whole world and fearlessly speaks his heart. It makes you realize maybe you've been wasting your life in distraction and entertainments when you could have been accomplishing things both in your spiritual practice and in the quality of your life. You can't accept this so your regret turns to full hate which you project onto Trump who is simply tired of seeing America being ripped off and being lead by incompetent quasi wannabe leaders. For the rest of us and the majority of America we welcome Trump as the new leader in a world of fake political correctness and special interest.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't hate Trump, I just recognize him for what he is, a racist, elitist demagogue, just one more one percentor trying to screw the American people.

The Republicans are already preparing to broker the Republican convention.

As far as rip offs go, Trump has ripped off the American people for billions already in (4) failed businesses and is being sued for fraud over Trump University by the AG of New York.

I know you have a resistance to facts, dmr82, but I will feel a bit sad for you when this is all over.

And there is no majority in America for Trump. At best he pulls down 35 percent of the Republican vote, mostly uneducated White male, and Romney showed in the last election, White votes do not win the Presidency any more.

If Trump does manage to be elected by some insane twist of fate, this country will be fracked, it may never recover intact.

#FeeltheBern


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You defined dharmakaya as dependent origination. This is a clear error.

Astus said:
Why is that? Is there perhaps an emptiness outside of appearances? Or is it some inherent knowing maybe that makes it independent? Please elaborate.

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent origination does not exist apart from things, with things there is no dependent origination.

Dharmakāya is a result of seeing the nature [dharmatā] of those things, it is the subject. As the Buddha said:
The buddhas see dharmatā, 
the guides are dharmakāya;
the latter cannot be known without 
without knowing dharmatā.
Further, the dharmakāya is defined as unconditioned, as the Vimalakīrti Sūtra states:
The kāya of the tathagata is unconditioned.
Now, on the other hand, dependent origination is clearly defined as conditioned, as the Ārya-karuṇāpuṇḍarīka-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra
All phenomena that are called "dependently originated" are understood to be seen as conditioned.
Thus, if you call dependent origination "dharmakāya," you are making a fundamental error in judgement which leads to dharmakāya being impermanent, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
dmr82 said:
The people who love America love Trump. Those who hate America are the ones accusing Trump of being this or that as they can't disprove anything he says because its the truth plain and simple.


Malcolm wrote:
Every word out of Trump's mouth is either a huge exaggeration or an outright lie. He places very little value on the truth. He is a spectacle to be sure, but a spectacle that only fools can admire. He is the very epitome of the !%, who are a plague on this earth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: Vain enough to give, not generous enough to receive
Content:
maybay said:
Question is, why do we wait until we're dead to be generous?

Malcolm wrote:
Taxes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 3:08 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
mirrormind said:
In which text(s) does Garab Dorje talk about hallucinogens as a method for the stubborn? Are any specific substances mentioned?

Malcolm wrote:
The commentary to the Single Son Of All the Buddhas Tantra inthe Vima Nyinthig. Datura. It is used for invoking mundane visions to show that our mundane vision and our mundane mind are plastic, not rigid. People who have never tripped often have a subtle clinging to their minds as being immutable, which is hard to overcome merely through standard forms of practice. That said, no one should construe from this that I am insisting that people run right out and find acid or shrooms. Also, improperly used, ayahuasca can cause provocation problems, very serious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 10:44 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump definitely has the Fascist vote, whether he wants it or not:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-jean-marie-le-pen-endorsement-219896

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/david-duke-donald-trump-immigration/

Fascists know their own...

And the idea that Trump is a bodhisattva emanation is pure delusion...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is merely one, and very incomplete definition. And here, it clearly refers to realization of the nature of things, not to the things themselves.

Astus said:
Please clarify what problem you see there.

Malcolm wrote:
You defined dharmakaya as dependent origination. This is a clear error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus said:
Dharmakaya is interdependence itself.

Sherab Dorje said:
In which case it cannot be dependently arising since (according to Nagarjuna) something cannot arise from itself as a cause.

Astus said:
Change does not come from change, it is merely a concept. Dharmakaya is the nature of buddhas, dharmadhatu is the nature of everything, and both are emptiness, and emptiness is dependent origination.

Based on statements made in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html we read this in the Shalistamba Sutra (tr N. Ross Reat, p 32):

"How, then, does one see conditioned arising? In this connection, it is said by the Lord: 'Whoever sees-this conditioned arising (which is), always and ever devoid of soul, truly undistorted, without soul, unborn, not become, not made, not compounded, unobstructed, inconceivable, glorious, fearless, ungraspable, inexhaustible and by nature never stilled, (he sees Dharma). And whoever sees Dharma (which is) also always and ever devoid of soul... and by nature never stilled, he sees the unsurpassable Dharma-body, the Buddha, by exertion based on right knowledge in clear understanding of the noble Dharma.''"

Thus we see that it goes back to the earliest texts. May also check "Pratityasamutpada and Dharmadhatu in Early Mahayana Buddhism" in https://books.google.hu/books?id=9a7qBgAAQBAJ, p 11-28. And there is also some East Asian teachings, in particular those of the Huayan school, where they discuss the dharmadhatu as total interdependence being the ultimate reality. As Sung-bae Park sums up: "In the final analysis, the patriarchal faith which affirms that "I am Buddha" is the realization of the dharmadhatu of dependent origination." (Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment, p 26)


Malcolm wrote:
This is merely one, and very incomplete definition. And here, it clearly refers to realization of the nature of things, not to the things themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I will simply restate what I have stated before, in terms of Dharma practice, hallucinogens have only one purpose, and that is for people who stubbornly cling to the idea that their minds are fixed substances, hallucinogens will undermine their stubborn clinging to this idea, that's it.

They hmay have other uses, but none Dharmic.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess that settles it then.


BTW, I noticed this new book in a bookstore last night:
https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Knowledge-Psychedelics-Religious-Experiences/dp/0231174063

It looks promising.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it does, should they regard Garab Dorje as any sort of authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I will simply restate what I have stated before, in terms of Dharma practice, hallucinogens have only one purpose, and that is for people who stubbornly cling to the idea that their minds are fixed substances, hallucinogens will undermine their stubborn clinging to this idea, that's it.

They may have other uses, but none Dharmic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 28th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Jeff H said:
Interesting to see this thread pop up now.

Herbie, thanks for the tip. I downloaded the book on your recommendation and I'll check it out.

Malcolm, are you familiar with Hopkins' Final Exposition of Wisdom, and do you think I'll find that missing link of causality there? Can you be more specific about what I'm missing?

Malcolm wrote:
The back ground for discussing conditionality is found in the lengthy diecussion of the six causes and four conditions in chapter two. One must be acquainted with these ideas from abhidharma if o evreally hopes tp understand what is between critiqued by Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it would render dependent origination unconditioned, and this is rejected even Abhidharmakoshabhasyam.

Sherab Dorje said:
Do you mean it would render the Dharmakaya conditioned?  My understanding is that the Dharmakaya (Tathagatagarbha, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc...) is unconditioned.

Malcolm wrote:
It would have to be one way or the other. Anyway, Dharmakaya is the mind of all the buddhas, it is not dependet origination, it is the mind that abandons all that is to be abandoned abd obtains all at is to be obtained.

Welcome back Greg.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A racist, paranoid clown, followed by other racist, paranoid clowns.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Jeff H said:
Ok thanks, both of you. These answers give me some fodder to work with. What I hear is that both functioning things and interaction of any sort necessarily imply mutual dependence of some sort. I need to sit with that for a while.

I think I’m trying to scratch a spot I still can’t quite reach … or adequately describe to willing scratching assistants. It’s been with me since I started with Tibetan Buddhism and I think it’s something like a nagging idea that just maybe things could somehow be partially independent.

Anyway, an added bonus in this thread is hearing from you, Clive. Nice to see someone from the View On Buddhism forum here in DW!

Malcolm wrote:
most of your difficulty in understanding this point comes from not having properly understood tne theory of causes and conditions laid out in Abhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 5:32 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus said:
Dharmakaya is interdependence itself.

Sherab Dorje said:
In which case it cannot be dependently arising since (according to Nagarjuna) something cannot arise from itself as a cause.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it would render dependent origination unconditioned, and this is rejected even Abhidharmakoshabhasyam.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
DGA said:
I have a slightly different take, Malcolm.  Trump's real talent isn't business, it's acting like a businessman--performing the caricature of a tycoon according to the expectations of people who don't mix with the truly wealthy, but aspire to.  This is why he was so much more successful as a public figure than a capitalist--his books, media appearances, and especially his reality show were more lucrative for him than his often losing investments have been.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence the importance of his BRAND.

DGA said:
Running for president is now just another grift.  Politicians run for this office as a means to promote themselves as plausible media figures.  It worked for Mike Huckabee for a while, and also for Sarah Palin for a while.  It seems to be working for drowsy Ben Carson.  They're running for a seat on a cable news network, a book deal, a lecture tour--you know, easy money.  This has been a means for Trump to keep his media brand current.

Malcolm wrote:
We have the same take, my statement is merely laconic, as usual.

DGA said:
I would like to say something nice about Donald Trump now.  I am earnestly thankful to Trump for being the first Republican of any stature to call out G.W. Bush's incompetence while campaigning for public office.  All the pieties and make-believe held dear by supporters of the Bush clan decisively lost under Trump's rhetorical fist (this after Jeb Bush tried to get his brother's help in South Carolina, and said he'd do the president thing a lot like his brother did).  For putting a nail in the coffin of the Bush dynasty, Mr Trump, I give you my heartfelt thanks.  Too bad it was fourteen years late.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't count your chickens. You recall how many times Reagan ran for POTUS? Jeb Bush is young, he has at least two more POTUS campaigns in him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Queequeg said:
Bernie does something similar to Hilary. He doesn't play that threading the needle focus group messaging. He starts with principles he believes and talks directly from there. Its why he appears genuine compared to Hilary with her head nodding and pointing at strangers in the crowd. Feel bad for her that she tries so hard and falls so flat no matter what.

Malcolm wrote:
However, the obvious difference between Trump and Sanders is that Trump does not actually believe in anything. He just wants to be POTUS. Frankly, Sanders is running because he see that our country is on the brink of critical choices that will affect us for the next three generations. He actually cares, whereas Trump just does not want to to see people littering the sidewalks outside Trump Tower — it hurts his brand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 27th, 2016 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But Buddhadharma is presented as a path to a mode of perception that is inconceivable.

undefineable said:
Here, it appears to me to be being presented as a path to a mode of non-perception (i.e. neither sentience nor non-sentience) - in public. Discussions as to the wisdom of debating sunyata in an open online forum have been had before here in any case, I believe

Malcolm wrote:
No, this would mean that Buddhahood never transcends the fourth formless ayatana. Some people may have this misunderstanding, but I have not seen anyone actually make this claim on this thread so far.

It is fine to discuss emptiness online, we are not ignorant peasants, nor are we committed to some eternalist tradition. And if they stumble across such discussions, so what?

"Buddhists" really need to lighten the f%%^ up.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


undefineable said:
'Poison of emptiness'-type teachings, against presenting beginners with arguments such as panpsychism (I would argue) that cannot be understood intellectually, are still worth bearing in mind, I feel. Buddhism will put many people off if it is presented as a path to a mode of perception that is *completely* incomprehensible - regardless of the truth of that statement.

Malcolm wrote:
But Buddhadharma is presented as a path to a mode of perception that is inconceivable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
DGA said:
That's something else to clarify.  What's the difference between the categories "sentient beings" and "Buddhas"?

Malcolm wrote:
At base, sentient beings are afflicted, and have severe limitations in terms of their knowledge of phenomena. Buddhas have neither afflictions nor any limitations on what they may know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Overview on Sakya-Teachings?
Content:
WeiHan said:
Not sure if my understanding is correct.

Lam Dre is the most detailed and comprehensive Tantric Mahamudra system in its orginal Indian form to be ever preserved in Tibetan Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not correct. Lamdre is a heterogeneous system which uses the Vajra Verses of Virupa as an exegetical basis for organizing these heterogeneous elements into a path. For example, the 28 connate dharmas are from Dombhi Heruka's Sahajasiddhi, the method of meditating clarity and emptiness comes from Guhyasamaja Tantra and Saraha, etc. There are many such examples.

If you want a comprehensive overview, look at Treasures of the Sakya Lineage, there is a section on the history and teachings of Sakya I ghostwrote for Khenpo Migmar Tseten.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 26th, 2016 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
undefineable said:
a legitimate reaction to your apparent argument might be to cause as much suffering as you like because there's no such thing or spectrum as sentience

daelm said:
Actually, I think you're attributing far to much sophistication to us

Historically, it's been the denial of sentience to categories of being that results in appalling cruelties, not the attribution. The attribution of traits increases respect and reverses cruelties - it's one of the premises of anti-racism work, that a person you know in all their complexity and nuance can no longer be treated with cruelty, and it's the reason that soldiers are still trained to dehumanize the enemy as preparation for battle, why vivisection was normal, and so on. It's possible that in the future, people will draw the conclusion you suggest based on the recognition of sentience in more things, but that has never happened before.

It's also not likely to lead to Jainism. We recognise sentience in animals these days, but we still use them in ways that hurt them, often of necessity. We'll do the same with plants. It's the pragmatism of samsara. What will change, as it has and is busy doing with animals, is that our engagement becomes more nuanced and more complex.

d


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But my approach to the 'nature of mind' is different, in that I say that mind is never 'an object of perception' - it is not 'out there' and can't be known as any kind of essence, substance, or in any objective sense. It is always the 'unknown knower, the unseen seer', which is a pre-Buddhist idea from the Upanisads.

Astus said:
That kind of inherent knowing is indeed the atman of the Vedanta. In Buddhism that is completely refuted, so it cannot really serve as a definition of sentience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, Wayfarer is a Vedantin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I know that 'drawing the line' is difficult, but there are still differences between animals and plants, organisms and minerals, humans and non-human creatures. The fact that those differences are hard to specify exactly, doesn't mean they're not real. And I will stand by the claim that animals and humans are sentient beings, while sunflowers and jellyfish are not.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, dogmatism is always comforting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Jeff H said:
Malcolm, you have said if Hilary gets it you would vote Green Party. Isn't that a de facto vote for Trump (assuming he gets it)? A write-in for Bernie would be the same, I think. How about Cruz or Rubio vs. Hilary?


Malcolm wrote:
Clinton will not win in a Trump/Clinton face off.

Bernie however will. So I submit to you, a vote in the primary for Clinton is a vote for Trump.

Bernie or bust!!!

Anyway, I am not voting against the GOP. I am voting for Bernie Sanders.

If American voters are stupid enough to think that Hillary represents a real choice, they deserve the consequences of their folly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
dmr82 said:
It's called leadership.

Malcolm wrote:
It's called demagoguery. Trump is no leader. He is fool, but those who vote for him are greater fools still.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Caucuses suck. Hillary's campaign staff cheated big time.

DGA said:
Cheating sucks.  Both parties suck for running such undemocratic processes.

Malcolm wrote:
Bern it all down.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Caucuses suck. Hillary's campaign staff cheated big time.

