﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
A conditioned dharmakāya is extremely unacceptable in Mahāyāna. It also directly contradicts all of the Buddha's teachings,  more tomorrow.
Nope. It's according to the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma and Buddha's Tantric teachings which are definitive.

Malcolm wrote:
Citation please?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Right, but in sūtrayāna, they maintain that it is the merely the absence of inherent existence of things, a natural purity, for example, the way Gyaltsab Je describes it in his commentary in the Uttaratantra.

There are also problems with Vajrayāna definition given by the Gelugpas, since this subtle mind is conditioned, whereas tathāgatagarbha is clearly unconditioned.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, in Sutrayana, Buddha nature is compassion. Emptiness, lack of inherent existence, cannot be Buddha nature because it's not a mind.

Buddha nature, according to you,

Malcolm wrote:
according to the Buddha.

Tsongkhapafan said:
...is unconditioned but this is impossible.

Malcolm wrote:
Not the first time you have been at odds with the Buddha's actual teaching.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's impossible because permanent things cannot produce effects so if Buddhanature were unconditioned it would be impossible to go from being a sentient being to a Buddha and it would be impossible for a Buddha to benefit any living being, which would negate the whole point of attaining enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
You have no idea how incoherent this argument, and the mass of ignorance upon which it is founded. But I am watching TV tonight, so I will have to correct you tomorrow.


Tsongkhapafan said:
The very subtle mind is conditioned and this is the point - once purified of obstructions it transforms into the Wisdom Truth Body of a Buddha and is thereby able to benefit each and every living being without exception. An unconditioned Buddhanature is inert and pointless.

Malcolm wrote:
A conditioned dharmakāya is extremely unacceptable in Mahāyāna. It also directly contradicts all of the Buddha's teachings,  more tomorrow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The only people who maintain this point of view are the Gelugpas, no one else.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's not true that Gelupas maintain that Buddhanature is sheer emptiness. I think Brunnholzl is incorrect: 'sheer natural purity' is a bit vague and also inaccurate. Gelugpas maintain that Buddhanature is the very subtle mind of clear light and its mounted wind; this is according to Highest Yoga Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, but in sūtrayāna, they maintain that it is the merely the absence of inherent existence of things, a natural purity, for example, the way Gyaltsab Je describes it in his commentary in the Uttaratantra.

There are also problems with Vajrayāna definition given by the Gelugpas, since this subtle mind is conditioned, whereas tathāgatagarbha is clearly unconditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Brunnholzl has a short synopsis of that too. He quotes Sakya Chogden. (p.79)


II. Asserting that sentient beings do not possess buddha nature. (Sakya Pandita, Buton, and others)

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Chogden is wrong w/regards to Sapan.


smcj said:
In sum, though there are numerous specific differences between the views of all these Tibetan masters, they can be said to fall into two camps--those who assert the tathagata heart as sheer emptiness (be it as the dharmadhatu, the nature of phenomena, or a non implicative negation) and those who regard it as the union of mind's emptiness and luminosity (which includes the buddha qualities).

Malcolm wrote:
Sapan actually adheres to the latter position, i.e. that tathagatagarbha is the union of union of mind's emptiness and clarity. This is the general Sakyapa position.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
muni said:
When available for worldly pursuit, yes. Then they are toy of samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
This might be an issue with some of the more ritually oriented tantras, but not Dzogchen tantras, in general. After all, what harm can one inflict with the nature of the mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, they certainly lose their mystery. But this is not a bad thing.

One, we have to recall that these texts were never secret from an elite set of people in India and Tibet.

Second, we have to realize that tantras as texts are artifacts, books written down by human beings, with all the limitations that entails.

Third, masters such as HHDL has said that tantric secrecy can actually be harmful to the teachings in the present epoch, because secrecy inspires fear.

Fourth, texts like Dzogchen tantras are very tame in comparison with some of more "anti-nomian" Indian tantras. The former have virtually no erotic imagery, virtually no descriptions of rites of magic and sorcery, unlike say Hevajra or Kalacakra, or even Guhyasamaja and many of the lower tantras. If Dzogchen tantras were kept secret, it is because they present a narrative of liberation and buddhahood that is not consistent with the gradualist Buddhism that became the state religion of Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


smcj said:
In any event, further discussion of Longchenpa in the Nyingma or Dzogchen forums should be able to accept the Tathagatagarbha as definitive, minus the synthesis with Yogacara.

Malcolm wrote:
Everybody, Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma and Jonang, accept tathagatagarbha as definitive. How it is understood in these schools may differ considerably.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: False/Wrong View in Dzogchen
Content:
AilurusFulgens said:
The reason why I have been opening a new topic is, because of a recent exchange I had with an acquaintance of mine, who is an Advaitin and at the same time practices Dzogchen.

I have a very odd feeling with the whole arrangement; especially with his argumentation that lines between Buddhism and Hinduism are not so clear-cut as it may appear and that Buddhism anyway adopted many texts and teachings from Hinduism. One example he gives is the fire-ritual or homa (although I do not understand what relevance does this have for Dzogchen). He also admits that Hinduism in turn took over some Buddhist elements.

Still, it all sounds very strange.

I would like to request the participants in this discussion to focus strictly on the false view in Dzogchen i.e. how it is being defined, the relevant quotes from primary sources (authoritative and accepted Dzogchen texts), the words of authentic and also living Dzogchen masters as well as the consequences of such falses view for the practice of Dzogchen itself (the last point is of particular importance).

I do not want to sound bigoted or parochial when discussing with my friend. But on the other hand there are certain things one cannot simply explain away - even for the superficial purposes of some "religious" harmony or tolerance.

Malcolm wrote:
False view in Dzogchen is quite simply any view of existence or nonexistence. For example, the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:
Such false views as those
are held to be gathered into four:
tīrthikās, extremists, 
hedonists and cārvākas. 
The system of explaining these is as follows:
tīrthikās maintain permanent eternalism;
extremists maintain partial eternalism, partial annihilation;
hedonists maintain that annihilation is total annihilation;
Cārvākas maintain the annihilation of karmic results.

As such, the three hundred and sixty views as well
can be gathered into four categories. 
Further those can be included
in eternalism and annihilationism. 
Those can also be included in meaningless nihilism.
This is the extent of the worldly views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 21st, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
I'm reading "When Clouds Part" by Brunnholzl and he has clarified something that was a bit confusing to me. He basically says that the Tibetan Shentong is a combination of Yogacara, specifically the 3 natures and 8 consciousnesses, plus an interpretation of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine. I had been confused about that and sort of thought that Yogacara and Tathagatagharba were the same.

Malcolm wrote:
You should trust what I tell you. I have made this point to you repeatedly over the years.

smcj said:
It also explains why a major text like Uttaratantra lacks the three natures schema yet is a mainstay of the Shentong view. Basically it was retroactively co-opted by the Shentongpas, although there were precursors in India.

Malcolm wrote:
It also explains why, for example, Longchenpa is not a gzhan stong pa. He considers tathāgatagarbha definitive, but places the teaching of the three natures within Yogacara and never uses them to explicate the meaning of the tathāgatagarba, since they are not necessary. There is no discussion of these in the Uttaratantra, per se. The Yogacara masters were not that interested in tathagatagarbha, quite frankly.


smcj said:
Brunnholzl makes another point that makes things convenient for a Kagyu Shentongpa like me, which is that… Virtually all Kagyu masters hold the tathagata heart teaching on buddha nature to be of definitive meaning and deny that the tathagata heart is just sheer emptiness or a non implicative negation.
(p.69)
.

Malcolm wrote:
The only people who maintain this point of view are the Gelugpas, no one else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 20th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Mental Continuums, Rebirth, and the Brain
Content:


Matt J said:
The point I don't fully accept is this:
For that reason, when we talk about our “individual mental continuum,” it doesn’t come from the body – in other words, from matter and energy. Each moment of our individual mental continuum has to come from a previous moment of an individual, subjective experiencing of things. And it can’t come from somebody else’s individual, subjective experiencing of things, such as that of our parents. It can only be part of the continuum of our own individual, subjective experiencing of things.
Obviously, there is a relationship (and ultimately non-duality) between body and mind. And it is true that as far as we know, physical phenomenon don't become mental and vice versa. But why is it not possible for physical phenomenon to give rise to mental phenomenon? For example, when you hit my body with a piece of wood, pain arises. So while the wood doesn't become pain, it certainly produces it in a conventional way. So why can't physical phenomenon likewise "cause" the mind-stream to arise?

I feel that this is a key argument to understand. Any thoughts?

Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple, because of the homogeneity of causes and their effects, insentience cannot give rise to sentience.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 20th, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
dreambow said:
Whilst the input has been very interesting and people have shown themselves to be very erudite ...never the less the topic was ND Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta. Could we please get back on track?

Malcolm wrote:
By demonstrating that there is no transpersonal basis in Dzogchen, it has been shown that there is a huge difference in meaning between what the term "nondual" means in Dzogchen and other systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 20th, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The gzhan stong/rang stong distinction is irrelevant to Dzogchen. Dzogchen negates the two truths, so of what use would there be in a distinction between gzhan stong and rang stong? As the Soaring Great Garuda states:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon."
M

smcj said:
Well, for starters a lot of perpetual ideas begin to make sense, like the spontaneous appearance of buddhas apropos of people's karma.

Malcolm wrote:
No. If buddhas appear "apropos" of people's karma, that means buddhas are just delusions. Indeed, as Vidyādhara Mañjuśrimitra wrote in his seminal Meditation of Bodhicitta:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.
For those of you who do not know who Mañjuśrimitra was, he was Vidyādhara Garab Dorje's main disciple, credited with dividing Dzogchen tantras into three series according to emphasis.

So, therefore, the two truths, and the whole gzhan stong/rang stong debate along with them, remains completely irrelevant to Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 19th, 2015 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
Although he is the teacher of the current Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, who says that many Nyingma and Kagyu Dzogchen teachers are shentongpas.

Malcolm wrote:
The gzhan stong/rang stong distinction is irrelevant to Dzogchen. Dzogchen negates the two truths, so of what use would there be in a distinction between gzhan stong and rang stong? As the Soaring Great Garuda states:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon.”
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 19th, 2015 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Nazis?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is really no evidence that Hitler was influenced by Buddhism at all.

odysseus said:
No official scientific or research evidence, but there's something called "word of folk mouth". As a Buddhist, you know for yourself Malcolm...

Malcolm wrote:
There isn't even any evidence in his writing that would lead one to suspect so. He was utterly dismissive of Himmler's occult obsessions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 19th, 2015 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Nazis?
Content:
odysseus said:
Hitler was a Buddhist - it's embarrassing...

Malcolm wrote:
No, he did not care for religion of any kind at all, much less Buddhism.

odysseus said:
Hitler believed in a perfect world like Utopia, by ideas he got from amongst others Buddhism. But his delusions were too much, so he never got enlightened.

Malcolm wrote:
There is really no evidence that Hitler was influenced by Buddhism at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Nazis?
Content:
odysseus said:
Hitler was a Buddhist - it's embarrassing...

Malcolm wrote:
No, he did not care for religion of any kind at all, much less Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
I like the story about how buddhas spontaneously appear according to the karma of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are not going to answer the question?

smcj said:
I'm reading the book looking for that. And in doing so I am reminded that the entire book is basically about "how the universe is" (Mt. Meru, etc.). It has various cosmologies, that's why it is called "Myriad Worlds", which would be entirely  in keeping with my interpretation of the basis as a basis for the universe. Also the chapter in question is titled "Primordial Purity of the Universe".

Malcolm wrote:
The title, Myriad Worlds, is a western title, not Kongtrul's title. It is just the first part of the Shes Bya Mdz od, lit., The Treasury of the Knowable.

Now then, if we take your line of reasoning, that the whole book is about the basis, how do you cope with the absurd consequence that Vajrasana, Vulture Peak, will exist in the basis, but the rest of the world will not? [see 143].

Instead, the notion of a basis [gzhi] is really only brought up in chapter iv. It begins on 173 by saying:
It is taught in scriptures that worlds and beings
Are created by various actions influenced by subtle and proliferation [emotions].
He then continues by listing the various approaches to the how the world and beings are created in various tenet systems. He then gives the Kalacakara account on 176:
"Most agree that in the formation [of the world], the mind is the agent..."
This whole section, up to page 181, takes the individual mind as the basis for the formation of the universe.

He the shifts to Hinayāna and Mahāyāna cosmology from 182 until 195.

He then introduces what he terms the ultimate view concerning the origin of samsara and the Dzogchen view.

The first is a detailed presentation of dependent origination. On 198, in the section on the relationship between dependent origination and the eight consciousnesses, he writes:
"The beginningless nature of the mind is clear, empty, [and] unobstructed,
but its nature is not recognized...
Thus far, the basis described in the whole book is the mind or the nature of the mind.

It is only at the conclusion of this section that Kongtrul begins a description of the Dzogchen teaching on the basis. And there is nothing there which validates your interpretation that it is a so called transpersonal basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
I like the story about how buddhas spontaneously appear according to the karma of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are not going to answer the question?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
How does an individual mind come about, in the Dzogchen scheme of things?

dzogchungpa said:
Do tell.

Malcolm wrote:
I have countless times...but people don't listen...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
So my understanding is that "all the things of relative reality, your mind included" is transpersonal. If so Dudjom R. is also reading too much into it.

Malcolm wrote:
Sarvadharma does not refer to all instances of every phenomena in the universe. It is a term which means all the phenomena of one's aggregates, sense bases and elements. All phenomena, for every sentient being, are restricted to these thirty-five dharmas.

smcj said:
So not only is it transpersonal, it is pre-personal. There are no sentient beings or buddhas present, so therefore there are no minds present al all. .

Malcolm wrote:
How does an individual mind come about, in the Dzogchen scheme of things? Is it created ex nihilo, out of nothing? Or is there something you may have perhaps overlooked? If you assume a transpersonal basis, than you have to explain how all these different minds arise from a uniform substance. And of course, you will get all caught up in the intellectual skeins of trying reconcile the two truths, and all the other pyrotechnics that arise from incorrect interpretations of the Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
Queequeg said:
Malcolm - are those authentic passages?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Let's not forget that alcohol is both a poison and known carcinogen, and therefore not appropriate for "this precious human body".

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.

dharmagoat said:
There is also the negative effect it has on mindfulness, something that a serious practitioner would be fully aware of.

Malcolm wrote:
Because it gathers the assembly of dakas and dakinis,
delights the assembly of yogeśvaras,
and is the samaya substance that perfects the two accumulations, 
the qualities of delicious booze are perfect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
odysseus said:
The point is not to indulge.

Malcolm wrote:
The conceitedly clever Kadampa vināyadharas,
and the logicians, the Jodanpas and so on, 
drink in secret, so whose craving is greater?
the qualities of delicious booze are perfect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


smcj said:
Yes, it is being used an an analogy. Why? Because it is making the point it is all-pervasive. Why else use the analogy?

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the point that is being made. The point is being made the self-originated pristine consciousness has alway been present just as space has always been present. It is a temporal metaphor here, not a spatial metaphor, as you take it to be.


smcj said:
The nature of everything else is ascertained to be mind in the Great Perfection teachings. The reason it is not the same as Yogacara is that the eight consciousnesses themselves arise from the delusion of not recognizing the basis when it arises. This is also covered on 212, paragraph three onward until we hit the end of this section on 215.
Ok, so "the 8 consciousnesses themselves arise from the delusion of not recognizing the basis when it arises". So the basis is more fundamental than the 8 consciousnesses, right? And the basis it what is not recognized "when it arises", right?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is nothing other than the self-originated pristine consciousness mentioned above. Also the ignorance that gives rise to the eight consciousnesses, etc. is just the ignorance [ma rig pa] which is the manifestation of rig pa itself, as mentioned on 215. So for example, he states on 222 that the five wisdoms of rig pa manifest as the five aggregates and so on. Not the five aggregates of all sentient beings, just your own five aggregates. Likewise, they then arise as the five afflictions, etc. Paragraph 2 on pg. 224., summarizes the six sets of five that arise from and are present in rig pa.

I think you are reading too much into the word gzhi, basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
Queequeg said:
Yay or nay and why?

Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa says, among other things, in his Praise to Booze:
Since it increases the pure essence, the body and mind are happy,
since it generates bliss and heat, it increases samadhi,
and because realization arises since it produces knowledge,
the qualities of delicious booze are perfect..


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


smcj said:
However if he is talking about "self-existing wisdom, primordially present like space " in a context that excludes both sentient being and enlightened beings--which he is--you've got a problem.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no problem here at all. Why?, because space is merely being used here as a metaphor.

smcj said:
You've still got to discover it for yourself as the nature of your own mind. But it's the nature of everything else too. To say otherwise would be to take the Yogacara view, which is not what we are talking about.

Malcolm wrote:
The nature of everything else is ascertained to be mind in the Great Perfection teachings. The reason it is not the same as Yogacara is that the eight consciousnesses themselves arise from the delusion of not recognizing the basis when it arises. This is also covered on 212, paragraph three onward until we hit the end of this section on 215.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


smcj said:
1. Is the basis devoid of samsara and nirvana?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, just as it is devoid of realization and non-realization.

smcj said:
2. Is the basis beyond causes and conditions?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because it is original purity [ka dag].


smcj said:
3. Is interdependent origination merely a delusion when seen from the Dzogchen view?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since it is produced by the imputing ignorance.

smcj said:
4. Does the basis have the attributes of clarity, unimpededness, and energy?

Malcolm wrote:
It is more accurate to say that the basis is a pristine consciousness or wisdom [ye shes] that possesses three attributes, essence, nature and compassion, or emptiness, clarity and the inseparability of the two.

smcj said:
5. Does the basis arise as the universe when unrecognized?

Malcolm wrote:
Only in a manner of speaking, it does not actually arise as the universe. The way this happens is summarized on 212, paragraph three.


smcj said:
6. Does the universe arise as the basis when recognized?

Malcolm wrote:
Again, only in a manner of speaking. The universe does not actually arise as the basis.

smcj said:
7. Are there any phenomena other than the basis expressing itself as appearance?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, delusion. This question is addressed in the paragraph mentioned above. There is no delusion in the basis, but there is delusion about the basis.

smcj said:
8. Is mind (sems) the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
No, mind is not the basis, but the mind arises from the what is described as the "creative dynamic of energy" in the forgoing paragraph.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is. Compare top of 206 to the pages I mentioned.

smcj said:
The first paragraph of 206 concludes with:
Kongtrul said:
It is great self-existing wisdom, primordially present like space.


Malcolm wrote:
That does not make it transpersonal, it just makes it a self-originated pristine consciousness, rang byung ye shes, i.e., one that one must discover for oneself as the nature of one's own mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
So it's not applicable.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is. Compare top of 206 to the pages I mentioned.

The fact is that this is standard presentation found in many places. The fact that you have badly misunderstood it merely points to the need for people to rely on qualified teachers. Otherwise, misunderstandings like yours [that the buddhanature present in all sentient beings is one transpersonal entity] are sure to happen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Tobacco
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nay. Polonium 210.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html?_r=0


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
He is discussing the ground without the minds of any beings present whatsoever--either sentient or enlightened. That is transpersonal.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, you really do not understand this teaching. You are entitled to your misunderstandings, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If you carefully read ppg. 222-224 of the book you cite, you will see how impossible your transpersonal position actually is.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
Having just quoted both of them saying that, I am going to disagree with you.

Malcolm wrote:
You are misreading them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
Not to speak for Malcolm, but after having a long thread about this, he said that the basic difference is that the base is empty and not established, unlike Brahman.

smcj said:
Since we are talking about things that are not manifest phenomena, and both are said to be "beyond conceptuality", as far as I'm concerned it is basically a difference in semantics and linguistic convention.

Malcolm wrote:
No, since the Dzogchen tantras explicitly reject Advaita Vedanta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 18th, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
My understanding is that it is transpersonal. Kongtrul and Dudjom both seem to say it.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither of them make this claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
My reading of the above is that Longchenpa is using the analogy of a mirror to explain something different than what the Dudjom R. quotation is about. So although they both use the analogy of a mirror, they are actually talking about apples and oranges.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and when I brought up the example, I was using it differently than you are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Matt J said:
So there are external objects after all for Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as Longchenpa famously quips, when we stop looking at a mountain, it does not just disappear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
Uh, no. The premise of the analogy specifically disallows that interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Uh yes, the premise of the analogy requires that interpretation.

smcj said:
Uh, no, it doesn't. Specifically the line... These things appear naturally on the "magic" mirror,
..is unambiguously making that point. They appear naturally. There are no referents. In the analogy there is nothing besides the images and the mirror, as Dudjom R. explains: There is no third reality of a truly existing mind or objects juxtaposed to the ultimate reality of the mirror and the relative reality of the images in it.
So that sentence includes the absence of referents and the appearance of the images--in the same sentence. That's kinda hard to work around.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not address my point. You are so caught up in your opinions, you cannot see outside of your own reflection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
Uh, no. The premise of the analogy specifically disallows that interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Uh yes, the premise of the analogy requires that interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Cycles
Content:
shanehanner said:
Hi,

I keep seeing different teachers with different "cycles" of teachings and would like to know what the differences are?

For example,this is from Tara Mandalas website...

"He also said that the Dzinpa Rangdröl cycle was very complete starting with Ngöndro, followed by the yidam practices of Tsogyel Karmo (White Tsogyel) and Tröma, and then proceeding through the six yogas, and ending with Dzog Chen in a section very similar to Tri Yeshe Lama (Jigme Lingpa’s Dzog Chen cycle from Longchen Nyingtig) which includes complete Trekchö and Tögal instructions. He also mentioned that Dzinpa Rangdröl contains several Chöd practices and many Dzog Chen men­ngags (pith instructions)."

So, what are the different cycles? Is there a certain period that they start? Are some considered better than others?  Any background info would be great!

Malcolm wrote:
"Cycle" is a translation of the Tibetan "skor." This word means something like cycle, and in this sense, we are using the term like in the Wagner's Ring Cycle, a series of interrelated but independent works.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Are there appearances without signs?

smcj said:
Insisting that the appearances require some third thing outside the mirror to reflect, which is what I understand you are doing, is not accepting the premise of the analogy.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a third thing is required, secondary conditions. For example, in order for a red ball to show up in a mirror, there has to be a red ball from which a reflection is derived.
What exactly is an "appearance" in your mind?
In the context of this discussion, "appearances" are the basis arising as the universe.
And how does that happen?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
Let me ask you, smcj, do mirrors bother looking into themselves?
No, of course not. However the premise of the analogy is that there are images in the mirror without referents. You are ignoring the premise of the analogy and taking it too literally.

What you are talking about seems to me to be more appropriate for completion stage/Anu Yoga practice. Ati Yoga (roughly equivalent to "Non-Dual Tantra in HYT) is about appearances simultaneously present with emptiness, not the absence of appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
Are there appearances without signs? What exactly is an "appearance" in your mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 16th, 2015 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connec
Content:
tingdzin said:
Guenther was also of the view, which I happen to share, that Dzogchen is rather anomalous to Indian Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see how this could possibly apply to so called sems sde texts. The rhetoric of "bodhicitta" in sems sde is identical to that found for example in the Guhyasamaja.

Second, we have no evidence whatsoever of any thögal like teachings being written down by anyone until the early 11th century, whether Buddhist or Bon.

In terms of unique doctrines, the most unique thing in Bonpo Dzogchen is ZZNG's emphasis on sounds, lights and rays, which really only figures in the ZZNG, and it pretty much absent from other Bonpo Dzogchen cycles, based on a electronic word search conducted on the other two main cycles of Dzogchen in Bon.

While I would have no complaints about sourcing Dzogchen in Central Asia, within the sphere of Indian cultural influence, I see absolutely no evidence which links Dzogchen doctrines with teachings generally outside of Buddhadharma and the Indian context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
I remember posting in a thread called: "Gelug View of Dzogchen?", my point was that Khenpo Achos a Gelugpa Abbot achieved rainbow body. The person I was talking with is a Gelugpa monk at Sera Je, so you'd probably enjoy reading it:
Topic: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10207&start=20#p128727

Tsongkhapafan said:
A wonderful achievement but the rainbow body can be achieved by practising the two stages of Highest Yoga Tantra. Maybe this is what he was practising. It would be more typically Gelug.

Malcolm wrote:
Dudjom Lingpa's Meteoric Razor Vajrakīlaya cycle actually, and its associated Dzogchen instructions. I have read through his collected works, apart from a very long important commentary he wrote on Dudjom Lingpa's Vajrakilāya cycle. When he was young, he was a student of Trijiang Rinpoche, but then he met Dudjom Rinpoche and his practice became centered around Vajrakīlaya and Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Unknown Buddhist Images - Please help in identifying the
Content:
Richard Egan said:
I got these image f rom a friend of a friend who bought them in Tibet. They have a front and back and I am trying to identify what they represent. Any help at all will be appreciated. Thanks.

http://vps30393849.123-vps.co.uk/img/Buddhist-images-1A.jpg

http://vps30393849.123-vps.co.uk/img/Buddhist-images-1B.jpg

http://vps30393849.123-vps.co.uk/img/Buddhist-images-2A.jpg

http://vps30393849.123-vps.co.uk/img/Buddhist-images-2B.jpg

http://vps30393849.123-vps.co.uk/img/Buddhist-images-3A.jpg

http://vps30393849.123-vps.co.uk/img/Buddhist-images-3B.jpg

Malcolm wrote:
They are initiation cards, and are standard deities from the general preaceful and wrathful mandala, the buddhas of the six realms and so on, but in this case look connected to some kind of Avalokioteshvara empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There have been practitioners of Dzogchen among the Gelugpas from the time of Tsongkhapa onwards. Never everyone in Tibet was a Sarma bigot.

smcj said:
Although that may be true, the degree to which it is true is reflected by the amount of pushback HHDL has had when he invites Nyingma lamas to teach at his monasteries.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a more modern issue. Mostly a twentieth century issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Gelugpas practise the two stages of Highest Yoga Tantra as the direct path to enlightenment and there's no need to practise anything else. Tsongkhapa never taught Dzogchen and it's not part of the Gelugpa tradition.

swooping said:
But some Gelugpas do practice it.

smcj said:
These days. That's new.

Malcolm wrote:
Not that new. There have been practitioners of Dzogchen among the Gelugpas from the time of Tsongkhapa onwards. Never everyone in Tibet was a Sarma bigot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 15th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Aside from liturgy, Vajrasattva and mandala offerings appear as preliminaries when? We're they done in India?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they are mentioned in Guhyasamaja Tantra, etc. Mandala offerings are strictly part of Vajrayāna, in origin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 14th, 2015 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:
madhusudan said:
Can you describe your confidence in the state so that I might begin to understand?

Malcolm wrote:
You should read Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, where he sets out the minimum conditions for a state, and why this is more desirable than anarchy.
We have discharged our task of explaining how a state would arise from a state of nature without anyone’s rights being violated. The moral objections of the individualist anarchist to the minimal state are overcome. It is not an unjust imposition of a monopoly; the de facto monopoly grows by an invisible-hand process and by morally permissible means, without anyone’s rights being violated and without any claims being made to a special right that others do not possess. And requiring the clients of the de facto monopoly to pay for the protection of those they prohibit from self-help enforcement against them, far from being immoral, is morally required by the principle of compensation adumbrated in Chapter 4.
Nozick, Robert (2013-11-12). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 114-115). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

madhusudan said:
Thank you for your reply. I will move that book up to the top of my reading list and process its arguments. As my perspective shifts, however, I am beginning to see political circumstances as an expression of people's delusions, and so I find myself viewing solutions more from a spiritual outlook.

As an aside, what would you view as being more fruitful: reading Nozick (becoming more informed), or admitting my own attachment to debates and thought constructs, admitting I am wrong and delusional, taking refuge and spending more time with the cushion? I guess each sickness has its own particular medicine, but a long running dichotomy for me has been between philosophy and experiential intuitive definitive knowledge (direct perception?). Thanks for any words on this.

Malcolm wrote:
I think that Dharma is good for personal evolution, but we do not inhabit a world of Dharma practitioners, and Dharma ethics do not translate to those who do not follow the Dharma. Therefore, we need to develop robust, positive secular understandings and doctrines and as Dharma practitioners, advocate for them and support them. Its the Mahāyāna thing to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 14th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:
madhusudan said:
Can you describe your confidence in the state so that I might begin to understand?