David N. Snyder said:
Election update:

Republicans:
Trump has now won New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada
Cruz has won Iowa (barely)

Trump with big lead with 82 delegates so far
Cruz in 2nd place with 17 delegates

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton 52 delegates
Bernie Sanders 51 delegates

However, if you add in the Super delegates:

Hillary Clinton: 503
Bernie Sanders 70

So far it's looking like Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Wait a minute now which one is Republican and which one is Democrat?

(Hillary was a Republican in her youth and has ties to Wall Street and Trump espoused liberal ideas not too many years ago and is now a conservative)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The first two are based in sensations, the last is not.

Astus said:
That would make it a purely theoretical category. On the other hand, that "all fabrications/compounded are suffering", that is because they are impermanent and therefore do not provide stability, while at the same time one craves for something to rely on.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever, this is how Shariputta teaches it in the Majjihma Nikāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 25th, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Alan Wallace - any experiences with his retreats?
Content:
lunak said:
thank you for your opinion, as I mentioned - I am already decided

but I have to disagree with this statement of yours: when everyone is still extremely open, vulnerable, impressionable and not yet integrated into regular life (or even regular communication), they press you really hard for contributions. I found this in bad taste.
I base on my and my friens' cases; I didn't feel any pressing, and my friends either, with many Vipassana retreats being done. Moreover - I know people, who really didn't give much, or nothing, and nobody "pressed" them in any way. I am sorry if this happened to you, but still I would avoid generalizing your case to whole community.

Adamantine said:
Let me clarify: I was not personally pressed. However right after we broke silence we were all ushered into a room where we were shown videos about how great Vipassana was and the prison experiments they've done which seemed fantastic but that bordered on propaganda, and then a long talk was given about how important it was to give donations so that other people could do the retreats, basically strongly encouraging reciprocity. They also were expecting to take donations on the spot, and were ready to accept credit cards, etc. When you come out of 10 days of absolutely no communication and then are made to sit through a type of fundraising drive it is more than an assault on the senses and makes one feel uncomfortable especially if one doesn't have much to offer. That's why I would prefer to have it really clear from the beginning that either I am a) offering something up front to cover costs or b) receiving the generosity of a sponsorship / scholarship. Financial issues are really the last thing I want to be confronted with thinking about immediately upon my reentry from retreat. I found it extremely abrasive. Perhaps that was just the case at that time and place in that location (a large center in Massachusetts which they were actively renovating / expanding) and it is different depending on where you are and who is in charge of the retreat. However I got the impression that it was part of the overall formula.

Malcolm wrote:
Goenka Vipassana is kind of cultish, if you ask me (no one did, but still).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I did a three year retreat on Lamdre, meditating all these topics step by step, and I disagree with you as to what this passage means.

However, Tshog bshad is excessively scholastic. I prefer the earlier view of the Lamdre path as expressed by Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen. I just prefer the pre-Sakya Pandita version of Sakya Vajrayāna teachings.

You are also neglecting the fact that the experiential vision part actually encompasses both the brief presentation of sūtra as well as Vajrayāna. The way things are explained in original Lamdre texts is very different than the Kadampaized and truncated Three Visions literature, which is quite late, actually, dating from the 14th century at the earliest, in Lama Dampa's commentaries.

Ngorchen Konchog Lhundrup was overly influenced by Kagyus (it's a fact, you can look it up), and I think this explains his gradualism to a large extent. Also his presentation of the view is felt to be somewhat hinky in some Sakyapa quarters.

M

Ivo said:
What you explain rings true. I am just sharing the way I was taught. I was explicitly instructed to do it step by step. I was young, diligent, did it well  but did not like it particularly and switched to my own tradition the first moment I could. Later I read some things by Drakpa Gyaltsen and indeed he sounded like a yogi to me, something I definitely liked. But I didn't have the opportunity to study in depth other presentations of the Lam Dre, nor the slob bshad. I have no doubt that the Three Visions were "Kadampaized", it's quite obvious. Virupa would probably be quite amused by this development. Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the Three Visions/Three Tantras literature is one, an attempt to provide a coherent graded path, second, a system of delivering the essentials of Lamdre, which is a vast heterogeneous system, into a single text convenient to teach to a large assembly. However, this stream lining has some notable downsides.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The suffering of being conditioned.

Astus said:
Even for that there should be some experience present. Unconsciousness means no experience whatsoever. Or it simply means the general attribute of appearances being unsatisfactory, but even then, for those without mind there are no appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
There are there kinds of suffering: suffering of suffering, suffering of change, and the suffering of being compounded. The first two are based in sensations, the last is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
A

So I am inclined to think that 'sentience' figures, on this scale, in the animal-human realms, i.e. plants are not sentient beings. (Interesting to note above that the prohibition on killing trees in the Pali texts was so as not to disturb the tree-devas, not because trees themselves are classified as 'sentient'.)


Malcolm wrote:
How is this different than not killing an animal so as not to disturb their minds? The body is not sentient in itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


DGA said:
If Trump wins the nomination, look forward to another Clinton presidency, and perhaps Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), again.


Malcolm wrote:
I disagree. If Trump and Clinton face off, Trump wins. Sanders is the only one who beats Trump.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
seeker242 said:
I think you could say that a "sentient being" is a being who experiences dukkha.

Astus said:
There is a heaven of unconscious gods (asamjnisattva). What sufferings do they have?

Malcolm wrote:
The suffering of being conditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Ivo said:
[

This is completely in accord with the oral instructions of the Lam Dre as I have received it from several masters, with the sutra part being gradual and progression to each subsequent stage entirely dependent on obtaining the specific signs of accomplishment of the previous one, according to the texts. This is how I have been led to do it myself, mostly in retreat. And the Hevajra wangs come after the completion of the preliminary contemplations of the pure vision. This intent is also extremely clearly explained by Ngorchen throughout his commentary on the sutra part, where he explicitly states after each stage what one should achieve before progressing. It is throughout the whole text.

Yes, some masters teach it differently, especially when they teach the Lob She in one go, but the above is still a very alive tradition, and I have personally been led through it.

Malcolm wrote:
I did a three year retreat on Lamdre, meditating all these topics step by step, and I disagree with you as to what this passage means.

However, Tshog bshad is excessively scholastic. I prefer the earlier view of the Lamdre path as expressed by Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen. I just prefer the pre-Sakya Pandita version of Sakya Vajrayāna teachings.

You are also neglecting the fact that the experiential vision part actually encompasses both the brief presentation of sūtra as well as Vajrayāna. The way things are explained in original Lamdre texts is very different than the Kadampaized and truncated Three Visions literature, which is quite late, actually, dating from the 14th century at the earliest, in Lama Dampa's commentaries.

Ngorchen Konchog Lhundrup was overly influenced by Kagyus (it's a fact, you can look it up), and I think this explains his gradualism to a large extent. Also his presentation of the view is felt to be somewhat hinky in some Sakyapa quarters.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


tomamundsen said:
Ever heard of a thumbprint? I've only heard third-hand accounts and read reports online, but it sounds insane. Supposedly you start tripping the instant it touches your tongue... and lasts for days or weeks.

Ivo said:
Not the tongue, your palm. Originally, you would just press it into your palm. It is still done, although rare.

I am with Malcolm on this, with the addition that certain substances, most notably DMT (including Ayahuasca), Psylocibyn, LSD and, with caution, MDMA, can definitely be helpful for serious practitioners in a retreat setting, used extremely sparingly. And they have indeed been proven to be very helpful for PTSD, addictions and other things in a clinical setting. 90% of the people commenting on this thread admit that they have not even tried anything, how can you know if it is useful or not? Even Urgen Rinpoche had said that it can be useful for an advanced practitioner, as quoted by DJKR (who himself is not exactly innocent).

Having said that, all these things are a total distraction for the dualistic mind, and it seems that people with no stability in meditation can not use them much, as it becomes just another movie to watch, at best. So it is not "yes" or "no". It is something very powerful, which can be very dangerous in the wrong hands (most hands) and quite useful in skilled hands.

If one considers himself/herself a good meditator but is afraid to try a safe mind altering substance, as the first three above, it is quite funny. How will you cope when you die and loose all reference points? You can easily check how well you can handle the bardo state with a good dose of DMT. If you are honest with yourself it may be a great incentive to get back to the cushion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
If we reduce Buddhanture to impermanence, or more broadly, emptiness, I think that is not accurate. For example, this completely ignores the Third Turning sutras, and simply promotes the Second Turning as supreme. Personally, I think that what Dogen is referring when he says all things are Buddhanature is the non-duality of subject and object.

Astus said:
What school advocates those ideas of turnings?

Malcolm wrote:
An early version of Yogacara centered in Korea, preserved in the Tibetan canon, and I assume, the Chinese canon as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Therefore, the mere fact that plants are capable of metabolism implies directly that they are capable of cognition. Hence they are sentient.

Astus said:
OK, let's start there then, that plants are sentient beings. What brings a being to be born as a plant? Is that a separate type of birth, or should it be included among animals, considering that they could be taken as the dumbest form of existence? Why was that not recognised by the Buddha and his followers?

Malcolm wrote:
Simple put, the conventions of the day generally circumscribed what "sentient" could mean.

I don't think we can consider plants "dumb," their intelligence is as inscrutable to us as the intelligence of some alien race. But obviously Buddha placed importance on not harming plants, and we can observed this from Vinaya, among other places.

In the end, the basic failure of these conversations derives from the traditionalist urge to argue from some perceived "authority." It's like arguing that Meru Cosmology should be accepted at face value.

Then there is this — when you cut a planarian flatworm in two, it becomes two separate creatures.  If you cut it into tiny pieces, each piece will regenerate as a separate individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

Are planarians sentient beings? I think so. This then raises the question of how such consciousness that they posses individuates when a whole planarian is split into two or more viable segments. It seems that all creatures beyond the range of complexity of planarians lack this ability.

The more we learn about the physical world, the more it causes us to pause, and take stock of many longheld Buddhist assumptions, like the one that plants are nonsentient life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:


daelm said:
this is honestly the same point that Shantideva makes in the bodhicarya - basically, he says you only care about this suffering and not that, because this suffering falls within the locus of data that you regard as you. (the boundary of embodiment, essentially). he then says that real wisdom follows the opening of those boundaries.

Malcolm wrote:
With negative consequences for those who regard animals privileged with respect to consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Ivo said:
From the oral explanations of the Lam Dre I have received I remember instructions for up to 7 days of śamatha (single session) as a prerequisite for the next stage of vipaśyanā.

dzogchungpa said:
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean 7 days of seated śamatha, focusing on an object etc., no sleeping and eating or whatever?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you have to use a specially blessed vajra catheter and pee bag...

Just kidding of course, but in reality, no one does this, and I never heard this before, nor have I read it in any text connected with Lamdre.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Ivo said:
Ngorchen Konchok Lhundrup in his exposition on the Lam De Tsog She prescribes a capacity to do a single śamatha session of 24 hours or more as a prerequisite to proceed further on the path.

Malcolm wrote:
While he certainly says that by doing short sessions one gradually can remain in śamatha for twenty four hours, he certainly never makes it a precondition for moving along to vipaśyāna, or even Vajrayāna. And certainly, it is the case that that reciting the Hevajra sadhana itself is regarded as the best means of traversing the nine stages of śamatha in Lamdre, as it is described in some detail in Saroruhavajra's creation stage commentary contained within the Eight subsequent path cycles of Lamdre, which is part of the Yellow Volume.

Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen criticizes the view that one must train excessively in sūtra before moving on the Vajrayāna practice, and this is one reason why Sakya masters tend to bestow the Hevajra empowerment right away, because they take a cig car approach based on Jetsun Rinpoche's clarification of disagreement over how best to understand the statement in the Five Stages of Nāgārjuna that, "This [Vajrayāna] is a gradual path." He asserts that sudden entry into Vajrayāna is implied by Aryadeva's amplification on this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[
...the original Maturana/Varela book the intent of the term is to define living systems.

daelm said:
snap.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for we who supposedly are just arguing from opinion and not on the basis of fact or reason, we seem to have amassed quite a bit of science, fact and reason.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
If we reduce Buddhanture to impermanence, or more broadly, emptiness, I think that is not accurate. For example, this completely ignores the Third Turning sutras, and simply promotes the Second Turning as supreme. Personally, I think that what Dogen is referring when he says all things are Buddhanature is the non-duality of subject and object.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that this way of ascribing sūtras is very historically faulty and does not correspond with how Indian masters understood the concept.

Mother's Lap said:
Which was the Korean master that Buton copied? Wonch'uk?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Matt J said:
If we reduce Buddhanture to impermanence, or more broadly, emptiness, I think that is not accurate. For example, this completely ignores the Third Turning sutras, and simply promotes the Second Turning as supreme. Personally, I think that what Dogen is referring when he says all things are Buddhanature is the non-duality of subject and object.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that this way of ascribing sūtras is very historically faulty and does not correspond with how Indian masters understood the concept.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, or anybody, do you consider the Earth to be a sentient being? I'm open to the idea myself.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in particular. But I am willing to symbolically treat it that way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 24th, 2016 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus said:
Also, the Wikipedia article itself quotes instances of mechanical and other phenomena that could be called self-producing.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you paid careful attention to the article. While the concept of autpoietic machines was indeed brought up in the original Maturana/Varela book the intent of the term is to define living systems. However, in reference to your citation about food:
Now, the next step consists of going from these very general considerations to the practical case of biological and chemical systems. Clearly, all that has just been said about cognition can be abstracted from the notion of metabolism. When an amoeba or any other living cell chooses the metabolites from the environment and rejects catabolites in it, this corresponds to a dynamic interaction that permits the enacting and the coming to being of both the living organism and the environment. Therefore, metabolism is already by itself the biological correlate of the notion of cognition. In this sense, our view is slightly different from the predicament of Bourgine and Stewart (2004), who write ‘autopoiesis focuses naturally on the internal functioning of the organism, notably its metabolism; cognition naturally thematizes the inter- actions between an organism and its environment’. We believe in fact that metabolism is not only a property of the interior of the living organism. Metabolism cannot exist permanently without (mutual) interaction with the environment. In this active interaction, the organism selects its material, and in this sense a full- blown metabolism is tantamount to cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618936/pdf/16849156.pdf

In other words, metabolism implies cognition, but machines do not choose in any sense their metabolites as opposed to their catabolites. Their consumption of "metabolites" would not be an autopoietic choice, but an allopoietic choice, a constraint imposed upon it by external programming; for example, a production line.

Therefore, the mere fact that plants are capable of metabolism implies directly that they are capable of cognition. Hence they are sentient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, computers merely mimic sentience, they are not self-organizing. Self-organization is the hallmark of all living systems and is the benchmark for sentience.

Astus said:
What counts as self-organising? Programs have organisation skills, they can even learn and reproduce.


Malcolm wrote:
There is a difference between the self-producing (autopoiesis) self-organization of living systems and static, other-produced (exopoietic) "self-organization" of inanimate things, like crystals. The latter only appear to be self-organizing, but are incapable of sustaining themselves.

So we need to add to this definition that not only are living systems self-organizing, but they are also autopoietic, self-producing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trees, plants, fungi and so in in general, breath, grow, excrete, defend themselves, communicate within their own communities and other communities, an using fungi as as a web for other plants to communicate, they respond to stimulus, learn, and so on.

Astus said:
Then we might consider computers are already or about to be sentient as well. And maybe a number of other phenomena too, like memes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, computers merely mimic sentience, they are not self-organizing. Self-organization is the hallmark of all living systems and is the benchmark for sentience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: What is a "sentient being"?
Content:
Astus said:
a tree or a stone...

Malcolm wrote:
Trees and stones are not commensurate examples, therefore your analogy is flawed.

Trees, plants, fungi and so in in general, breath, grow, excrete, defend themselves, communicate within their own communities and other communities, an using fungi as as a web for other plants to communicate, they respond to stimulus, learn, and so on.

The only things plants cannot do as opposed to animals is move themselves from one place to another because their brains aka roots and the vast majority of their sense organs are buried in the ground.

Stones, and rocks, etc. in general exhibit no living properties whatsoever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Understanding Rangtong and Shentong as Non-Contradictory
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Wow, very helpful. If the Great Jamgong Kongtrul means it in this sense (that ultimate reality is conventionally existent, but ultimately is free from all extremes) then I can see very easily that Rangtong and Shentong are intended to be compatible. I'd love to get more clarification on this point.

Malcolm wrote:
Rang stong is a straw man position invented by gzhan stong pas. There is no such thing as "rang stong", apart from the frebile imaginations of its proponents.

Bakmoon said:
I personally don't really accept the Rangtong/Shentong aspect of Kagyu doxography either, but that's the lingo within the tradition and the teachers who say this, so I thought it best to present my question in the terminology of the way I heard it, at least out of courtesy for the forum I'm posting in.

Malcolm wrote:
It comes from Jonang originally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Understanding Rangtong and Shentong as Non-Contradictory
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Wow, very helpful. If the Great Jamgong Kongtrul means it in this sense (that ultimate reality is conventionally existent, but ultimately is free from all extremes) then I can see very easily that Rangtong and Shentong are intended to be compatible. I'd love to get more clarification on this point.

Malcolm wrote:
Rang stong is a straw man position invented by gzhan stong pas. There is no such thing as "rang stong", apart from the frebile imaginations of its proponents.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: [Split: Chopping down trees and] Veganism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
So you agree there is no strict demarcation, and the demarcation drawn is strictly dogmatic and not based on reason or science.

seeker242 said:
What I agree on is that the idea that plants are sentient is personal opinion based on mere conjecture, not reason or science.


Malcolm wrote:
Brilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence

by Stefano Mancuso (Author), Alessandra Viola (Author), Joan Benham (Translator), Michael Pollan (Foreword)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Jeff, the point is that in Tibet in the Gelug tradition, śamatha meditation was not especially emphasized, historically.
The fact is that Sakyas and Gelugpas don't do much sūtrayāna style śamatha because they think sadhana practice (reciting texts, chanting mantras, and so on) is a more effective means to reach the same goal.

Karinos said:
According to my Gelugpa Lama (Desi Rinpoche - Drepung Loseling) practitioners of tantra are practising śamatha and vipassana simultaneously during deity yoga sadhana practice, respectively during generation and completion stage.


Malcolm wrote:
Glad you agree with me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 22nd, 2016 at 12:37 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
maybay said:
Whims of the people bounded by 101 cultural imperatives you've so casually ignored.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell that the two poor bastards that were recently lynched by townspeople in southern Mexico based on false rumors. Have you been to these places? I have. I like Mexico. But it is not a safe country precisely because laws, and the Government which is supposed to enforce them, are weak.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 22nd, 2016 at 10:15 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There really is no strict demarcation for how sentient beings can appear, based on their karma.

seeker242 said:
Which is probably why the traditional view of all forms of Buddhism is that they are non-sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
So you agree there is no strict demarcation, and the demarcation drawn is strictly dogmatic and not based on reason or science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 22nd, 2016 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


seeker242 said:
And where can the Gaia sutra be found? And where within the sutra does it say that? Chapter, section etc?

Malcolm wrote:
If you have to read it, you won't understand it since it is all around you, living, thinking and breathing, expressed through all the life on this planet.

seeker242 said:
So you claim... And also a convenient way to avoid the question. Because you avoided the question, it's safe to assume you can't answer it.

Malcolm wrote:
I am making a different point.

I can show you texts, sūtras, which mention Mt. Meru. But no one has found Mt. Meru. So this indicates that perhaps sūtras are not the infallible authority to you take them to be. I don't depend on sūtras to define my cosmology for me. Do you? Do you therefore insist that the sun and moon travel around Mt. Meru? If so, how is it that the whole world does not fall into darkness all at the same time when the Sun rounds Meru?

Further, there is the story of Saṃgharaḳsita in the Śikṣāsammucaya which states:
Saṃgharaḳsita, those sentient beings who have turned into the forms of trees, leaves, flowers and fruits, in the past they were monks. Because they partook of the trees, leaves, flowers and fruits of the Sangha, they have turned into the form of trees, leaves, flowers and fruits
There really is no strict demarcation for how sentient beings can appear, based on their karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


seeker242 said:
What sutra says plants are sentient beings?

Malcolm wrote:
The Gaia Sūtra.

seeker242 said:
And where can the Gaia sutra be found? And where within the sutra does it say that? Chapter, section etc?

Malcolm wrote:
If you have to read it, you won't understand it since it is all around you, living, thinking and breathing, expressed through all the life on this planet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
...plants are not sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
So you keeping claiming.

seeker242 said:
What sutra says plants are sentient beings?

Malcolm wrote:
The Gaia Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Sadhana Practice
Content:
Adamantine said:
I don't really see a contradiction

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think it is false assessment.

Why? Because we have evidence from Mañjuśrīkīrti's Ornamenting the Essence of General Rites of All Secrets that there was a movement in India, led by Śṛī Siṅgha (mentioned by name, along with Bhikṣuni Nanda, Padmasambhava's teacher as well, and other masters), who argued that creation stage practices was taught only to reject annihilationism, and for those who believed a dependent originated result was accomplished through dependent origination, and for those worldly people who were terrified of the profound meaning. However they argued that such practice was incapable of producing the result because a result cannot arise from a dissimilar cause.

Indeed, Tsongkhapa cites this argument in his sNgags rim chen mo in an implicit refutation of Dzogchen.

The basic argument is that creation stage practices were unnecessary, and that it was sufficient to rely solely on completion stage practices.

The counter position to the above is that the natural purity of all phenomena was incapable of stopping false conceptuality and that buddhahood was necessarily predicated on the accumulation of merit, that the creation stage was needed to abandon ordinary vision, and that it was necessary for accomplished the rūpakāyas in order to benefit sentient beings.

The passage is interesting because it is just about the only passage in all the gsar ma period translations from Sanskrit which address the Great Perfection movement in India (albeit through the names of its promulgators rather than specific texts) and its positions, and contrasts this with what we now take to be the more conventional Vajrayāna approach.

In other words, I don't see much evidence that Vairocana, for example, was collecting lots of deity practices in Indian and spreading them among Tibetans. While it is certainly true there is a Vimalamitra tradition of Vajrakilaya, and while it is certainly true that Dzogchen can be practiced by people engaged in the creation stage and other kinds of rites, it is also the case that we have examples such as Pang Mipham Gonpo who appear to have practiced only Dzogchen.

In short, despite SVS's lengthy, interesting and erudite articles, I do not think it is accurate to conclude that Dzogchen was necessarily an adjunct to the practice of the two stages, and I think there is ample evidence to the contrary.

I think the more accurate position to take (based for example, on Mañjuśrīmitra's Meditation of Bodhicitta ) is that buddhahood could also be accomplished indirectly as well, through mantra practice, as he says:
Further, because the teacher has declared that awakening can be correctly grasped with a symbol,
in that case, this is the basis of the meditation that generates awakened mind. 
After the three samadhis are stable, and after binding three symbolic mudras, 
generate the mind as the great dharmamudra and meditate the recitation of the essence [mantra].
Mipham, summarizing Mañjuśrīmitra's autocommentary, adds:
If it is asked, “What is the method of realizing the definitive meaning through the indirect method?,” since nonactivity is illustrated with the activity of fabricated efforts, like pointing to the moon with the finger, also awakened mind correctly grasped through a symbol will accomplish awakening, because the Bhagavan Buddha, the teacher of devas and humans, has declared that it is “great awakening.” Any unfortunate one who conceptualizes entities should make efforts in the indirect method of realization.
Thus, I argue that "early" Dzogchen had nothing to do with sadhana practice at all, and this is proven quite handily by looking at the the bodhicitta texts (should one assume they represent "early" Dzogchen). Does this mean that Dzogchen masters ruled out an indirect path for unfortunates? No. But it does mean the premise "early dzogchen...was originally inseparable from sadhana practice" is false.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
...plants are not sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
So you keeping claiming.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Sadhana Practice
Content:
Adamantine said:
This series of articles explores early dzogchen and how it was originally inseparable from sadhana practice. Seems like essential reading for anyone following this thread:

Malcolm wrote:
This assumes that the traditional account of the spread of Dzogchen in Tibet is a Tibetan fabrication...

[cue: fabrications are really terrible, aren't they.]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you seriously want to learn śamatha, don't study with Nyingmapas, don't study with Gelugpas, or Sakyapas — study with the Kagyus. They are the Tibetan school that is the most serious about this form of meditation. They have the most accumulated experience in this, and are the best teachers for it.

dzogchungpa said:
This is kind of interesting to me. Why is it that the Kagyus are sort of the specialsts in this, among the 4 schools?

Malcolm wrote:
I think it has mostly to with Gampopa, truth be told.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
maybe because of the object involved. killing one's parents is more serious than killing a person who is not one's parents, which is more serious than killing an animal, etc.
Does that work?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a question what works or not. I am quite certain that the vow against taking life was primarily against killing humans, while the commitment of nonharming extends to all living things, plants and animals alike. It is for the latter reason that we see so many of the pācittiyas such as not killing animals, not destroying plants, not digging in the ground, not drinking acohol, etc. are involved with avoiding harms of many kinds.

We do not live in that world anymore, where murderers like Angulimala could operate with impunity. We live in a different kind of world now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Killing an animal does not violate the first precept, only killing humans does.

Fortyeightvows said:
Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction (Fourth edition, Page 77-78)
by Richard H. Robinson and Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
"The first precept is to refrain from killing living beings, meaning all sorts of animals but not plants. The precept is broken if, knowing that something is a living being and intending to kill it, one attempts to do so and succeeds."

Thats how it is traditionally taught. If all four parts are there......

Malcolm wrote:
If this is the case, you are then left with explaining why killing animals is a minor violation for monks, along with destroying plants.

Are the standards for lay people higher and more stringent than for monks? I don't think so.

I think the sentience of plants is an issue where Buddhadharma will need to catch up with science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Jeff H said:
Ok. I certainly bow to you guys.

I was reacting to the fact that LZR was speaking to FPMT, where, in my short time, I've always heard and read that meditation is an important practice. Usually not group meditations, which tend to be short adjuncts to teachings, but a personal, daily practice. I thought that was in line with a history of long retreats and hermit meditators in Tibet. And I thought he was saying that such a serious meditation tradition needs to be cultivated in the west.

Malcolm wrote:
If you seriously want to learn śamatha, don't study with Nyingmapas, don't study with Gelugpas, or Sakyapas — study with the Kagyus. They are the Tibetan school that is the most serious about this form of meditation. They have the most accumulated experience in this, and are the best teachers for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 21st, 2016 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


seeker242 said:
No one in their right mind would think that killing a carrot would be a violation of the first precept... The idea that killing plants and animals has the same consequences has no basis.

Malcolm wrote:
Killing an animal does not violate the first precept, only killing humans does.

seeker242 said:
The fact that they are the same level of precepts does not establish this and is irrelevant.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes it does, and no it is not. The vows are the same in Sarvastivada, etc., as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Jeff H said:
This seems like an uncharacteristically selective reading of the LZR advice. It sounded to me like his main point went more like this: The initial westward spread of Tibetan Buddhism has been based on the monastic tradition which, in Tibet, came to emphasize study over meditation. Westerners have adopted the intellectual track, and that is good. But now, to make the transference deeper, more meaningful, and longer lasting, it is time to revive the well established Tibetan practice of meditation in earnest. To do that would be, "wow, wow, wow!"

Geshe Jampa Gyatso came around to the same view, and the meditation LZR is talking about is not at all the popularized form of western meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Jeff, the point is that in Tibet in the Gelug tradition, śamatha meditation was not especially emphasized, historically.

The fact is that Sakyas and Gelugpas don't do much sūtrayāna style śamatha because they think sadhana practice (reciting texts, chanting mantras, and so on) is a more effective means to reach the same goal.

However, based on the model of Trungpa's Dharmadhātu, a lot of Western centers adopted courses in śamatha because they noticed that to some extent, people with background in Zen and Vipassana and so on had less difficulties with their practice in general and more stability, especially emotionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


seeker242 said:
And that would be a line. I said no Lines!

Virgo said:
So stepping on an ant is the same as killing a turtle, or a human (gasp)?  And all are equal to uprooting a flower?

Kevin

seeker242 said:
If you don't draw lines, yea. Which is why drawing no lines is nonsensical. If they are not equal, then you have to be drawing a line somewhere. Drawing lines is quite appropriate. The Buddha himself drew lines between plants and animals. This is the reason why killing a carrot and eating it is not a precepts violation. Meanwhile, killing a sheep and eating it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha also made distinctions between killing humans on the one hand, and killing animals and killing plants on the other.

Killing a human being is parajika.

Killing animals and killing plants break the same level of precepts. In Theravada, they are belong to the 92 pācittiyas. So in Buddha's view, we can see that harming animals and harming plants have the same consequences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 12:05 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Virgo said:
"We are a government of laws, not of men" - The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

kirtu said:
Often quoted generally to rail against injustice.

But the reality is that the US is a republic of men (people) who manipulate the law for their own purposes.

As I told a Gay diplomat in the late-80's who was being railroaded by the State Department.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Think it is bad here, go to Mexico, India, China, etc. These really are countries where laws are subordinate to whims of people. The US may have its problems, but it really is a country of laws, at least in white communities. If you are black or latino, however, forget it. Sadly, with the dismantling of the middle class, it is slowly becoming one law for the 99%, another for the 1%.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 12:02 PM
Title: Re: Madhyamakavatara and Conventional Production from Other
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I've been reviewing the Madhyamakavatara with several commentaries recently and hit a snag with verse 6.32 where the example of a man fathering a child or planting a tree as showing that production from other isn't a part of worldly convention because the cause and effect aren't seen as being different.

I just don't see how that isn't production from other, because in those examples the cause is one thing and the result is another. What am I missing?


Malcolm wrote:
Conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 12:01 PM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Virgo said:
http://cdn.fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/teachers/zopa/advice/Actualizing-realizations-LZR-wish-2013.pdf?2f77d7

KEvin


Malcolm wrote:
"When the first Masters Program finished I asked the students to do a one-year retreat on the lam- rim after studying for eight years. Geshe Jampa Gyatso didn’t have much interest in meditation because in the monasteries they don’t usually do this. "

As I said, a lot of this is being driven by a Western mania for meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I have been around Tibetan centers for years and frankly, in my observation, apart from Kagyus, nobody does much traditional sūtrayāna style śamatha and vipaśyāna, and definitely not in the monastery based practice that has been largely spread here in the West.