Malcolm wrote:
You should read Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, where he sets out the minimum conditions for a state, and why this is more desirable than anarchy.
We have discharged our task of explaining how a state would arise from a state of nature without anyone’s rights being violated. The moral objections of the individualist anarchist to the minimal state are overcome. It is not an unjust imposition of a monopoly; the de facto monopoly grows by an invisible-hand process and by morally permissible means, without anyone’s rights being violated and without any claims being made to a special right that others do not possess. And requiring the clients of the de facto monopoly to pay for the protection of those they prohibit from self-help enforcement against them, far from being immoral, is morally required by the principle of compensation adumbrated in Chapter 4.
Nozick, Robert (2013-11-12). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 114-115). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

ovi said:
While I completely agree that 'anarcho'-capitalism would recreate the state, there are 3 flaws with your argument:
- anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists
- anarchists are not market fundamentalists; the vast majority completely reject the market economy
- the problem that anarchists have with the state isn't that it originates in an immoral way, but that it is a hierarchical and authoritarian organization

Malcolm wrote:
I never mentioned anarcho-capatalists.

No one can reject a market economy, there have and always will be markets.

Nozick proves that these hierarchies are inevitable. The monopoly he is talking about it is a monopoly of force, not trade. You should read his book in detail. I don't agree with everything he says, because it is too idealistic, being the idealism driving modern day "small gvt." Republicans like Rand Paul. But he has given a good account of why a state is preferable to anarchy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 14th, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:


heart said:
Interesting info Malcolm, thank you. So is the Samantabhadri Tantra of the Sun of the Luminous Expanse (kun tu bzang mo klong gsal nyi ma'i rgyud) as old as the other 17 tantras?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by old. Chronologically, it is a terma that was probably revealed during the 13th century. That being said, I have never seen a clear account of its revelation anywhere, unlike say, that of the 17 tantras. However, the Khandro Nyingthig is a self-described commentary on it, and since it dates to the early 14th, it is a good guess that this tantra was revealed in the 13th. It seems the first cycle of teachings that mention its existence is the Khandro Nyinthig. Also, in the 14th century, Dorje Lingpa revealed further tantras with similar names.

heart said:
So is there an earlier example of ngondro instructions than this 13th century Dzogchen tantra?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
There are examples of texts called chos spyods, "Dharma Practice" texts which generally consist of various regular and general prayers, including refuge and bodhicitta formulas and so on, but as a system of liturgy, we don't really to see what we would recognize as "ngondro texts" until the thirteenth century and fourteenth centuries. There is a guy who posts here, Zim Pickens, who spent a lot of time studying the issue of the origins of Ngondro liturgies. If he sees this post, maybe he will have more info.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
That's why I think it is important to recognize the nature of the mind as soon as possible for someone who wants to practice Dzogchen.



Karma_Yeshe said:
Allthough certain people don't understand this, in a real sense, this is a no-brainer. There is no practice of Dzogchen without recognition of rigpa at all.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not exactly true. It is more accurate to say that without introduction there is no practice of Dzogchen. There are practices that are part of the path of Dzogchen for people who have not yet recognized the basis such as rushen, semzin and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Chan, Mahamudra, and Tibet
Content:
mzaur said:
Hi everyone,

I was just listening to a Dharma Ocean podcast (130: Pure Awareness) and Reggie Ray said some things which he said may be a bit heretical to some but actually are historically accurate. To me it sounds very odd, and I haven't heard these things before. I was hoping someone with more experience can comment about the points he makes? I typed up the relevant stuff. Is any of it true? Is there any evidence of Chan influence on Mahamudra?

What we call Mahamudra tradition is result of profound interaction of Daoism, Chan Buddhism, and Dzogchen. Mahamudra came out of that. There’s a lot of Daoism in Mahamudra, and a lot of Chan Buddhism in Mahamudra.

In the 8th century in Tibet, there was a very famous conversation about what is the best Buddhism for Tibet, and an edict which has been found in the Dun Huang documents buried and survived. The edict says the most important tradition for Tibet and the meditative tradition everyone should practice is Chan Buddhism. What happened later was the Indian crew showed up and they took over the power in Tibet. This was like in the 11th/12th century and they made it illegal to practice anything that was from China. So all of the records were rewritten to show that everything that was good in Tibet came from India but actually this was a complete fabrication. There is extensive evidence that Mahamudra is the result of the confluence of Chan Buddhism, Daoism, and Dzogchen. They were part of the same tradition. Well you can say what is that tradition? It’s the practice of pure awareness. They were all doing it, and they were talking to each other.

There’s a tradition called Sutra Mahamudra taught by Gampopa which has now been more or less proved was a Chan lineage in Tibet but because of the politics they could not acknowledge their source.

I called up my friends and academic friends, and they said, yeah that’s how it is. The history of Tibetan Buddhism promoted in Tibet is a complete fabrication.

It’s often said that Chan Buddhism is Daoism in a Buddhist form . . . What happened was, the Buddhists saved Daoism in China. Because Daoism after the Han Dynasty began to become very conventional religion. The Buddhists showed up from India and realized like holy shit, these people understand more about awareness than we do. And they incorporate the depths of Daoism, and they gave Daoism the container and practice and gave Daoism a way to survive.

Malcolm wrote:
There are so many inaccuracies and exaggerations here, it is hard to know where to begin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Kelwin said:
Maybe recognition isn't so special. But when recognition is there, doing ngondro etc might still be the best option. Just recognizing the essence every now and then doesn't mean there's no gradual path anymore. In fact, ego and arrogance are still very much available afterwards. Going from experience to realization is much more work than going from nothing to the first experiences. One lama told me that the real work actually begins after recognition.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no gradual path at all in Dzogchen. If it is a gradual path, it is not the path of Dzogchen.


Kelwin said:
The truly rare thing, is the first recognition immediately resulting in stable realization.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Only very special practitioners recognize that nature of the mind when the first introduction happens. It's something very rare.

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I would say is rare is a teacher who is able to give confidence to such people (who are not actually so rare) that their recognition is in fact a true recognition. The reason for this is that while the methods work, there are not many clairvoyant teachers out there, so those who are not clairvoyant are unable to ascertain without long observation whether their students have really understood the main point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:
madhusudan said:
Can you describe your confidence in the state so that I might begin to understand?

Malcolm wrote:
You should read Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, where he sets out the minimum conditions for a state, and why this is more desirable than anarchy.
We have discharged our task of explaining how a state would arise from a state of nature without anyone’s rights being violated. The moral objections of the individualist anarchist to the minimal state are overcome. It is not an unjust imposition of a monopoly; the de facto monopoly grows by an invisible-hand process and by morally permissible means, without anyone’s rights being violated and without any claims being made to a special right that others do not possess. And requiring the clients of the de facto monopoly to pay for the protection of those they prohibit from self-help enforcement against them, far from being immoral, is morally required by the principle of compensation adumbrated in Chapter 4.
Nozick, Robert (2013-11-12). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 114-115). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Chod in gelug buddhism
Content:
Manjushri Fan said:
Hi

I'm not sure if this is in the wrong section, so I apologise to Mods if it is.

My questions are:
Is chod practiced in gelug buddhism, and if so, do you know any examples of teachers.
And are any empowerments required to praactice chod.


Malcolm wrote:
The answer to both questions is yes. Lama Zopa teaches it, among others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Conception and Contraception
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words, IUD's create a situation where the sperm is basically poisoned.

fckw said:
Which is therefore not much different from what antibiotics do.

Malcolm wrote:
A spermatozoa is not, so far as we known, sentient, it is a tissue.

The issue of bacterial sentience on the other hand is complicated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Adamantine said:
thanks for the link Magnus.

Malcolm wrote:
I feel it is important to point out that it is not so simple as the way EPK presents it. For example, prior to the common and uncommon preliminaries, the tantra describes conferral of the elaborate vase empowerment [chapter 61]. Chapters sixty-two through through eighty-eight describe all of the preliminaries from contemplating the time of death through the separation of samsara and nirvana. Chapter eighty-nine explains the secret empowerment, and ninety covers creation and completion, while chapters ninety-one through ninety-eight cover trekchö. Chapter ninety-nine covers the third empowerment and the practice connected with passion. The rest of the tantra concerns thogal. In other words, the tantra maps various practices in relation with the four empowerments — elaborate, unelaborate, very unelaborate and extremely unelaborate.

So what are the first sixty chapters about? All kinds of things. Chapters 1-46 are concerned exclusively with Dzogchen theory. Chapters 47-60 are all about the guru and disciple and conditions for transmission.

M

heart said:
Interesting info Malcolm, thank you. So is the Samantabhadri Tantra of the Sun of the Luminous Expanse (kun tu bzang mo klong gsal nyi ma'i rgyud) as old as the other 17 tantras?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by old. Chronologically, it is a terma that was probably revealed during the 13th century. That being said, I have never seen a clear account of its revelation anywhere, unlike say, that of the 17 tantras. However, the Khandro Nyingthig is a self-described commentary on it, and since it dates to the early 14th, it is a good guess that this tantra was revealed in the 13th. It seems the first cycle of teachings that mention its existence is the Khandro Nyinthig. Also, in the 14th century, Dorje Lingpa revealed further tantras with similar names.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 12th, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
heart said:
Semdzins, rushens and lojongs are Dzogchen preliminaries (ngondro). Rushan is practiced in all Dzogchen cycles I know about and lojongs in all cycles that comes through Vimalamitra. Just learned recently that there are no inner Rushan (six lokas) in the Vima Nyingtik so that exist only in cycles coming from Padmasambhava.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Whoever told you this is mistaken. The rushan of purifying the six lokas is found in the first of the three Last Testaments of The Buddhas in the first volume of the Vima sNying thig.
Since this body was created by the ignorant mind stream, within it are the seeds of the six lokas. Because vidyā is the real three kāyas, the three kāyas arise as the three syllables. Separation is gaining proficiency in the syllables.
The syllables of the six lokas are well known from various mahāyoga and anuyoga tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: In search of a specific verse
Content:
timtim2016 said:
This may be a long shot but here it goes: A few years back I remember reading a classic text which contained a verse in a criticism/response format, where a generic "Theravadan" make a criticism of the authority of Mahayana texts. The "Response:" was something along the lines of how the Theravadan texts were not written by the Victor nor could they reliably relay his teachings. I believe later in the text it talked about knowingly and intentionally prefacing Mahayanan texts as if they relayed teachings taught by the Victor, but doing so specifically to draw new followers and protect these people from thinking the Theravadan texts were more authoritative because they were prefaced in a similar way (as if they were reliably relaying teachings traceable to the Buddha).

I think it may be Dharmakirti or Nagarjuna, and as mentioned the verse is structured like:

Theravadan/Hinayanan: so and so
Response: so and so

I am sorry if this is far too vague. Thank you all for your time.

Malcolm wrote:
It is in the Ratnavali of Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Conception and Contraception
Content:
Kelwin said:
And when does this transference take place, related to conception? (I heard at the moment of meeting of essences, but also heard after 3 months or so)
Conception can only occur if three things are present, a bardo being seeking rebirth, healthy sperm and healthy ovum.

Conception has already taken place, in the sense that sperm and egg have united.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not accurate.
Another form of contraception approved by the FDA – the copper Intrauterine Device CuT380A (Cu-IUD) – is effective as an EC when inserted up to five days following intercourse. Copper ions released from the IUD create an environment that is toxic to sperm, preventing fertilization.14 Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that this alteration can prevent implantation, but not disrupt implantation. Because Cu-IUDs prevent rather than disrupt pregnancy, they too are properly classified as contraceptives, not abortifacients.
http://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/FactsAreImportantEC.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150127T1149330103

In other words, IUD's create a situation where the sperm is basically poisoned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
pael said:
Finland.

Malcolm wrote:
You should contact Tulku Dagpa. He lives in Helsinki and speaks English well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Adamantine said:
Even ChNN's uncle Togden Urgyen Tenzin who was  one of the few well documented cases of modern rainbow-body did like 10 million prostrations to purify the obscurations of the body according to his Guru Adzom Drukpa's instructions..

Malcolm wrote:
It is well known that Togden Urgyen Tenzin was mentally ill when he first went to see Adzom Drugpa.

Adamantine said:
Who knows, if he didnt follow his Guru's advice because he didn't think that prostrations were Dzogchen enough of a practice maybe he would not have displayed rainbow body and we wouldn't have this incredible source of inspiration.

Malcolm wrote:
I am certain he achieved rainbow body by following Adzom Drugpa's advice.

Adamantine said:
What's always emphasized is that the most important thing is Guru Yoga, which involves faith in the guru and following the wisdom of their insight and instructions. So if ones Guru tells you to do ngondro, or if they tell you not to do ngondro, or to do 10,000 of each accumulation not 100,000 or just to do it until signs arise, etc..

Malcolm wrote:
If you have no faith in a guru who tells you to do ngondro, ngondro is not going to work for you. If you gave faith in a guru who tells you that you don't need ngondro, ngondro is not going to work for you. Faith is not something you should contrive. You either have it or you don't. If you don't have faith in a teacher, why should you do what he or she says?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Conception and Contraception
Content:
tingdzin said:
The classical Buddhist approach is to say that three things are necessary: white essence of the father, red essence of the mother, and the presence of a "gandharva". This theory has often seemed to me to be based on fairly crude data from a scientific viewpoint: someone once worked out that the size of a sperm cell is many times smaller than that given for the size of the male essence in the scriptures -- I believe it is said to be the size of a sesame seed there. Further, a gandharva -- the name means "feeds on fragrance" --  is some sort of discarnate being, though how precisely this gandharva is supposed to relate to the vijnana, which is said to be that aspect of a person's mental functioning that is carried over from one life to the next, is something I have never seen well explained -- perhaps someone here will have a better idea.

Malcolm wrote:
The gandharva is the name for the series of five skandhas in the bardo, according to the Kośha.

The Vajramāla Tantra explains that ālayavijñāna inseparable from mahāprāṇavāyu is what transfers in the bardo between bodies.

IUD's do not kill a fetus. They prevent conception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
smcj said:
Did you discuss it with your teacher?

Seriously, how do you know that your reaction wasn't exactly what was supposed to be happening? Only someone that has successfully gone through the process and has come out the other side has any understanding of it. Going into it, all your reference points are nothing more than your own opinions/preferences/ignorance and invalid. The fact your didn't like matters nothing at all.

Malcolm wrote:
You do understand you are being pretty disrespectful?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Tongnyid Dorje said:
interesting post and opinions. although ChNNR doesnt teach necessity of ngondro in general, he requires it at SMS training, and he is trying to make it meaningful, not to count numbers, but have a real experience. especially at first level,

Paul said:
Do you specifically mean the 4 * 100,000? There is of course Dzogchen specific ngondro: semdzins, rushens and kumbhaka. I know that's definitely in the SMS program.

Malcolm wrote:
In the first level, one is to do a bit of the ngondro practice described by Sogdog pa Lodo Gyaltsen, beginning with refuge, bodhicitta, etc. One to three weeks of each, in retreat if one can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
pael said:
So, is my body mandala complete? I have muscle dystrophy. I can't walk.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, the tantric idea of the body mandala is not important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
pael said:
How do they rose? Where is Ananda? Who arises them out of cessation?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas rouse them from cessation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 11th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Matt J said:
Yes but isn't the goal of Mahayana omniscience as opposed to cessation?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. This is why arhats are roused out of cessation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
It's just another soundbite claiming Dzogchen practitioners forcefully need to practice ngondro if they wanna get it right and anyone saying otherwise is just creating bad karma. Nothing new really. As old as the religious version of Tibetan history in fact. And probably as bogus. (now I'll run for cover fast! )


(although more often than not I find myself thinking how great is ngondro practice when compared to others... )

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is the traditional way, and teachers who continue to teach the traditional way are going to teach that way.

It is up for everyone to find their own path. It is never a good idea to tell people they do not need to do Ngondro [since clearly someone is telling them they should]. It is a good idea to tell people they should go and receive Dzogchen teachings. Once they have received Dzogchen teachings, they can decide for themselves whether they wish to make use of the methods of the lower yānas or not, depending on their circumstances. It is not our job to condition people. If they have the karma to meet Dzogchen teachings, they will. If not, there is nothing we or they can do about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: question on the types of blessing pills
Content:
jmlee369 said:
In Gelug, I am not aware of any generic nectar (dudtsi) pill. Rather, we have the inner offering pill (nangchö rilbu) which is pretty much a requisite for those practising Highest Yoga Tantra, and vase pills of HYT and kriya tantra, which are different formulations of the 25 vase substances in pill form. There is also the chulen pill for doing chulen practice, and the famous mani pills which are blessed with recitations of mani mantras. It seems that HH the Dalai Lama's temple does produce a dutsi chömen pill as part of a medicine retreat, but I'm not clear what the nature of that pill is. I also happen to possess some pills from Ganden Jangtse which contain various substances such as tormas used in rituals performed by HH the Dalai Lama, substances from the two tutors, substances such as blessed vase water from the practices of deities of the four classes of tantra and the extensive consecration ritual, etc etc.

As for the Tamdrin dudtsi, it could be made from a collection of substances that were blessed through the practice of Hayagriva, most likely made at Sera Je.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a Nyingma system, so ultimately done according to the Nyingma tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: question on the types of blessing pills
Content:
pemachophel said:
Loppon,

Do you know if all texts for the manufacture and consecration of dudtsi are terma?

The only ones I know for sure are.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there are texts in Sakya written by Dragpa Gyaltsen and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Matt J said:
This is what is more of less espoused by many modern followers of the Suttas/Theravadins. I've also been slowly reading through Jamgon Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds and I find it interesting that in the Hinayana worldview he describes a descent from the formless samadhi realms to the lower, the higher the better and the lower being more blissful than the one above it. Which makes "neither perception nor non-perception" the pinnacle of samsara.

But this POV seems to be rejected in the Mahayana and beyond.

Malcolm wrote:
if you follow Peter Harvey's reasoning, what the Buddha intended by the term nirvana was a stream of unconditioned consciousness after the conditioned aggregates ceased.
Well, it is and its isn't. According to Mahāyāna, arhats are roused out of their samadhi and returned to the bodhisattva stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Ngondro
Content:
Adamantine said:
thanks for the link Magnus.

Malcolm wrote:
I feel it is important to point out that it is not so simple as the way EPK presents it. For example, prior to the common and uncommon preliminaries, the tantra describes conferral of the elaborate vase empowerment [chapter 61]. Chapters sixty-two through through eighty-eight describe all of the preliminaries from contemplating the time of death through the separation of samsara and nirvana. Chapter eighty-nine explains the secret empowerment, and ninety covers creation and completion, while chapters ninety-one through ninety-eight cover trekchö. Chapter ninety-nine covers the third empowerment and the practice connected with passion. The rest of the tantra concerns thogal. In other words, the tantra maps various practices in relation with the four empowerments — elaborate, unelaborate, very unelaborate and extremely unelaborate.

So what are the first sixty chapters about? All kinds of things. Chapters 1-46 are concerned exclusively with Dzogchen theory. Chapters 47-60 are all about the guru and disciple and conditions for transmission.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
tingdzin said:
There is a story in the Nyingmapa tradition about a man who was so old and not in control of his body that he had to use a support to keep his chin up in meditation. By practicing single-mindedly, he is supposed to have attained the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that he had Vairocana as his teacher and Dzogchen Longde as his path helped considerably as well...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Matt J said:
Well, I don't know. For instance, some schools describe never-ending blank nothingness as the final goal, which sounds really depressing. Also, it doesn't sound very Buddhistic--- practicing to achieve some type of eternal cessation.

But if I ask, are there aggregates in nirvana? Someone might say "No!", and I would think "Oh man, blank nothing!" but perhaps they really mean "But there are wisdom lights" or something along those lines.

Malcolm wrote:
if you follow Peter Harvey's reasoning, what the Buddha intended by the term nirvana was a stream of unconditioned consciousness after the conditioned aggregates ceased.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: question on the types of blessing pills
Content:
ngodrup said:
The answer was, "its because the view, the ritual and substance
standards are higher for doing this in the Nyingma." .

Malcolm wrote:
The reason is that the theory is different. It has nothing to do with standards.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
The status of the images us just what you said, they are the potential of the mirror to reflect.

Malcolm wrote:
The potential of the mirror is there whether there are images or not. The images [sems] that form out of the potential [rtsal] of the mirror [rig pa] are not intrinsic to that mirror's potential.

Secondly, I have to ask: you have long declared you are not interested in Dzogchen, so I really have to wonder why you bother commenting on these issues???


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
All phenomena of relative reality are void by nature. Deceptively they appear truly to exist, but do not really do so. Yet from voidness various distinct appearances do arise, for instance forms. They are reflections of the "magic" mirror, voidness, and appear distinctly as your aggregates and as the consciousness, cognitive power and objects of your mind and senses.

Malcolm wrote:
Are there aggregates in nirvana?

You are not asking the right question -- of course, for sentient beings there are images in the mirror. As our friend here reminds us, we are not trying to recognize the mirror, we are the mirror. Whether or not there are appearances in the mirror, the nature of the mirror, its potential, always can reflect. That is what we are interested, not the status of the images, if there are any.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


smcj said:
My understanding is that, as Malcolm points out, there are no referential objects anymore. Having referential objects creating the reflections would be positing some third thing besides the mirror and the images on it. That's taking the analogy too far. However the analogy does not deny that there are images on the mirror. What were thought to be phenomena are now understood to be nothing more than images on the mirror, as per your quoted post above Vasana. But somehow Malcolm goes from that to something like "there are no images at all". That is like saying that nothing appears ever. That's one step too far for my understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
Images require signs, where can there be signs in a signless state?

smcj said:
They are the display of the potential of bodhicitta, as per your post:

Malcolm wrote:
Thus, bodhicitta, potentiality and the display are neither single nor plural in terms of their essence, nevertheless, just like the reflections in the mirror cannot be said to be either the same nor different than the mirror's power to reflect, it is understood that the imputations which are the display of the potential of bodhicitta also do not exist either inside or outside of, and hence these appearances are called "nonexistent, clear appearances." Indeed, nothing at all is established in anyway.
Let me ask you, smcj, do mirrors bother looking into themselves?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


smcj said:
My understanding is that, as Malcolm points out, there are no referential objects anymore. Having referential objects creating the reflections would be positing some third thing besides the mirror and the images on it. That's taking the analogy too far. However the analogy does not deny that there are images on the mirror. What were thought to be phenomena are now understood to be nothing more than images on the mirror, as per your quoted post above Vasana. But somehow Malcolm goes from that to something like "there are no images at all". That is like saying that nothing appears ever. That's one step too far for my understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
Images require signs, where can there be signs in a signless state?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


cloudburst said:
but we can't call a chair unconditioned just because it is a union of fom and emptiness. Similarly it makes no sense to call Vidya an unconditioned thing when it is a union, no different.

If vidyā is conditioned and impermanent, then buddhahood would be conditioned and impermanent.


The third Dodrupchen claims claims the osel of annuttaratantra is the same as vidya. Whether you call the dharmata of mind compounded or uncompounded is a matter of perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
Od' sal taught for example in the Jñānavajrasammucaya tantra is the same thing we are discussingL:
That which arises from luminosity
is “mind,” [citta] “intellect,” [manas] and consciousness” [vijñāna]
which forms the foundation of all phenomena.
And:
Further, luminosity is nonabiding,
does not cease nor does it arise,
ultimate, the limit of reality.
Here, in order to explain the reality [gnas lugs] of all phenomena, since that which arises from luminosity is a nonconceptual knowing awareness arising (at the same time as a subtle vāyu) from dharmatā, the dhātu of naturally pure luminosity, the mind is the basis of everything [aḹaya, kun gzhi]. The mental consciousness [manovijñāna] expands and contracts. Consciousness possesses an eight-fold group. 

The foundation of all phenomena is bodhicitta, an unchanging vajra that is equal with space.
This is basically the same thing that Dzogchen is getting at, with the difference that here in this tantra, bodhicitta is defined as the union of the relative and ultimate. Dzogchen however dispenses with the distinction altogether, regarding it as a deviation. An ancient commentary found in the Bairo brgyud 'bum on The Soaring Great Garuda [one of the five earlier extracts translated by Vairocana] explains:

[T]o demonstrate the deviation of madhyamaka: here, since the two truths have been inseparable from the beginning, the two truths are not presented individually even conventionally. Having divided up the dharmatā and dharmin into relative and ultimate, training in the ultimate as supreme is the deviation of madhyamaka, as it is said:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.



Needless to say, the luminosity discussed above is not the luminosity discussed in the completion stage of the Guhyasamaja.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


smcj said:
Uh huh. So what about all that "samsara and nirvana are seen as the same" idea? Why even call it "non-dual" if all there is is a singularity?

Malcolm wrote:
Because there isn't even a singularity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 10th, 2015 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We already have such a text, it is called bsam gtan mig dgron by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. The advantage to that text is that is has many citations from seminal early Chan texts already translated into Tibetan by Tibetan and Chinese Chan practitioners during the 8th century.

Astus said:
Is there an English translation already? Although, it certainly has no information on Huangbo.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but the point is that Chan section, for example cites more than forty passages from Chan texts. It has 68 pages alone devoted to the so called cig car approach to view, meditation and conduct.

He summarizes the basic difference between Chan and the sutra gradual path as follows:
"From the beginning, the sudden approach is to train on the non-arising ultimate without alternating [with relative truth]."
He then goes on to quote Bodhidharma:
Abandon bias and concepts about the real. If one remains vividly, neither self nor other exists, commoners and āryas are equivalent and the same.If one remains in unchanging stability, from then, on do not follow letters and scriptures. Without concepts, remain in the actual state of the real meaning, peaceful, without activity. That is non-egagement with objects.
He compares and contrasts Chan texts and approaches with Mahāyoga and Atiyoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: a few thoughts about Satanism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"The Devil" is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes..."
-- Aleister Crowley


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
Maybe so, but I think your caution bears repeating.  Literary Chinese presents its own challenges and possibilities as a medium for Dharma transmission.  Context matters tremendously, so someone attempting a comparative study would need to have a very firm grip on how Huang Po uses this concept throughout his known writings.

Astus said:
Choosing Huangbo is a good start. Now for comparison's sake we also need a single Dzogchen text to work with, one that's been translated a few times to English and contains enough information (e.g. definitions).

Malcolm wrote:
We already have such a text, it is called bsam gtan mig dgron by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. The advantage to that text is that is has many citations from seminal early Chan texts already translated into Tibetan by Tibetan and Chinese Chan practitioners during the 8th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
Emptiness means conditioned, interacting. Sentience is living, connecting with events, phenomena influencing phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean there is no emptiness of the unconditioned? Emptiness means being free from all extremes, it does not mean being "conditioned." If it did, that would be a very inferior kind of emptiness.

Astus said:
Mind is sentient, perceptive, because impressions, emotions and thoughts move.

Malcolm wrote:
Wind moves, but it is neither sentient nor perceptive. Waves move, they are neither sentient nor perceptive. Clouds move, they are neither sentient nor perceptive. So it seems you definitive of sentient and perceptive because of the movement of thoughts, and so on is inadequate.

Are thoughts the same thing as the mind or are they different? If they are latter, how can a mind move inside of itself? Of they are different, how does their movement give the mind sentience?

Astus said:
If consciousness were unconditioned, it had no effect on anything and could not sense anything, that is, it were insentient.

Malcolm wrote:
Did anyone say consciousness [vijñāna] was unconditioned?


Astus said:
How is consciousness interdependent? Does it come from the sense organ or the object? Without either?
The 18 dhatus is a basic description of how consciousness is interdependent, further elaborations are found in abhidharma and yogacara materials. The mind-stream continues from the preceding mind to the present mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The eighteen dhātus does not actually explain how the mind is interdependent. It is a hinayāna model that assumes that a consciousness arises from the contact of sense object with a sense organ. In other words, it does not explain perception, it merely provides a taxonomy of our sensory apparatus.

Astus said:
Who said anything about an independent knower?
What you called the unconditioned knowing, the core and basis of mind and all appearances. It is unconditioned, therefore independent. It is knowing, what knows, so it is a knower, pure awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
This fault does not apply, just as the mind of which it is the core is not established, also the unconditioned vidyā is not established, is empty by nature and is not something real or truly existent.

Astus said:
This still does not explain the origin of consciousness, that is, how there can be a mind/consciousness at all.
Is there a situation where there is no mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Is there a situation in which the mind can be found?

Astus said:
Can consciousness occur from non-consciousness? Samsara is without a beginning, so is the mind-stream of beings.

Malcolm wrote:
This presumes two things, one, that there is fact a distinction between sentient and nonsentient. Two, it presumes that time exists independently.