Adamantine said:
Shiné  (shamatha) is offered as a regular group class and practice session at my local centers. It is also very much emphasized in the Dudjom Tersar as essential to developing on the path. Actually doing at least a 2-week solitary retreat focusing on silent shiné is considered something of an essential foundation. It probably wouldn't correspond to a sūtrayāna style śamatha in some ways since the techniques are coming from terma, and have Vajrayana and Atiyoga elements. However it is more or less synonymous for all intents and purposes, the basic intent is the same.

I am not as informed of the Gelugpa curriculums in western centers, I imagine different centers emphasize different trainings though.

Malcolm wrote:
I suspect our friend thinks that a silent two week retreat is a rather less then overwhelming achievement.

And seriously, Tibetans don't do much śamatha. And if they do, it is only in retreat. They prefer to chant books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:


Adamantine said:
Perhaps by offering them a chance to see that what appeared to them in one way actually functions in another, if gazed at with a more subtle view. . . and that the basis for their negative judgment about Vajrayana practice is not experiential / i.e. coming from realization as they may like us to believe, but from conceptual hang ups that don't benefit anyone on or off the cushion.

Malcolm wrote:
Is your view really that subtle?

Adamantine said:
Then you're in the minority.

Malcolm wrote:
Minorities are really terrible, aren't they? [beat you to it, chung].


Adamantine said:
I never brought up Hades in the first place. However the latter (Gehinnom) is a place the wicked go to purify their misdeeds, sounds a lot like a conventional hell. But different from Hades, sure, however you simply said that Jews don't have any version of heaven or hell, which is incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they really don't. Gehenna is a charnel ground outside of Jerusalem.

Adamantine said:
Yet you neglected these passages from the New Testament in the given link:

"Fire and brimstone frequently appear as agents of divine wrath throughout the Book of Revelation culminating in chapters 19–21, wherein the devil and the ungodly are cast into a lake of fire and brimstone as an eternal punishment:"

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8, KJV).

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Revelation 19:20, KJV)."

Which prove that the actual Christian doctrine of Hell involves fire and brimstone, which shows that your above statement "the actual Christian doctrine about Hell is not fire and brimstone" is incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
If you read more, you will find that Christians do not generally interpret this literally, whatever else they may do.


Adamantine said:
I can certainly not confirm anything of the sort for Yogavajra, from his meager contributions here I couldn't say if he understands dependent origination or not. However by equating the tantric bonds willingly made between Guru and Chela with the motivation to benefit all beings by achieving liberation as soon as possible, with the non-consensual servitude to a vengeful Creator God who may cast you into Eternal fiery hell for the same human flaws he himself (supposedly) designed, it doesn't paint a pretty portrait for a deep understanding!

Malcolm wrote:
I suspect that the person in question decided that he just did not agree with the idea that if he left Vajrayāna he was going to hell, and part of the reason he left, was all constant discussions of lower realms, etc., that he probably does not believe in, on any level.


Adamantine said:
Likewise, I never said nor implied switching practice traditions would lead one to hell. This is a red-herring you've thrown into the mix and not representative of anything I've stated or implied. As I said before, it's quite possible to switch traditions and keep samaya.

Malcolm wrote:
What if you switch traditions because you have come to the conclusion that samaya is a bullshit control mechanism? And in fact, I have seen unqualified gurus use samaya in exactly that way.

Adamantine said:
Whether yogavajra is doing so is his own business. However once he starts conversations with Vajrayanists and insults the tradition, he does invite some degree of cross-examining scrutiny.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think he insulted anything.

Adamantine said:
Well, so far you're in the minority, perhaps the only minority in the room.

Malcolm wrote:
Minorities are really terrible, aren't they?

Adamantine said:
No, just inferring from his comments about Vajrayana. It doesn't seem at all likely to me that someone who sincerely practiced it for 20 years would say what he's been saying.

Malcolm wrote:
I have met quite a number of people who have switched because they finally decided that in the end, Vajrayāna was just prapañca.


Adamantine said:
Well, to be fair, if I go to a broadway show and start heckling the performers, I could be rightfully labeled a heckler at that moment, in that context. Certainly I am also a person working with my own limitations as well, but due to my actions and intentions in that time and place the label "heckler" is more than adequate. Of course, that is not all I am, in that moment, in the past, or the future. Labels are temporary conventions, as are the names Malcolm and Adamantine. But when the shoe fits. . .

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I don't think he heckled anyone. He made the mistake of bothering to talk to holier than thou Vajrayānists and for that, he got what he deserved.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Every Tibetan center I've ever been to personally has it "on the menu" in one form or another, but I don't know how well attended. I always imagined that here it could be more an issue of local demographics too, i.e. who will attend what in a given community.

Of of my teachers (Sakya) emphasizes it pretty heavily, but I gather he is unique in that regard.

I did not realize Gelug has little of it emphasized, I had assumed that it was part of their graduated path...probably an issue with my all over the place reading.

Malcolm wrote:
The modern emphasis on śamatha, apart from Kagyu schools, is driven mainly by the Western mania for "meditation", and peoples encounter with Shambhala, and before it, Dharmadhātu centers.

I am sure that if Yogavajra had started in a Dharmadhātu, he would have a very different perspective on sitting meditation in Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hello,

I will just note that most Buddhist Temples in North Asia (perhaps not Tibet for the walls themselves, although there are to be found many wooden objects within the Temples) are made of wood. That wood is unlikely to be all from trees which have fallen naturally, and in fact, comes from cut trees.

The monks also eat many vegetables while sitting on the wooden platforms. The vegetables had to be gathered in order to be eaten.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
And in Tibet, they mostly eat yaks and sheep.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Frankly, I don't see this disrespect.
I do, but it's nothing unusual on DW, coming from any quarter. He came here claiming to have 20 years practicing HYT in the Gelug tradition, and yet needed to ask about the place of silent meditation in Tibetan traditions?

Even if it weren't though, he continued to go on and basically call sadhana practice "lazy meditation", etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Steven Batchelor complained about the same thing. Gelugpas do not really do much śamatha traditionally. In fact, one common complaint about both Gelugpas and Sakyapas is that while they are very intellectual, they do not meditate much.

I have been around Tibetan centers for years and frankly, in my observation, apart from Kagyus, nobody does much traditional sūtrayāna style śamatha and vipaśyāna, and definitely not in the monastery based practice that has been largely spread here in the West.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Just to get back to hell: Sheol is not hell. In Christianity hell can never be annihilation of the soul, which is eternal. In Catholicism, drawing from a long tradition from the Church fathers, it is currently defined as alienation or isolation from God (other sects may share this definition or have a different one). The sinner alienates himself/herself from God by unrepentant sin (if you are wondering, sin is that which alienates you from God). So if you are floating alone after the end of time you only have yourself to blame for imposing suffering on yourself!

Malcolm wrote:
Annihilationism today
Today many traditionalists claim that the doctrine is most often associated with groups descended from William Miller and the Adventist movement of the mid-1800s, including Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other Adventist groups. However, a number of evangelical theologians, including Anglican John Stott, Church of Christ elder Edward Fudge, Open Theists Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, as well as Philip Edgecombe Hughes and others have offered support for the doctrine, touching off a heated debate within mainstream evangelical Christianity.

Since the 1960s, Annihilationism seems to be gaining as a legitimate minority opinion within modern, conservative Protestant theology. It has found support and acceptance among some British evangelicals, although viewed with greater suspicion by their American counterparts.
http://www.theopedia.com/annihilationism

"For the annihilationist, however, eternal punishment is seen as "permanent elimination."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Then I'd recommend not coming to a Tibetan Buddhist forum to denigrate the tradition. Context is everything.

Malcolm wrote:
And suppose they do? Do you suppose that your are going to suddenly cause them to have a reconversion moment by placing more emphasis on the very thing that turned them off of to Vajrayāna to begin with?


Adamantine said:
Again, if they show up and make a post in the Tibetan Buddhist forum, and denigrate the tradition as a result of their misunderstanding, I will address it. I was hardly berating them however. As I said, context is essential here.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't see any denigration.

Adamantine said:
(Jews don't have heaven or hell, so it is really the Christo-Islamic tradition of hells, rather than Judeo-Christian).
Actually, being part Jewish in heritage I think I know more about this than you. Never heard of Sheol? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol or Gehinnom / Gehenna? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

Malcolm wrote:
Neither really match the Christian idea of Hades.


Adamantine said:
Wrong again. It's explicitly a reference for God's wrath and punishment in both the Old and New Testaments.

Malcolm wrote:
In ancient Jewish belief, the dead were consigned to Sheol, a place to which all were sent indiscriminately (cf. Genesis 37:35; Numbers 16:30-33; Psalm 86:13; Ecclesiastes 9:10). Sheol was thought of as a place situated below the ground (cf. Ezek. 31:15), a place of darkness, silence and forgetfulness (cf. Job 10:21).[4] By the third to second century BC, the idea had grown to encompass separate divisions in sheol for the righteous and wicked (cf. the Book of Enoch),[5] and by the time of Jesus, some Jews had come to believe that those in Sheol awaited the resurrection of the dead either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_hell

Doesn't sound like a place where one is consigned because of God's wrath to me.

Adamantine said:
Now I wonder when, if ever, Malcolm might admit he is wrong? I don't think I've yet to see it happen!

Malcolm wrote:
Why admit that which is false? If I am wrong, I will always admit it.


Adamantine said:
I certainly never implied that switching practice traditions would send one to hell. That's an incorrect projected inference that is not present in any of my posts. All I stated, (and still do) is that there are respectful ways to do so, and disrespectful ways to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually you confirmed for Yogavajra that he did not understand the profound nature of dependent origination in Vajrayāna, etc,  which is inclusive of understanding that if you break samaya, you are going to lower realms. Its all there in your post.

Adamantine said:
The types of posts recently made by the OP appear blatantly disrespectful to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition which so happens to be the tradition of this subforum.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, I don't see this disrespect.

Adamantine said:
All that said, I actually don't believe they did indeed spend 20 years sincerely practicing HYT, as another member has already disputed.

Malcolm wrote:
Because when all is said and done, Dharmawheel members are certainly have developed to clairvoyance to peer into the minds of others.

Adamantine said:
I am presuming nothing more than a troll...

Malcolm wrote:
Then you presume wrong, he is a person working with his own limitations, just as you and I are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I  just think you are busting someones balls/nads unnecessarily.

Adamantine said:
A bit humorous, btw coming from someone that is so prolific at ball-busting.

Malcolm wrote:
We all have to be good at something.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I just think you are busting someones balls/nads unnecessarily. When they tell you they are put off by all the fire and brimstone stuff connected with samaya, then that is enough. No need to go further. You can also point out that breaking the vow of not killing with serious intent results in eons of Avici Hell too, but I never see people mention this, it is always Vajrayāna people getting heavy with samaya vows.

Adamantine said:
I was merely pointing out that breaking samayas and not repairing them can escalate one's confusion and hinder one's understanding and realization, since it is considered a lifeline to realization.

Malcolm wrote:
And if you don't agree with the basic premise of this statement? Then?

Adamantine said:
This is common understanding, and hardly ball busting to bring up with anyone who has professed two decades of immersion in samaya commitments, and yet who doesn't appear to understand the very basics of Vajrayana methods (to the point of actively denigrating them on a Vajrayana subforum).

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps they found they do not agree with the basic concepts underlying Varjayāna at all. Then what do you do? Continue to berate them with their "lack of understanding?"


Adamantine said:
I never mentioned hells, that's something introduced by the OP and now you.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he introduced them, and you used that as a reason to further berate to poor guy, invoking the Judeo-Christian eternalism to boot, inaccurately in fact, since the actual Christian doctrine about Hell is not fire and brimstone (That is a Buddho-Islamic trip, actually), but rather, total annihilation of the soul.

Adamantine said:
I only addressed hells directly in response to you, and to point out that they are equally prominent in all vehicles of Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, of course they are. But I doubt deciding to switch practice traditions will land you in them. Killing puppies on the other hand, surely will.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Adamantine said:
To conflate a dualistic Judeo-Christian paradigm with something as profound as Vajrayana Dharma implies that you may not have grasped it's most basic principles.

Malcolm wrote:
He is doing nothing of the kind. In many places, the result of breaking samaya is described as a swift path to Vajra hell (Avici hell).

That is pretty fire and brimstone.

Adamantine said:
Except that hells from a Dharma view are a) not considered ultimately real, merely relative appearances corresponding to our relative negative accumulations and b) impermanent as opposed to the eternal Hell of Judeo-Christian traditions which is what "fire and brimstone" is conventionally associated with.

Malcolm wrote:
Uhhhh... my friend, incalculable eons in Avici hell feels pretty damn "eternal" to me from where I sit... And our fire and brimstone makes Christian fire and brimstone look tepid (Jews don't have heaven or hell, so it is really the Christo-Islamic tradition of hells, rather than Judeo-Christian).

Adamantine said:
So from our traditions POV the lower realms are akin to nightmares from which one will certainly awaken sooner or later. Hells are equally prominent in all expressions of Dharma, since the 6 realms and rebirth are quintessential aspects of understanding cyclic existence and the path beyond it. In the Sutra paths of Mahayana (which he is championing from the Zen or Ch'an side) there are endless accounts of hells, and a bodhisattva's presupposed willingness to endure them in order to benefit beings (as evidenced in more than a few of the stories of Shakyamuni's previous lives).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, endless accounts of hell.... more fire and brimstone...frankly, bodhisattvas don't spend much time in hells because there is not much they can do for anyone in them. It is the case that bodhisattvas do things that risk hells — but they only experience these very briefly, singed if you will, as in the bodhisattva as sea captain story we are all acquainted with.

Adamantine said:
I know that you know all this well, probably better than I do, but for whatever reason you've decided to be the Devil's advocate today. (No pun intended)

Malcolm wrote:
I just think you are busting someones balls/nads unnecessarily. When they tell you they are put off by all the fire and brimstone stuff connected with samaya, then that is enough. No need to go further. You can also point out that breaking the vow of not killing with serious intent results in eons of Avici Hell too, but I never see people mention this, it is always Vajrayāna people getting heavy with samaya vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Adamantine said:
To conflate a dualistic Judeo-Christian paradigm with something as profound as Vajrayana Dharma implies that you may not have grasped it's most basic principles.

Malcolm wrote:
He is doing nothing of the kind. In many places, the result of breaking samaya is described as a swift path to Vajra hell (Avici hell).

That is pretty fire and brimstone. Rather than patronizing the guy, you could try and hear him, and set aside your Vajrayāna privilege.

#Zenlivesmatter


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 20th, 2016 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
Not drawing any lines would result in this situation.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: plan to change temple symbol on maps
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it grew out of the founding of Charleston, South Carolina by Barbados slavers and their style of plantation agriculture which spread rapidly in the South, as opposed to the restorative agriculture practiced in the Mid Atlantic states on up. It had very little to do with climate, per se.