Astus said:
Self-originated pristine consciousness is nondual emptiness and knowingness, termed "the nondual dharmadhātu and vidyā." Pristine consciousness [ ye shes, jn̄āna ] is the core of the mind, self-arisen, unconditioned, uncontaminated, unaffected by the three times. When it is not recognized, then through that ignorance its potentiality becomes mind, dependent origination and all the phenomena of samsara. When it is recognized, one is the peer of Buddha Samantabhadra.
Since it is unconditioned and unaffected, it cannot recognise or forget itself. So a second perceiver is required that is conditioned, and its core cannot be the unconditioned knowing.

Malcolm wrote:
Since unconditioned self-originated pristine consciousness is the core of a conditioned mind, it indeed can be forgotten by that conditioned mind, or as it more accurately the case, not recognized. It is just like someone who looks for their keys all over the house not recognizing that they are holding those very same keys in their hand.

Emptiness is unconditioned, but we have no problem describing it as the dharmatā of entities. Likewise, unconditioned, empty, self-originated pristine consciousness is the dharmatā of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis appears as the universe under the influence of ignorance.
The universe appears as the basis under the influence of knowledge.

smcj said:
Sounds like you're not going to get away from those pesky images.

Malcolm wrote:
When the universe arise as the basis, there are no referential objects anymore, so how can there be images?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


cloudburst said:
It mentions "unconditioned vidya." Does that imply there is a conditioned vidya, or is the author simply being descriptive?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, the mind that knows and engages conditioned things is has conditioned vidyā.

cloudburst said:
Why is it necessary to say there is a dharmata OF 'the union of clarity and emptiness" aka the dharmata of the mind ? Your formulations seems unnecessarily complicated.

Malcolm wrote:
It is necessary because in this case clarity and emptiness are an indivisible whole; it is not the case that there is a relative side, clarity; and an ultimate side, emptiness — together they form the dharmatā of the mind, hence "the dharmata OF the union of clarity and emptiness."

cloudburst said:
Better to say that the dharmata of the mind is the union of clarity and emptiness. So ... unconditioned vidya is the union of clarity and emptiness. But of course, this union has a conditioned aspect, the clarity or knowingness aspect.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not actually what is being said here. Self-originated jñāna is unconditioned, clear, and empty.
If it is as you say, rig pa would merely be a subtle mind.
A subtle mind is a subtle union of emptiness and clarity. So it would seem there is good reason to state that the vidya of the great perfection is a subtle mind
Only if you are not familiar with the teachings of the Great Perfection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


cloudburst said:
if it is than it must not be a consciousness

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a mind included among the eight consciousnesses, as explained above already.


cloudburst said:
... but generally I find Hopkins to be the most obfuscatory translator I have ever read, excepting Thurman, of course.

Malcolm wrote:
The substance of it is this:
My contemporary, Jawa Do Ngag, seized on the explanation of others that in the context of the luminosity of the meditation of the isolation of the mind in the Guhyasamāja’s Five Stages, original mind means a subtle mind. Beginning from that, he claims, “The vidyā the Great Perfection introduces is a subtle mind. Since that subtle mind is conditioned because it arises from four conditions, the Great Perfection is conditioned.” Also there are those who repeat this very inappropriate statement. 

In general, since the original mind [gnyug sems, ādyacitta] is the unconditioned luminous nature of the mind, that is also the sugatagarbha, but maintaining that is a conditioned mind is very erroneous. Since the luminosity of the completion stage of the Guhyasamaja is explained to be conditioned, [15/a] if this is the special feature to be revealed, color that however you like. Though I have no wish to express a refutation of that [the completion stage of Guhyasamaja], don’t mix that up with the Great Perfection.

It is well known through the Dharma of the tantras, agamas and upadeśas of the Great Perfection, the teachings of Omniscient Longchenpa up to the lineage of gurus of Kama and Terma of the present day that unconditioned vidyā is introduced as the dharmatā of the union of clarity and emptiness.
If it is as you say, rig pa would merely be a subtle mind.
seems like a real possibility
See above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Self-originated pristine consciousness is nondual emptiness and knowingness, termed "the nondual dharmadhātu and vidyā." Pristine consciousness [ ye shes, jn̄āna ] is the core of the mind, self-arisen, unconditioned, uncontaminated, unaffected by the three times. When it is not recognized, then through that ignorance its potentiality becomes mind, dependent origination and all the phenomena of samsara. When it is recognized, one is the peer of Buddha Samantabhadra.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Malcolm,

so we seemingly filthy eternalists are actually not filthy eternalists at all because self-originated pristine consciousness is empty -- even though its emptiness is not the emptiness of Madhyamaka, but experiential emptiness, such as the (nature of) mind's unfindability?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness of the mind and the knowingness of the mind, called the dharmatā of the mind are ultimate, not relative. Emptiness is indivisible with knowingness, knowingness is indivisible with emptiness. There is no cause or condition for this indivisible empty knowingness that is the dharmatā of the mind. It is completely different than the idea of "the subtle mind" advanced by some Gelugpas who seek to unify the five stages of the Guhyasamaja system with Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Only if you are a Gelugpa —— ordinary people assume inherent existence, all they assume is existence.

cloudburst said:
Quite wrong, I sense this is one of your core misunderstandings. An inherently existent thing would be a thing that exists by nature, and this is precisely what ordinary people understand by existence, ergo they assume inherent existence, just not as a matter of discourse.

Malcolm wrote:
No one but philosophers engaged in 2nd century Indian philosophical discourse believed in svabhāva.

For ordinary people, bhāva is enough. They were not stupid, they saw things change, come into existence, perish., etc., without believing there was a potness in pots or a cowness in cows.

Self-originated pristine consciousness is nondual emptiness and knowingness, termed "the nondual dharmadhātu and vidyā."
right, non-dual emptiness and awareness, the union of the two truths. Emptiness is the ultimate nature of awareness. Astus is doing a good job.[/quote]

Vidyā [rig pa] is ultimate, not relative; unconditioned, not conditioned; etc. Mipham addresses this issue. You can read about in Fundamental Mind, translated by Hopkins. If it is as you say, rig pa would merely be a subtle mind. Mipham rejects this for many reasons, not only a few. I suggest you read what he says there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness, how then is the mind not something inert? How does consciousness arise? From itself? From other? From both?
Dependent origination is just the perception of the deluded.

Astus said:
Inert would be something unconditioned and without interaction.

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, "inert" means "without sentience". Emptiness is not sentient. Thus, if emptiness were solely the nature of the mind, the mind could not be sentient.


Astus said:
Consciousness is interdependent, changing, and that's how it can sense objects, how there can be perception.

Malcolm wrote:
How is consciousness interdependent? Does it come from the sense organ or the object? Without either?

Astus said:
An independent knower is without any object, consequently it does not sense anything, it is unknowing, unaware, unconscious.

Malcolm wrote:
Who said anything about an independent knower?

Astus said:
As an interdependent consciousness it does not need an origin, and that origin would mean an ultimate cause without a cause.

Malcolm wrote:
This still does not explain the origin of consciousness, that is, how there can be a mind/consciousness at all.

Astus said:
Also, this original knower is a position discussed in the 9th chapter of MMK. Dependent origination is what the deluded does not realise, instead they assume inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you are a Gelugpa —— ordinary people assume inherent existence, all they assume is existence.

Astus said:
How come they don't apply to jnana?

Malcolm wrote:
Great Tantra Clarifying The Meaning of Freedom From Proliferation states:
In the context of explaining the illustrative examples of that basis, it is said to be empty and pervasive like space; immaculate like a crystal; unchanging like a vajra; the source of all blessings like a jewel; unimpeded illumination like the heart of the sun and so on. It is the opposite of ignorance [avidyā] and inertness, existing as nature of a veridical consciousness, it is knowledge [vidyā]. Since it is beyond cause and condition, it is self-originated. Since it does not arise adventitiously, it is the pristine consciousness that has become the nature of the vidyā that has always existed. It is the basis from which all samsara and nirvana appear.
Self-originated pristine consciousness is nondual emptiness and knowingness, termed "the nondual dharmadhātu and vidyā." Pristine consciousness [ ye shes, jn̄āna ] is the core of the mind, self-arisen, unconditioned, uncontaminated, unaffected by the three times. When it is not recognized, then through that ignorance its potentiality becomes mind, dependent origination and all the phenomena of samsara. When it is recognized, one is the peer of Buddha Samantabhadra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
That explanation still sounds like "just images on the mirror" still to me.

Malcolm wrote:
There aren't any images on the mirror...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
Dependent origination is just the perception of the deluded.
Because it's all just "images on the mirror"?

Malcolm wrote:
No, because dependent origination starts from not seeing your own state.

Many followers of Dharma perceive dependent origination to be an external fact or law that governs the production of phenomena.

But from a Dzogchen point of view, dependent origination only begins from the phase of ignorance called the imputing ignorance [ kun brtags ma rig pa ]. Prior to this, there is no dependent origination to speak of. For example, for a buddha who sees things just as they are, there is no dependent origination at all. The Guhyagarbha states:
Buddhas themselves never find
a phenomena other than buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
To add a knowing/awareness as the source of the experiencing function of the mind sounds very much like denying the functionality of dependent origination and establishing a substance separately from appearances. How is that not the case?

Malcolm wrote:
If the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness, how then is the mind not something inert? How does consciousness arise? From itself? From other? From both?

Dependent origination is just the perception of the deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Huang Po's One Mind & Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
心 translates the Sanskrit citta, correct?  if so, then there's some basis for working out a textual comparison between Dzogchen and Ch'an on the basis of "mind."

Astus said:
I wouldn't go there. Chan is mainly about translating the Dharma to common Chinese and not about transplanting Indian Buddhism, as that's already happened through other channels. Although Chan teachers were (almost?) exclusively educated elite monastics, so references to texts and concepts of Indian origin is not unusual, but it is not the main characteristics of the tradition. There is even a slight division between the so called eight schools to Chinese (Tiantai, Huayan, Chan, Jingtu (Pure Land)) and Indian (Madhyamaka (Sanlun), Yogacara (Faxiang), Vinaya (Lu), Mantra (Zhenyan)), that signifies mostly their origin in a sense.

Xin (心) can mean all sorts of things, even contradictory ones within the same sentence. Or as an illustration for its versatile use, here is the entry from the Soothill-Hodus dictionary of Chinese Buddhism:
心
hrd, hrdaya 汗栗太 (or 汗栗馱); 紀哩馱 the heart, mind, soul; citta 質多 the heart as the seat of thought or intelligence. In both senses the heart is likened to a lotus. There are various definitions, of which the following are six instances: (1) 肉團心 hrd, the physical heart of sentient or nonsentient living beings, e. g. men, trees, etc. (2) 集起心 citta, the ālayavijñāna, or totality of mind, and the source of all mental activity. (3) 思量心 manas, the thinking and calculating mind; (4) 緣慮心; 了別心; 慮知心; citta; the discriminating mind; (5) 堅實心 the bhūtatathatā mind, or the permanent mind; (6) 積聚精要心 the mind essence of the sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
All of these usages map to sems [citta] in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Self-originated jnāna is the unconditioned essence of the eight consciousnesses, as Mipham puts its: [The] unconditioned self-originated wisdom of the original empty knowing dharmatā of the mind of the eight consciousness is the mind of luminosity.
However, one needs to take care to understand what this "mind" is. Again, Mipham states: Here, dharmatā is called “original mind [ādyacitta].”  Though it is explained with the name mind or vidyā from the aspect of being intrinsically clear, it is not the mind included with the conditioned eight consciousnesses.

Astus said:
All it seems to say is that the eight consciousnesses have the attribute of consciousness, and that is their inherent quality; and that quality is not any singular instance of being conscious of something, but it is true for all eight, so in a sense it is unconditioned and nothing in particular at the same time. Did I miss something?

Malcolm wrote:
If that were true, it would a tautology and there would be no point.

It is saying that vijn̄āna/citta/manas has a dharmatā that is more than emptiness, which would render the dharmatā of the mind inert if all it was is emptiness. According to everything you have said, you maintain that the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mipham might say: Since there is nothing to designate as being produced from a cause or generated by condition because the great emptiness that has always been self-originated is intrinsically luminous, it is self-originated pristine consciousness. That is the mind of dharmatā or the luminous pristine consciousness.

Astus said:
"Therefore, thought of the unreal from the outset is calmed, and sense objects from the outset are void. The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. This calm Knowing of voidness and calm is precisely the mind of voidness and calm that Bodhidharma formerly transmitted. Whether you are deluded or awakened, mind from the outset is spontaneously Knowing. [Knowing] is not produced by conditions, nor does it arise in dependence on sense objects. Even during delusion the depravities are Knowing, but [Knowing] is not the depravities. Even during awakening the divine transformations are Knowing, but Knowing is not the divine transformations."
(Zongmi: Chan Letter in "Zongmi on Chan", p 88)

Malcolm wrote:
This just says that a mind knows in the same way that a fire is hot. This is more consistent with Mahāmudra presentations of the nature of the mind, where clarity in general is regarded as the characteristic of the mind, while emptiness is regarded as the nature of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Pretty defective buddhanature, I'd say.

Astus said:
What special features would you add?

Question: "What is called Buddha Mind?" Answer: "Mind's having no mark of variation is called Thusness. Mind's unchangeableness is called the Dharma Nature. Mind's not being connected to anything is called liberation. The mind nature's unimpededness is called enlightenment. The mind nature's quiescence is called nirvana."
(Bodhidharma Anthology, p 16)

Malcolm wrote:
Mipham might say:
Since there is nothing to designate as being produced from a cause or generated by condition because the great emptiness that has always been self-originated is intrinsically luminous, it is self-originated pristine consciousness. That is the mind of dharmatā or the luminous pristine consciousness.
The Tantra Gathering The Definitive Meaning Of The Great Perfection states:
Due to the three times existing in the mind, 
before, after, and present occur in life. 
Due to transmigrating existing in the mind, 
therefore, birth and death arise for the body. 
Due to various illness, happiness and suffering
being one’s mind, it ripens as samsara. 
Therefore, the mind is not buddha...
Unrealized confused people
claim “the dharmakāya is my mind.”
Therefore, other than the words, they do not understand the meaning.
The one who understands the definitive meaning from names is rare. 
Therefore, mind is not buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
Without digressing into philosophical disputes, buddha-nature in Zen is just one's own mind. What is mind? This mind reading and thinking. Thoughts, emotions, impressions come and go. One doesn't have to do anything, as experiences are already ungraspable and naturally non-abiding. In other terms, the mind is free and aware just as it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty defective buddhanature, I'd say.

monktastic said:
Is it different than what Rangjung Dorje says?
The heart-mind of all the Buddhas of the past, the present, and the future, widely renowned as Dharmakaya, as Mahamudra, as enlightened mind, is precisely your own mind, which thinks of this and that.

Malcolm wrote:
If buddhanature is your own mind, which thinks of this and that, then that buddhanature would be conditioned, and thus, defective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For you, the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness. For Mipham, the dharmatā of the mind is unconditioned jñāna.

Astus said:
Is jnana knowing, an active awareness of appearances? Or is it without knowing of objects? If the former, it is conditioned. If the latter, it is unaware. Or is it perhaps the stream of experiences that can be described as equally empty and conscious, but still without falling into being conditioned by subject and object?

Malcolm wrote:
Self-originated jnāna is the unconditioned essence of the eight consciousnesses, as Mipham puts its:
[The] unconditioned self-originated wisdom of the original empty knowing dharmatā of the mind of the eight consciousness is the mind of luminosity.
However, one needs to take care to understand what this "mind" is. Again, Mipham states:
Here, dharmatā is called “original mind [ādyacitta].”  Though it is explained with the name mind or vidyā from the aspect of being intrinsically clear, it is not the mind included with the conditioned eight consciousnesses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Tanaka & Robertson on Ch'an vs Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
Without digressing into philosophical disputes, buddha-nature in Zen is just one's own mind. What is mind? This mind reading and thinking. Thoughts, emotions, impressions come and go. One doesn't have to do anything, as experiences are already ungraspable and naturally non-abiding. In other terms, the mind is free and aware just as it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty defective buddhanature, I'd say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: question on the types of blessing pills
Content:
pemachophel said:
Loppon,

Are you saying dudtsi doesn't have a liberation through taste function? That would seem to contradict a number of my Teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
Myong grol is one thing, bdud rtsi is another. For example, the Sakyapas have bdud rtsi pills for the inner offering, but they do not have myong grol.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen master's perspective [from The Sacred...]
Content:
Vasana said:
but you really are in the direct presence of Samantabhardas enlightened intent when reading and abiding with this text.

Malcolm wrote:
No, one is not, despite the hyperbole which may lead one to think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamika & Yogacara: Which Was Popular First?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I've heard people say that Yogacara used to be the most popular philosophy, and then people switched over to Madhyamika. Seeing as Nagarjuna lived a few hundred years before Asanga, how did this switch come about? Was Madhyamika not popular when Nagarjuna was alive, or did the popular preference go back and forth between Madhyamika and Yogacara?

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka first, then Yogacara.

M

Boomerang said:
But now in Tibetan Buddhism Madhyamaka takes the center stage, doesn't it? So it did go full circle?

Malcolm wrote:
No, Madhyamaka was always dominant in India, Yogacara was studied for its presentation of the path, Madhyamaka was studied for the definitive view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamika & Yogacara: Which Was Popular First?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I've heard people say that Yogacara used to be the most popular philosophy, and then people switched over to Madhyamika. Seeing as Nagarjuna lived a few hundred years before Asanga, how did this switch come about? Was Madhyamika not popular when Nagarjuna was alive, or did the popular preference go back and forth between Madhyamika and Yogacara?

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka first, then Yogacara.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
This might be a can of worms, but are you effectively saying Vasubandhu et al were not aryas?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no way for me to know this as there is no way for me to know what their actual view and realization was.

Astus said:
Nevertheless, if they taught an incoherent and incorrect teaching, that is intentionally misleading people, something that's unfit for any bodhisattva.

Malcolm wrote:
I see no reason to suspect their motives, but it is pretty clear that Madhyamakas, including Shantarakshita, found the Yogacara explanations of mind-only to be riddled with realist presumptions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
It is only as incoherent as dependent origination, since dependent nature is just that: causality.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an incoherent account of causality, unlike dependent origination.

Astus said:
Because that is how they attempt to explain the meaning of mind-only.
It's not even mentioned in the Vimsatika that talks about consciousness only.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not exactly true, since the subject of Vimsatika is principally an explanation of the imagined nature. The three natures are discussed at length by Vasubandhu in the Trisvabhāvanirdesha.

Astus said:
Yes, and for this reason, you don't really get the sense of Dzogchen. Mipham writes:
Do you mean that Dzogchen posits a consciousness of the type that's independent, unconditioned, removed from the five aggregates? If yes, it's difficult to maintain how that's not like an atman. If no, then I see no difference between what I said and what Mipham talks about.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

For you, the dharmatā of the mind is only emptiness. For Mipham, the dharmatā of the mind is unconditioned jñāna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 8th, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: question on the types of blessing pills
Content:
pemachophel said:
Chulen is for the practice of rasayana, rejuvenation, health, and longevity and also forms a part of the completion stage practice of going beyond physical sustenance. Dudtsi/men/jinlob is for liberation by taste. Although it contains many healing medicinals and one of its names is men /"medicine", it's spiritual power is pre-eminent. It contains many things besides herbs and minerals, including many, many sacred substances. It is used as an inner offering (as in the men of me-rak). It is also what physically consecrates the amrit in the kapala at a tshog. It is also used to consecrate "permanent" tormas and is also an essential ingredient in consecrating statues. It is also take just before or at the time of death when all life-saving medicine is useless. The virtues of dudtsi/men are truly various and wonderful!

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Dudtsi is for the inner offering;

myong grol, liberation through taste, does not exist outside of Dzogchen tantras.

People often conflate the two, but they are not actually the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
On this note, is it possible for sutra practitioners that hold to eternalist/substantialist views, such as those of Yogacara, to become Aryas and still hold those views post-attaining the first bhumi?

Malcolm wrote:
No. It is not possible.

Anders said:
This might be a can of worms, but are you effectively saying Vasubandhu et al were not aryas?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no way for me to know this as there is no way for me to know what their actual view and realization was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure there are.

Astus said:
Just as Madhyamaka affirms a conventional dependent origination and does not claim total non-existence, the same is stated by saying that there is a dependent nature.

Malcolm wrote:
Unlike Yogacara, Madhyamaka removes claims for existing existents.

Astus said:
Candrakirti's critique does not apply, when it is understood that the lack of subject and object means the incorrect reification is no more, otherwise it would be self-defeating, asking for a self to perceive no-self.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it applies — he proves that the other-dependent is incoherent.


Astus said:
Yogachara and Madhyamaka did not "come together" in Shantarakshita because the latter never uses the scheme of the three own natures, which is the key doctrine of the Yogacara school.
Why is that the key doctrine? They also have quite a few other unique ideas. I'd say the teaching of mind only is an equally important teaching for instance.

Malcolm wrote:
Because that is how they attempt to explain the meaning of mind-only.

Astus said:
What is the difference? Or if you have a book reference, that might be enough as well.

Malcolm wrote:
In brief, MAV merely state that the absence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected.

gZhan stong pas by contrast try to map the three natures onto the two truths, thereby distorting both doctrines, claiming that perfected nature [ultimate] is empty of both the imagined and the dependent [relative].


Astus said:
What Tibetan term do you mean for awareness? Rig pa?

Malcolm wrote:
It's nothing like that. You can change that word to consciousness or mind. What I try to highlight is that the quality of consciousness/awareness is already and necessarily present in the mind (mental aggregates), and generally in the whole realm of experience, since without being aware/conscious of something, one cannot say that it is experienced.[/quote]

Yes, and for this reason, you don't really get the sense of Dzogchen. Mipham writes:
[The] meaning explained by the term, “Great Perfection, the luminous mind essence” is the dharmatā of the mind, self-originated pristine consciousness, nothing other than the dharmadhātu, the reality of the original basis, and the total uniformity of union. Since it does not change with the three times, it is totally unconditioned, but there is no chance for there to arise here the subject, a momentary impermanent conditioned mind, and the unreal sole emptiness that is a mere object to refute by reasoning. Therefore, the Great Perfection of the basis or this totally unconditioned union of the luminosity of the basis, is the ultimate reality of all phenomena.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
As long as you think the unconditioned nature of the mind is merely emptiness, for that long you will never understand either Dzogchen or Mahāmudra.
Mind, per definition, is conscious. To say that the mind is empty is to say that awareness is empty. It's not denying awareness, nor is it reducing it to insentience. Awareness is the interdependent stream of experiences, and it is not separate from its insubstantiality. Mind is conditioned, that's why it is without essence, otherwise it would not function at all. So being conditioned is the unconditioned, and unconditioned is the conditioned itself. How is that wrong for Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
What Tibetan term do you mean for awareness? Rig pa?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 7th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
In the basic works of Asanga and Vasubandhu there is no attack against Nagarjuna's teachings...

Malcolm wrote:
Sure there are. Take for example, the Summary of the Great Vehicle [BDK edition], chapter 2, section 25. states "Since the other-dependent does not really exist as it appears, how does one know that it is not entirely nonexistent? If there were no other-dependent pattern, the reality pattern would also be nonexistent and then one would come to affirm universal nothingness. And then, if the other-dependent pattern both did not exist, one would fall into the error about the being and nonbeing of defilement and purification. But since these states can be known not to be nothing, it is not true that all is nothing." [pg. 51]

Candrakiriti's rebuttal to this is quite famous between MAV 6.72...
If there is an entity such as the dependent, empty of duality
lacking apprehended objects, devoid of an apprehending subject,
by whom is the existence of this entity known? 
It is not reasonable says that which cannot be apprehended "exists."

...

If there exists such an entity as the other-dependent nature
that is nonarisen and unknowable,
the existence of this cannot be known by anyone,
like the harm caused by the son of a barren women to others.

When the other-dependent does not exist at all, 
what can be a cause of the relative [in your system]?
On the other hand, the presentation
which is known to the world is is destroyed.

Astus said:
While there were people in the later centuries who thought in terms of opposing views, there were others who could put the two into a single system.

Malcolm wrote:
For example? Who did do you gave in mind? If you gave in mind Shatnarakshita, he never uses the scheme of the three natures. If you have in mind Ratnakarashanti, he destroys the distinction between the two truths in his attempt to harmonize the two systems and never escapes the fundamental inner contradiction found in the Yogacara presentation of the three natures.

Astus said:
Just as the dependent is the ultimate without the imagined, so is seeing the inseparability of interdependence and emptiness, the conventional and the ultimate, is called the middle way. Not reifying appearances is seeing their dependent-empty nature for both Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
This reasoning is destroyed by Candrakirti.


Astus said:
Regarding their differences, Yijing's summary (quoted by Malcolm David Eckel in his "Bhavaviveka and His Buddhist Opponents", p 95; and "Undigested Pride" in "Madhyamaka and Yogacara - Allies or Rivals?", p 133) sounds nice and succinct: "For Yogacara ultimate (真) is (有), conventional (俗) isn't (無). They use the three natures as the foundation. For Madhyamaka ultimate isn't, conventional is. Indeed the two truths is primary [for them]. The Prajnaparamita's great teaching contains both ideas." (T40n1817p783a29-b1)

Malcolm wrote:
Eckel is a nice guy. I remember being in his office one day where he confided in me he was much relieved that he was not a Buddhist. So...

Astus said:
their coming together in the teachings of for instance Shantarakshita and Kamalashila.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogachara and Madhyamaka did not "come together" in Shantarakshita because the latter never uses the scheme of the three own natures, which is the key doctrine of the Yogacara school.

Astus said:
Please give us a specific example of how Yogacara doxology influences Vajrayāna? You surely are aware that Tantras such as the Hevajra subordinate Yogacara to Madhyamaka? And are you sure that it is not merely a case of Madhyamakas using terminology found in Yogacara but repurposing it?

Malcolm wrote:
Look at this thread as an example: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=13491.

Astus said:
There's also the whole Shentong teaching among Nyingmapas and Kagyupas, of which Brunnholzl writes: "what is called Shentong is nothing other than the Yogacara (Yoga Practice) system of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu, also called “the lineage of vast activity.”" (Center of the Sunlit Sky, p 445)

Malcolm wrote:
No, even Karl B recognizes that the system of the three own natures used by Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu [type a] is not the system used by the gzhan stong pas [type b].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
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: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
This thread is tripping.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
On this note, is it possible for sutra practitioners that hold to eternalist/substantialist views, such as those of Yogacara, to become Aryas and still hold those views post-attaining the first bhumi?

Malcolm wrote:
No. It is not possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus said:
Unless Dzogchen posits something beyond the possible realm of experience (body-mind), the difference you mention is non-existent.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as you think the unconditioned nature of the mind is merely emptiness, for that long you will never understand either Dzogchen or Mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
With respect to the Yogacara school, they do indeed posit an ultimate consciousness — it is the meaning of line of Madhyantavibhaga, "The imagination of the unreal exists..." and so on, though I understand it is fashionable these days to try and rescue Yogacara from being hoisted on its own petard.

Astus said:
As I read it, the Madhyantavibhaga there says nothing different from what Nagarjuna writes about the equality between dependent origination and emptiness. It is also repeated in how the three natures are explained. If that means Yogacara is at fault, then so is Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
The Madhyantavibhaga is basically asserting that the perfect is the absence of the imagined in the dependent. The dependent however is never refuted. It is the emptiness that exists in which no duality exists.

Frankly, I am a little surprised that you don't understand the difference between Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Yogacarins and Madhymakas in India certainly understood the differences between their respective schools, and there is an extensive polemical literature which exists between them detailing the differences.

Astus said:
That's quite a huge point, putting Yogacara into the position of not only a less developed view, but actually means that they massively failed in setting up a coherent system.

Malcolm wrote:
There are indeed some glaring internal contradictions in the Yogacara system of Maitreya, Asanga, Vasubandhu and their followers. For example, Arya Vimuktesena directly take his teacher, Vasubandhu, to task for some of those inconsistencies.

Astus said:
Then it is certainly strange how Yogacara has such a big influence on virtually every Mahayana (incl. Vajrayana) school. So, I'm still doubtful about that interpretation's validity.

Malcolm wrote:
Please give us a specific example of how Yogacara doxology influences Vajrayāna? You surely are aware that Tantras such as the Hevajra subordinate Yogacara to Madhyamaka? And are you sure that it is not merely a case of Madhyamakas using terminology found in Yogacara but repurposing it?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You just took a drug.

odysseus said:
No, "you" didn't. You rather took an overdose of Cosmic medicine, but you were reckless in your evaluation beforehand.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
This is a typical linguistic game. First he lists statements that he wants to suggest as relevant for the term "arising". But why should these be relevant for arising? These are totally irrelevant for the fact that the term arising is a term of conventional language.