Taco_Rice said:
When those slavers popped out of the vacuum, fell from the inky heavens and emerged from their black calyxes, I'm sure they were opposed every step of the way. Anyway, what does this have to do with respectfully acknowledging biological differences between human beings...?

Malcolm wrote:
IN fact, if you have studied the history of agriculture in the US, there was in fact a rather vocal discussion in the agricultural community about such things as the differences between plantation style agriculture with its increasing inefficiencies as opposed to restorative agriculture which was developed on the basis of New England States like Vermont trashing their ecologies. See Larding the Lean Earth: Soil and Society in Nineteenth Century America by  Steven Stoll. In particular it details important conversations farmers were having South Carolina as well as Pennsylvania, and the kinds of choices they made and why, based on rural publications of the day where they discussed these issues.

M

Taco_Rice said:
Read American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America
I'll check this out. This what the reviews say, though:

Malcolm wrote:
Much of his ideas are based on another book, Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hackett Fischer, which discusses four main groups of English Settlers, Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers, and Scots-Irish in Appalachia, and and their impact on everything that forms American culture today


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: plan to change temple symbol on maps
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
I think we could just as easily attribute the conflict to more fundamental differences in the cultures of the regions that are deeply rooted in the histories of the people who settled (and were, uh, imported,) there as well as geography and climate. Toynbee identified the North and South as two distinct streams of civilization operating under the same banner, and it's apparent, even today, that the end of the civil war did not perfectly reconcile the North and South. The differences in culture, that is, in ideology, which sprang largely from the differences in respective economies, which arose from the differences in the cold climate of the industrialized North and the warm climate of the agricultural South are a more fundamental cause for the conflict, in my view. There is, after all, no reason for a government to worry about rebellion from people who are loyal to them or for rebellion against a government which one believes is "fulfilling the mandate of heaven," however one chooses to posit such a mandate as existing.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it grew out of the founding of Charleston, South Carolina by Barbados slavers and their style of plantation agriculture which spread rapidly in the South, as opposed to the restorative agriculture practiced in the Mid Atlantic states on up. It had very little to do with climate, per se.

Read American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
In any case, in Dzogchen, one just unifies all samaya in guru yoga and that is sufficient.

Adamantine said:
This was a dialogue with a Gelug HYT practitioner, not an Ati yogi.

Malcolm wrote:
You are a Dzogchen practitioner. You don't follow the Hinayanistic interpretation of samaya found in Sarma, do you? If so, why relate to it from their point of view and try to condition someone else?

From my perspective he has not broken any samaya since he has maintained his commitment to liberation, which is the essential "samaya" in which all other relative samayas are contained.

Samaya shaming practitioners for any reason is stupid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Samaya is like any other vow. It is a sustained intention. When one changes one's intention, that stream is interrupted.

Mother's Lap said:
So a monk that breaks his vow by having sex is still a (faulty) monk due to rupa vows, but when he no longer thinks of himself a monk his rupa vows disappear?

Malcolm wrote:
No, in this case a parajika is still a parajika. Vows are a social contract. When you take the monastic vows, you are essentially agreeing that if you commit the four defeats, you are defeated. Therefore, having decided to commit a defeat, that monastic vow of refraining from sexual misconduct is permanently broken and you lose your status as a monastic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Sadhana Practice
Content:
ngodrup said:
For Dzogchnpas, the deity is the nature of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
But, as Khyentse Wangpo quipped to Mipham, it also does not have rosy pink cheeks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 19th, 2016 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Especially since in Gelug HYT the vows and commitments are quite strict and binding for life...

Malcolm wrote:
Funny how something which is supposed to liberate is described as binding...

Anyway, it is not our job to condition others. Samaya is not some invisible force. Samaya is simply an agreement. If you don't want that agreement anymore, it is dissolved.

Adamantine said:
I don't believe it's so simple and black and white as that when even with the most worldly samsaric commitment-agreement (samaya) it would require more than simply not wanting it anymore to remove oneself from it. For example it would be extremely disrespectful of me to just leave my wife without a word, would cause her pain, the lack of consideration would cause karmic kick-back,  not to mention certain legal troubles down the line. Similarly, if I pledged my loyalty to my country and joined the armed forces I couldn't just go AWOL without assuming consequences.  There are respectful ways to go about removing oneself from a commitment, and there are disrespectful ways. The former will cause less negative repercussions than the latter.

Malcolm wrote:
Samaya is like any other vow. It is a sustained intention. When one changes one's intention, that stream is interrupted.

In any case, in Dzogchen, one just unifies all samaya in guru yoga and that is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 18th, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: How long do you meditate for?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Especially since in Gelug HYT the vows and commitments are quite strict and binding for life...

Malcolm wrote:
Funny how something which is supposed to liberate is described as binding...

Anyway, it is not our job to condition others. Samaya is not some invisible force. Samaya is simply an agreement. If you don't want that agreement anymore, it is dissolved.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 18th, 2016 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Killer Mike's Morehouse speech, one of the most important speeches of the 2016 campaign:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 18th, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: What are the biggest obstacles faced by 'western' Buddhi
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Maybe Simon is onto something with this prapañca thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Prapañca is prapañca, whether Asian or Western, ancient or modern.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I wasn't being entirely serious.


Malcolm wrote:
Goes without saying...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 18th, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: What are the biggest obstacles faced by 'western' Buddhi
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Maybe Simon is onto something with this prapañca thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Prapañca is prapañca, whether Asian or Western, ancient or modern.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: What are the biggest obstacles faced by 'western' Buddhi
Content:
Simon E. said:
You would keep your stake...

Malcolm wrote:
I am just saying the when it comes to collecting empowerments, for example, Tibetans have knocked it out of the ballpark. We can't compete.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: What are the biggest obstacles faced by 'western' Buddhi
Content:
Simon E. said:
Perhaps Malcolm, traditional Dharmic cultures ( should any remain ) value prapanca less.

And perhaps they have fewer means of broadcasting their wang collection.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Simon,

You would not know it by the sheer logorrhea of Tibetan scholastics. And, exactly how many westerners do you know who have received The Rinchen Terzo, Kagyu Ngagzo, Damngag Dzo, Gyud de kun su, etc.?

Not many I wager.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: What are the biggest obstacles faced by 'western' Buddhi
Content:
Simon E. said:
By western I would include those whose education has largely followed a western-led curriculum.

I would suggest two main ones.

Prapanca..we have been conditioned to see all mental speculation and proliferation of ideas as in themselves good and positive, and in the context of Liberation from the round of birth and death this might not be so..
And the other is associated with the first..
Collecting. Collecting teachings and teachers and empowerments and skillful means that we then store and do not use except to display them like trophies or pinned butterflies.

These are not original thoughts.
CTR early in his teaching career identified these two factors as the parents of Spiritual Materialism.

Malcolm wrote:
Prapañca is a disease which affects all ordinary sentient beings equally.

Tibetans "collect" many more empowerments than Westerners do, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: Oral Transmission of the Sutra of Golden Light
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect to Lama Zopa, you cannot receive a lung from a recording. For example, you cannot turn on a lamp unless it is plugged into a wall, likewise, you cannot receive transmission from a recording.

Anyway, it is a sūtra, you don't need any special transmission for it.

Manjushri Fan said:
That is a very useful analogy and I do understand what you mean.

Yes as it is sūtra you do not need transmission but I find just listening to the teaching can focus my mind, which will have karmaic benefits along the line somewhere as my practice has improved

Malcolm wrote:
I never said it wasn't beneficial to listen to recordings of people chanting sūtras. I merely maintaining that the idea one can receive transmission from a recording is mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Oral Transmission of the Sutra of Golden Light
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not a lung because it isn't live.

Manjushri Fan said:
Malcolm: As it's late in the UK so my question may seem offensive, I mean no disrespect becuase I know you are very knowledgable about Tibetan Buddhism and I value your input on any question I have.

But, does this not fall down to views on whether a lung must be live, seen as Lama Zopa says: Lama Zopa Rinpoche agreed to allow those who listen to a recording of Rinpoche giving the oral transmission to receive the transmission in full. You may receive this oral transmission by watching/listening to the video provided here or the audio linked to below. You must listen to the entire sutra in order to receive the full transmission from Lama Zopa Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect to Lama Zopa, you cannot receive a lung from a recording. For example, you cannot turn on a lamp unless it is plugged into a wall, likewise, you cannot receive transmission from a recording.

Anyway, it is a sūtra, you don't need any special transmission for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Oral Transmission of the Sutra of Golden Light
Content:
Manjushri Fan said:
I've just watched this and I feel so much better for it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a lung because it isn't live.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Someone has sold you some fairytales Kevin.

Malcolm wrote:
Regardless, the skeleton of the ACA was actually designed by conservatives connected with the Heritage Foundation with the aim of making health insurance more profitable for insurance companies.

In short, Obamacare is great for people in some states who make the poverty level or less, but is unduly punishes middle class families and is a form of excessive taxation with little or no benefits. There are millions people out there who are paying $10,000 a year with $6,000 deductibles.

In short, health care and education are rights and not privileges.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 15th, 2016 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Not to get too tirthika-ish, but here's something from Suri Nagamma's "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam": When Bhagavan was in Virupaksha Cave, Echamma, who installed a picture of Bhagavan and a picture of Seshadri Swami in her house, decided to do puja with a lakh of tender leaves, and began it after informing Bhagavan about it. By the time she had finished the puja with fifty thousand leaves, summer had set in, and she could not gather any more leaves even though she wandered all over the mountain. She got tired, and went to Bhagavan to ventilate her grievances. Bhagavan said, “If you cannot get the leaves, why not pinch yourself and do puja?” She said, “Oh, but that will be painful!” Bhagavan said, “If it pains you to pinch your body, is it not painful to the tree when you cut its leaves?” She turned pale and asked, “Why did you not tell me earlier, Swami?” He replied, “When you know that pinching the body is painful, why did you not know that the tree will be equally pained if you rob it of its leaves? Do I have to tell you that?”
(Bhagavan = Ramana Maharshi)

Malcolm wrote:
Common sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 15th, 2016 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Sonam Wangchug said:
One of my Guru's has said that if we are to cut down a tree, because the tree may be inhabited by a spirit.

That being if you cut the tree will feel pain due to their association and attachment with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds like mind/body to me...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 14th, 2016 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Scalia died, things are going to get really interesting now!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 14th, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
My point of view is, if it breathes, if it uses prāṇa vāyu, it is sentient.

Mother's Lap said:
What about fire?

Malcolm wrote:
Fire does not use prāṇa vāyu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 14th, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think the dividing line between sentient and nonsentient is a great deal more porous than Buddhists would like to acknowledge.

dzogchungpa said:
You're not going panpsychist on us, are you?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, I just think that drawing a hard line between sentient and nonsentient life is very difficult, if not impossible. That hard line cannot bear any rigorous examination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The idea that plants are not sentient is a cultural idea, it is not a hard doctrinal Buddhist position.

My point of view is, if it breathes, if it uses prāṇa vāyu, it is sentient.

I have come to the conclusion there is no such thing as nonsentient life.

kirtu said:
OK, so you can accept various Hindu, Jain (I think), Taoist, and shamanistic views regarding sentience (all of which *can* hold that all life is sentient - not that they always do hold that view though).

dzogchungpa said:
So, do you hold that, for example, humans can be reborn as trees and vice versa?

Malcom said:
Hell, according to the Jatakas, one can be reborn as a bridge or a broom.

kirtu said:
Unless you can provide a quote I'll have to point out that this is an incorrect reading of the Jatakas.  Sentient beings can be reborn as beings (usually spirits or dewas or ghosts of some sort) that use the objects as homes.  Sometimes they are essentially imprisoned in those objects (like the Mahasiddha whose mother was reborn as an insect inside of a rock that was used as a hearthstone).  This, BTW, is a common shamanistic view (although there can be variations from culture to culture).  Many people who grew up in Hawaii, for example, would be comfortable at least with the idea that beings inhabit plants, rocks, mountains, ocean, etc. even if they were uncomfortable articulating that in a wider, esp. Western, cultural context).  However this view is also acknowledged variously among American Indian groups as well.  And this is also the general Tibetan view.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
HI Kirt:

Again, the story you cite is a cultural misunderstanding of fossilization. Tibetans, as well as most other humans, did not understand that creatures they found in rock were born millions of years of ago, died, and settled to floor of an ancient ocean -- nevertheless, rock formations where trilobites are found are used in Tibetan medicine.

I think the dividing line between sentient and nonsentient is a great deal more porous than Buddhists would like to acknowledge.

Then there is the case of earthworm. If you cut an earthworm in half, clearly both sides live on, and indeed will form individuals. Are earthworms sentient or not? If they are, how does their individual sentience arise in absence of conception?

Perhaps it is the case that Buddhadharma does not account for everything in the Universe, as much as we would like.

As far as the broom and bridge stories go, they can be found in the Petavatthu. There are a number of examples where monks and so on are born as inanimate objects, pillars, brooms, etc.

The container/content metaphor (mind/body, spirit/tree, etc.) is a powerful metaphor, but that is all it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
IMO it is time for people to take the risk, and actually be more politically mobilized.


Malcolm wrote:
Bernie or bust.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Norwegian said:
What is Hillary Clinton part of? The establishment. Once more, for repetition: The establishment. Why would you vote for this?

Kim O'Hara said:
Only to keep Cruz or Trump as far from the White House as possible.


Kim


Malcolm wrote:
That's the point, Kim. Clinton can't keep Trump out. Have you seen the polls?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 9:40 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are you insinuating that some traditional points of view are mistaken?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, when did I ever say otherwise?

dzogchungpa said:
OK, just checking.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that plants are not sentient is a cultural idea, it is not a hard doctrinal Buddhist position.

My point of view is, if it breathes, if it uses prāṇa vāyu, it is sentient.

I have come to the conclusion there is no such thing as nonsentient life.

But hey, that's just me.

dzogchungpa said:
So, do you hold that, for example, humans can be reborn as trees and vice versa?

Malcolm wrote:
Hell, according to the Jatakas, one can be reborn as a bridge or a broom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Repairing the damage from fake tantra
Content:
spiritualtrainwreck said:
Hi, everyone. I'm new here and I have a question to pose to you all.

In 2014, I received practices from someone who attended empowerments from a legitimate lama in bad faith. The manner in which they were in bad faith is restricted in the TOS, so it will have to suffice to say that they did not actually receive the empowerments and definitely weren't qualified to give them to me.

I stopped practicing these teachings and cut off contact with the person that gave me them after it became clear they were using the student teacher relationship to abuse and exploit people for an unrelated agenda they were paid for.

Now I want to really receive the tantric teachings and practice them, but I feel spiritually dirty and I know what I was taught was not tantra and was psychologically destructive and encouraged me to be self righteously malicious towards people that got in my way (divine rage) and lie.

How can I clean out my mind of these wrong ideas and make a pure relationship with the Buddha's teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, one thing, you are not at fault in any way. So you are not tainted.

Find a qualified master, and continue on your way. It is never too late.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


kirtu said:
However the point is that from at least one traditional Buddhist perspective trees and plants are not sentient.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, that is a traditional point of view. So is the idea that woman have an inferior birth.

dzogchungpa said:
Are you insinuating that some traditional points of view are mistaken?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, when did I ever say otherwise?

The idea that plants are not sentient is a cultural idea, it is not a hard doctrinal Buddhist position.

My point of view is, if it breathes, if it uses prāṇa vāyu, it is sentient.

I have come to the conclusion there is no such thing as nonsentient life.

But hey, that's just me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
1) Clinton is unelectable. But you would have to live here to understand this.

kirtu said:
Many people who identify as mainstream Democrats disagree with you.  Some friends of mine have taken pains to present their view that "Sanders in unelectable" (in their view of course, not mine).

Malcolm wrote:
Establishment Dems did not elect Obama in either election.

Those who elected Obama in 2008 already voted on their opinion of Clinton, that is why she did not take the 2008 nomination.

The only reason she is running is because her arrogance and egotism knows no bounds, and she really does not care about anything other than being the first female president. She feels we "owe" it to her.

If the Democratic Party wants my vote, the votes of millions like me, and a win in 2016, they damn well better nominate Bernie. I am not voting for HIllary Clinton and neither are they. That is a guarantee.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:


kirtu said:
However the point is that from at least one traditional Buddhist perspective trees and plants are not sentient.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, that is a traditional point of view. So is the idea that woman have an inferior birth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Clinton represents the one percent, and she speaks glowingly of mass murderers. The latter point alone should bar anyone with a Buddhist conscience from voting for her. Voting for Clinton is a step backward, not a step forward.

Kim O'Hara said:
Agreed, except that IMO she is a less-bad candidate than any of the Republicans. I'm with Jeff (well, I would be if I were American): "I will vote for Hilary if she gets it, but I want to vote for Bernie," and " 1) the only thing worse than casting a relatively meaningless vote is not voting at all – because then the worst politicians really win; and 2) I want to be part of a bigger voice that supports what I consider to be government-for-people."

Malcolm wrote:
1) Clinton is unelectable. But you would have to live here to understand this.

2) More importantly, a vote for the neoliberal 1% oligarchy, represented by the Establishment Dems and the Republicans, is precisely throwing away a vote. It is a vote for business as usual. You, of all people, should understand this.

But there are other options. There is writing Bernie Sanders in or voting Green in the general election.

There is considerable fear mongering by the Establishment Dems, but people here — especially young people — are not being swayed by it this time.

If you really look into these issues, you will really understand why Clinton is not a choice. We are tired of voting for corporate candidates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 13th, 2016 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Jeff H said:
I will vote for Hilary if she gets it, but I want to vote for Bernie. I don’t know what he could or could not do about policy, but I like that he is saying no politician can do it alone. He says we need a popular uprising to affect any meaningful change in government. Unfortunately, that’s what the Tea Party has been trying to do for years from the other side and I disagree with their ends and their methods.

Malcolm wrote:
Tea party has been very effective — they understand that it is about getting people in the senate and house. Likewise, the Sanders revolution is about getting people involved in their own political life. Everything Sanders is suggesting is doable if people maintain their engagement in the process. This how civil rights was won. Taking the house and the senate is step one.

Clinton represents the one percent, and she speaks glowingly of mass murderers. The latter point alone should bar anyone with a Buddhist conscience from voting for her. Voting for Clinton is a step backward, not a step forward.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 12th, 2016 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Punya said:
The essence of prajñā is the ability to discriminate, that's all.
Ok, I was thinking of it as untainted wisdom, so that helps.

(Edit: Actually, now I think about it, I have heard/seen prajna described as discriminating awareness but clearly hadn't thought about it deeply enough to understand what that actually meant.)
There are two kinds of prajñā, contaminated prajñā and uncontaminated prajñā; only āryas possess the latter.
So in talking about contaminated prajna, in what sense are you saying that it is neutral?

Malcolm wrote:
All phenomena are contaminated apart from path dharmas. So when we say there are ten neutral mental factors, we do not mean they are uncontaminated, we mean they do not belong the group of ten positive mental factors, the six negative mental factors, the fourteen afflicted mental factors and so on.

Prajñā is one of the ten neutral mental factors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 12th, 2016 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Punya said:
Thank you for the very insightful discussion Anjali and Malcolm.

I don't understand this last comment Malcolm. I think of prajna as untainted. Is the defiled person who decides to make the bomb misapprehending wisdom? I would have thought the wisdom would simply be obscured ie they couldn't access it.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of prajñā, contaminated prajñā and uncontaminated prajñā; only āryas possess the latter.

The essence of prajñā is the ability to discriminate, that's all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 12th, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Who says trees are not sentient?

Taco_Rice said:
Heartless vegans, probably.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 12th, 2016 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Chopping down trees and Buddhism
Content:
Nosta said:
Even if you dont believe in the existence of spirits inside trees, since a tree is a living (but not sentient) being, shouldnt be respected?

Malcolm wrote:
Who says trees are not sentient?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if a defiled mind happens to select the path, it gradually "sobers" up and uses a shampoo [the path] to rid of the crabs. Otherwise, it just keeps getting the crabs, worse and worse.
BTW, another mental factor that is neutral is prajñā, in a defiled person, this again can be used to decide to follow the path, or, become really really good at making bombs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:



anjali said:
In your example above, the drinker had at least two alternatives: to get drunk or not. The "get drunk" option was somehow selected to become an intentional action. That's why I originally brought up the notion of a gap between desires and intentions. There seems to be another factor, or step, in play. After all, how many of us have been faced with the dilemma of which course of action to take? Intention per se doesn't seem to help with resolving the dilemma. Intention seems to happen upon resolving the dilemma.

Do Buddhists recognize a mental factor that generates possibilities and (perhaps another mental factor that) then picks/decides/down-selects one to become intentional?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if a defiled mind happens to select the path, it gradually "sobers" up and uses a shampoo [the path] to rid of the crabs. Otherwise, it just keeps getting the crabs, worse and worse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no gap between desire and intention, per se. Cetana is a mental factor that all minds possess.

anjali said:
Let's look at an example: I'd like a slice of pecan pie that's in the fridge, and then I decide, yes, I will have that slice, then get up and go get it. I think it's clear that the desire for pie is not the same as the intention to get the pie, but there are a couple of ways of looking at this example.

1. Would it be correct to say cetana is the mental factor that takes the raw material of desires and transforms them into intentions? My desire for pie has been transformed into my intention for pie.
2. Or is it that cetana takes desires and constructs intentions that are tightly correlated with the desires (intentions and desires are completely different, but bound together)? My desire for pie is bound to, but different from, my new intention to get the pie.
3. Some other relationship?

Malcolm wrote:
Desire is a poison. The cetana itself is neither afflicted or nonafflicted by nature, it is neutral. When a cetana is afflicted it is poisoned; therefore, that cetana tends to towards afflicted objects as well. Think of it this way: you are sober, and you see a very unattractive person you would never sleep with. Later, you get drunk (affliction), and in the morning you find yourself in bed with that very same person you never would have slept with in a million years (karma). Only now you have crabs (suffering). This is affliction --> action --> suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Does the World Vanish?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Thanks for your reply, Malcolm!

Malcolm wrote:
From the same text...

tomamundsen said:
Which text is that?


Malcolm wrote:
100 Gates of Samadhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Does the World Vanish?
Content:
Matt J said:
So I was reading "Rainbow Body and Resurrection" by Father Tiso and came across a passage in which he says that based on his sources, the rainbow body is simply the dissolving the appearance of the body due to the strength of the realization of the yogi--- it is not actually the dissolving of matter.

Malcolm wrote:
Rainbow body is the actual reversion of the matter of the physical body into pristine consciousness (ye shes). As Shabkar says:
As such, after the material atoms dissolve, one manifests as light [...]
Though in trekchö, the subtle atoms
and mind dissolve into the state of reality,
it is nothing other than mere liberation into the state of original purity.

2) Does the illusory universe disappear for the realized Dzogchenpa? If so, how is that different from cessation? If not, what the teaching?[/quote]

From the same text:

The way that great transference body arises:
when all the visions have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of pristine consciousness;
externally and internally pellucid; free from being harmed by the four elements;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out. 
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent, 
but only the body as it was before;
for example, when the hand of Mutri Tsanpo touched
the body of Master Padmasambhava,
according to account of their meeting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 11th, 2016 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
anjali said:
For sentient beings, what determines a specific intention arising at a specific time? Karma?

Malcolm wrote:
As for your second question, karma does not create karma. Affliction creates karma. In order for there to be a karma, there has to be an afflicted mind, an object, and either attachment or aversion to that object. When an intention about a given object arises, that intention itself is karma. For example, if you see an enemy, that perception of an enemy itself is afflicted. The intention to harm that enemy is itself karma. Falling that, there is derived karma, i.e. the physical actions of body and voice that ensue in trying to kill that enemy.

anjali said:
Ok. I was able to find this quote from the Nibbedhika Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 6.63: Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

To express all this in a different way, to see if I understand it, the flow would go like this: I want to harm someone (as a result of aversion)--desires per se are not karma
I will harm someone (move from desire to intention)--this is intention (karma)
I am harming someone (move from intention to action)--this is derived karma.
What interests me is the gap between desire and intention. Obviously given the definition of karma, karma can not explain how the gap is bridged between desire and intention. In our day to day lives, we experience desires becoming intentions, but on close inspection, it's not actually clear how a want becomes a will. To what extent, if any, does cause and effect actually come into play in bridging that gap?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no gap between desire and intention, per se. Cetana is a mental factor that all minds possess. Afflicted minds just have afflicted cetanas. Those afflicted cetanas are karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
If form is empty it must be empty of something.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a form (an object of the eye) is empty of an essence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
anjali said:
One without dualistic ignorance (a Buddha) acts without intention and spontaneously?
For sentient beings, what determines a specific intention arising at a specific time? Karma?

Malcolm wrote:
As for your first question, yes, a Buddha acts free of intention, spontaneously.

As for your second question, karma does not create karma. Affliction creates karma. In order for there to be a karma, there has to be an afflicted mind, an object, and either attachment or aversion to that object. When an intention about a given object arises, that intention itself is karma. For example, if you see an enemy, that perception of an enemy itself is afflicted. The intention to harm that enemy is itself karma. Falling that, there is derived karma, i.e. the physical actions of body and voice that ensue in trying to kill that enemy.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:
Karma_Yeshe said:
Also, even if some people like to claim otherwise, there is no such thing as "the greatest master alive"

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in point of fact there is. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has done more to promulgate Dzogchen teachings than any other living master. Who else teaches Sems sde, klong sde, man ngag sde, etc. in their complete form, not merely as theories, but as practices? Can you name anyone? No? I didn't think so.

So, while it is true a star, the moon and the sun are all the same in that they illuminate the Earth from the sky, there is a difference in their power to illuminate.

For example, there have been many Dzogchen masters in Tibetan History, but no one would argue that Longchen Rabjam wasn't the greatest Tibetan Dzogchen master in History.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 1:00 PM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
There is room in the Mahayana for all of us, of many stripes, respecting and honoring each other...

Malcolm wrote:
The point, seemingly lost on you, is that some people are feeling disrespected by you and what you write


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 11:46 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
That is exactly why, in the recent discussions we were having about śūnyatā, that I was saying that 'śūnyatā doesn't mean non-existent'.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, it means "absence" or "void."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
especially given that you are a teacher, your behavior here is very ugly.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not your teacher, so, his opinions are of no consequence.


Johnny Dangerous said:
That's true,  I simply find it ugly behavior for someone who claims to teach Dharma to act that way on a public forum.

Malcolm wrote:
Does he teach Dharma? Who knows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
especially given that you are a teacher, your behavior here is very ugly.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not your teacher, so, his opinions are of no consequence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
krodha said:
Karma, even in the context you are referencing, wouldn't correspond to the idea of fatalism because the role of intention [cetanā] is not negated.

anjali said:
Something I've occasionally wondered is, how does intention arise? Is it uncaused and spontaneous?

Malcolm wrote:
It is conditioned by suffering and is afflicted by nature, since it arises from dualistic ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: plan to change temple symbol on maps
Content:
Manjushri Fan said:
I remeber reading this, I can see why people want to change it but I believe it should stay the same, we should change all Buddhist, Jain and Hindu cultures because it symbolises hate in Europe

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but this is just to PC. We Buddhists should not feel the need to eliminate the swastika from our temples and statues. This is crazy.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[cue endless discursive jundo-babble]


jundo cohen said:
It is only bad when people begin believing that what may perhaps be untrue is true. It is even worse when people go beyond believing to insisting and teaching that the untrue is true and that anyone who does not believe so is wrong and should be banished (or sometimes in this world burned or bombed).

Many of the serious debates and explanations that arise in a religion forum such as this one that are taken as serious inquiry into reality may be no more solid than asking why Kryptonite works on Superman. It is my feeling that, if a newcomer asks "What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?", we should avoid to teach them from the outset anything which smacks of the Buddhist equivalent of Metropolis and X-ray vision, except perhaps as parable or symbolic myth.

(Of course, on what is fact and what is fiction, views will disagree and that is fine).

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
[/cue endless discursive jundo-babble]

You never disappoint, Jundo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
...that one finds oneself in the realm of religion.

Malcolm wrote:
And that's bad because...?

[cue endless discursive jundo-babble]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:
narraboth said:
After Kyabje Taklung tsetrul Rinpoche passed away, Kyabje Yangthang Rinpoche is probably the last older Tibetan lama who actively give transmission including Dzogchen teaching. Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche used to visit europe every two years. Yangthang Rinpoche might visit europe again, or you can meet him in Sikkim (he gives audience every morning).



Of course, Kyabje Dodrupchen Rinpoche and Kyabje Sangye Tsering Rinpoche are still alive, but my understanding is that they don't openly give teaching anymore. Even meeting them is not easy.

There are several slightly younger nyingma masters also visit europe from time to time and giving Dzogchen teaching. Keep an eye on it.

Malcolm wrote:
Yangthang Rinpoche is a wonderful master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
Matt J said:
I think there's an interesting dialogue in Buddhism about views. All views are limited, but I don't think that means all views are equal. In Theravada, there is a teaching called transcendental dependent arising.

Malcolm wrote:
This also exists in Mahāyāna, even Dzogchen. It is often termed "reverse dependent origination."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 10th, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:
lunak said:
Hi,
I would like to taste Dzogchen ater reading of some books.

I already have experience with Vipassana meditation and retreats.

I am looking for:
retreats/courses: preferably in Europe, or Tibet, but can be US or other places if really valuable
teachers/masters: I know that picking good teacher is essenatial, thats why I would appreciate your recommendation/experiences

Thank you very much for help
Lukasz

Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu is based in Europe. Greatest living Dzogchen master, bar none. https://dzogchen.net


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Jeff H said:
Your perspective is very interesting, Jayavara! It will take me a while to read your article and I anxiously await the response of the scholars here on DW. I think this is going to be a really good discussion, so while Malcolm does his warm-up exercises, I want to stick my two-cents worth in now.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing more that needs to be said than what the Buddha says in the above sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Does Karma explain everything.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Subha the student, Todeyya's son, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race? For short-lived & long-lived people are to be seen, sickly & healthy, ugly & beautiful, uninfluential & influential, poor & rich, low-born & high-born, stupid & discerning people are to be seen. So what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race?"