Malcolm wrote:
Every negation you find in Nāgārjuna is based on a metaphysical position that someone actually held either in a Buddhist school or a non-Buddhist school.  The Saṃkhya school, as well as some Buddhist schools [Sarvastivāda] actually did assert that existent causes create existent effects. Other schools maintained that existent effects are produced from causes that no longer exist, and so on.

Herbie said:
So instead of delivering a definition for "arising" or the different connotations of the term "arising" which can be found in dictionaries he plays one of his silly games.

Malcolm wrote:
You are acquainted with dictionaries and semantics of 2nd century classical Sanskrit? You are quite certain that Nāgārjuna is not writing for a milieu in which the nuances of the term "jati," arising, etc., are well known?

Herbie said:
Everybody knows that "arising" is a developmental process.

Malcolm wrote:
You are assuming a lot for "everyone", particularly since the context we are discussing is 2nd century India.

How is "arising" a developmental process? When does something make the transition from being a nonexistent to being an existent? How does that process come about? What are the components of that process?

Herbie said:
As a whole the verse is irrational and the question makes it even worse.

Malcolm wrote:
Since you refuse to give credit to the context in which Nāgārjuna's treatise was composed, the only one irrational here is you, much like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

Herbie said:
His opening statements are just meant to confuse readers.

Malcolm wrote:
They obviously confuse you, but instead of taking the time to understand them, you react to them with bilious irrationality. It really appears that you have only a superficial acquaintance with the subject matter and are totally ill-equippied to carry out a reasoned discussion of it. You cannot even address a single point that in Nāgārjuna's writings other than claiming that this and that is irrational. You seem totally incapable of a rational analysis of Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
whatever is known to exist according to worldly convention, the Buddha states that exists. Whatever is known to not exist according to worldly convention, the Buddha states that does not exist.
This is not a position that Nāgārjuna is setting forth. He is merely reporting the four alternatives the Buddha provided in different contexts to different students for different reasons.
Sorry but you cannot explain away the irrationality of this linguistic expression.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not something which is meant to be taken literally. In other words, you think it means that Nāgārjuna is claiming the Buddha said that everything is simultaneously real, unreal, both and neither. If that is what he meant, I would agree with you that such a statement would be irrational gibberish.

Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence to show this is not what Nāgārjuna meant.

Buddhapalita explains that what is meant by this statement is that whatever is known to exist according to worldly convention, the Buddha states that exists. Whatever is known to not exist according to worldly convention, the Buddha states that does not exist.

Whatever is known to be true according to worldly convention, the Buddha states that is true. Whatever is known to be false according to worldly convention, the Buddha states that is false.

Whatever is stated to be true and false in worldly convention the Buddha states that is true and false. Buddhapalita gives the following example: two men who go into a temple have a dispute about the murals in the temple; one man wrongly claims that Vishnu holds a trident and Shiva holds a wheel. The other main correctly claims Shiva holds a trident and Vishnu holds a wheel. Thus in this case the Buddha in accordance with worldly convention will disagree with the former and agree with the latter.

And finally, as example of the last, there is one man outside who says to them both, you are neither right nor wrong, those are paintings, and so according to mundane convention, the claim of former man is not true and neither is the claim of the latter man. Both of their claims are false since Shiva and Vishnu are not present in the temple at all.

Buddhapalita continues by saying that the Buddha, who sees the emptiness of all things, can say "this is true; this is not true; this is both; this is neither" and so on in accordance with worldly conventions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I wasn't aiming at you specifically Malcolm, just wanted to point out that DMT/ayahuasca isn't particularly intense either, at least not in my experience.

Malcolm wrote:
You just took a drug. It is not the same at all as a properly done ayahuasca ceremony with mestizo shamans in the Amazon, which involves fasting, special diet, etc.

You would have had more fun on acid. Or Peyote.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
smcj said:
Irrational because the laws of logic are not followed: identity, non-contradiction, exclusion of the middle
Au contraire.

Herbie said:
Aha ... and what about that?
xviii.8
Everything is real and not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
The is the Lord Buddha's teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, Nāgārjuna is merely reporting four different kinds of statements to Buddha made with regard to all phenomena. In one place the Buddha said they were real; in another place he said they were unreal; in still another he said they were both; and in a fourth place he said they were neither.

This is not a position that Nāgārjuna is setting forth. He is merely reporting the four alternatives the Buddha provided in different contexts to different students for different reasons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
[
What? That I said that his tetralemma is irrational? Well it is. If you prefer to call it rational then we do not share a convention as to the division rational vs irrational.

Malcolm wrote:
What is irrational about it, and which tetralemma do you mean?

Herbie said:
you can take any of his.
Irrational because the laws of logic are not followed: identity, non-contradiction, exclusion of the middle

Malcolm wrote:
This would only be true if the tetralemma were a position that Nāgārjuna holds, rather than a series of negations he uses.

For example, he says:
An existent does not arise from an existent; 
an existent does not arise from a nonexistent; 
a nonexistent does not arise from an existent;
a nonexistent does not arise from a nonexistent;
where can there be arising?
There is nothing irrational about these four negations — and they certainly are not a position.

So, thus far, you have claimed Nāgārjuna is irrational, but you certainly have not shown that this is so by taking a given statement of his apart and showing where it violates the principles you mention above. Until you make the effort, it is impossible to take you seriously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I never tried LSD, but after trying pharmahuasca, honestly I was rather underwhelmed.

While on it I just had disorientated motor control and had some slight visual phenomena, but it's nothing mind-blowing, nothing that changed my universe or life or whatever.

It doesn't compare to meditation at all.

I think the youth of today have more than enough distractions leading them in different directions (games, internet, youtube videos, blogs, etc) that the risk of "a stubborn attachment to the nonplasticity of their mental continuum" is fairly minimal. There is a greater danger in being too distracted.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, not recommending anyone take entheogens, just saying it should not be demonized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The idea svasaṃvedana takes itself as an object is an problematic conclusion. There is not much evidence that this is what the term means in those systems that use it.

PD4U said:
That's what I said: it makes it circulair (a sword that cuts itself) and it leads to an infinite regression (what part of the mind takes the part of the mind that takes itself as object, as object... ad infinitum)

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I am not making my self clear. Let me try again.  The systems that use the term rang rig do not use it to mean that that mind takes itself as an object. They use it only to prove that a mind is inherently knowing — in other words, that a mind does not become knowing because it arises as a result of a sense organ meeting an object.


PD4U said:
To prove? It is to show it is not (dual) consciousness, but a primordial (non dual) awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, to prove. We are talking about Yogacara and Pramana here.


PD4U said:
It is not gross mind, but subtle mind. It is not mind, but nature mind. It is not cognitive but experiential. That's the point, as I see it.

Malcolm wrote:
You keep conflating rang rig (svasaṃvedana) with so sor rang gi rig pa'i ye shes (pratyatmyavedanajñāna)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You don't have to believe me, but you might want to believe his wife — here is just one occasion.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ec8-HH-hxwkC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=trungpa+LSD&source=bl&ots=Kkt4dP1JHU&sig=F1nNbslEACnCa84_Z8UNXTnGinM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK1dCrlcXJAhUEqx4KHe4eBXw4ChDoAQgrMAM#v=onepage&q=LSD&f=false

kirtu said:
And if you read that, you would see that Trungpa was trying to save Thomas Rich from his entrenched fixations.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that was what prompted their little acid party.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
kirtu said:
All poison is also medicine for something.

Malcolm wrote:
LSD has no known toxicity level. However, overdose levels are considered to be in the 1000 to 7000 microgram amount, that is ten to seventy times the standard 100 microgram dosage. It is also completely nonaddictive.

Psilocybin has a very low toxicity rating. A one hundred and thirty pound person would have to eat 37 pounds of Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms for the dose to be fatal, i.e, about 6 grams. The effective dose of Psilocybin for such a person is 6 milligrams.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
[
What? That I said that his tetralemma is irrational? Well it is. If you prefer to call it rational then we do not share a convention as to the division rational vs irrational.

Malcolm wrote:
What is irrational about it, and which tetralemma do you mean?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


smcj said:
Whatever the relative potential spiritual merits there may be to psychedelics, there's nothing ambiguous about the effects of sustained exposure to crack and meth. It ends up only in one place. If you want to know what it's like to be demonically possessed, go ahead and get addicted.

Malcolm wrote:
Were we talking about cocaine and meth?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trungpa did a lot of acid and frequently gave it to his students.

odysseus said:
I don't believe you, it's only an urban legend to dirtify him... lol

Malcolm wrote:
You don't have to believe me, but you might want to believe his wife — here is just one occasion.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ec8-HH-hxwkC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=trungpa+LSD&source=bl&ots=Kkt4dP1JHU&sig=F1nNbslEACnCa84_Z8UNXTnGinM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK1dCrlcXJAhUEqx4KHe4eBXw4ChDoAQgrMAM#v=onepage&q=LSD&f=false


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
kirtu said:
Yes.  I can't prove it but when HHPR told an audience the Nyingma legend of tobacco wherein a dying demoness vows to be reborn as substances in order to make war against Dharma and virtue, it made sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Tobacco was introduced to Tibet in the 17th century.

Tobacco is not a result of the menstrual blood of an evil demoness, it is nice story for religious propaganda purposes

It is a sacred plant to the First People in the Americas, all over the Americas. I personally do not use it, but I don't demonize it either. And in the US, I would put real native tobacco in a sang offering, no problem.

Me


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
kirtu said:
Obviously.  But Americans and other westerners in particular seem to have a false narative that drugs "will save them".  In part this may be from Huxley or he may only have been documenting the tendency.

Malcolm wrote:
It cannot be denied that taking psychedelics have radically changed the course of people's lives, mostly for the better. There were studies being conducted on the whether or not LSD, etc., increased empathy or not. Unfortunately, those studies were shuttered. The fact is that I have known hundreds of people who have taken these kinds of drugs, many Buddhists in fact, and none of them reported any long term ill effects, and often they report long standing confirmations of their insights gained through use of psychedelics with their subsequent Buddhist practice. Virtually everyone I know in my generation who is a Buddhist began their spiritual journey through the Psychedelic movement. Also that is where I started. LSD, rock and roll, etc. I first dropped acid when I was 13. Never regretted it.

kirtu said:
It's his error but it can be a problem for the Dharma transmission to the west (he is not well known, BTW).

Malcolm wrote:
I doubt it. As far as I know, there is no LSD tantra.

That said, there have been people using psychedelics for spiritual purposes in all kinds of cultures all over the world for thousands of years. Is it Dharma? No. Is it spiritually invalid? No.

kirtu said:
When administered in a safe, controlled environment, there is nothing to fear....
Now you switch this to therapeutically controlled usage.

Malcolm wrote:
I mentioned this at the outset.

kirtu said:
Nonetheless as seeker242 above noted there is really no point for spiritual insight (the person I referred to above advocating LSD usage insists in fact that LSD usage promotes insight

Malcolm wrote:
There can be advantages for some people in terms of spiritual insight with use of psychedelics. For example, Garab Dorje mentions that for those who have a stubborn attachment to the nonplasticity of their mental continuums, it can be very useful to take psychedelic substances in order to break their attachment to the mind being something fixed and permanent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
PD4U said:
Svasamvedana is often translatred as "reflexive awareness" or "selfwareness", and -as you say- that awareness does not depend on a external object but takes itself as object. So it is a dual concsiousness.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea svasaṃvedana takes itself as an object is an problematic conclusion. There is not much evidence that this is what the term means in those systems that use it.

Instead, the term is used to prove that consciousness is not inert. The Śrīguhyasamājālaṃkāra states:
Consciousness arises contrary to
an insentient nature;
that whose nature is not insentient
that alone is intrinsically knowing [rang rig].

PD4U said:
But the point is that "so so rang rig pa'i ye shes" is a non dual awareness and not a (dual) consciousness. If it would be a consciousness then "rang rig" would be circular (a sword that cuts itself) and lead to an infinite regression.

Malcolm wrote:
So sor rang gi rig pa simple means "known for oneself", that's all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: help please - what to expect from none Buddhist partners
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The only way to have a comfortable, stable and satisfying relationship is to give up on the wish for the your partner to make you happy and to focus on their happiness instead. The more you love them and try to make them happy, the happier you will be and your relationship will be more likely to last.

Malcolm wrote:
What if making them happier means giving up the Dharma?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Does the difference boil down to the dharmata being understood differently in Ch'an and Vajrayana/Dzogchen?
If so, how are their understandings different?

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
In sūtra there we only talk about dharmatā śūnyatā; in Dzogchen we also talk about dharmatā vidyā. In other words the mind is not just something that is empty, like a rock or stone. The reason there is a difference is because minds also have clarity in addition to emptiness. Mipham discusses this issue at length in his Original Mind, translated by Hopkins as " Fundamental Mind."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
kirtu said:
LSD experience can just be attached to and this will harm your practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Anything can be attached to...

kirtu said:
I know a person who actually acts as a teacher and advocates LSD drug use (he is in his late 60's/early 70's and he does identify with the former so-called Counterculture).  He further grasps at spiritual experiences.  However he firmly believes that people are incapable of going beyond mere attachment to materiality without LSD experience.

Malcolm wrote:
That is his problem and his error.

kirtu said:
There's a lot wrong here and there are apparently many people like him (one of my Zen/Seon teachers admitted to starting out like this).

So physically there may be little harm.  However there are still physical dangers as people can apparently react in many different ways to these kinds of drugs.

Malcolm wrote:
When administered in a safe, controlled environment, there is nothing to fear. As I said, there is increasing evidence that pscilocybin, for example, can help memory loss, PTSD, etc., by regenerating brain cells. I am not saying anyone should take these drugs, I am saying however, that there is no reason to be hysterical or judgmental about it. There are much worse things in life than LSD, like assault rifles.

kirtu said:
I trust Trungpa on this who says that taking LSD is "double samsara" (but from his description he meant to say LSD is samsara squared).

Malcolm wrote:
Trungpa did a lot of acid and frequently gave it to his students.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
The reason I brought that citation is to show that the difference between knowing and unknowing lies in the presence or absence of dual vision. Self-awareness is another matter.

Malcolm wrote:
The term svasaṃvedana does not mean "self-aware," it means that knowing is an intrinsic capacity for the mind to does not depend on an external object, in contradistinction to the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika contention that an instance of knowing depends on an object and a sense organ to arise.

With respect to the Yogacara school, they do indeed posit an ultimate consciousness — it is the meaning of line of Madhyantavibhaga, "The imagination of the unreal exists..." and so on, though I understand it is fashionable these days to try and rescue Yogacara from being hoisted on its own petard.


Astus said:
That would mean that they still maintain a real subject, contradicting themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is the whole point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:12 PM
Title: Re: Robert Thurman
Content:
dreambow said:
Listening to Robert Thurman, man can he talk! He was discussing Shankaracharya and Nagarjuna and  basically said there's no real difference between Shankara's non dualism and  Nagarjuna's teachings on sunyata  'emptiness, ' they are pretty much saying  the same thing.

Malcolm wrote:
He can talk, but he is wrong...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:28 PM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
it is an irrational position.

Malcolm wrote:
The tetralemma is not a position, it is an analysis of positions [held by others].

Herbie said:
linguistically existent and not ultimately existent

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, so you are a follower of Tsongkhapa. Figures.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Let me tell you about the rational tetralemma:


1) linguistically existent and ultimately existent
2) not linguistically existent and not ultimately existent
3) linguistically existent and not ultimately existent
4 ) not linguistically existent and ultimately existent

Now one of these options must be valid and more than one option cannot be valid.

Malcolm wrote:
You did not define what you mean by "linguistically existent" and "ultimately existent." You also introduce yet another unsupported assertion, viz, "one of these options must be valid and more than one option cannot be valid."

Your assertion is that one of these options must be valid. So, which one are you choosing?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
smcj said:
But in any case Nagarjuna wasn't into that way of thinking. He arrives at his tetralemma through logic and language. The validity of both is accepted as a given.

Herbie said:
No. His tetralemma is sheer irrationality, the negation of logic.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is actually a systematic refutation of positions other people held. Some people hold a position of existence; others, non-existence; still others both; and still others, neither.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
This is funnny. All traditionalists seek refuge in sense perception of the five (not six) senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching) to base their exposition of conventional truths on. However they completely ignore their linguistic truths not based on sense perceptions of the five senses which clearly dominate their system of thought and therefore their linguistic system.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, a truth is a cognition. That's all. It is either veridical or non-veridical. A conventional truth is a common sense perception [one moon in the sky].

Linguistic truths, as you call them, are not what Madhyamaka is concerned with at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
yeah, demonstrable in writings that accept the mere linguistic truths as convention.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. You really do not understand Madhyamaka at all.

Herbie said:
My concern is intellectual honesty

Malcolm wrote:
Well, so far all you have been is dishonest, so I find it hard to believe you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
they hold that as truly existent
I don't see that accusation valid, at least not against Vasubandhu.

Malcolm wrote:
it is definitely valid
Astus said:
Dzogchen: "empty knowing dharmatā of the mind of the eight consciousness"
Yogacara: "empty intrinsically knowing pristine consciousness"

Both sound to me like a non-abiding mind.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the second is svasamvedana [ rang rig ] that is merely empty of subject and object, but truly exists -- standard Yogacara.

Astus said:
Also,

"What is the difference between ordinary wisdom, which arises from a mind endowed with subject/object grasping, and individually selfcognizant wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
This latter term "individually selfcognizant wisdom" is incorrectly translated. The term is so sor rang gi rig pa'i ye shes or pratyatmyavedanajñāna. 

There is an important citation in the Inlaid Jewels Tantra that clarifies the difference between these two:
Untainted vidyā is the kāya of pristine consciousness. 
Since intrinsic knowing [rang rig, svasaṃvedana] is devoid of actual signs of awakening, 
it is not at all the pristine consciousness of vidyā [rig pa'i ye shes].
You should read this:

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/kapstein001.pdf

Might I suggest that if you are going to argue about Tibetan traditions, you do so on the basis of understanding Tibetan and the etymologies of Sanskrit terms in Tibetan? 

One of the reasons you rarely see me in Zen or Chinese Buddhism discussions is that I have no expertise in those languages, and I really cannot check any translations I might be using.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
smcj said:
Animals believe is subjective "self" and objective "other" without language.

Herbie said:
First, to make claims about a species one does no belong to is by its nature extremely speculative.
Then, next, designators are not absolutely dependent on language because "imputation" stands for a psycho-mental event (designator) being imputed to another psycho-mental event.


Malcolm wrote:
You are not even in the same area as Nāgārjuna's concerns. At this point, your comments are off topic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
I know that in buddhist linguistic system the term "mind" usually is preferred. In science based system one often choses "brain" instead. in contrast to "mind" "brain" is based on a visual sense impression independent of belief but only dependent on correct application of a term of conventional language. From the perspective of the two truths, both mind and brain do not exist through the power of their own characteristics but through the power of imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would this be from the perspective of the two truths? What does ultimate truth [a veridical object of cognition] have do with this?

Herbie said:
Everything I write is a linguistic truth and it can only become a conventional truth for you if you agree with the linguistic expression I am applying.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, this what you do not understand about Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is not about linguistic assignations. It is about shared perceptions which are then, only after the fact, given labels.

For example, we have human eyes, we see the see the same sets of colors because humans have evolved to see a certain range of light on the electromagnetic scale [we can regard this as self-evident].

My and your ability to see red, yellow and blue is not predicated on our having words for these colors before we see them. It is only after we see them, and come together, that we have together given them linguistics assignations. "Truths" are defined in Madhyamaka as perceptions, not linguistic designations.
"given percept", "the objects of deluded cognitions", "the percept" are your linguistic truths. I do not think that we share a convention as to these linguistic expressions.
These are not mere "linguistic" truths -- these facts are demonstrable in Madhyamaka writings. For example, Nāgārjuna writes:
If a name and its meaning were not different, 
the name "fire" would burn the mouth;
if they were different, nothing could be comprehended.
Here, Nāgārjuan is pointing out that so called conventional truth is not merely dependent upon names, as he writes:
Without an object to be felt, 
feeling would not exist, 
therefore, it is without a self. 
You maintain that object to be felt lacks a nature.
At this point, this conversation is like two old guys at the docks at sunset —— one guy looks at the sunset, and says "this is amazing", the other guy looks at it and says. "I've seen better."

The conventional truth they share is the fact that they both see a sun going down, they share a perception. Their "linguistic truth" is their subjective opinion about the aesthetic quality of the sunset. However, it is a little worse than that. This conversation is actually like two guys seeing the same sun set, and one of the guys claiming there is no sun setting at all —— and not because the sunset is produced by the rotation of the earth, rather then the sun rising and falling in the sky.

It is examples such as these which shows you have deeply misunderstood the meaning of Nāgārjuna.

You may be entitled to your own "linguistic truths", however mistaken they may be; but you are not entitled to your own facts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just that is, according to Mipham, "...the ultimate state of the sublime Dharma."

Astus said:
Seems to be no different from the Yogacara term citta-dharmata, that is actually the same as emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not the same as the Yogacara concept, they hold that as truly existent, albeit empty of subject and object, as Mipham says here in Liquid Gold:
The Cittamatrins deconstruct both subject and object in a mere empty intrinsically knowing pristine consciousness.
The difference is, as he says:
When the pairing of the dhātu and vidyā is deconstructed, there is no focal point upon which to grasp. Once it is understood that the final premise, “this is ultimate,” is deconstructed in the state of inexpressible emptiness, one enters into the nondual pristine consciousness that all phenomena of the inseparable two truths are of the same taste.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
smcj said:
infinitely more complicated.
.

Malcolm wrote:
My life only became more complicated when I made the mistake of turning off, tuning out and dropping in. Once I saw the effect of that, I returned to my former irresponsible, albeit, much more stress-free, turned on, tuned in and dropped out existence [albeit sans acid, etc.]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:


Astus said:
And what is the dharmata of the mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Glad you asked. According to Mipham in his Commentary On Liquid Gold:
Dharmatā is the self-originated pristine consciousness that is the ultimate state of the sublime Dharma. It is not a conclusion arrived at by mental analysis and intellectual examination because such a conclusion is something arrived at and defined intellectually.
In Original Mind, he says:
[T]he unconditioned self-originated wisdom of the original empty knowing dharmatā of the mind of the eight consciousness is [8/a] the mind of luminosity [‘od gsal ba’i sems] that is to be introduced.
Just that is, according to Mipham, "...the ultimate state of the sublime Dharma."

Astus said:
How is that any different from simply calling it "realising emptiness"?

Malcolm wrote:
Realizing emptiness isn't sufficient for buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
I know that in buddhist linguistic system the term "mind" usually is preferred. In science based system one often choses "brain" instead. in contrast to "mind" "brain" is based on a visual sense impression independent of belief but only dependent on correct application of a term of conventional language. From the perspective of the two truths, both mind and brain do not exist through the power of their own characteristics but through the power of imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would this be from the perspective of the two truths? What does ultimate truth [a veridical object of cognition] have do with this?

Herbie said:
Well taking into consideration the development of a human person: being born, learning language, cognitive capacities arising dependent of this I think the primacy can make sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Relative truths [the objects of deluded cognitions] are not linguistic, they do not arise from names. Names are given subsequent to the arising of a given percept. The percept is not itself derived from a name.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure there is:

In the first statement, you claim that objects are external to the brain;

in the second statement, you claim that objects are produced by linguistic signs or sounds. Thus, you directly contradict yourself.

Herbie said:
No, in the first statement I am saying that projected objects which are objects known that are immediate direct products of the brain do not enter the brain because they cannot.

Malcolm wrote:
That may be what you meant to say on reflection, but that is not what you actually said.

Herbie said:
And in the second statement I am naming causes for the production of objects known by the brain which are linguistic signs or sounds.

Malcolm wrote:
Which causes an infinite regress because linguistic signs and sounds are just objects known by whatever it is you believe knows objects.
That may be unsupported for a person completely denying today's conventional reality.
No, it is unsupported because you assume that it is self-evident. Thomas Nagel would have a field day with you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I am thinking that he is trying to say that the sum total of our experience exists only in the brain.

Herbie said:
I am saying that what is known it the direct product of the brain.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is another unsupported assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This:

Herbie said:
the objects do not enter the brain to be known by it but are its immediate direct products. With that nothing is said about the indirect causes.

Malcolm wrote:
Contradicts this

Herbie said:
Objects are products of the brain upon seeing linguistic signs or hearing linguistic sounds. So "essential nature" has to be saught in these objects as products of the brain not in their projections. Seeking "essential nature" in the projected objects nothing will be found.
you may delve into neuro science but actually it is just a matter of common sense of an educated person of present times to see that the immediate, direct cause of all phenomena known is the brain.
No there is no contradiction.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you trying to say that the cause of knowing phenomena is the brain?

Herbie said:
i am saying that phenomena known are products of the brain.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure there is:

In the first statement, you claim that objects are external to the brain; in the second statement, you claim that objects are produced by linguistic signs or sounds. Thus, you directly contradict yourself.

In the third statement, you make claim that phenomena that are known are products of the brain, another unsupported assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This:

Herbie said:
the objects do not enter the brain to be known by it but are its immediate direct products. With that nothing is said about the indirect causes.

Malcolm wrote:
Contradicts this

Herbie said:
Objects are products of the brain upon seeing linguistic signs or hearing linguistic sounds. So "essential nature" has to be saught in these objects as products of the brain not in their projections. Seeking "essential nature" in the projected objects nothing will be found.
you may delve into neuro science but actually it is just a matter of common sense of an educated person of present times to see that the immediate, direct cause of all phenomena known is the brain.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you trying to say that the cause of knowing phenomena is the brain?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Objects are products of the brain upon seeing linguistic signs or hearing linguistic sounds.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an unsupported assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
Throughout history are there not fully realized Dzogchen masters that, from that perspective, reaffirm the appropriateness of the 9 yana system?

Malcolm wrote:
No one said it was inappropriate, it just does not apply to Sarma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What else is to be realized? Vidyā.

Astus said:
What more does vidya include?
Apparently not, otherwise, Mipham would not have taken it to task.
I am not familiar with Mipham's intellectual-cultural context, where such terminology was a problem, but I can imagine such a situation. Still, it doesn't look like that everyone in Tibetan Buddhism stopped using it.

Malcolm wrote:
Mipham writes in his Original Mind:
Once one has realized the meaning of the Great Perfection (the conclusion of the Dharma of the eight vehicles that make mind into the path) which makes pristine consciousness into the path, it is explained that buddhahood will not be attained until the vidyā of the Great Perfection, self-originated pristine consciousness, is realized.
In other words, buddhahood does not come about solely from realizing emptiness, the dharmatā of emptiness, buddhahood requires realizing vidyā, the dharmatā of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Look, if I say that this is my view who except myself could say so? Merely saying so supports that this is my view.

Malcolm wrote:
Your view is a claim about someone else's work [Nāgārjuna] and you have made no effort to support it. This renders your claim irrational, i.e., devoid of reason.

Herbie said:
No my view is my view. The only thing I claim is that my view is my view. you may call it whatever you like but that doesn't change my view.

Malcolm wrote:
Your view, such as you call it, is seated in irrationality since you refuse to support it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Really? Than please tell us what is to be realized.

Astus said:
The emptiness of self and phenomena, what else?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not all that is to be realized. This point of view is very heavily criticized in Dzogchen. What else is to be realized? Vidyā.

Astus said:
That is exactly what "union" means, tying two things together, for example, the union of a man and a woman.
For educational purposes it is fine to talk of emptiness, appearances and their unity. Then eventually it becomes clear that all three terms are conventional expressions.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently not, otherwise, Mipham would not have taken it to task.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Look, if I say that this is my view who except myself could say so? Merely saying so supports that this is my view.

Malcolm wrote:
Your view is a claim about someone else's work [Nāgārjuna] and you have made no effort to support it. This renders your claim irrational, i.e., devoid of reason.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
As to Knotty Veneer's contention that there is a link between schizophrenia and taking LSD, this is a problematic conclusion because no solid research has been done in this area given that LSD research was banned 50 years ago, and we understand the the brain and brain chemistry much better now, a full half century later.