"Student, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement."

"I don't understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's statement spoken in brief without explaining the detailed meaning. It would be good if Master Gotama taught me the Dhamma so that I might understand the detailed meaning of his brief statement."

"In that case, student, listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, Master Gotama," Subha the student responded.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, and dwells with the rod laid down, the knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in a good destination, in the heavenly world — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is long-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a long life: to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to dwell with one's rod laid down, one's knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings.

"There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is healthy wherever reborn. This is the way leading to health: not to be one who harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.

"There is the case, where a woman or man is ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, he/she grows offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; shows annoyance, aversion, & bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is ugly wherever reborn. This is the way leading to ugliness: to be ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, to grow offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; to show annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not ill-tempered or easily upset; even when heavily criticized, he/she doesn't grow offended, provoked, malicious, or resentful; doesn't show annoyance, aversion, or bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is beautiful wherever reborn. This is the way leading to beauty: not to be ill-tempered or easily upset; even when heavily criticized, not to be offended, provoked, malicious, or resentful; nor to show annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.

"There is the case where a woman or man is envious. He/she envies, begrudges, & broods about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, & veneration. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is not influential wherever reborn. This is the way leading to not being influential: to be envious, to envy, begrudge, & brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, & veneration.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not envious. He/she does not envy, begrudge, or brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, or veneration. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is influential wherever reborn. This is the way leading to being influential: not to be envious; not to envy, begrudge, or brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, or veneration.

"There is the case where a woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is poor wherever reborn. This is the way leading to poverty: not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, & lighting to brahmans & contemplatives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is wealthy wherever reborn. This is the way leading to great wealth: to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, & lighting to brahmans & contemplatives.

"There is the case where a woman or man is obstinate & arrogant. He/she does not pay homage to those who deserve homage, rise up for those for whom one should rise up, give a seat to those to whom one should give a seat, make way for those for whom one should make way, worship those who should be worshipped, respect those who should be respected, revere those who should be revered, or honor those who should be honored. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is low-born wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a low birth: to be obstinate & arrogant, not to pay homage to those who deserve homage, nor rise up for... nor give a seat to... nor make way for... nor worship... nor respect... nor revere... nor honor those who should be honored.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not obstinate or arrogant; he/she pays homage to those who deserve homage, rises up... gives a seat... makes way... worships... respects... reveres... honors those who should be honored. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is highborn wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a high birth: not to obstinate or arrogant; to pay homage to those who deserve homage, to rise up... give a seat... make way... worship... respect... revere... honor those who should be honored.

"There is the case where a woman or man when visiting a brahman or contemplative, does not ask: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she will be stupid wherever reborn. This is the way leading to stupidity: when visiting a brahman or contemplative, not to ask: 'What is skillful?... Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'

"But then there is the case where a woman or man when visiting a brahman or contemplative, asks: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is discerning wherever reborn. This is the way leading to discernment: when visiting a brahman or contemplative, to ask: 'What is skillful?... Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'

"So, student, the way leading to short life makes people short-lived, the way leading to long life makes people long-lived; the way leading to sickliness makes people sickly, the way leading to health makes people healthy; the way leading to ugliness makes people ugly, the way leading to beauty makes people beautiful; the way leading to lack of influence makes people uninfluential, the way leading to influence makes people influential; the way leading to poverty makes people poor, the way leading to wealth makes people wealthy; the way leading to low birth makes people low-born, the way leading to high birth makes people highborn; the way leading to stupidity makes people stupid, the way leading to discernment makes people discerning.

Beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement...

When this was said, Subha the student, Todeyya's son, said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Community of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: Chatral Rinpoche's advice - a question
Content:
tingdzin said:
As far as the first question, hang around here long enough and you will see that there are all kinds of people trying to establish their own version of Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
I never can understand people who do this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 1:41 PM
Title: Sanders takes Dixville Notch in a landslide!
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sanders 4 | Clinton 0


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
FYI,

I started a Facebook group, Buddhists for Bernie 2016.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1682090535408406/

dzogchungpa said:
May I suggest the name "Bernisattvas"?

Malcolm wrote:
Awesome!!!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
FYI,

I started a Facebook group, Buddhists for Bernie 2016.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1682090535408406/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 9th, 2016 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist centres, cultural alienation, etc.
Content:
Jeff H said:
It seems to me that respect and reverence are states of mind first that will later express themselves appropriately according to the degree we are able to hold them.

Malcolm wrote:
If you practice Dharma, that is the real prostration. I see a lot of people prostrating, who then fail to practice Dharma.

Gesture of respect appropriate in Asian cultures may not be appropriate in non-asian cultures.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 8th, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist centres, cultural alienation, etc.
Content:
WJ77 said:
Nobody prostrates.

Malcolm wrote:
You would really hate Dzogchen community then, we don't even bow, let alone prostrate.

When our teacher comes into the room, we stand. Then he asks us to sit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 8th, 2016 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: 8 lines of praise to Heruka and Vajrayogini
Content:
Tigersnest said:
Is there a sanskrit version available or in circulation of these prayers?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you can find it David Gray's translation of the root tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 7th, 2016 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
One may also work to make the Pure Land real in this world, while knowing that this world has been the Pure Land all along.

boda said:
If one knew this world was the Pure Land one wouldn't work to make it so. One can believe it's the Pure Land, however.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhafields need to be purified. That being said, there is an important passage about purifying buddhafields, and the innate purity of even impure fields like this one in the Vimalakirti Nirdesha sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Okay, it's a training, meaning (I assume) it is not meant to be taken literally, rather as a "poetic license" pointer.

But I still don't get it. Matter and emptiness seem categorically different. To say "Emptiness is matter" sounds like saying something like "Existence is body." (Not meant to be a literal translation, rather an example of the mix of two categorically different terms.) It does not compute!


Malcolm wrote:
It is a training meant to lead one to understand that all phenomena do not arise and do not cease.

It has exactly the same meaning as the mangalaṃ of the Nāgārjuna's MMK.

Emptiness is matter, matter is empty means there is no matter to find that is not empty, and no emptiness to look for apart from matter.

The result of looking for matter, is that it is not found ultimately. It is a mere empty appearance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 5th, 2016 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
vidyā means knowledge

Wayfarer said:
I'm not saying it doesn't mean that, but there are different senses of 'knowledge'.

A question I have about the Sanskrit root 'vid-' - do you think it might be related to the Latin 'videre', meaning 'to see' (which is also the root of 'vision', 'video')?  Because then 'a-vidya' means un-knowledge in the sense of 'not seeing', as in 'not seeing the meaning, purpose or point'.

Malcolm wrote:
It absolutely is related to the root, vid.

So yes, in this case, avidyā means not seeing the principle of causes and results, for example, when we apply the term to the first link of dependent origination.

"I came, I saw I conquered," as Caesar said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 5th, 2016 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I've been thinking that a better translation for avidya than 'ignorance' is 'unwisdom'. The word  'ignorance' carries a question: ignorant concerning what? The road rules? Grammar? Etiquette? Whereas, etymologically, 'a-vidya' literally means 'not seeing right'. So, 'unwisdom' is a better word, I think - a condition which is indeed the common lot of humanity unless they take pains to overcome it.

So in this context, avidya is not realising emptiness, or not seeing the inherent insubstantiality of things, therefore clinging, therefore suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
I appreciate your observation, and I have been down that road too. Unfortunately, vidyā means knowledge, for example, like the five sciences (pañcavidyāsthana) and so on, and as a verb, it is used exactly the way we use the verb "to know."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 5th, 2016 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: The "four methods" that prove the existence of future li
Content:
Aemilius said:
Certain Madhyamaka thinkers, like Candrakirti and Nagarjuna (in Yuktisastika Vritti, Sixty Stanzas on Reasoning Commentary ), refute the independent or substantial existence of consciousness. The proof given is the teaching of Twelve Links of Dependent Arising, where consciousness is preceded by volition (samskara), which is preceded by ignorance (avidya). Hence consciousness is dependent on them and is void of substantial existence.
Nagarjuna attacks the presumed substantial existence of consciousness also in the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, for example in Chapter Nine: Investigation of the Existence of Something Prior.

Adamantine said:
Consciousness here is different than clarity and awareness, don't conflate them.

Malcolm wrote:
Clarity and awareness do not have substantial existence either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 5th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Here's something I don't quite get:

Form is emptiness. No problem with that. Form is clearly empty of ... (svabhava).

But:

Emptiness is form. Hmm ... that's confusing. I grok "is empty of." But "emptiness" as a subject/noun, not so much, because it seems to want to reify "being empty." Does EiF mean anything nontrivially *different* from FiE? If so, what?

Malcolm wrote:
Just a minor correction to the translation you are using, it should be:
"Matter [the material aggregate] is empty (adjective). Emptiness (noun) is matter [one to one identity]. [Therefore] there is no matter apart from emptiness; there is no emptiness apart from matter."
The same goes for the rest of the five aggregates, as it is said:
Likewise, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness are empty...That being so, all phenomena are emptiness, signlessness, not arising, not ceasing, neither tainted nor free from taints; neither increasing nor decreasing.
So, it is an identity proposition about the nature of reality. But it is not really a proposition, since the sūtra says that this analysis is a training. A training in what? A training in seeing that the five aggregates, all contaminated phenomena are empty of a svabhāva, an inherent nature.

However, not only contaminated phenomena are empty of a svabhāva, an inherent nature, but also so called pure phenomena, nirvana and so on.

The message? There is nothing to cling to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 4th, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
As far as I know, emptiness can be pointed out with help of a teacher in person. So get an "explanation" that way.

smcj said:
Just as a general note, the "pointing out instructions" are mostly pretty rare. Customarily they are to be given by a realized master for a student that is "ripe". There's no harm in participating in a public pointing out, I'm sure there's karmic blessings involved. ChNN gives them quite regularly. However that's not how it goes as a routine thing; the idea that if one is not karmically prepared for it, it won't work anyway. If it worked consistently then that's all anybody would do, and it would spread across the globe like wildfire.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Malcolm wrote:
"Pointing out" ( ngo 'phrod ) and "direct introduction" ( rang ngo thag tu 'phrad pa ) are not the same thing, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 4th, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: The TM equivalent of xanax
Content:
lotwell said:
Couldn't find the new topic button in the tibetan medicine forum.

So anyways... is there something that parallels xanax or similar drugs in tibetan medicine?

warm regards

Malcolm wrote:
If you have an anxiety disorder, you should try and speak to a qualified TM practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump has upped the ante.

Taco_Rice said:
Trump has at least allowed a great deal of people to believe that their concerns have been heard in our system.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, people like David Duke.

Taco_Rice said:
"""homophobia"""
That's your gay agenda. A term which could be defined as, "actions which hinder or oppose our gay agenda."

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, I am not gay....

Taco_Rice said:
People will often choose whichever options are advertised or propagandized at them most effectively and most forcefully.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. Education means training people to make their own choices.

Taco_Rice said:
Your kids, but under our educational system, their choice, and rightly so.
I have the right to pass my values on to my children.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you only have the right to advocate your values to your children, and should they eventually disagree with your values, then that is their choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
Trump has brought nothing into the conversation at all apart from lies, racism and xenophobia.
The conversation is already full of lies and agendas that do not serve the public good.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump has upped the ante.

Taco_Rice said:
We don't have to propagandize anyone, merely educate women. And there is nothing at all wrong with redistribution.
This is population control.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is women choosing not to have children.

Taco_Rice said:
We live in a culture where people will balk at being explicitly told not to have kids, so there's a system in place to try to create a social stigma to having children and create barriers to forming families.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm.... we live in a culture where women are empowered to feel they have a right to choose whether or not they want children. Many don't.

Taco_Rice said:
There's also an agenda on the part of gay activists to try to push their lifestyle choice as far as possible in the legal system and popular culture—even and especially onto children.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is absolute nonsense. There is no Gay Agenda. This is just homophobia.

Taco_Rice said:
It isn't so much that one can "simply educate women," but that women are educated in a certain way.

Malcolm wrote:
Educating women just means allowing women to learn.

Taco_Rice said:
I don't judge.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an obviously disingenuous statement.

Taco_Rice said:
It's your life and your choice. But they're my kids.

Malcolm wrote:
Your kids, but under our educational system, their choice, and rightly so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
seeker242 said:
I'm I am suggesting non-harming to sentient beings and being criticized for that by "experienced dharma practitioners".

Malcolm wrote:
You are over-defining what avihimsa actually means. It is for this reason I am criticizing your point of view.

The Vegan definition of ahimsa and the Buddha's teaching on ahimsa are not the same. The Vegan definition of ahimsa comes from Gandhi, and while Gandhi was not a Jain, he was strongly influenced by Jainism in his views. Like the Jains, not only are you defining ahimsa as avoiding killing, you over extend it to mean that you should not drink milk, use honey, etc. This is far beyond the range of what Buddha taught as ahimsa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:


smcj said:
This is ground upon which both Gelug and Gzhan stong are frequently criticized (justifiably), and just as often, the objects of such criticism try to defend their novelties with baseless hermeneutics.
So both the Gelugpas and Karma Kagyupas are off base. Lol, no bias there!

Malcolm wrote:
Not all Karma Kagyus were gzhan stong pas (for example, the 8th Karmapa, who refuted it). Gzhan stong only became a Karma Kagyu brand in the late 18th century. And even then, really only at Palpung, which had a close relationship with the Kathok (the one Nyingma monastery where it was very prevalent, also from the late 18th century, as I have already explained to you).

So, it is not that Karma Kagyu is "off base", since gzhan stong does not define it, it is just gzhan stong that is a bit of a problem. Gelug view is more or less a mirror image of gzhan stong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
So it's not disrespectful for you to laugh at me, but it is for me to do the same? Isn't that interesting...

Malcolm wrote:
I was not laughing at you, and I was suggesting that you not be disrespectful to Simon.

You know, in a conversation where someone says something amusing, then you laugh. It does not mean you are laughing at them. I don't laugh at people unless they truly are being ridiculous. As much I may disagree with your (nonbuddhist) ideology, I don't think you are being ridiculous. We have dzogchungpa for that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem not to understand the history of civil rights.

Taco_Rice said:
You seem not to understand why Feminist ideals of gender equality fail in poorer nations, slums and ghettos.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite simply, it is merely a matter of education.

Taco_Rice said:
Granting rights to various minority groups is a matter of politics, that is, of persuasion, appeal to sympathies and threats of force, whereas creating the Feminist standard of gender equality is only attainable by redistribution of resources and constant propagandizing. The former only changes the terms of relations between groups within the larger whole, the latter is a force that effects the entire civilization pervasively.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and education creates opportunities for women, which is why groups like the Taliban are so vehemently opposed to educating women. They know what happens when they have to deal with educated women. So they try to kill them and prevent their education in first place.

We don't have to propagandize anyone, merely educate women. And there is nothing at all wrong with redistribution.
Trump lost Iowa. Awesome.
New Hampshire.
People don't like losers, especially poor ones.

http://www.loser.com
At the very least, Trump has brought into the discussion many things which could have exploded to the surface. Hopefully the future is a more balanced place with more prosperity and appreciation, where path and purpose cultivate hearts and minds of goodwill.
Trump has brought nothing into the conversation at all apart from lies, racism and xenophobia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
Changing the teachings to fit into one's comfort zone is introducing unawareness into the teachings--even if it is with good intentions.

Malcolm wrote:
Many arguments among scholars have to do with departures from standard definitions and understandings. In Tibetan, such departures are called "rang bzo," literally, "personal fabrications." A lot of effort is spent by Tibetan scholars to prove they are doing nothing original, and their opponents point of view is "novel."

This is ground upon which both Gelug and Gzhan stong are frequently criticized (justifiably), and just as often, the objects of such criticism try to defend their novelties with baseless hermeneutics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
And that would warrant a capitol HAHAHAHA.

Malcolm wrote:
No need to be disrespectful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
Buddhadharma points unflinchingly to non-harming of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Avihimsa is a mental factor associated with all positive minds in the desire realm. It is not, within Buddhadharma, an ideological commitment. It is connected with personal conduct (śīla), specifically, of actively engaging in killing other sentient beings.

You would be very surprised at how few sūtras mention it. It is mentioned in only two Vinaya texts, twenty three sūtras, and eleven tantric texts in the Tibetan Canon. These mentions are very brief. In other words, there is very little sustained discussion of this concept, and certainly no ideological dimension in any of the discussions of nonharming.

While it is true that the benefits of being free from a harmful mind is praiseworthy, what it boils down to is that if your mind is free from harmfulness, himsa, you will not kill things, or ask others to do so for you.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you use honey, milk, eat meat, wear leather shoes, or even furs. It has everything to with how you treat sentient beings you encounter day to day and your freedom from the impulse to harm them.

Using honey is not harmful to bees, no more than milking cows is harmful to cows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Buddhadharma points unflinchingly to the reality of this realm..that every breath and every step and every meal causes harm to sentient beings. It does not attempt to sidestep that as Jainadharma does. Buddhadharma says that the only way to stop harming other sentient forms is to realise a state where all difference between self and other is transcended..where all is seen as arising in great emptiness..and that realisation is not a product of any diet. Neither is any diet a bar to it. It is of a different level of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
It's hopeless. Some people are dead set in thinking that their diet is a key to liberation, sadly, even Buddhists have this delusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
Here is the proper definition of veganism from the vegan society themselves. https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."
...In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Malcolm wrote:
This means of course, eschewing the use of animal fertilizers, etc.


Hahahaha, you think one lifetime of avoiding meat is going to eliminate all the countless offenses of killing and eating meat you have engaged in since beginningless time? Dream on.
Hahahahaha, you think it's me saying that meanwhile I'm simply quoting a sutra that was posted.
It is important to distinguish the provisional from the definitive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


Simon E. said:
Buddharma says that all samsaric life is characterised by death and death dealing. All sentient forms consume and are consumed in endless cycles. We cannot live without causing harm. It is not even an end in Buddhadharma as it is in Jainadharma. We can however develop compassion and we can end samsara for ourselves.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. One's liberation does not depend on one's diet. Buddhadharma is not based on what one eats. Though there are some provisional teachings for attracting nonbuddhists that may make it seem so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
#Coingate:


http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/critics_cry_foul_over_coingate_hillary_clinton_had_1_6_chance_of_winning_6_coin_tosses_that_made_her_winner_in_iowa/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
...all meat eaters are greedy, ignorant, foul smelling and guilty of countless offenses.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahaha, you think one lifetime of avoiding meat is going to eliminate all the countless offenses of killing and eating meat you have engaged in since beginningless time? Dream on.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
seeker242 said:
Of course, it is not a hypothesis because it has been proven.

Malcolm wrote:
Proven, how exactly?


seeker242 said:
Typically being the key word. Typically, vegans don't oppose things that are actually necessary, like crops being pollinated. The very definition of veganism itself states this.
The Vegan Society soon clear that it rejected the use of animals for any purpose, not only as food, and in 1951 it defined veganism as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals."

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

So you are saying there is some kind of Veganism that permits animals to be exploited, for example, kept to produce manure for food production and so forth?

In any case, Veganism is not Buddhism, was not taught by the Buddha, and is not a part of Buddhadharma. If anything, it is has closer ties to Jainism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
Norwegian said:
So, as we all know, the Buddha was omniscient. He did not talk nonsense. If he stated that honey was actually acceptable to eat, and, in fact for monks something that could be eaten outside of their limited rations (when considered as medicine), and also something that is considered as good food for meditators, it goes without saying, that in order to eat honey, you necessarily have to collect it before consumption.

Honey has had a central place in Buddhadharma since day one as a very precious substance, and there is nothing wrong with it. Observe the following, from the Lankavatara Sutra:

" Now, Mahamati, the diet I have allowed for my disciples to take is satisfying to all wise people, but is avoided by the unwise. This diet produces many merits, keeps away many harmful effects, and was prescribed by the ancient sages. It comprises rice, barley, wheat, kidney beans, beans, lentils, oil, honey, molasses, treacle, sugar cane, coarse sugar, and similar foods. Food prepared with these ingredients is proper food.

This goes to show that the Buddha was not a vegan.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because also milk is included, and and monks were allowed to wear leather shoes and fur in cold climates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
Matt J said:
Better not speak to Yunmen, then.

A monk asked Yün-men, "What is Buddha?" [雲門因僧問如何是佛]
Yün-men said, "Dried shitstick." [門云乾屎橛]

Malcolm wrote:
And no, I do not think it is correct to claim one can just redefine things however one wants, because if so, dharmakāya can become God, Buddha can become shit, and so on.
Well, in this case, a sentient being is a wet shitstick, so it works out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
The term "tathāgatagarbha" has a consistent definition.
If so, then do you accept that definition to be as HH KARMAPA VIII defined it as quoted in this thread (a.k.a.
Shentong)?

If not, will you concede that different sects and authors, such as HHK8, re-define terms as they please?

Malcolm wrote:
The Eighth Karmapa's definition as presented by you conflates sūtra and mantra definitions. And no, I do not think it is correct to claim one can just redefine things however one wants, because if so, dharmakāya can become God, Buddha can become shit, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think the evidence shows that plants form communities which bear all the signs of sentience.
And of course, in my opinion, we need to recognize that plants are also sentient communities. Even colonies of bacteria display sentient properties.

dzogchungpa said:
This is kind of interesting. Could you say a little more about what you mean and its ethical implications, if any?

Mother's Lap said:
Lambert Schmithausen has two books/thesis' on plant sentience in Buddhism, and this is what I could find of this author that's freely available and deals with ethics.
http://dharmaflower.net/_collection/earlybuddhist.pdf Lambert Schmithausen, The Problem of Sentience of Plants in Early Buddhism,

— id., Plants in Early Buddhism.
(Thanks to mutsuk).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
I've been trying to make the point lately that terms mean whatever the author in question wants them to mean...
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
So are you saying terms are consistently defined across time, sects and authors? Specifically Dharmadhatu and Tathagatagarbha?

Malcolm wrote:
The term "tathāgatagarbha" has a consistent definition. The term "dharmadhātu" changes in meaning depending on whether we are talking about Hinayāna, Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump lost Iowa. Awesome.

MiphamFan said:
Cruz is worse than Trump dude.

Malcolm wrote:
Cruz has no chance in a general election. He is too far to the right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus said:
What is this simultaneity important for? Certainly not for relaying teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is important for relaying the teachings. We have already discussed this you and I. Not into a repeat.

Queequeg said:
Can you link the discussion?

Malcolm wrote:
It was in a thread on direct introduction


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus said:
What is this simultaneity important for? Certainly not for relaying teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is important for relaying the teachings. We have already discussed this you and I. Not into a repeat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
No, it is not just a hypothesis
Of course it is  a hypothesis, untested, unproven, etc.
Yes so according to vegan ideology. You say that because you don't know what vegan ideology actually is.

Malcolm wrote:
Vegans typically regard humans using animals for any reason at all as wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 11:39 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump lost Iowa. Awesome.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 10:19 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
smcj said:
Have you taken a look at it? It's not Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a text of secret mantra. For example, it discusses Mahāyoga, abhiṣekas, luminosity and so on. It is by the author of the Bodhicittavivarana.


smcj said:
I've been trying to make the point lately that terms mean whatever the author in question wants them to mean...

Malcolm wrote:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Here's what I'm getting - the interaction with a teacher must be temporally immediate, but not spatially immediate.

Malcolm wrote:
With modern tech, this is possible, yes.

Queequeg said:
The interaction must be through the medium of a common language - mediation through an interpreter OK.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Queequeg said:
The interaction does not have to be mutual - in the sense of individual intercourse - but interaction from teacher to student is the critical factor.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Queequeg said:
How about telecast, in a language I don't understand, but with subtitles...

Malcolm wrote:
If they are simultaneous, yup. This is mediation through interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
This only works so long as the men are well behaved.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, when women stand up for themselves, men don't stand a chance.

Taco_Rice said:
Not without the support of at least some men. The only support women, as a whole, really need is from powerful men, but then this brings us to the issue of how power is obtained and maintained. A society where men are ruthlessly grabbing for power rather than, say, contributing scientific genius or building infrastructure looks a lot like the third world... or a given ghetto. What gender do you think most of the enforcers will be? How many f***s do you think are given by those enforcers in highly unequal societies?

Malcolm wrote:
You seem not to understand the history of civil rights.

Taco_Rice said:
That's exactly what happened as Christianity became more willing to placate popular opinion rather than to direct it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, people in European nations and their derivatives have gradually ceased having faith in Christianity as their core story, their core explanation of the world. This will gradually happen in Muslim countries as well, as they struggle to adapt to globalization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
Well posted, yet with no relation whatsoever to stealing honey from bees. And conveniently, but not surprisingly, no mention of the fact that bees can pollinate crops just fine without someone stealing their honeycomb.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so, according to Vegan ideology, raising bees to be used for pollination violates their rights.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
seeker242 said:
The idea that a vegan diet is less harmful is a fact.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not a fact. It is a hypothesis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:


Queequeg said:
How about telecast - ie. the live feed is one way?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
This only works so long as the men are well behaved.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, when women stand up for themselves, men don't stand a chance.


Taco_Rice said:
You might say that Christianity "turned the other cheek," when attacked, until it could finally begin to be destroyed.

Malcolm wrote:
Hardly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:


Queequeg said:
What about mediation through a sign interpreter? Or for that matter, any interpreter?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.

Queequeg said:
How about oral interaction between teacher and student who do not speak each other's languages?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
\

How about IM?

Malcolm wrote:
No.

Queequeg said:
Facetime?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Queequeg said:
Telephone

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The deaf can't participate in the Buddhist traditions.

Correct or incorrect?

dzogchungpa said:
I say incorrect. I think the real point is interaction with teachers, not so much the sense modalities involved in interacting with them.

Queequeg said:
Is this interaction limited to an immediate, personal interaction?

How about mail or email correspondence?

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot teach Dharma through the mail or email. This is why there is no teaching of Dharma here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The deaf can't participate in the Buddhist traditions.

Correct or incorrect?

Malcolm wrote:
Traditionally, correct. These days, incorrect, since we have sign language.

One of the eight freedoms which are part of the eighteen freedoms and endowments of a precious human birth is freedom from defective sense organs and limbs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
The West (except, to my knowledge, those f***in' Aussies!1!!) seems to be keen on taking in immigrants left and right. Why? Why take in immigrants rather than simply foster conditions in one's country that will cause people to produce more families and more children?

Malcolm wrote:
What happens, around the world, is that when women are educated they have less children.

This is one of the reasons why Islam will ultimately fail to achieve the goals you imagine. As Muslim women are educated, they will toss of the shackles off their religion, and birth rates in Muslim countries will also fall. This is already happening in the US.

As I have pointed out before, this cultural conflict between Islam and the West is really about Womens' Rights, reproductive and otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No dude. Muslims who come here will be Americanized. They will, as they are doing, adopt liberal western values, etc.

Taco_Rice said:
Nah (न) brodhisattva. Their more extremist agitators will merely double down when they see they have the advantage, as their religion encourages them to do, and gradually move society in their direction as the West takes in, and begins producing, more Muslims—"modernized" or not. (I imagine they will also change what "modernized" comes to mean, at that.)

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Scottish Enlightenment, which produced modern Capitalism and Socialism, is a much more virulent contagion than Islam. In terms of infectious power, Islam cannot compare. It will sicken and die, just like Christianity before it.

In other words, to change the metaphor slightly, Islam as an invasive species has already been outcompeted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
DGA said:
Tell us where there be dragons of opinion, and where the treasure of scholarly certitude is to  be found.

Malcolm wrote:
It's blatantly obvious:

Tibetan Buddhists = dragons of opinion
Sino-Japanese Buddhists = treasures of scholarly certitude


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Consuming honey is really terrible, isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it really, really sucks...and you know, it is not fair that all those bees pollinate all those crops [for Vegans and others] without health insurance, 401ks, etc. I really think people should get out there and do their own damn pollination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
DGA said:
If Sanders wins, he should expect a Congress at least as actively hostile and belligerent as the one that Obama has had to deal with.

Malcolm wrote:
It will be more belligerent and hostile. Sanders knows this. This is why, should he win, we can expect an activist president who spends a lot of time talking to people and "invigorating their clarity," voting out senators and representatives that do not represent their interests, and voting in one's who do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
Astus said:
Emptiness
- as the nature of all appearances: dharmadhatu
- as the wisdom of buddhas: dharmakaya

smcj said:
As far as it goes that's right (I think). The confusion comes in when, as Malcolm has recently posted, it is then said tha buddhas see phenomena as wisdoms, thus making the Dharmakaya the nature of appearances as well.


Malcolm wrote:
Guru Kampala said:
The deep and wide ocean is filled with jewels
which the nāga kings enjoy, amazing! 
Likewise, all appearances and sound have always been dharmakāya 
which the realized have enjoyed, amazing!
Guru Anaṅga said:
Once one is caught by the poisonous dregs
of clinging ignorance,
true existence is grasped in this rainbow-like body
of essenceless samsara. 
When the illnesses of clinging are cleansed, 
even samsara is the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
Nothing happens to it because "my Vegan ideology", as you call it, causes the least amount of harm possible to all of the above.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are merely shifting blame to someone else on your own behalf. The idea that a vegan diet is "less harmful" is a fantasy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Vegan ideology is not Buddhadharma, however, and people should keep this distinction in mind.

Honey, milk, butter etc. are all acceptable foods, even in most strict interpretations of Mahāyāna,

seeker242 said:
Buddhadharma doesn't say it's ok for people to exploit animals. Causing them to suffer unnecessarily, because it tastes good, even in the most lax interpretations of Mahāyāna. Kindness to, and non-harming of, animals is inherent to all forms of Buddhadharma. Vegan ideology is Buddhadharma because Vegan ideology = kindness, compassion and non-harming of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma says we must even treat the soil with kindness, the plants that live in it, etc. Avihimsa does not merely apply to animals. It applies to the entire world. And of course, in my opinion, we need to recognize that plants are also sentient communities. Even colonies of bacteria display sentient properties. What happens to your Vegan ideology then?

Life feeds on Life.