The latest [2013] population study on psychedelics concludes:
We did not find use of psychedelics to be an independent risk factor for mental health problems.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063972

Knotty Veneer said:
Well I have anecdotal evidence from my own acquaintances whose mental health has been negatively impacted by LSD use. I'd say - even if the jury's out - your mental health is too precious to risk losing for the thrills of a brief trip. Too risky for too little benefit.

Malcolm wrote:
The evidence shows that people who feel they have had negative impacts from LSD in terms of their mental health had mental health issues to begin with. The reality is that there is no evidence that LSD use makes people go crazy or causes schizophrenia. I am not saying anyone should use psychedelics; the choice to do so or not should be based on fact and reason, not anecdote.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Who are you to say what I can write here?

Malcolm wrote:
Malcolm

Herbie said:
Hi Malcolm

my user name is Herbie and my view is that Nāgārjuna's linguistic games do not uncover anything but may indicate to a reader of his verses that he, the reader or his brain, is inappropriately processing linguistic expressions.

Malcolm wrote:
You did not support this view at all, therefore, it is a purely irrational claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus the view in Dzogchen is the direct perception of pristine consciousness introduced by the guru, it is not a result of intellectual analysis.

Astus said:
That's at best a difference in method, of how to relinquish attachment, but not in what is realised.

Malcolm wrote:
Really? Than please tell us what is to be realized.

Astus said:
Or it is about criticising those who mistake emptiness for a reified concept of emptiness, a position already rejected by Nagarjuna and his followers.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not that.

Astus said:
Tying together would need two things to be tied together.

Malcolm wrote:
That is exactly what "union" means, tying two things together, for example, the union of a man and a woman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Who are you to censor me?

Malcolm wrote:
No one is censoring you. I am pointing out however it you are being very irrational by making unsupported claims.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Who are you to say what I can write here?

Malcolm wrote:
Malcolm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
DGA said:
Our friends in Silicon Valley will do *anything* to get a leg up.  It's a highly competitive environment.  I'd figure that DMT would be a more appealing substance there than LSD, given that the user can get in and out in half the time it takes to endure a guest lecture on "mindfulness" at the Google campus.

Malcolm wrote:
It's too incapacitating.

DGA said:
Even when smoked?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. It gives you a ten minute buzz from which you come down rapidly; but it is a really, really intense high, much more intense than acid.

If you take ayahuasca, this trip lasts much longer [note: I have not done ayahuasca].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:


Herbie said:
No it is based on rational analysis of the linguistic expressions he uses in the context of linguistic conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as you continue to make this claim without providing support, it is an irrational claim. Just because this is in the "Open Dharma" cesspit, it does not mean you can make unsupported claims.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
DGA said:
Now, do discussions like this belong on a Buddhist board?  I leave that to the current moderating team to consider.  The argument against is that it may be construed to encourage illegal activity (remember that this is an international board, and drugs that may have tacit acceptance here may be cut-your-hands-off illegal for some of our participants).  Even in the first world.  Are you familiar with the drug laws in Japan, for instance?  yeowza... they thought of all that tentacle stuff just on sake.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they do, since there indeed classic Buddhist texts which discuss the use of hallucinogens and their effects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
DGA said:
Our friends in Silicon Valley will do *anything* to get a leg up.  It's a highly competitive environment.  I'd figure that DMT would be a more appealing substance there than LSD, given that the user can get in and out in half the time it takes to endure a guest lecture on "mindfulness" at the Google campus.

Malcolm wrote:
It's too incapacitating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
Well that depends on the system of thought you are applying. your system is not everybody else's system so when you say "real" that may not be "real" in another one's understanding.

Bakmoon said:
I'm not just talking about philosophical systems, but about the underlying cognitive assumption of reality that underlies human mental processes. When I hold my hand out in front of my face, it looks to me like there is a real hand there. This isn't a philosophical position I've cooked up for myself, but rather is an innate human bias. It is this underlying error which Nagarjuna refutes.

Herbie said:
you are applying a system of linguistic expressions which is based on a system of thought. if you deny the relativity of your linguistic expressions then you are applying an essentialist system of thought.


Malcolm wrote:
This is just the Humpty Dumpty argument:



'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.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus said:
Terms like appearance and emptiness are meant for guidance...

Malcolm wrote:
What single entity ties them together? You still did not answer the question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus said:
What higher view can be presented than not being bound by any view? It would be falling back to clinging to views.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Mipham addresses this. One, the problem is what is meant by "view." In the Commentary On Liquid Gold he states:
Though all the objects of analysis of other kinds of analysis are doors for getting near pristine conciseness, pristine consciousness cannot be seen with them in and of themselves. All the activity of intellectual analysis obscures the pristine consciousness that is beyond thought by shackling it in the web of mind, just as a caterpillar spins its own cocoon.
He continues later by stating:
In the same way, when examined from the perspective of the emptiness that is free from all proliferation of the four extremes that is explained in the Perfection Vehicle, since there are no phenomena not pervaded by that emptiness, there indeed is a good argument that confirms that if there is a view better than that, that view would become a proliferation.

However, when examined from the perspective of realizing the dhātu (the object to be realized), or the method (great bliss), the view of mantra is very superior because the mind is very near the reality of the object [the dharmadhātu].
Why is the mind very near the reality of the object? After the first statement I presented above, Mipham claims:
Here [in the Great Perfection], since the pristine consciousness that exists within oneself is immediately apprehended just as it is with the intimate instruction of the critical point of the introduction, it becomes intrinsically clear to oneself without the need to be involved in a huge net of conceptual fabrications. That being so, once the result of all progress is attained, there is no rationale in hoping for another vehicle.
Thus the view in Dzogchen is the direct perception of pristine consciousness introduced by the guru, it is not a result of intellectual analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
smcj said:
Apparently too there is a new practice of micro dosing with LSD [10 micrograms] to enhance creativity.
They tried that at Milbrook back in the day too, but then again it was just one of many "experiments" they tried on themselves. The lab rats had already been contaminated by other experiments.

Malcolm wrote:
It has been revived in Silicon Valley.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/how-lsd-microdosing-became-the-hot-new-business-trip-20151120




Even though it is has been decades since the last time I tripped, I can definitely say I turned on, tuned in, and dropped out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
smcj said:
Nay.

This is a public forum with some underage and a certain percentage of unstable members. We don't want anybody harmed or getting sued.

Malcolm wrote:
So is a library. I read Electric Kool-aid Acid Test when I was eleven, along with Teachings of Don Juan. I also did more than my fair share of acid, mushrooms, and so on, before meeting the Dharma.

As to Knotty Veneer's contention that there is a link between schizophrenia and taking LSD, this is a problematic conclusion because no solid research has been done in this area given that LSD research was banned 50 years ago, and we understand the the brain and brain chemistry much better now, a full half century later.

The latest [2013] population study on psychedelics concludes:
We did not find use of psychedelics to be an independent risk factor for mental health problems.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063972


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 5th, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: LSD
Content:
Queequeg said:
Yay or nay and why?

Malcolm wrote:
The precept police will be all NAY! NAY! NAY! NAY!

The hippy squad will be all YAY! YAY! YAY!

Those with more level heads will say LSD is not going to help your practice at all, so there is not much point; but, taken safely, wont hurt your practice at all, so there is not much reason to object.

That being said, there is significant evidence that Shrooms in low doses has relieves PTSD, and may even encourage regeneration of neurons. Apparently too there is a new practice of micro dosing with LSD [10 micrograms] to enhance creativity.

So, there are no rules but those we impose upon ourselves.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Malcolm, so do you now accept the 9-yana characterization of different views for different yanas?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on the context. The main difference between the three yāna system of gsar ma and the nine yāna system of snying ma has to do with the three inner tantras. I am not convinced it is valid to analyze the mother and nondual tantras from the perspective of the nine yāna system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: DW and Political Bias
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To see how very little US Politics has changed [depressingly so] in the past 50 years, watch this documentary, Best of Enemies. Trailer:

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: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:


Astus said:
Yes, both good and bad dharmas are empty, kleshas are bodhi, and samsara is nirvana. That is not the same as refuting/denying the conventional existence of wholesome and unwholesome for deluded beings, as the driving forces behind the various forms of birth, as stated in the referenced aspiration prayer for instance. I did not say that Dzogchen uses specific antidotes, just that it recognises the function of various mental inclinations.

Malcolm wrote:
Your statement was:
Dzogchen maintains the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome, otherwise it'd be in denial in a way they accuse Hashang's doctrine. It's just that in terms of view one realises that all phenomena are empty, thus no need to grasp or reject. Same is taught in Theravada with the contemplation on the three characteristics.
You used this phrase in order to somehow make Theravada and other Hinayāna paths compatible with Dzogchen. It is not that they are incompatible, per se, but they don't reach the point of view of Dzogchen teachings. They are incomplete, from a Dzogchen point of view.

Second, who are the "they" making accusations. What denial are you claiming would be a result if Dzogchen does not make this distinction?

Astus said:
We were on your point about union of appearance and emptiness.
And they are so, nobody claimed otherwise. What you seemed to object against was summing up the ultimate view as the two kinds of selflessness, I guess because it may be mistaken for some annihilationist extreme, while Dzogchen likes to equally emphasise awareness and emptiness as the inseparable nature of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
In point of fact, Ju Mipham, since you invoked him, is not comfortable with the idea that there is a "union" or "nonduality" of appearance and emptiness, this is why he questions the idea.

The ultimate view of Dzogchen is not merely the two kinds of selflessness. It goes beyond that. Mipham's perspective, again, since you brought him up, is that the view of sūtra does not approach the view of mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
i don't agree that Nāgārjuna's linguistic games uncovers anything but the readers inappropriate processing of language.

Malcolm wrote:
To return to this statement: this statement, without any support, is by itself an irrational claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
No. I think that my understandig is common if not  inflicted by irrational views.

Malcolm wrote:
Your understanding itself is beset with an irrational view since you are merely making unsupported assertions without providing any serious analysis to bolster your claim. It amounts to trolling, really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
All the big names in DC say folks should purify negatives and accumulate virtues. This is that view conduct thing.

Malcolm wrote:
While there is certainly a normative drive in the Nyingma school, The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra states:
Do not engage in the root of conditioned virtue; if one engages in the root of conditioned virtue, it will perish.

As for whether or not one should engage in virtues or misdeeds, it is said that while there is no imperative to engage in virtue, there is also no reason to engage in misdeeds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:


Astus said:
So says everyone else in Buddhism. Skilful and unskilful acts bring about karmic results within samsara, and I see no denial of that in Dzogchen either, since it does talk about the lower and higher realms.

Malcolm wrote:
The demonstration of the freedom of vidyā from virtue and non-virtue: “Freedom from virtuous and non-virtuous actions” means the yogin who perceives his own vidyā. Since this vidyā is connected with the oral instructions of a Guru, in reality, even a paṇḍita learned in the tripitika will not come into contact with even an iota [of this vidyā] if it is not demonstrated. Therefore, it is called “relying upon the methods of secret mantra.” If demonstrated, it can even be seen by a poor cowherd. Therefore,  it is “without good and bad karma”. If it is not practiced, not even Vajrasattva will be liberated. Therefore, “familiarity with the intimate instruction meets its measure”. Having practiced, even one who has committed the five limitless deeds will be liberated in this life. Therefore, it is called “unaffected by the benefit or harm of good and bad actions”. 
When vidyā is seen, since that alone is buddhahood and nothing else, one who nominally designates buddhahood is deluded. When vidyā is practiced, since hells do not exist, the one who designates hells has been taken by Māra. When vidyā reaches its full measure, it is shown that neither buddhas nor hell beings were ever established. Therefore, it is shown that there is not the slightest difference between Buddha Samantabhadra and the King of Hell, Dharmarāja.
-- Vimalamitra

Astus said:
You have not eliminated the reification of oneness and manyness, that is the point of the question.
Are we still on the subject of selflessness?

Malcolm wrote:
We were on your point about union of appearance and emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
as the Soaring Great Garuda states:
Butchering, prostitution, the five uninterrupted deeds,
immoral behavior and that avoided by the world,
are totally perfect, the nectar of Dharma —
there is nothing other than great bliss.

Astus said:
It clearly says they are immoral behaviour. So there is awareness of a difference between good and bad.

Malcolm wrote:
Your contention was that:
Dzogchen maintains the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome...
But clearly it does not.

Astus said:
Still it maintains that for the deluded beings of the world those are unwholesome activities.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen point of view is that delusion is just delusion, and there is no liberation through engaging in deluded virtue, let alone avoiding deluded nonvirtue.


Astus said:
The question assumes that appearances and emptiness are two and need holding together. I do not hold such an assumption.

Malcolm wrote:
You have not eliminated the reification of oneness and manyness, that is the point of the question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus said:
But, as I said before, the teachings do not say that within samsara there are no good and bad, it's just that for a dzogchenpa the solution to that is the ultimate approach of neither grasping nor rejecting.

Malcolm wrote:
You said:
Dzogchen maintains the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome...
As I said, Dzogchen does not maintain a distinction between the wholesome and unwholesome, as the Soaring Great Garuda states:
Butchering, prostitution, the five uninterrupted deeds,
immoral behavior and that avoided by the world,
are totally perfect, the nectar of Dharma —
there is nothing other than great bliss.

Astus said:
I used the word unity, as in "one" and "single". There is no selflessness or emptiness as a thing or being anywhere, it's just how appearances are. Otherwise it would be assuming a self outside the aggregates, or taking the aggregates as one thing and emptiness another.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, but you did not answer Mipham's question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But I have no investment in whether you understand Nāgārjuna properly or not, so I will leave it here.

Herbie said:
No problem since I understand and that's why I have done away with Nāgārjuna.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you evince no understanding of Nāgārjuna at all through your posts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but where is anything defined as wholesome or unwholesome? Something to be accepted as opposed to something be to be rejected?

Astus said:
The text goes on about the five poisons and how they're remedied by recognising the natural state. It also mentions the six realms here and there. Since it recognises the various types of births, as they depend on good and bad inclinations, it includes the system of the wholesome and unwholesome states. Of course, it is not really a text to get into the details of karma, but it is obviously presupposed.

Malcolm wrote:
The text says that there is a single basis, two paths and two results. It does not go into an analysis of accepting conditioned good things and rejecting conditioned bad things. It merely says that the difference between affliction and wisdom is vidyā and avidyā. It describes the state of samsara, but it does not recommend some practice of accepting and rejecting wholesome and unwholesome things. From the same text, my translation:
[M]ay all the sentient beings with clinging of desire
attain the pristine consciousness that realizes everything,
having mastered their own vidyā
through relaxing awareness into its own pristine state,
without externally giving up the torment of desire,
without internally adopting the clinging of desire.


Astus said:
The quote from Anyen Rinpoche talks about the unity of emptiness and appearances as the correct view, and not to take them separately. I see no contradiction between the two quotes.

Malcolm wrote:
In the Commentary on Liquid Gold, Ju Mipham asks the question:
Also, in terms of the claim, “appearance and emptiness are nondual,” what is the single identity holding both appearance and emptiness together as one thing?
One can say that appearances and emptiness are 'du bral med, that it, they cannot be put together [ 'du ] or separated [ bral ], in other words, they are whole and indivisible, but to say they are a union, well, that involves a whole other set of problems as Ju Mipham points out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 4th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Theravadin looking for a bit of suggestion
Content:
Astus said:
"It is the very state of unawareness, which is the cause of delusion. In that state you suddenly lose consciousness, and from that unclear state fear comes into being. From that arises clinging to self and clinging to other as enemy. This habitual tendency gradually grows, and from this a progressive entry into samsara occurs. Next, the five poisons of the passions develop, and the karma of these five poisons is unceasing."
( http://www.vajrayana.org/media/files/files/d74e3a90/Kunzang_Monlam_letter_format.pdf )

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but where is anything defined as wholesome or unwholesome? Something to be accepted as opposed to something be to be rejected? As the Tantra of Buddhahood as an Intrinsic Attribute states:
Again, Guhyapati said, “Oh Buddha Great Mass of Light, please teach the three things unnecessary for buddhahood.”

The reply: “Guhyapati, listen! Since appearances automatically reversed, there is no need to purify bad karma and negative traces. Since pristine consciousness returns to its hidden nest, there is no need for deliberate meditation. Since there is no birth or death in one’s vidyā, there is no need to avoid the suffering of samsara.

Astus said:
"Mipham Rinpoche tells us that we should not understand what appears and what is empty in the way that we understand light and darkness. The proper way for us to understand them is as fire and warmth. In this way, we become skillful at understanding emptiness and dependent arising, dependent arising and emptiness. There is no more profound understanding of the view of Dzogchen than this."
(Anyen Rinpoche: Journey to Certainty, p 134-135)

Malcolm wrote:
[T]he emptiness arrived at through the power of analysis does not rise above a nonaffirming negation, it does not become the view of Mantra...Someone who maintains that emptiness is good and maintains that existence is bad places great importance on the nonaffirming negation. The Bhagavan said that it is better to abide in a view of the personality complex the size of a mountain. The view of the nonexistence of the personality complex is wrong.
Commentary on Liquid Gold by Ju Mipham.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 10:44 PM
Title: Wholesome and Unwholesome in Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
Dzogchen maintains the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome...

Malcolm wrote:
Citation please, from an original Dzogchen text.

Astus said:
Rigpa is the knowing of reality, and such knowledge is the goal of Theravada as well. Assuming a self (an absolute) beyond the five aggregates is denied not only in Theravada but in Mahayana as well. There is also no disagreement in that it's not the skandhas themselves that are the problem but the attachment to them based on ignorance. So once reality is seen (no self inside, outside or in between the aggregates), there is no clinging, and without clinging there is liberation. Although that doesn't mean that there is no difference in terminology and in some methods.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think Dzogchen can be summed up by the two kinds of selflessness [persons and phenomena], you have not understood Dzogchen at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Queequeg said:
In other words, there must be some fundamental truth reconciling all the various teachings attributed to the Buddha; that all of the teachings come from a single source, with a single aim - and so essentially being the same teaching, are differentiated only by the exigencies of the circumstances of particular beings.

Malcolm wrote:
It can't be found in any book, it can only be found in realization.

Queequeg said:
A little vague there...

"It" being what? "some fundamental truth"?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
i don't agree that Nāgārjuna's linguistic games uncovers anything but the readers inappropriate processing of language. you may draw your conclusions and impute these to him but these are you conclusions but they may be correct nevertheless ... or wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not my imputation, they are what he actually says in more than one place. But I have no investment in whether you understand Nāgārjuna properly or not, so I will leave it here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 3rd, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Can objects attain enlightenment?
Content:
Matt J said:
This quote makes me think that Padmasambhava is advocating a monism of consciousness, like Advaita. For one, he says the sign is that the body disappears into pristine consciousness. The other is that non-dual means "sameness." But I would think this is not the case?


Malcolm wrote:
[T]he insentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it...As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into pristine consciousness without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the insentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instruction.
—— Guru Padmasambhava from the Ḍākinī's Heart Essence
Yes, but that is not correct. Pristine consciousness [ ye shes ] cannot be monadic because out of it a diversity appears.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
He indicated inappropriate processing of language. that's it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not just it. What he exposes is the essentialism that causes people to misunderstand the meaning of "arising from conditions."

Herbie said:
I see no contradiction to what I said. It is just about inappropriate or appropriate processing of language as signs and sounds which are free from meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. This misunderstanding may be expressed in language, but the misunderstanding itself is not linguistic, it is cognitive. Nāgārjuna's critique of language uncovers the cognitive errors which come when one's view is bound up in metaphysical assumptions about the existence or nonexistence of putative entities. It is for this reason that all his examples are about error-inducing perceptions such as illusions, mirages, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: do you need empowement to practice vajrayana?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
why do we see so much objection on dharmawheel to simply doing it the old fashion way-- that is finding a good buddhist teacher and following their instructions start to finish?

Malcolm wrote:
We don't.

Fortyeightvows said:
maybe it is better to learn mahayana from a good teacher then to learn dzogchen/tantra, etc on your own

Malcolm wrote:
It is not possible to practice Dzogchen or the two stages without a guru. It is also not really possible to practice Mahāyāna without a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Rita_Repulsa said:
It is. And in the first chapter of the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra—which, of course, is considered a kind of preamble to the Lotus Sutra—this is described in a listing of the Buddha's attributes.

PorkChop said:
Just when I thought I was done buying books, I just realized that I have no copy of a sutra which actually lists those marks, even though I have a few that stress trying to visualize those marks (though I may not spend too much time on the horse weiner)... Thanks for the heads up.

Malcolm wrote:
There is not much point in doing that, as the Vajracchedika sūtra points out, the tathāgata cannot be known from signs and marks,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Queequeg said:
In other words, there must be some fundamental truth reconciling all the various teachings attributed to the Buddha; that all of the teachings come from a single source, with a single aim - and so essentially being the same teaching, are differentiated only by the exigencies of the circumstances of particular beings.

Malcolm wrote:
It can't be found in any book, it can only be found in realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


garudha said:
Rather than thinking "Men are made from blue modelling-clay (and have male bodies) & Women are made from pink modelling-clay (and have female bodies)"...
I think it might be helpful to imagine that there is only one colour of modelling-clay and this clay is shaped into the appropriate form.
Therefore; I'm suggesting that only the nirmanakaya appears to be Male or Female but the dharmakaya and sambhogakaya are asexual.

Malcolm wrote:
Sambhogakāyas also have gendered appearances.

garudha said:
Okay, So would I be correct in thinking that the Vimalakirti Sutra explains a sambhogakaya of one gender appearing as a nirmanakaya of the other gender ?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a parody of Hinayāna attitudes about women's potential to awaken. There is a doctrine that in order to become a Buddha, one first must be born with a penis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Can objects attain enlightenment?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[T]he insentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it...As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into pristine consciousness without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the insentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instruction.
—— Guru Padmasambhava from the Ḍākinī's Heart Essence

dzogchungpa said:
Can you dumb that down a bit?

Malcolm wrote:
It means simply that the appearance of the insentient and the sentient is a delusion, and that in reality there is no such distinction at all. This is why I replied to Rita's question, "I've read some references to insentient life being enlightened. What does this mean?" with "Nothing." From a Dzogchen point of view it is meaningless to say that the insentient, living or otherwise, becomes enlightened since the categories of insentient/sentient are themselves predicated on a dualistic error and vanish in the state of buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


garudha said:
Rather than thinking "Men are made from blue modelling-clay (and have male bodies) & Women are made from pink modelling-clay (and have female bodies)"...
I think it might be helpful to imagine that there is only one colour of modelling-clay and this clay is shaped into the appropriate form.
Therefore; I'm suggesting that only the nirmanakaya appears to be Male or Female but the dharmakaya and sambhogakaya are asexual.

Malcolm wrote:
Sambhogakāyas also have gendered appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Can objects attain enlightenment?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[T]he insentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it...As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into pristine consciousness without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the insentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instruction.
—— Guru Padmasambhava from the Ḍākinī's Heart Essence


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Time
Content:
steve_bakr said:
If you don't mind, I would like to state my understanding of time, and have someone comment on that, affirming or correcting my understanding.

Our conventional experience of time is that neither the past nor the future exist. Similarly, the present cannot be located, because as soon as we try, it is already gone. So, how does this square with intrinsic awareness in the "present moment"--or the here and now?

Malcolm wrote:
It does not -- the fourth time is beyond the three times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 8:57 AM
Title: Re: Can objects attain enlightenment?
Content:
Rita_Repulsa said:
I've read some references to insentient life being enlightened. What does this mean?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


rory said:
You are either flip or ignorant, neither of which bodes well for the discussion. I have to run to class so I can't go into this famous topic more but great Ch'an master Ta-hui and celebrated Dogen used the example of the Naga girl to show women's ability to become Buddha's among many others  For those with an interest I suggest you put Naga girl buddha into "Google Books" and find out more.
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
We have been over this before. There is no doubt that the message of the Lotus Sutra is that women can become Buddhas. Nevertheless, the Nāga princess changes her gender to male, and then proceeds to Buddhahood. She does not attain Buddhahood in a female form:
At that time the members of the assembly all saw the dragon girl in the space of an instant change into a man and carry out all the practices of a bodhisattva, immediately proceeding to the Spotless World of the south, taking a seat on a jeweled lotus, and attaining impartial and correct enlightenment. With the thirty-two features and the eighty characteristics, he expounded the wonderful Law for all living beings everywhere in the ten directions.
http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap12.html
Then the assembly there all saw the daughter of the nāga king instantly transform into a man, perfect the bodhisattva practices, go to the vimalā world in the south, sit on a jeweled lotus flower, and attain highest, complete enlightenment, become endowed with the thirty-two marks and eighty excellent characteristics, and expound the True Dharma universally for the sake of all sentient beings in the ten directions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150521183528/http://www.bdkamerica.org/digital/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf

As I said, people clearly don't read very carefully.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
odysseus said:
No, enligthenment is not about adapting to the circumstances all the time - enlightenment is about taking a stand, that's why Buddha was male and not a female "due to sexist dominated society". It's not his fault, it just couldn't be any other way in his days.

Malcolm wrote:
That is pretty much the definition of adapting to circumstances...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Serenity509 said:
Some make a big deal out of the dragon king's daughter becoming a Buddha in the Lotus Sutra. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she become a man in the process?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, she transforms her gender, much to the astonishment of the retinue.

Serenity509 said:
If so, why is it used as evidence that women can become Buddhas, if she's actually becoming a man?

Malcolm wrote:
Because people don't read carefully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Title: Re: important buddhist text may have been authored by a woma
Content:
pael said:
How? Could you say, please. I'm curious.

Malcolm wrote:
All people suffer from the three poisons, how that manifests is to a large extent dependent on culture, in the same way that symptoms of mental illness are largely dependent on culture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Serenity509 said:
Some make a big deal out of the dragon king's daughter becoming a Buddha in the Lotus Sutra. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she become a man in the process?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, she transforms her gender, much to the astonishment of the retinue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen master's perspective [from The Sacred...]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The mirror does not reflect truth. It reflects secondary conditions.

smcj said:
The mirror is purity and clarity. So it purely and clearly reflects the secondary conditions.
Malcolm wrote:
Relatively, when it is not recognized, it is called "the basis appears as the universe."

smcj said:
The pure/clear basis appearing as the universe? Purely and clearly? Truthfully.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the mirror does not judge the appearances in the mirror, and reflects will reflect "real" and and "illusory" elephant without any judgement.

The basis appears as the universe under the influence of ignorance. The universe appears as the basis under the influence of knowledge. The basis itself has no judgment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
well then... can you name the eightfold path and the twelve links?
no need to respond here.
only you know the answer

Malcolm wrote:
Can you?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: The sacred in Buddhism 2
Content:
kirtu said:
Kongtrul Rinpoche, delogs and others report classical Indian forms (because they are steeped in that imagery).

Malcolm wrote:
So, here you are suggesting that buddhas are conditioned?

kirtu said:
No, the beings reporting their visions are conditioned to some extent (including Jamgon Kongtrul, reportedly a 7th bhumi Bodhisattva).  And we are conditioned as well.  So great lamas like Jamgom Kongtrul and Chatral Rinpoche use conditioned language to talk to us about their experiences (for example, Chatral Rinpoche's reported visions).

Awakened beings view the world from a purified perspective and that's the point (and since the form isn't a mere emptiness it is able to engage in the world so other teachings dealing with other aspects such as spontaneous arising, etc. are not excluded from the use of the image).
But for whom are these images, those to be tamed or those taming?
For those to be tamed and for teachers within a specific cultural milieu (see above - lamas reporting visions and otherwise communicating with us).  People who have "adopted" Buddhism also sometimes see images from within this cultural filter.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
But mandalas, for example, are supposed to reflective of the state of Buddhahood, not seventh stage bodhisattvas and so on. Therefore, it is impossible to believe that they are to be taken literally.

Since this bodhicitta, the essence of everything, 
has always been the naturally perfected intrinsic nature, 
there is no need for searching and practice with the ten natures.
-- Kun byed rgyal po


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


smcj said:
What is "sacred" about the mirror?
It is Truth (Clarity).

Malcolm wrote:
No, since it reflects truths and and falsity without discrimination.

smcj said:
The Truth of what? The Truth of the actions of sentient beings being made clear by becoming experience, meaning the law of karmic cause and effect.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no karma in the mirror. The images in the mirror are not part of the mirror.

smcj said:
It is Love. How so? Because Love animates the images on the mirror. Even hate is love that has been twisted and corrupted by unawareness.

Malcolm wrote:
If loves animates the images in the mirror, it is not the mirror. The mirror is not capable of generating its own images. Images arise from secondary conditions.

smcj said:
It is Freedom (emptiness). With nothing fixed by having own-nature the images are 100% free to take on whatever form is appropriate to demonstrate the Truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, the images do not come from the mirror. The mirror does not reflect truth. It reflects secondary conditions.

smcj said:
And it is Purity. There no phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present in the mirror.

Malcolm wrote:
Then there are no images that come from the mirror.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: The sacred in Buddhism 2
Content:
kirtu said:
Kongtrul Rinpoche, delogs and others report classical Indian forms (because they are steeped in that imagery).

Malcolm wrote:
So, here you are suggesting that buddhas are conditioned?


kirtu said:
Awakened beings view the world from a purified perspective and that's the point (and since the form isn't a mere emptiness it is able to engage in the world so other teachings dealing with other aspects such as spontaneous arising, etc. are not excluded from the use of the image).

Malcolm wrote:
But for whom are these images, those to be tamed or those taming?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 30th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
What I was trying to work towards, without much luck, is saying it is the mirror itself that is sacred. Thus a true Dzogchenpa would see everything as such, regardless of how painful or ugly it may appear. Everything would be both "non-dual" and "perfect just as it is".

florin said:
But why apply labels such as sacred to that wich is beyond any labels and categorisations ?
I dont know what others dzogchenpas see but i am pretty sure that sacred doesnt come into it..

MiphamFan said:
Exactly.

To say something is sacred implies that there is something not-sacred to contrast it with.

If there is nothing that is "not-sacred" then to say something is "sacred" is meaningless.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, for SMCJ, sacrality is important. Not sure why. For others of us, such as myself, the word "sacred" is not really part of my thinking. Sublime, profound, etc., these words are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: The sacred in Buddhism 2
Content:
kirtu said:
The use of Indian deity images is said to be literal by some teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
And I question this. It does not make sense.

kirtu said:
However if we assert that they are at least metaphorical*,  then their intention is still clear as purified forms of offering and and active purification through transformation.

Malcolm wrote:
It is one thing to see sadhanas as methods of transformation, it is quite another to assert that awakened beings experience their senses as this or that mandala decked out in 7th century finery.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: The sacred in Buddhism 2
Content:
kirtu said:
Our tantric sadhanas tell us how enlightened beings experience sense objects.

Malcolm wrote:
I doubt very much whether enlightened beings experience sense objects as half-naked little Indian goddesses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


odysseus said:
Shakyamuni was a male, but he had plenty of female followers - because his Dharma is very real that women also can become enlightened.

seeker242 said:
Yes, like his mother/aunt. But my point was that him being born as a male was a "skillful means" and has nothing to do with abilities of men or women. If the society was a female dominated society, where all men were seen as lesser, he would have been born as a woman because that would be the most skillful means to teach.

Malcolm wrote:
We can see this possibility because we live in an open, secular, liberal society that values equal rights and civil rights— but it was not a possibility seen in the world of classical India, which is why there is so much patriarchal and mysogynistic rhetoric in so many [but not all] Hinayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras, as well as the tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
What I was trying to work towards, without much luck, is saying it is the mirror itself that is sacred.

Malcolm wrote:
It is just a mirror — it will reflect a golden Buddha statue or a golden bedpan with equal indifference. It will not discriminate this image and say "This is sacred" and reflect it more brightly, nor will it discriminate another image and say, "This is profane" and dim the image. The mirror reflects everything equally well without discriminating whether it is good or bad, large or small, etc. Why? Because the function of a mirror is to reflect anything placed before it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 10:59 AM
Title: Re: Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche & No Female Tibetan Rinpoches
Content:
kirtu said:
However as we know there have been some teachers and some current male teachers have studied with them.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
A few, mostly obscure, and known to us only through their renowned male students, consorts or relatives. Tibetan Buddhism, despite its many virtues, is still grounded in a heavily patriarchal and sexist system which reflects the acute gender biases which predominate Tibetan culture as a whole. Of course, we in the West need to understand the flaws and strong traces of patriarchy and gender bias which informs ourselves as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
OK, so now what do we mean by "non-dual"?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends, but for Madhyamaka, it means freedom from all extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
Who said? Only buddhas have nondual experience 24/7/365.
This is a thought experiment.

What do we mean by "non-dual"? (I tried to start a thread about that a while back.)
"Without any references" sounds like there is still a subject. How is that not simply half of dualism?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no subject in nonreferential compassion because it is nonreferential.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I would expect he sees the suffering of beings in a compassionate light, acknowledging that pain is a cause of suffering, knowing that suffering is just a thought away.

smcj said:
How is that "non-dual"?

dharmagoat said:
(Let's try that one again...)

Compassion is about as non-dual as it gets.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what kind of compassion: compassion without any references is nondual. The rest are dualistic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
How is that "non-dual"?

dharmagoat said:
You got me there. Must the experience of a Dzogchen master always be non-dual?

smcj said:
Yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Who said? Only buddhas have nondual experience 24/7/365.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
As a thought experiment, I'd like to see what people think a Dzogchen master sees. Given that theoretically for a Dzogchenpa everything is perfect "just as it is". Obviously by "everything" they mean "everything", even the most ugly and painful things in life.

dharmagoat said:
As I understand it, a Dzogchenpa/Chagchenpa master feels the same sensations as others but perceives them differently. For example, without the conception of "this pain is causing me suffering", they may experience the sensation of pain without perceiving it as suffering.

smcj said:
Ok. And how does he see the suffering of others? And in what sense is it "non-dual"?

Malcolm wrote:
A Dzogchen master is just someone who has the capacity teach the path of Dzogchen. It does not mean he is realized. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu denies he is realized constantly; but he does not deny he is a Dzogchen master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:
byamspa said:
I respectfully disagree.  HE Garchen Rinpoche said that "If you don't live nearby and cannot come, but with all your heart would like to, that is the right motivation for receiving the empowerment over the internet.
Whoever has faith and devotion will receive the empowerment regardless of where they are, because the dharmakaya pervades like space. Even if you come to the temple to receive an empowerment, if you have no devotion you still will not receive it."

Its really up to the aspirant and the aspiration generated.  if you want it badly, then receiving it over ustream or skype can work.  If your motivation is questionable, the results will be 2.

Karma_Yeshe said:
Yes. That is why I wrote full Vajrayana Empowerment. This is not only about the Dharmakaya. There are substances involed and you should make a connection not only with your mind-aspect but also with energy and body (all of them being inseperable). Also you should recevieve the ritual implements and so on. How is that possible via Skype/internet?

All the best
Karma Yeshe

Malcolm wrote:
You will find, if you do further research, that these general conditions are not agreed to, sometimes, even within the same school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 4:43 AM
Title: Dzogchen master's perspective [from The Sacred...]
Content:
smcj said:
As a thought experiment, I'd like to see what people think a Dzogchen master sees. Given that theoretically for a Dzogchenpa everything is perfect "just as it is". Obviously by "everything" they mean "everything", even the most ugly and painful things in life.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen masters are generally just practitioners who have their fair share of pleasure, pain, suffering, happiness, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In return, I ask, how is blind adherence to scripture, i.e., Buddhist fundamentalism, genuine faith in the Buddha?

Tenso said:
I strongly believe that the Mahayana sutras were spoken by an enlightened being. Do you disagree?

Malcolm wrote:
Even if one believes that every word in the sūtras was spoken by the Buddha, this does not mean they all need to be accepted. Otherwise we are no better than fundamentalist theists who insist that every word of their holy scriptures was spoken by God.

In any case, since the appearance of Buddhas and the words that they speak are delusions conforming to the expectations and inclinations of those to be tamed, if the Buddhas enunciate sexist things, it is the flaw of the disciple to be tamed, not the Buddhas. Even if this is the case however, and we use this a rationale to excuse the Buddhas of culpability for such words and attitudes, those words and attitudes must still be confronted, not wished away with platitudes and vain apologetics.

That said, when we find things in the sūtras and tantras that are injurious to our sisters in the Dharma, they should be confronted, no matter who is supposed to have said them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is clearly chauvinistic and merely perpetuates androcentrism and mysogyny in the Dharma.

Astus said:
Yes, and before that section in the Nirvana Sutra it talks about how women are full of insatiable desire. However, the reason I quoted it is, that it can be taken as one way of Buddhist scriptures tackling widespread misogyny prevalent in texts and societies. Instead of reading the negative characteristics of female birth as referring to biology, it transforms that to a spiritual level.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is even worse, since it engenders understanding and misunderstanding.


Astus said:
Sure, it's not that same as what one finds in the Soma Sutta and others claiming sex to be another mistaken self-identity, but as tathagatagarbha teachings are transitory teachings from self-view to no-self, it fits well into the scheme of gradually eliminating sexism.

Malcolm wrote:
Then it apparently failed in its job, in this instance.

The Vimalamirti-nirdesha's farce with the Goddess of the Ganges is a much more effective parody of endemic Buddhist doctrinal mysogyny.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is clearly chauvinistic and merely perpetuates androcentrism and mysogyny in the Dharma.

Tenso said:
You would rather cherry pick parts of the sutras that you like and throw out everything else that you personally disagree with? How are you able to have genuine faith in the Buddha?


Malcolm wrote:
I did not say that passage in question should be edited out — instead, it should be confronted and engaged for what is actually is — Buddhist mysogyny.

In return, I ask, how is blind adherence to scripture, i.e., Buddhist fundamentalism, genuine faith in the Buddha?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Herbie said:
He indicated inappropriate processing of language. that's it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not just it. What he exposes is the essentialism that causes people to misunderstand the meaning of "arising from conditions."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Astus said:
"Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman' or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' — that's who Mara's fit to address."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.002.than.html )

"Good man, it is in this sense that good men and good women who listen to this Mahayana Great Nirvana Sutra will always decry the marks that characterize a female and seek to be male . Why? Because this Mahayana scripture has the characteristic of manliness (pauru$a). I am referring to buddha-nature. If someone does not understand buddhanature, then he does not have male characteristics. Why do I say this? Because he cannot grasp the fact that the buddha-nature exists within himself. I would say those unable to know the buddha-nature are to be called women. I would say those who are able to know themselves that the buddha-nature exists are characteristically male. If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male."
(Nirvana Sutra, p 301-302, tr Blum, BDK Edition / p 135 in tr Yamamoto)

Malcolm wrote:
This is clearly chauvinistic and merely perpetuates androcentrism and mysogyny in the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
Semantics. Scientific materialists reject it.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not make rebirth supernatural.



smcj said:
Karma is not moralistic; it is eudaemonic — in other words, the teachings of karma state that positive intentions and acts lead to positive outcomes.
Positive actions result in positive experience. Negative actions result in negative experience. In other words the truth of the nature of the action is made manifest/apparent as experience. That quality of "demonstrating the truth of the nature of the act" as either suffering or happiness is moralistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. Positive acts lead to positive sensations; negative actions lead to negative sensations — that is all the doctrine of karma-vipaka entails, nothing more.

smcj said:
Not judgmental per se, but divine justice nevertheless.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing divine about it.


smcj said:
The clarity of the basis shows the "truth" of the action.
The love of the basis animates that appearance.
The emptiness of the basis allows for limitless freedom for that expression to manifest.

Malcolm wrote:
These are all just pretty conventions.

smcj said:
Thus all 6 realms can be seen as the expression of the basis, or "The Truth".

Malcolm wrote:
No, the six realms expressions of delusion, not "the truth" in anyway shape form.



smcj said:
What do you mean by faith?
Belief in and reliance on things unseen.

Malcolm wrote:
The faith is not required.


smcj said:
The cheap shot would be to simply say "emptiness". But there is more than that. If, as the texts state, the universe came into being because of the karma of sentient beings left over from the last universe, that would mean that everything that is, is here because beings are working out their karma. But even if you ignore that cosmology, what is going on in life is both the creation and ripening of karma. As I've said above the workings of karma is itself the "Truth" demonstrating the nature of actions.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is also not "true".



smcj said:
True, primordial purity, a Refuge for our suffering and an answer to the cycle of life and death.

Malcolm wrote:
None of this entails "sacredness", unless you want it too.


smcj said:
Actually you are worse than me on this score. I say that the Tibetans have their Dharma down better than us, and you say that the Tibetans in India don't have it down as we'll as the ones that stayed in Tibet. That's taking it even one step further!

Malcolm wrote:
I wasn't talking about realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:


conebeckham said:
Well, in Vajrayana we all start out as children, and play is a good thing.  Necessary, even.

Malcolm wrote:
He was saying actually the opposite...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
And I read it like this — ancient India was a patriarchy, and had a cultural doctrine that women had inferior births.

seeker242 said:
I agree! Which is precisely why the Buddha was born as a male to begin with. It would be detrimental to the dharma to put himself in a place of perceived inferiority, even if that inferiority is not true to begin with.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that was then, and this is now. We do not need to continue to cater to ancient chauvinism, or imagine it is somehow universal and will always be applicable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 29th, 2015 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Serenity509 said:
There are several texts which suggest that, for a woman to become a Buddha, she must first be reborn as a man.

seeker242 said:
I don't read it like that personally. I read it like this...

Malcolm wrote:
And I read it like this — ancient India was a patriarchy, and had a cultural doctrine that women had inferior births.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:


Karma_Yeshe said:
Yes. That is why I wrote full Vajrayana Empowerment. This is not only about the Dharmakaya. There are substances involed and you should make a connection not only with your mind-aspect but also with energy and body (all of them being inseperable). Also you should recevieve the ritual implements and so on. How is that possible via Skype/internet?

Malcolm wrote:
As my guru, a terton and a great Dzogchen master, once told us, "Empowerments are the play of children.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche & No Female Tibetan Rinpoches
Content:
ngodrup said:
Have you not heard of the 14
downfalls of tantric samaya? What is the 14th?

Malcolm wrote:
Because in fact there are so many places in the sūtras as well as classical sūtra literature that claim a woman is incapable of Buddhahood. The 14th downfall proves the presence of sexism in Vajrayāna, not its absence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
Rebirth is supernatural.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not. In order for it to be supernatural, it would have to have been brought about by some supernatural agency. Instead, rebirth is just about as natural as one can get.

smcj said:
Karma is moralistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Karma is not moralistic; it is eudaemonic — in other words, the teachings of karma state that positive intentions and acts lead to positive outcomes.

smcj said:
Faith is required.

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by faith?

smcj said:
There is an "Universal Truth".

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? No, there isn't.

smcj said:
There is "sacredness".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is such a word, but it does not mean much, considering that "the sacred" means something different for virtually everyone. For example, for Hindus, cows are sacred; for Muslims, they are food.

smcj said:
Asians don't object to these issues. That's why their Dharma practices are more fruitful than ours.

Malcolm wrote:
Asians don't even have this language to begin with. And who says their Dharma practice is "more" fruitful?

smcj said:
It's not about race. It is about our additional cultural obscurations.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a pity that so many Western Dharma practitioners have this strange cultural inferiority complex.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
maybay said:
Brave New World was a parody of America, if such a thing is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
While indeed contemporary American culture served as his artistic point of departure, the world he created owes everything to the Republic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth, Karma & Emptiness
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
If HHDL suggested that the "very very subtle mind and body" goes on between lives, he has just taken the eternalism position. He has just suggested a soul.

Malcolm wrote:
No, since this subtle mind and body is not a permanent entity, it is a series of impermanent moments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Fascists love Plato's Republic, for they see in it a image of how they imagine themselves, philosopher kings all.

maybay said:
That is as much a reason to call Plato a fascist as it is to call someone wearing burberry a chav football hooligan.

Malcolm wrote:
You do understand that Brave New World is Huxley's parody of the Republic?


maybay said:
Whatever personal bias he might have revealed in his writings are almost inconsequential.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, they are crucial to understanding his whole program.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Sacred and profane are categories that are only used in Abrahamic religions.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.

MiphamFan said:
The outer tantras are about external purity, not sacredness.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.

MiphamFan said:
Buddhist morality is not about good/evil, it is about kusala/akusala. It is a far more realistic, positivistic morality.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: An American Buddhist on Thanksgiving
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am not saying we need to feel some kind of white guilt about it all. I certainly don't. I am saying that we need to remember and never forget where our "blessings" come from and how they were gained.

Serenity509 said:
I don't know, dawg. It would be unfair to judge American history from a different standard than we would judge any other country's history. Furthermore, I think you are neglecting the immense good that America has done for the world. Why is America, for example, the preferred destination for the world's immigrants? Also, why do immigrants in the United States own small businesses at a higher rate than the general population?

Malcolm wrote:
I think you really need to look into the history of US foreign policy and incursions, and evaluate "all the good" we have done in that light.

Rome had a pretty brutal track record in the ancient world, but it sure did not stop people from wanting to be close to the center of world power, back in the day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As for my contention, you yourself know that Plato's Republic starts with an "aristocracy" and concludes with a tyranny. I don't share Plato's pessimism.

maybay said:
Plato seemed quite optimistic about the possibility of rule by those who love wisdom, not by those who love honour. The condition under which successful democracies function today is the fact that those who love honour have a limited term, while those who love wisdom get to rule, albeit at a distance — the rule of law.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is, as always, that it is the very fascist element itself imagines itself to to be Aristos, and tries to enforce this tiered and class centered system on the populace.

Fascists love Plato's Republic, for they see in it a image of how they imagine themselves, philosopher kings all.

Our democracy is not founded on such Platonic ideals, and owes, in its political forms, much more to the Roman Republic than the Athenians, and formed out of similar colonialist expansionism. The formation and authorship of our government is in reality an expression of the Scottish Enlightenment, whose own roots are too complicated to merely sum up and lay all at Plato's door.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
maybay said:
The Buddha will teach whatever aspect of the Dharma is suitable to the situation. You are suggesting he would repudiate his teaching on unattractiveness and never teach it again. This sutta does not suggest that.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am suggesting that he was surprised and appalled at how badly he was misunderstood by his students. He certainly indicates he had no idea of what was going on during his retreat in his absence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
How about this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.009.than.html?

maybay said:
In this sutta his first teaching was on unattractiveness and his second on mindful breathing. Teaching the latter does not contradict the former, nor require the Buddha to revise it. Why would you think it does?


Malcolm wrote:
I think dzogchungpa was referring to the fact that the Buddha was surprised that so many monks committed suicide because they misunderstood his teachings on the unattractiveness of the body, and modified his teaching accordingly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
My point is, that there is no word in either Buddhism or Hinduism that maps to the adjective.
Point taken.

Now let us discuss English. Do you believe Dharma in general, and Vajrayana in particular do not have:

"sacred rites" dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration

(of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion: a sacred text.

regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual; an "(whatever)" sacred to Tibetans

*******

If these definitions conform to the practice of Dharma then it is appropriate to us the word when discussing Dharma in English, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Quite honestly, the word never crosses my lips nor comes to mind with regard to the Dharma. I think in terms of what is liberative and nonliberative. I don't think that there really is anything in Buddhadharma that is "inviolable", "sacrosanct", etc. In fact, I think the term "sacred" is pretty dualistic. In order for something to be sacred, there has to something profane.

Of course I respect what other people hold to be "sacred," as long as it is not harmful to sentient beings. But since all phenomena are already perfect, where is there any room at all for the sacred or the profane? If you argue that we don't live in such knowledge and therefore, it is important that we have "sacred texts," "sacred rites," etc., you have just rendered your "sacred rites and texts" profane and mundane since they are only relevant to the ignorant and deluded.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


smcj said:
It occurs to me that since the same terminology is used between Hinduism and Buddhism that "sacred Hindu text" may be very relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
My point is, that there is no word in either Buddhism or Hinduism that maps to the adjective. If you look in any Sanskrit dictionary you will find hundreds of things that are described as "sacred" — sacred this, sacred that, etc., not one single word maps to the word "sacred."

I suspect it is because the Buddhist/Hindu world view does not have heavily demarcated categories of sacred/profane.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: An American Buddhist on Thanksgiving
Content:
Serenity509 said:
As an American Buddhist, I am thankful for the blessings we often take for granted, despite our country's imperfections. Even when adjusted for differences in currency value between countries, the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people, and the median household income is higher than 93% of the world's people.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, at the expense of 400 years of systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide of an indigenous population.

Serenity509 said:
Let's begin by asking whether the white man was guilty of genocide against the native Indians. As a matter of fact, he was not. As William McNeill documents in Plagues and Peoples, great numbers of Indians did perish as a result of their contact with whites, but, for the most part, they died by contracting diseases-smallpox, measles, malaria, tuberculosis-for which they had not developed immunities. This is tragedy on a grand scale, but it is not genocide, which implies an intention to wipe out an entire population. McNeill points out that, a few centuries earlier, Europeans themselves contracted lethal diseases, including the bubonic plague, from Mongol invaders from the Asian steppes. The Europeans didn't have immunities, and the plague decimated one-third of the population of Europe, and yet, despite the magnitude of deaths and suffering, no one calls this genocide.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/02/whats-great-about-america

Malcolm wrote:
In the beginning, Anglo settlers organized irregular units to brutally attack and destroy unarmed Indigenous women, children, and old people using unlimited violence in unrelenting attacks. During nearly two centuries of British colonization, generations of settlers, mostly farmers, gained experience as “Indian fighters” outside any organized military institution. Anglo-French conflict may appear to have been the dominant factor of European colonization in North America during the eighteenth century, but while large regular armies fought over geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare against the Indigenous communities. Much of the fighting during the fifteen-year settlers’ war for independence, especially in the Ohio Valley region and western New York, was directed against Indigenous resisters who realized it was not in their interest to have a close enemy of settlers with an independent government, as opposed to a remote one in Great Britain. Nor did the fledgling US military in the 1790s carry out operations typical of the state-centered wars occurring in Europe at the time. Even following the founding of the professional US Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the US conquest of the Ohio Valley and Mississippi Valley regions. Since that time, Grenier notes, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces.

The chief characteristic of irregular warfare is that of the extreme violence against civilians, in this case the tendency to seek the utter annihilation of the Indigenous population. “In cases where a rough balance of power existed,” Grenier observes, “and the Indians even appeared dominant— as was the situation in virtually every frontier war until the first decade of the 19th century—[ settler] Americans were quick to turn to extravagant violence.”

Many historians who acknowledge the exceptional one-sided colonial violence attribute it to racism. Grenier argues that rather than racism leading to violence, the reverse occurred: the out-of-control momentum of extreme violence of unlimited warfare fueled race hatred. “Successive generations of Americans, both soldiers and civilians, made the killing of Indian men, women, and children a defining element of their first military tradition and thereby part of a shared American identity. Indeed, only after seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-century Americans made the first way of war a key to being a white American could later generations of ‘Indian haters,’ men like Andrew Jackson, turn the Indian wars into race wars.” By then, the Indigenous peoples’ villages, farmlands, towns, and entire nations formed the only barrier to the settlers’ total freedom to acquire land and wealth. Settler colonialists again chose their own means of conquest. Such fighters are often viewed as courageous heroes, but killing the unarmed women, children, and old people and burning homes and fields involved neither courage nor sacrifice. 

So it was from the planting of the first British colonies in North America. Among the initial leaders of those ventures were military men— mercenaries— who brought with them their previous war experiences in Britain’s imperialist, anti-Muslim Crusades. Those who put together and led the first colonial armies, such as John Smith in Virginia, Myles Standish at Plymouth, John Mason in Connecticut, and John Underhill in Massachusetts, had fought in the bitter, brutal, and bloody religious wars ongoing in Europe at the time of the first settlements. They had long practiced burning towns and fields and killing the unarmed and vulnerable. “Tragically for the Indian peoples of the Eastern Seaboard,” Grenier observes, “the mercenaries unleashed a similar way of war in early Virginia and New England.”
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne (2014-09-16). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History) (pp. 58-60). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

There is one feature in the expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries which should never be lost sight of, especially by those who denounce such expansion on moral grounds. On the whole, the movement has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place.
 —Theodore Roosevelt, “The Expansion of the White Races,” 1909


 I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream … the nation’s hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead. 
—Black Elk, 1930, on the massacre at Wounded Knee
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne (2014-09-16). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History) (p. 162). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.


You said:
As an American Buddhist, I am thankful for the blessings we often take for granted, despite our country's imperfections. Even when adjusted for differences in currency value between countries, the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people, and the median household income is higher than 93% of the world's people.
The word "blessing" is very apt here. Why? The verb "to bless" comes from:
Old English bletsian, bledsian, Northumbrian bloedsian "to consecrate, make holy, give thanks," from Proto-Germanic *blodison "hallow with blood, mark with blood," from *blotham "blood" (see blood (n.)). Originally a blood sprinkling on pagan altars.
So, yes, our "blessings" comes from the blood our ancestors spilt on the altar of European incursions into the the new world.

Serenity509 said:
It would be wrong to say that whites never killed natives. But again, we must judge American history by the same standards we'd judge any other country's history. For example, wasn't India, the country in which Buddhism was born, established by Aryan invaders who displaced the native peoples? Does that make India or Buddhism all bad?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for in fact Europeans frequently killed natives, more often than not. As for India, we do not have an accurate historical record of the movements of Indo-aryans into India, all we have is myth and guesswork. But Europeans were so callous in their disregard to the First Peoples here, they willing wrote down accounts of murder and pillage without a second thought.
Documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; the post– Civil War era of the so-called Indian wars in the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period, all of which are discussed in the following chapters. Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children … during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.” As Patrick Wolfe has noted, the peculiarity of settler colonialism is that the goal is elimination of Indigenous populations in order to make land available to settlers. That project is not limited to government policy, but rather involves all kinds of agencies, voluntary militias, and the settlers themselves acting on their own.
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne (2014-09-16). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History) (pp. 9-10). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

Our blessings also come from the fact that as Americans, our colonial policies are so successful that indeed "the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people" as you note. America is thus far the most successful experiment in European colonialism ever tried. It is important that we remember how we arose as a country, and not smother it in Hallmark sentiment.

I am not saying we need to feel some kind of white guilt about it all. I certainly don't. I am saying that we need to remember and never forget where our "blessings" come from and how they were gained.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: An American Buddhist on Thanksgiving
Content:
Serenity509 said:
As an American Buddhist, I am thankful for the blessings we often take for granted, despite our country's imperfections. Even when adjusted for differences in currency value between countries, the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people, and the median household income is higher than 93% of the world's people.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, at the expense of 400 years of systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide of an indigenous population.

Serenity509 said:
Let's begin by asking whether the white man was guilty of genocide against the native Indians. As a matter of fact, he was not. As William McNeill documents in Plagues and Peoples, great numbers of Indians did perish as a result of their contact with whites, but, for the most part, they died by contracting diseases-smallpox, measles, malaria, tuberculosis-for which they had not developed immunities. This is tragedy on a grand scale, but it is not genocide, which implies an intention to wipe out an entire population. McNeill points out that, a few centuries earlier, Europeans themselves contracted lethal diseases, including the bubonic plague, from Mongol invaders from the Asian steppes. The Europeans didn't have immunities, and the plague decimated one-third of the population of Europe, and yet, despite the magnitude of deaths and suffering, no one calls this genocide.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/02/whats-great-about-america

Malcolm wrote:
In the beginning, Anglo settlers organized irregular units to brutally attack and destroy unarmed Indigenous women, children, and old people using unlimited violence in unrelenting attacks. During nearly two centuries of British colonization, generations of settlers, mostly farmers, gained experience as “Indian fighters” outside any organized military institution. Anglo-French conflict may appear to have been the dominant factor of European colonization in North America during the eighteenth century, but while large regular armies fought over geopolitical goals in Europe, Anglo settlers in North America waged deadly irregular warfare against the Indigenous communities. Much of the fighting during the fifteen-year settlers’ war for independence, especially in the Ohio Valley region and western New York, was directed against Indigenous resisters who realized it was not in their interest to have a close enemy of settlers with an independent government, as opposed to a remote one in Great Britain. Nor did the fledgling US military in the 1790s carry out operations typical of the state-centered wars occurring in Europe at the time. Even following the founding of the professional US Army in the 1810s, irregular warfare was the method of the US conquest of the Ohio Valley and Mississippi Valley regions. Since that time, Grenier notes, irregular methods have been used in tandem with operations of regular armed forces.

The chief characteristic of irregular warfare is that of the extreme violence against civilians, in this case the tendency to seek the utter annihilation of the Indigenous population. “In cases where a rough balance of power existed,” Grenier observes, “and the Indians even appeared dominant— as was the situation in virtually every frontier war until the first decade of the 19th century—[ settler] Americans were quick to turn to extravagant violence.”

Many historians who acknowledge the exceptional one-sided colonial violence attribute it to racism. Grenier argues that rather than racism leading to violence, the reverse occurred: the out-of-control momentum of extreme violence of unlimited warfare fueled race hatred. “Successive generations of Americans, both soldiers and civilians, made the killing of Indian men, women, and children a defining element of their first military tradition and thereby part of a shared American identity. Indeed, only after seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-century Americans made the first way of war a key to being a white American could later generations of ‘Indian haters,’ men like Andrew Jackson, turn the Indian wars into race wars.” By then, the Indigenous peoples’ villages, farmlands, towns, and entire nations formed the only barrier to the settlers’ total freedom to acquire land and wealth. Settler colonialists again chose their own means of conquest. Such fighters are often viewed as courageous heroes, but killing the unarmed women, children, and old people and burning homes and fields involved neither courage nor sacrifice. 

So it was from the planting of the first British colonies in North America. Among the initial leaders of those ventures were military men— mercenaries— who brought with them their previous war experiences in Britain’s imperialist, anti-Muslim Crusades. Those who put together and led the first colonial armies, such as John Smith in Virginia, Myles Standish at Plymouth, John Mason in Connecticut, and John Underhill in Massachusetts, had fought in the bitter, brutal, and bloody religious wars ongoing in Europe at the time of the first settlements. They had long practiced burning towns and fields and killing the unarmed and vulnerable. “Tragically for the Indian peoples of the Eastern Seaboard,” Grenier observes, “the mercenaries unleashed a similar way of war in early Virginia and New England.”
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne (2014-09-16). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History) (pp. 58-60). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

There is one feature in the expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries which should never be lost sight of, especially by those who denounce such expansion on moral grounds. On the whole, the movement has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place.
 —Theodore Roosevelt, “The Expansion of the White Races,” 1909


 I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream … the nation’s hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead. 
—Black Elk, 1930, on the massacre at Wounded Knee
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne (2014-09-16). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History) (p. 162). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.


You said:
As an American Buddhist, I am thankful for the blessings we often take for granted, despite our country's imperfections. Even when adjusted for differences in currency value between countries, the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people, and the median household income is higher than 93% of the world's people.
And:

The word "blessing" is very apt here. Why? The verb "to bless" comes from:
Old English bletsian, bledsian, Northumbrian bloedsian "to consecrate, make holy, give thanks," from Proto-Germanic *blodison "hallow with blood, mark with blood," from *blotham "blood" (see blood (n.)). Originally a blood sprinkling on pagan altars.
So, yes, our "blessings" comes from the blood our ancestors spilt on the altar of European incursions into the the new world.

Serenity509 said:
It would be wrong to say that whites never killed natives. But again, we must judge American history by the same standards we'd judge any other country's history. For example, wasn't India, the country in which Buddhism was born, established by Aryan invaders who displaced the native peoples? Does that make India or Buddhism all bad?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for in fact Europeans frequently killed natives, more often than not. As for India, we do not have an accurate historical record of the movements of Indo-aryans into India, all we have is myth and guesswork. But Europeans were so callous in their disregard to the First People's here, they willing wrote down accounts of murder and pillage without a second thought.
Documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; the post– Civil War era of the so-called Indian wars in the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period, all of which are discussed in the following chapters. Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children … during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.” As Patrick Wolfe has noted, the peculiarity of settler colonialism is that the goal is elimination of Indigenous populations in order to make land available to settlers. That project is not limited to government policy, but rather involves all kinds of agencies, voluntary militias, and the settlers themselves acting on their own.
Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne (2014-09-16). An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History) (pp. 9-10). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

Our blessings also come from the fact that as Americans, our colonial policies are so successful that indeed "the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people" as you note. America is thus far the most successful experiment in European colonialism ever tried.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
maybay said:
By the way this is a ridiculous assertion. You seem eager to promote the idea of a revelatory American politics free from European heritage, but this attempt at obfuscating history only signals your contempt for the past. An intelligent person without faith and respect will only see what he wants to see, no matter how hard he looks.

Malcolm wrote:
The only one who is obfuscating things here is yourself, who seems incapable of resisting the urge to engage in ad hominem fallacies.

That said, you are wrong. I really understand quite well how grounded the American revolutionaries were grounded in the contemporary thought of their day [The Scottish Enlightenment] and all the controversies and debates that raged in intellectual circles during their time.

As for my contention, you yourself know that Plato's Republic starts with an "aristocracy" and concludes with a tyranny. I don't share Plato's pessimism.

Arguably, however, it is Epicurus, through Lucretius's De rerum natura, who was perhaps the most influential Greek thinker during the revolutionary period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 28th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
tingdzin said:
This is NOT to say that rationality is not crucial in Buddhism; the acuity of the Buddhist teachers of the past in pointing out humanity's mental landscape is IMO one of two factors that have enabled Buddhism to continue over the centuries; the other factor is that individual practitioners of Buddhism have made their own the experience of what the sophisticated descriptions of reality are aiming at. And this leads back to the original theme of this thread, the sacred.

Malcolm wrote:
That which is considered inviolable is that which considered sacred: a shrine, a trust, a place, a word, bond, etc., generally because it has been blessed, but also because there may be some inherent quality which some place or thing seems to hold: such as a tree, a mountain, a spring, a river and so on., which will be ruined if it is despoiled.

The thing is, there is no adjective like "sacred" in Dharma texts (with perhaps the possible exception of brahma, i.e. brahmacarin, etc.) This, I submit, accounts for why there is so much disagreement among Western Buddhists about what is sacred and what is not, precisely because there is very little guidance on the subject from key source texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
tingdzin said:
Let's discuss the advantages and disadvantages of governmental forms in another thread, please. There are enough such threads going on, or people could start another one.

Malcolm, in your post (Nov. 26, 10:04, too far back to use quote function) You say that "In Buddhadharma  . . .there does [sic] not exist, nor could exist, any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of Dharma explanation".  This sounds to me like you are saying that there is nothing that cannot be, "in principle",  conceptually explained. Is this an accurate assessment or not?


Malcolm wrote:
No, I am saying there are no entities [ dngos po, vastu ] which in principle lie beyond the scope of Dharma explanations.

But even when we come to such things as Dzogchen and so, there are also example wisdoms which are given in the form of conceptual explanations. However, a conceptual explanation of sweet, no matter how detailed, will never substitute for putting something sweet on your tongue. So, while I think everything can indeed be rationally explained, even buddhahood, I maintain this is not a substitute for experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Serenity509 said:
There are several texts which suggest that, for a woman to become a Buddha, she must first be reborn as a man. However, the biographical sutras refer to several women who attained arhantship. What is the difference between a woman attaining Buddhahood and a woman attaining arhantship? Why one and not the other? I am confused.


Malcolm wrote:
Its just sexist bullshit in the sūtras, there is no need to pay it any serious mind. The remedy for this can be found in the Vimalakirtinirdesha sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: An American Buddhist on Thanksgiving
Content:
Serenity509 said:
As an American Buddhist, I am thankful for the blessings we often take for granted, despite our country's imperfections. Even when adjusted for differences in currency value between countries, the bottom five percent of Americans have a higher standard of living than 68% of the world's people, and the median household income is higher than 93% of the world's people.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, at the expense of 400 years of systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide of an indigenous population.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


maybay said:
The first king, Mahasamatta, was elected by consensus.
So?

Malcolm wrote:
So, it shows that leaders derive their authority from the people. Democracy merely enshrines that value as a norm.
And as I already noted, Aryadeva cogently points out the defect of kingship in his 400 verses. There is no divine right of Kings advocated in Buddhadharma.
Does he speak about democracy?

It is not necessary, it is long standing tenet in Buddhism that leaders derive their rule from popular consent, not from some inherent authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
HH Dalai Lama exemplifies this view with his confidence that indeed science can explain confirm, and justify any and all Buddhist beliefs, but even more than that, he recommends abandoning any Buddhist tenets that are directly contradicted by scientific explanation and found to be definitely false from a scientific point of view.

Wayfarer said:
I previously  brought that very fact up in a discussion with you, with the quote from his book,  and you vigourously disagreed with it at the time, saying something like it was only due to some particular doctrinal position associated with Geluk-pa that he would make such a statement.  I can go digging for it if it would be helpful.

Malcolm wrote:
Context is everything, I am quite sure I was disagreeing with the context in which this position of HHDL was invoked, rather than his position itself.

Wayfarer said:
The reason I say that naturalism is associated with utilitarianism is because naturalism eschews any notion of an inherent good.

Malcolm wrote:
No it doesn't. For example, there is no conflict between naturalism and intuitionism.

Wayfarer said:
Buddhism is not 'naturalistic' at all in that sense, that was the attitude of the Victorian 'protestant Buddhism' that wanted to show that Buddhism was compatible with so-called 'enlightenment values'.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, Buddhism is a species of naturalism, asserting that everything that occurs can be explained without resort to supernatural explanations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche & No Female Tibetan Rinpoches
Content:
Sonam_Phuntsok said:
I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche why there were no female Tibetan Rinpoches? My Dharma sisters have been discussing this issue for a while. They feel like they have no future in Tibetan Buddhism, and that as women, they will never be given the respect to teach like their male counterparts. I personally view my dharma sisters as equals to my dharma brothers.

Malcolm wrote:
They may have no future in Tibetan Buddhism, but this does not mean that they have no future in Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
maybay said:
But then I'm uncomfortable with his suggestion that government is some kind of experiment. For most of history the most stable form of government was not democracy. Monarchy was not tried 'from time to time', on a whim. It was as natural as the sun in the sky.

Malcolm wrote:
The first king, Mahasamatta, was elected by consensus.

You should also study history — the most enduring govt. in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans was Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a democratic union that began in the 12th century and continues till today.

And as I already noted, Aryadeva cogently points out the defect of kingship in his 400 verses. There is no divine right of Kings advocated in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
MiphamFan said:
If you have really studied Graeco-Roman political philosophy you should know about anacyclosis.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite understandable that the antidemocratic and antisecular sentiments being voiced here are coming from a place of Buddhist utop/dystopianism. But since it is "Buddhist" it is not Dharma, and also not utopian. There is and never will be an external utopia. Utopia lies in liberating oneself. Dystopia lies in trying to liberate others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
maybay said:
The Buddha's silence on certain matters is surely a lack of explanation. It is not the entities themselves which are mysterious, but the manner of their existence.

Malcolm wrote:
The manner of their existence is not the slightest bit mysterious. Buddha's silence regarded only metaphysical speculation. What is the point of positing a beginning to the world, when it is clearly taught by the Buddha that all conditioned phenomena are both causes and results? Why speculate on whether a tathaḡata exists after death, when he clearly taught than when someone attains cessation there is no longer any existence about which a nonexistence can be discussed? Each of the so called points of silence have a very clear and simple explanation, and are not a lack of explanation, rather, they are an encouragement to understand the Dharma. It is only those who do not know Dharma who believe Buddha's silences represent ambiguity on his part or some imponderable knowable only to an elect.



maybay said:
And it is not always the case that what can be explained will be explained. The difference is perhaps that the scientist will not admit mystery, and will typically endeavour to explain whatever happens.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not admit mystery either:
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 27th, 2015 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is amazing to me that in this day and age that intelligent people, especially followers of Dharma, do not see the wisdom in the liberal, secular and open society that is the goal towards which the framers of the constitution were striving.

maybay said:
It's amazing to me that someone so sure of his model of political order should give so little attention to it's weaknesses. You say my dialectic reminds you of Plato. Well do you recall what his criticisms were of democracy?

Malcolm wrote:
Plato was basically a fascist, and the Republic a blueprint for fascism, so why should I care what his criticisms were? That being said, of course I am aware of his criticisms, but they mean very little to me since they are not valid criticisms. As Churchill remarked:
Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Ya, and science has not found one yet. .

Malcolm wrote:
Mt. Meru?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Wayfarer said:
As I pointed out, the fact that conditioned entities are derived from causes, is not a conception that is unique to Buddhism...

Malcolm wrote:
And as Nāgārjuna points out, "arising from causes" is incoherent.

Wayfarer said:
Does Nāgārjuna say that dependent origination is incoherent?

Malcolm wrote:
He says in the opening statement of the MMK that the meaning of dependent origination is that things do not perish nor do they arise; are not annihilated nor are they permanent; do not go nor do they come; are not different nor are they the same. Dependent origination pacifies proliferation about whether things, arise, perish, are annihilated, permanent, going, coming, different or the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
HHDL has certainly seen "the wisdom in the liberal, secular and open society" - see Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World http://www.dalailama.com/biography/books.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know — I was referring not to him, but to others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The only meanings are those we invent. In that sense, Western naturalism pretends to be 'value-free' but it's actually 'value-negative' insofar as it denies that there can be a real basis for values beyond the utilitarian - the greatest good for the greatest number. The idea that there is something 'inherently good' is not conceivable in its terms.

Malcolm wrote:
Meanings are invented, consensual and conventional.

As for your second sentence, it is very questionable that metaphysical naturalism is necessarily grounded in utilitarianism — I think you are making too broad a claim. For example, take this definition in which there is no species of utilitarianism mentioned:
Naturalism, in recent usage, is a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events. Hence, naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view that there exists or could exist any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation.
Buddhadharma [and Jaindharma] in this respect is also a species of metaphysical naturalism — in Buddhadharma there is no mystery precisely because "whatever exists or happens is natural"  and there does not exist nor could exist "any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of Dharma explanation."

In other religions however [sans philosophical Taoism and Confucism], there is a profound mystery, God, through whose agency all things are created.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons why Buddhadharma is so appealing to westerners with liberal educations. The naturalism of Buddhadharma and philosophical Taoism fit well into our already metaphysically naturalist predilections.

HH Dalai Lama exemplifies this view with his confidence that indeed science can explain confirm, and justify any and all Buddhist beliefs, but even more than that, he recommends abandoning any Buddhist tenets that are directly contradicted by scientific explanation and found to be definitely false from a scientific point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: DW and Political Bias
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Left-vs-Right-politics.png

dzoki said:
Is UKIP conservative? I had the impression that they are libertarian.

Malcolm wrote:
Libertarians are generally conservative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


tingdzin said:
Excellent comments in a generally enlightening discussion. So it seems that the situation in the secular Western world is that it has for all practical purposes abandoned any notion of the sacred in favor of a consensus model which, as Queequeg pointed out earlier, is fungible as the whims of a mob.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is, as is proven again and again, ideas of the "sacred" are just consensus notions as well, and just as fungible.



tingdzin said:
For me, it follows from that that each of us has to have some sense of what is "sacred" (don't let the word itself throw you, it's just a word) in Buddhism and why. If we have no experience of that, or lose sight of it, then all we are doing is blindly applying one more set of rules instead of applying the perspective of inner cultivation which is crucial to the Buddhist path.

Malcolm wrote:
\

"Rights" are not rules — laws are passed in order to preserve and defend rights. It is amazing to me that in this day and age that intelligent people, especially followers of Dharma, do not see the wisdom in the liberal, secular and open society that is the goal towards which the framers of the constitution were striving. Rights are the very thing that allow all of us the leisure and freedom to pursue the very inner cultivation which you extol here.


tingdzin said:
Sure, Chinese, Indians, and Africans can learn to speak in that way [i.e. about human equality], but those notions are unintelligible in their native cultures. They may just be mimicking what they have been taught.

Malcolm wrote:
This is quite patronizing. All people have an intuitive sense of their own rights and the rights of others, they do not need to be "taught", nor do they "mimick" once they have been taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Queequeg said:
One of the problems in the West with the rise of Secularism is that the entire Rights framework is ungrounded when religion, and specifically, God, is removed from the equation. The idea of Rights comes from a variety of sources including in no small part, Natural Law which has been understood as God's Law.

Malcolm wrote:
You should read Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic. It may cause you to revise your opinion.
Although America’s revolutionary deists lavished many sincere expressions of adoration upon their deity, deism is in fact functionally indistinguishable from what we would now call “pantheism”; and pantheism is really just a pretty word for atheism. While deism could often be associated with moderation in politics, it served principally to advance a system of thought that was revolutionary in its essence and effects. This essentially atheistic and revolutionary aspect of deism, I further contend, is central to any credible explanation of the revolutionary dimension of the American Revolution.

Queequeg said:
No, not really. The Founders were also profoundly influenced by the Roman Republic. Hamilton's ideal ruler was Julius Caesar. If you're familiar with ancient Roman civilization, especially as presented in Suetonius, Plutarch, Tacitus, etc., and then look at the early Americans, a very strong argument can be made that this is what they were modeling themselves on. For visual proof, look at Federal architecture and design; look at Washington DC. Their Deism/Pantheism looks and sounds like religion in the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire. Admittedly, it doesn't have the fervor and fanaticism of the Judeo-Christian sense, but there is still an underlying view of the world as conforming to a Natural Law; we may be looking at pantheism, but under that is a single divine order - not atheism. This guy is going too far. Admittedly I have not read any more of this article, but I don't think I need to if he thinks atheism "is central to any credible explanation of the revolutionary dimension of the American Revolution."

Malcolm wrote:
It is in fact an entire book, a large part of which concerns exploring the history of ideas behind Ethan Allen's Reason, the Only Oracle of Man: Or, A Compenduous System of Natural Religion. You should read the book in its entirety.


Queequeg said:
The Founders were influenced by Locke, not Bentham. If they were actually atheists, then Bentham would have gotten more play. Then again, they would not be able to say independence is compelled by Nature's Law and they would lose their basis in the inviolable fabric of reality for their revolution.

Malcolm wrote:
I never mentioned Bentham.

Again:
In a vital letter to John Adams, Jefferson makes clear that these Epicurean doctrines are essentially his own. “I feel therefore I exist. I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter,” he writes. 69 Here he quietly paraphrases Lucretius, who says, “The common sensation of all men proves the existence of matter.” Jefferson continues: “I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space.” Here he is all but quoting Lucretius: “There is, then, intangible space, void, and vacuity. Otherwise, movement would be absolutely impossible.” Jefferson’s conclusion is definitive, even militant: “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial is to say that they are nothings.” And here is Epicurus himself: “Those who say that the soul is incorporeal are talking nonsense.” On the sources that inspired his views, Jefferson adds, “I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.” But the manner in which he lapses into the language of Lucretius to articulate his ideas suggests that these later philosophers, whether consciously or not, served mainly as conduits for an ancient doctrine.
Stewart, Matthew (2014-07-01). Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic (p. 99). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Queequeg said:
Maybe its also appropriate to point out on the day before Thanksgiving - another critically important document in early American identity is Winthrop's sermon, "City upon a Hill."

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a revolutionary period document. There are miles of difference between Puritans like Winthrop and "deists" like Franklin, Jefferson, etc.


Queequeg said:
Maybe the reason I have no problem with seeing America as Christian

Malcolm wrote:
America was never a Christian country, as it made very clear by Adams in the treaty with the Barbary pirates.


Queequeg said:
Anyways, whatever. When we all agree to hold something inviolable - ie. sacred - then we all have a common ground to build on. Without it, we're all but doomed to the fate of Babel.

Malcolm wrote:
Rights are inviolable and inalienable [i.e. inherent], and do not depend on being granted by some deity — a deity, who in any case, a large majority of the leaders of the American revolution did not believe in at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Wayfarer said:
As I pointed out, the fact that conditioned entities are derived from causes, is not a conception that is unique to Buddhism...

Malcolm wrote:
And as Nāgārjuna points out, "arising from causes" is incoherent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
conebeckham said:
Neither Buddha nor Nagarjuna, nor any Madhyamaka teacher, argues for complete and utter nonexistence.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, as Buddhapalita states, "We do not claim nonexistence, we merely remove claims that existents exist."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 26th, 2015 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
MiphamFan said:
What do you mean?

Malcolm wrote:
Their view is shorter, their results more shallow, they feel more satisfied with less...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
My point is that to practice Buddhadharma at all, you need a teacher. Otherwise, you are just left with this sort of vague intellectual idea of what it means to practice. You need a teacher so that you can check your understanding. A book cannot do this for you.

Fortyeightvows said:
that sounds correct to me and it seems like this gets brought up here often.

however we do know that in many mahayana sutras, which are the words of shakyamuni buddhha, that explain the benifits of reading them and listening to them.
the traditions of tibet venerate many of these same sutras.

so while reading these sutras may not check your level of practice, they are still of incredible benefit.
you don't see these same types of promises in some other books or texts.

so should we read the book or text which suggests it only be read under some conditions, even if we do not have those conditions?
or should we read the text which promises mountians of merit to the reader?

if one truely belives in these things........


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna sūtras themselves extol the benefit of relying on a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:55 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth, Karma & Emptiness
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
The Buddha said that he couldn't find anything permanent in the 5 aggregates. If you say that it is the mindstream that is reborn, then you are saying that the mindstream is independent of the 5 aggregates. You are saying that the 5 aggregates can disintegrate but the mindstream continues.

Malcolm wrote:
The mind stream is made up of impermanent serial moments of consciousness, thus there is no contradiction.

Bodhidharma said:
The fact that those "impermanent"serial moments of consciousness always associate with each other through lifetimes suggest that there is independence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, these moments perish as soon as they arise, causing the next in the series to arise. Thus, there is no independence, all such moments are dependent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth, Karma & Emptiness
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
I am sorry to say that I find the illustration poor. This suggests that the "water" survives the disintegration of the 5 aggregates and is therefore, independent.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing transfers, but nevertheless, there is serial continuity. This is because in general causes and effects are neither the same nor different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:52 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth, Karma & Emptiness
Content:


Bodhidharma said:
Causes give rise to effects....but why must effects necessarily be associated with the one who acted. This is what rebirth suggests. We are reborn with the causes of previous lives where in the new life, we expect the effects to ripen. To connect the effects to us means that there is something that is not dependent arising

Malcolm wrote:
No. The actions of a previous life do not depend on the presence of that past agent to ripen on a present recipient of action. All that is necessary is that there is a serial link between the past agent and the present experiencer of ripening. That is accounted for by the serial, momentary mind stream.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:49 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth, Karma & Emptiness
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
The Buddha said that he couldn't find anything permanent in the 5 aggregates. If you say that it is the mindstream that is reborn, then you are saying that the mindstream is independent of the 5 aggregates. You are saying that the 5 aggregates can disintegrate but the mindstream continues.

Malcolm wrote:
The mind stream is made up of impermanent serial moments of consciousness, thus there is no contradiction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
IN general, people who practice only for this life get "faster" results.

smcj said:
I take it you've given up on regularly meditating on the '4 thought that turn the mind from samsara'.

Malcolm wrote:
"faster" is in scare quotes for a reason...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
smcj said:
I think it can be in this lifetime.
By all accounts it definitely can. However frustratingly it seems to be the case where if you practice "for this life" you do not get the results, but if you practice with the perspective of multiple lives it can happen in this life. It seems to have something to do with attachments to this life.

Now ain't that a kick in the butt?

tingdzin said:
Well, I wouldn't say "ONLY lack of self-confidence". I know a lot of people with all the self-confidence in the world, but who are nevertheless (and in some cases precisely BECAUSE of this self-confidence) probably going to be stuck where they are for a long time.

smcj said:
Yep.

Malcolm wrote:
IN general, people who practice only for this life get "faster" results.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:


Nosta said:
But my point is this: since I cannot have teachers (I dont have anyone near me, I live in a non-buddhist country in a area without buddhists at all), can I, at least, practice such teachings? I the feeling that  I cant even try some of the teachings without transmission or I will not receive even 0,01% of the benefits.

I hope you can understand my position: I dont want to be superior to others have practice without a teacher. I would love to have a [real] Guru near me, able to teach me. I would love to learn some of the teachings. But the only thing I can do is read some books and learn and practice from them.

Terma said:
First of all, I don'the think anyone is trying to discourage you from practicing. Tibetan Buddhism has a very wide scope and there are many Mahayana practices that you could do, as well as shamata  (calm abiding meditation), and other practices such as cultivating Bodhicitta .

But any such practice which falls under Vajrayana requires a transmission and at least a little instruction. As Malcolm pointed out, without a teacher this simply is not possible.

Malcolm wrote:
My point is that to practice Buddhadharma at all, you need a teacher. Otherwise, you are just left with this sort of vague intellectual idea of what it means to practice. You need a teacher so that you can check your understanding. A book cannot do this for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Wayfarer said:
If you were playing Russian roulette  - not that anyone should! - then you have a revolver with one bullet in six chambers. So in five chambers, no bullet exists; in one chamber, it does exist. Pull the trigger on that chamber, you die; pull it on the others, you don't. So is the bullet in the sixth chamber 'not truly existent'?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the bullet in the chamber conventionally exists.

Wayfarer said:
I think the 'realisation of emptiness' is actually a state of being, in which you're aware of the interdependent nature of everything. That is the 'antidote to clinging' in my opinion. And what 'clinging' is, is the belief that the phenomenal realm, the domain of sense, is the only reality, which is worldliness.

Malcolm wrote:
You have given into realism, in so far as that you think the phenomena realm is real, in any sense at all.

I looked up some google references on this topic. In Jay Garfield's essay, Why Madhyamika is not Nihilism, there is a quote from Tsongkhapa:
The key there is 'from the perspective of those people to whom we are speaking'. (I am among them!)  So from the conventional viewpoint - their viewpoint - objects exist, and to deny they exist is nihilism. But from the ultimate viewpoint, objects are unreal, because they are essenceless. However that audience doesn't yet understand what 'essenceless' means.
As Buddhapalita says, "It is not that we claim nonexistence; we merely remove claims for existing existents."


Wayfarer said:
So there's no way to understand this if there are not degrees of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no degrees of reality -- things are either real or they are not, whether or not they appear to be real. It is more accurate to say there are levels of appearances. Those levels of appearance depend on the presence or absence of delusion. A buddha could not be harmed by the bullet in the chamber.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:
Nosta said:
So such books are not useful at all for someone without a teacher??

But I read some interesting things about the resting meditation of a kusulu. Why cant I just do that?

Malcolm wrote:
You can do whatever you like, but no one can guarantee the results.

All the buddhas of the three times had a guru, you are no different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I am but an amateur here, but to my knowledge Prasangika does not get rid of the distinction between 'external objects' and 'appearances' the way you suggest it does. At least not according to Longchenpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, "Prasangikas" in general are happy with whatever conventional truth view you want to bring to the table. They may not agree with specifics of this or that view, but as they are all conventional, and therefore, rooted in delusion, conventional truths are not to be taken that seriously. But some people just don't get this and waste a lot of time arguing over the number of horns a rabbit has.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:
Nosta said:
Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Guru (or master, rinpoche, whatever you call it)?

In every book I find* they always say -somewhere in the book- that you need to receive instructions in order to practice. Its like such books were made only for someone who already had a transmission (or empowerment...I dont know if there is any difference between such words).

Malcolm wrote:
You need a teacher. It is really that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Steven Seagal
Content:
smcj said:
Getting back on topic, maybe Rinpoche can cast Seagal in his next movie:
I'm a film crew member. I'd work on one of DKR's projects. It would be interesting, but I'd have to relate to him as "the director", not "the "lama".

Malcolm wrote:
On set, is there a difference?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: What did Nagarjuna mean?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Maybe Nagarjuna is more about unlearning than learning? Unlearning all the self-making, all the affirmation-making, all the negation-making, all the dualisms? Not unlearning completely but just letting go so that reality shines through the conceptual blinkers that we are so used to? And also seeing that the concept-making and the blinkers are the reality itself, are not-two from Nirvana, except that we get fooled by them. Even this getting fooled isn't anything real or external but an ancient habit, misunderstanding built on a misunderstanding, completely empty.

Trying to apprehend Nagarjuna might be a little like trying to grasp a sword that's swishing furiously in front of you. Put forward all that needs to be shredded to pieces, all the delusion, but try to grasp it and you'll get hurt.

_/|\_

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Nāgārjuna is not really all that difficult to understand — it is the acceptance of that understanding that is difficult.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Combatting extremism
Content:
MiphamFan said:
The status of women in Islam today is worse than 18th century Europe. How to fix it within our lifetimes?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, by encouraging Muslims to adopt liberal values, for one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 25th, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Matt J said:
So while on break, I've picked up a copy of the Ninth's Karmapa's Feast for the Fortunate. In the introduction, there is discussion about how Tsongkapha positing the inherent existence of a vase as the object of refutation, and that this is somehow different than the vase.


Malcolm wrote:
This objection has its origins in Gorampa's writings, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Combatting extremism
Content:
mirrormind said:
...the status of women in society.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as I wrote elsewhere, the core conflict between fundamentalists of all stripes [including Buddhist fundamentalists] and liberal values is the status of women.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2015 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The problem is that if you leave it at the point of saying that 'nothing really exists', you fall into nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not proclaim that nothing exists. One discovers that no existents can be found. This is why Buddhapalita states, "We do not claim nonexistence, we merely remove the claim that existents exist."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2015 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: French Immigration Policies
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
It's not that the policy was too permissive. As I mentioned, immigration is absolutely key to the French economy. The problem with the policy is that it did little to integrate the immigrant populations in the face of deeply entrenched discrimination. It was only half a policy. The solution is not to stop immigration, the solution is to remove the barriers for immigrants taking full part in opportunity.


Malcolm wrote:
Prior to 74, French Immigration policy was full assimilation, i.e., become French. They relaxed that, and replaced it with "integration."

Karma Dorje said:
The unfortunate thing is that we are seeing fascism rear its head throughout the West. Trump's recent rallies remind me of the scene from the Wall with 'In The Flesh' playing. That guy is like a malevolent carnival barker.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is very unfortunate. The only thing we can hope is that Trump has pissed off enough women, blacks, and latinos to ensure he will never be elected and that the election will not even be in doubt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2015 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: French Immigration Policies
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
In many ways, the North African immigrant experience in France parallels the Mexican immigrant experience in the US.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, which is why they are returning to Mexico, etc. in the hundreds of thousands. They just dont need to take this shit from fascist demagogues like Trump anymore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2015 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: French Immigration Policies
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they do face these issues, there is no doubt. Nevertheless, it is not the case that immigration policies caused these problems, unless by this you mean that France gave up the policy of assimilating immigrants — expecting them to adopt French culture and values — and instead encouraged immigrants to retain their original culture and traditions.

Karma Dorje said:
The problem was not bringing in immigrants. Many European countries have low birth rates and depend on immigration to maintain their economies. The problem was that France brought them in as de facto second-class citizens. While they expected them to adopt French culture and values, they were still discriminated against even if they did. While progressives in France are amongst the best educated in the world, there is a strong current of bigotry that often extends to the highest office in the land.

In many ways, the North African immigrant experience in France parallels the Mexican immigrant experience in the US.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so the problem is not immigration policies, per se. The issue is the colonial biases which still govern how many French people regard those from former French colonies.

Nevertheless, there were people who were North African descent among the people killed in France on Nov 13th, 1 Morrocan, 2 Algerians, 2 Tunisians and 1 Turk: 6 Muslims out of 130 people killed. And of course many more seriously injured.

Still, it makes no sense to try and pin the blame on some mistaken or permissive policy the French had for these attacks. It just contributes to the rise of fascist sentiments to give into scapegoating of Muslims in general, as I know you will agree.

Look at the hysteria in the US over Syrian refugees just because one guy had a fake Syrian passport. Now the Republicons are all worked up in a rabid slather.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2015 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: French Immigration Policies
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Those neighborhoods did not form because of immigration policy, they formed because they were places where immigrants could afford to live.

Karma Dorje said:
That's not entirely true. Many of the banlieue in question were low-income housing projects built to house Algerian and other African workers that came to France to rebuild infrastructure. France did a horrible job of integrating these workers into society. They face racism at every turn and high unemployment caused by discrimination.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they do face these issues, there is no doubt. Nevertheless, it is not the case that immigration policies caused these problems, unless by this you mean that France gave up the policy of assimilating immigrants — expecting them to adopt French culture and values — and instead encouraged immigrants to retain their original culture and traditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 23rd, 2015 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Samsara is ordinary appearances and conceptions (ordinary experience) and according to Tantra it's this that has to be abandoned in order to attain enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, not even in sūtra, as the Āryabodhisattva-pitika states:
Developing sorrow for samsara is the provisional meaning;
The non-duality of samsara and nirvana is the definitive meaning.
The Hevajra Tantra states:
Having abandoned samsara for another,
nirvana will not be realized.
Samsara is form, sound and so on,
these phenomena are nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 23rd, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Dharma should be completely free from politics. Samsara cannot be fixed, it must be abandoned and to do this, spiritual paths must be free of worldly motivations.

Emptiness, and especially Tantra, is real anarchism.

Malcolm wrote:
The Hevajra Tantra explains nirvana can't realized by abandoning samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Origin of mankind and animals according Buddhism.
Content:
pael said:
Were first animals of this world born from egg, womb, moisture or miracle (4 forms of birth)?

Malcolm wrote:
The first three, no animals are born by miraculous birth.

But, there is no account I am aware that goes into detail on this issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Something Else the French Got Right viz Terrorism
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Terrorist attack in Mali
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34877069

Northern Mali is still a jihadist front
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-new-terrorist-training-ground/309446/

Malcolm wrote:
That article is two years old.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Hyperbole around Syrian refugees in US
Content:
Dan74 said:
Anyone who thinks that the hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into Europe are some sort of a covert Muslim army, needs to up the dose of their antipsychotics. Of course accepting them is the compassionate thing to do, but we should also see if we are ready to do much more - to do what it takes to successfully integrate them. This is the crux of the matter and it is no simple thing to integrate people coming from a very different culture and traumatised by the war. This is not a trivial matter and as much as progressives would like to sweep it under the carpet and the right-wing alarmists continue to whip up hysteria, there are very pragmatic considerations that need to be made, IMO. It entails a great deal of work.

Malcolm wrote:
Progressives are not sweeping the issue under the rug, they are embracing it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Hyperbole around Syrian refugees in US
Content:
DGA said:
Those of us who passed US history in high school may remember learning about Operation Wetback (for non-US readers--"wetback" is a racist slur against Latinos, particularly persons of Mexican descent)...

Malcolm wrote:
It is important to remember however that Operation Wetback was started because the Mexican Govt. wanted us to repatriate Mexicans illegally living in the US. We do not initiate it.

DGA said:
It's not necessary to initiate something in order to administer it.  And that's what the Eisenhower administration did.  There's another parallel--the Mexican economy fares very well with remittances sent home from expatriated family members working in El Norte, and the current Mexican gov't isn't going to disrupt that at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes we did administer from our side of the border, but the point I am making is that everyone paints Operation Wetback something the US started. We would not have started it. It started because the Bracero program failed, and significantly, because Mexico fields 5000 troops to the US border. That being said, I am not defending it.

DGA said:
more to the point, though:  trying to initiate another round of this is just absurd and unworkable.

Malcolm wrote:
We agree, and now the less rational part of the GOP is doubling down on "yellow stars" for Muslims living in the US.



M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Refuge and practice from other religions
Content:
Lobsang said:
Yeah, also, I have one more question, there
are mantras, for example, the Samjnaya mantra from the Golden Light sutra,
that invoke 'Hindu' deities (Brahma, Indra), wouldn't that be also countering the Refuge?

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are Lokapālas, mundane protectors of Dharma. Also "Brahma" and "Indra" are really more postions of devas than individual devas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Origin of mankind and animals according Buddhism.
Content:
Seishin said:
Does he say "mankind" or does he say "beings"?

Malcolm wrote:
Humans. But to answer the question, the asura, human, animal, preta and hells realm were all gradually filled sentient beings who took rebirth there from the third and fourth form realm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


dhammafriend said:
From the Charter for Human Rights:
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Now tell me, how on earth the above statement makes objective sense outside of Semitic theological assumptions.

Malcolm wrote:
Because they are not Semitic theological assumptions, which general presume that people are not born free and equal, nor with dignity and rights.

dhammafriend said:
In fact, one could say the notion of 'rights' even generate conflicts.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, read the article supplied above.

dhammafriend said:
Need I remind you, we have tremendous cultural resources globally that can inform the discourse of rights for all people. South Asian and Asian cultures are rich with philosophies that deal with just that. Why are unscientific concepts like human rights, will, conscience etc boldly proclaimed as universal and objectively true? These ideas should ideally be sitting alongside other notions of the person and not be paraded around as facts.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, what is of value that you think contributes the philosophical conversation about theories of rights?

dhammafriend said:
Are we so intellectually bankrupt that we cannot conceive of better solutions for the decline in 'values'? Have we looked at social media? The internet and the flow of (mis)information, our shrinking communal spaces, lack of resources etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think our values have declined at all. In fact, apart from obvious barbarisms in the Middle East and Asia, I would say globally our values have all rather improved because humans are generally more well educated then they were 100 years ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


dhammafriend said:
My offering: the concept of (human) rights has it's origins in generic Christian theology.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily:
Intellectual historians have tangled over the origins of rights. These debates are sometimes framed in terms of when “the concept of a right” emerged. Yet insofar as it is really the emergence of the concept of a right that is at issue, the answer lies beyond the competence of the intellectual historian and within the domain of the anthropologist. Even the most primitive social order must include rules specifying that certain individuals or groups have special permission to perform certain actions. Moreover, even the most rudimentary human communities must have rules specifying that some are entitled to tell others what they must do. Such rules ascribe rights. The genesis of the concept of a right was simultaneous with reflective awareness of such social norms.

The more productive characterization of the debate within intellectual history concerns when a word or phrase appeared that has a meaning close to the meaning of our modern word. This debate turns on when in history the pre-modern “objective” sense of “right” came also to bear our modern, “subjective” sense of “a right.”

“Right” in its older, objective sense means “what is just” or “what is fair” (Finnis 1980, 206). Aristotle uses dikaion, for example, to indicate that a society is “rightly ordered”: that it displays the correct structure of human relationships “Right” in this objective sense can also be attributed to individuals. The Roman jurist Ulpian, for instance, held that justice means rendering each his right (ius). In this sense, a person's “right” is what is due to him given his role or status. This objective sense of “right” is not the same as our modern idea of “a right.” For instance, Ulpian noted that the ius of a parricide was to be sewn into a sack of snakes and tossed into the Tiber (Tierney 1997, 16).

The scholarly inquiry into when our modern, subjective sense of “a right” became established as a meaning of some word or phrase has proved long and divisive. The ancient authors often used words imprecisely, and smeared their meanings across and beyond the Hohfeldian categories. The intellectual historians themselves have occasionally congested the discussion by taking different features of rights as definitive of the modern concept. Moreover, the scholarly debate has sometimes accepted over-optimistic assumptions about the sharpness of conceptual boundaries.

Nevertheless, two broad trends in the scholarly discussions are clear. The first is to push the origins of a term indicating a modern, subjective sense of “a right” back further into history: from Locke to Hobbes to Grotius in the seventeenth century, then to Gerson in the fifteenth century, Ockham in the fourteenth, perhaps even to Gratian in the twelfth (Brett 1997, Tierney 1997). Donohue (2010) now argues that ius is used in a subjective sense throughout the works of the classical Roman jurists in the first century BCE to the third century CE.

The second and related trend has been to establish that terms referring to active rights (what we would call privilege-rights and power-rights) predate terms referring to passive rights (what we would call claim-rights and immunity-rights). It appears that the earliest medieval debates using recognizably modern rights-language, for instance, concerned topics such as whether the pope has a (power-) right to rule an earthly empire, and whether the poor have a (privilege-) right to take what they need from the surplus of the rich.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#3

The rest of the article is worth reading because it clarifies many things.
Why does it have to be founded on (christian) notions that various societies cannot agree on?
They are not.

dhammafriend said:
Because in reality, thats really what we do. We agitate, we lobby, we protest, we disrupt, we destroy. All with the goal of finding 'space' for ourselves and our communities. The notion that all human beings are equal (equal to what?) makes no sense if you're not from a Semitic culture. Sure Chinese, Indians and Africans can learn to speak in that way, but those notions are unintelligible in their native cultures.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahah, it makes perfect sense if you are  a Mahāyāna Buddhist, we all have buddhanature.

dhammafriend said:
They may just be mimicking what they've been taught. The other mistaken assumption is that they (Indians etc who communicate in english) are referring to the same object (the sacred) in their experiential world that english speakers are.

Malcolm wrote:
Read the provided article. The modern issue really begins with Locke, who was in no way a Christian theologian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Refuge and practice from other religions
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You can't impute Buddha on a worldly deity....

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahaha, well, I have news for you TKF, that is exactly what Pabhongkha in fact says.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tenso said:
Too much tolerance can lead to utter disaster as we have already seen now.

Malcolm wrote:
This is victim blaming. "Oh, the French were too tolerant. They should become less tolerant to prevent such attacks." This is really no different than saying of a women, "She dressed like a slut, no wonder she was raped."

maybay said:
As politically incorrect as that might be there is truth in it.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no truth in it.

maybay said:
The passions of men should be guarded against as any force of nature. This is just good advice.

Malcolm wrote:
Lets put them all in burqas then, shall we? This is just giving into the forces of unreason. Fundamentalists of all stripes all wish to control women and what they do with their bodies. This should be resisted and defied in every way.

maybay said:
So here, the blame falls on the state not the citizens. The first purpose of a sovereign state (the clothes if you like) is to secure the lives of its people (the slut), and if it fails to do that then it is reasonable for it to bare criticism. The victims here are the citizens not the state.

Malcolm wrote:
So now, you have just infantilized women as a class of people who not only cannot make good choices, but should not be allowed to makes choices, or least, should have their choices dictated to them.

maybay said:
When people are attacked the state is actually strengthened. Wanting to go about naked and uncontrolled is a product of vanity and shamelessness (which is really just a variety of mindlessness), which when met with rebuke from the world leads to pride and indignation. It's hopelessly samsaric.

Malcolm wrote:
Wanting to have the right to make choices about one's body is quite understandable.

maybay said:
Actually, it is not the tolerance of the French that was the problem, it is the intolerance and hatred of a few extremists that is the problem.

Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:
In the Jataka righteousness is framed as a virtue, but it is over-abundant in the west. Your call to respond with more of the same is shallow. It is profligacy like this that infuriates fundamentalists. They don't strike at liberalism per se (statue of liberty). They attack its abuses (capitalist skyscrapers).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we wouldn't want women to get all uppity now, would we? You are just basically taking up an oppressive refrain first applied to African Americans, and then anyone else who has called attention to their disadvantaged status through street protests.

I think there was once a fellow called Nigel Chamberlain. He pretty much argued the same way you do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 12:16 PM
Title: Re: Sources on Balance of Emptiness and Compassion
Content:
Zhen Li said:
I am interested in knowing what kinds of answers Buddhist texts, sutric and sastric, ancient and modern, give for reconciling the 'apparent' problem of perfect care for all beings, while abandoning conceptualisation. Discussions of meditations on compassion or wisdom in the sutras typically consider them separate, but does anyone know of sources which combine the two? Do you know of good arguments that the perfect state combining both compassion and wisdom are genuine psychological states, or are these rhetorical descriptions of the messianic mission of the Bodhisattva? Why, upon attaining the Prajnaparamita, does the Bodhisattva also have the aspiration to help other beings, rather than just abide?

If you have answers that you formulated yourself, of course those are welcome, but I am specifically looking for textual sources. The earlier the better.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen, baby.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:15 AM
Title: Re: French Immigration Policies
Content:
MiphamFan said:
French immigration policies allowed former colonial residents to migrate and form ghettoes where dissent against the government could be fomented. I don't see how you can claim it's not due to their immigration policies.

Malcolm wrote:
Those neighborhoods did not form because of immigration policy, they formed because they were places where immigrants could afford to live.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: DW and Political Bias
Content:


DGA said:
Generally, reasoned and fact-based discourse...

Malcolm wrote:
...tends to have a liberal bias.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Refuge and practice from other religions
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
If you take refuge in the Three Jewels, why would you want to practise something that isn't Buddhism? Taking refuge in Shiva is breaking the refuge commitment.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the logic given by Pabhongkha himself, if you regard Shiva [or insert worldly deity here] as a Buddha, then it there is no problem with taking refuge in him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
This is victim blaming. "Oh, the French were too tolerant. They should become less tolerant to prevent such attacks." This is really no different than saying of a women, "She dressed like a slut, no wonder she was raped."

Tenso said:
It has a lot to do with the immigration policies of France. They bring in a huge number of people in and allow Islamic ghettos to pop up all over the place which have been proven to be nothing but a breeding ground for these terrorists. You don't think that's a problem that France created for themselves?
Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:
That would do nothing but give more reasons for intolerant Muslims to hate the west.


Malcolm wrote:
I reply here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=21289&p=311879#wrap


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: French Immigration Policies
Content:
Tenso said:
It has a lot to do with the immigration policies of France. They bring in a huge number of people in and allow Islamic ghettos to pop up all over the place which have been proven to be nothing but a breeding ground for these terrorists. You don't think that's a problem that France created for themselves?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think this is correct. French immigration policies did not create this problem.

In this century, the first attack by an Islamist happened in March 2012. Then another in May, 2013. 3 in December 2014. Seven between January 2015 and now.

There are 4,155,000 Muslims and people of Muslim descent in France. I think it is a grotesque lie to claim that these attacks were caused by French Immigration policies. Most Muslims, or those of Muslim descent, in France are of either Algerian or Moroccan descent, immigrants from countries that were part of the French Empire.

It is estimated there are 1600 fighters in Isis from France. This is one out of every 2596 people of Muslim or Muslim descent in France. !8 for every one million people in France.

So, really, saying that this is a problem caused by French Immigration policies is just plain wrong.

Tenso said:
Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:
That would do nothing but give more reasons for intolerant Muslims to hate the west.

Malcolm wrote:
No, no more than claiming that woman who wear "provocative" clothes are giving rapists a justification for raping them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tenso said:
Too much tolerance can lead to utter disaster as we have already seen now.

Malcolm wrote:
This is victim blaming. "Oh, the French were too tolerant. They should become less tolerant to prevent such attacks." This is really no different than saying of a women, "She dressed like a slut, no wonder she was raped."

Actually, it is not the tolerance of the French that was the problem, it is the intolerance and hatred of a few extremists that is the problem.

Personally, I think the best response to this is doubling down on liberal, secular values, like Slut Walk:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
maybay said:
Tenso, why would you say we should abandon these values?

Malcolm wrote:
Did he?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: important buddhist text may have been authored by a woma
Content:
Tenso said:
Agreed. Talking from experience, we westerners are quite a narcissistic and egotistical bunch compared to our fellow practitioners in Asia.

DGA said:
Case in point...

http://www.tricycle.com/interview/after-buddhism

Malcolm wrote:
Saw him speak at Smith College recently. It was a snore.

However, again, I must disagree with Tenso. Ego and narcissism are social constructs, the difference between westerners and asians is mainly the source from where their ego and narcissism springs, asians are no less egotistical and narcissistic than westerners. They are just egotistical and narcissistic in a different way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tenso said:
I agree with these values but they can also be considered a weakness. Look at France for example. An extremely liberal country and consistent victim of terrorist attacks.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I don't think we should abandon such values merely because there are some people who are insane enough not to see their value and benefit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Hyperbole around Syrian refugees in US
Content:
DGA said:
Those of us who passed US history in high school may remember learning about Operation Wetback (for non-US readers--"wetback" is a racist slur against Latinos, particularly persons of Mexican descent)...

Malcolm wrote:
It is important to remember however that Operation Wetback was started because the Mexican Govt. wanted us to repatriate Mexicans illegally living in the US. We do not initiate it.




DGA said:
Right now, the loudest voices in US political discourse are behaving, quite frankly, like cowards...

Malcolm wrote:
Bellicose cowards...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Alaya-vijnana it is shared or subjective storage?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
What is the meaning of 'not established in any way?'

And isn't Bodhicitta distinguished by, or associated with, 'compassion for all sentient beings'?

Malcolm wrote:
Here, bodhicitta, awakened mind, refers to the basis, not compassion in the Mahāyāna sense. Not established means any predicates such as it exists, it does not exist and so on do not apply.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: chogyam trungpa ...?
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
boda said:
You don't believe Bodhisattvas are infallible?

smcj said:
Since a bodhisattva still has some traces of obstruction, to the same degree he "casts a shadow" and is fallible.

boda said:
Punya was saying that a Bodhisattvas wisdom is flawless. You don't believe this? You believe they can make mistakes?

Malcolm wrote:
When a Bodhisattva is in meditative equipoise, his wisdom is infallible. But Bodhisattvas do not spend their entire life sitting in meditation, so therefore, when they are not in equipoise, it is possible for them to have errors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:


boda said:
Look at the video below from a documentary about him. He created an army and had his followers marching around for hours at a time. Seemingly somewhat antithetical to Buddhist practice, but we have to say that we are too ignorant to see the wisdom of it.

Malcolm wrote:
Speak for yourself.

boda said:
You don't believe Bodhisattvas are infallible?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what I meant, but nevertheless, I will explain. Not all of use are too ignorant to see the wisdom of Trungpa's methods, which is why I posted Gesar's picture, since Gesar is an example of a Buddha who led an army and defeated many enemies.

Now then, in response to your reply, my friend, I suggest you STUDY some Dharma, preferably with a qualified teacher.

Bodhisattvas are not infallible. Why? Because they have obscurations of knowledge, even right up to the tenth bhumi. And up to the seventh bhumi, they have obscurations of affliction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:


boda said:
Look at the video below from a documentary about him. He created an army and had his followers marching around for hours at a time. Seemingly somewhat antithetical to Buddhist practice, but we have to say that we are too ignorant to see the wisdom of it.

Malcolm wrote:
Speak for yourself.



Gesar of Ling


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Alaya-vijnana it is shared or subjective storage?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
I think I understand where OP is coming from with this question. If the alayavijnana is completely personal, then where are collective karmic traces stored? Do you just have ever your own personal copy of the collective karma?

Malcolm wrote:
There are not traces of collective karma. There are traces which sufficiently resemble each other in each of our minds to create a common vision of the container universe.

smcj said:
If I'm not mistaken this is the general consensus of the Cittamatra view, right? If so, and given your post from another thread, Not really, Dzogchen is not cittamatra.
With your second post I am led to believe that the "traces which sufficiently resemble each other in each of our minds to create a common vision of the container universe" is not a Dzogchen view, right? If I'm right about that, and that being the case, what is the Dzogchen perspective on the "commonality of the container universe"?

Malcolm wrote:
The distinction is basically this: in cittamatra, phenomena are mental events. The way Lonchenpa explains it is like this. Bodhicitta, awakened mind, is like space, it is the basis, but it is not established in anyway. Its potential or energy [rtsal] arises like the face of a mirror. The display of that potentiality is like the eight examples of illusion. Since the basis, its potential and display are not themselves established because they are all empty, they are nondual. These three are conventionally distinguished because of appearances. Thus, bodhicitta, potentiality and the display are neither single nor plural in terms of their essence, nevertheless, just like the reflections in the mirror cannot be said to be either the same nor different than the mirror's power to reflect, it is understood that the imputations which are the display of the potential of bodhicitta also do not exist either inside or outside of, and hence these appearances are called "nonexistent, clear appearances." Indeed, nothing at all is established in anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Loving Kindness Meditation
Content:
gloriasteinem said:
I think it is an emotion. Love comes from the heart, kindness too. I think the mind itself could be very cold or at least too conceptual to show these. They come from the heart chakra. I know it not because I'm emotional but because usually I'm not, I'm a more thoughtful person and there is a constant need for me to feel/learn this from outside, other people. Mind even when peaceful cannot give loving kindness but can give place for the heart to release such.

Seishin said:
I think metta is better translated as "benevolence" rather than loving kindness. Also note: metta is not love and kindness, it is kindness that is loving.

Malcolm wrote:
Maitri is the wish that someone have happiness and the cause of happiness. Translating metta/Matri as "love" is just fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 19th, 2015 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Matt J said:
Mipham's Chittamatra approach to dharmas resolves all those pesky questions about rebirth, siddhis, body of light, the brain.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, Dzogchen is not cittamatra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm disappointed by your response regarding the 'worldliness' of spiritual paths. Spiritual paths can be in the world but not of the world - you have to have a Dharma that is matched to a person's capacity and ability to practice and it has to be practical but in order to function it has to be free from politics and worldly concerns. I'm surprised you don't understand this. A spiritual path cannot be leading you deeper into samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
A true spiritual path must engage the world, not seek to rise above it. We live in the world. Our path is only of value insofar as in transforming ourselves, others around us are transformed and in the end, the world is transformed. That transformation requires a stable country, economic prosperity and freedom for everyone. Those last three goals are best secured in an open, liberal, democratic state based on robust secular ethics. The Dalai Lama understands this, I am surprised you don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Alaya-vijnana it is shared or subjective storage?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
I think I understand where OP is coming from with this question. If the alayavijnana is completely personal, then where are collective karmic traces stored? Do you just have ever your own personal copy of the collective karma?

Malcolm wrote:
There are not traces of collective karma. There are traces which sufficiently resemble each other in each of our minds to create a common vision of the container universe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
Ayu said:
Is there anybody still willing to discuss the topic?

Malcolm wrote:
Not in the face of suspension of freedom of speech. I can't believe you erased those links to Dabiq.

How do you expect people to be informed about the issues if you censor necessary information?

This server is located in the US, not in Europe. There is no law against reading the crazy, apocalyptic insanity promulgated by ISIS here in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
boda said:
...you should have explained me better sooner.

Malcolm wrote:
I did. A long time ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
amanitamusc said:
How are are you trying to help Malcolm boda?

Are you testing his patients ?

boda said:
For now I'd like to help him stop repeating himself.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, stop blaming others for your own lack of clarity, then I will stop.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 18th, 2015 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
TKF said:
Pure spiritual traditions have to be free from politics because a spiritual life cannot be motivated by worldly concerns. Many spiritual traditions espouse meditation on death to overcome worldly concerns, and politics is worldly, so there is no place where Dharma and politics meet.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, you are being naive.

smcj said:
He may be naive, but he is technically correct. In this respect I am naive as well, but to a slightly lesser degree. (The Gelug emphasis on  Lam Rim that I have in common with TKF are showing here.) The way I see it "pure spiritual traditions" is almost an oxymoron. Once money, power and prestige come into play with the creation of institutions, the 8 worldly dharmas begin to intrude. One of the reasons that I'm a fan of 12 step programs is that they have made a serious attempt at defusing 6 our of the 8 worldly dharmas. By that  i mean that, according to their own bylaws, nobody is supposed to be able to make money, become famous, or pull power trips (+ or -) on anybody else. Unfortunately that leaves sex in the mix, and even Bill W. "13th stepped" a lot of women.

Wha t is not an oxymoron is a "pure spiritual practice". That is an individual thing, and it can be done in any environment. It is possible to be on retreat and have your mind filled with motivations of money, sex, power and prestige. Or you can be like HHDL who was born into power and prestige and yet is unaffected by it. So no, on the level of the individual I don't think it is overly naive, but certainly not a given either. If you don't believe me just try it. And TKF is right; that is what the meditation on death is for. Most of us usually just toss it because it reminds us of Christianity.

Malcolm wrote:
He is being naive because there is no samsara without nirvana, and no nirvana without samsara. There is no such a thing as a pure spiritual tradition that exists outside the world. The idea that spiritual traditions should eschew worldly concerns is morally bankrupt, in my opinion, it is a form of impractical utopianism. It is from his utopian stance that he took up the banner of criticizing HHDL for advocating secular ethics to begin with. He does not, and you do not here, seem to understand that it is precisely the world that we have that creates the fertile swamp in which the lotus flower of the Dharma can blossom. Secular ethics in a liberal society give those lotuses the room they need to grow, because you can be sure they will not blossom at all in a fundamentalist Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Christian society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
gloriasteinem said:
t is that you prefer to be compassionate and loving towards muslim refugees and not fellow Buddhists who suffer from them. Of course it is a matter of choice. Obama himself is mostly muslim, quoting of Quran and refusing Christian celebrations, he also refused refugee status prior to christian refugees of Syria but prefers such of muslim origin.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. You have been misinformed. Obama is Christian, attends a Christian church, the Evergreen Chapel, at Camp David. He attends the Protestant service.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
The separation of Dharma and politics is a value that comes from Dharma...

Malcolm wrote:
You are quite mistaken and naive here.

Tsongkhapafan said:
...because a Dharma that is motivated by politics is not Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
This statement contradicts the above statement. Why?, because the imperative to separate Dharma from politics is primarily a political imperative, not a spiritual one. History, including that of Tibet, is filled with examples of Kings who imposed religions on the populace.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Pure spiritual traditions have to be free from politics because a spiritual life cannot be motivated by worldly concerns.  Many spiritual traditions espouse meditation on death to overcome worldly concerns, and politics is worldly, so there is no place where Dharma and politics meet.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, you are being naive.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Freedoms have to be enshrined in law because we are deluded beings and the likelihood of being able to practice moral discipline is small but that's no substitute for genuine spirituality.

Malcolm wrote:
Freedoms have to be enshrined in laws because this is how people's rights are guaranteed. And not everyone wants a "spirituality", genuine or otherwise.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Laws are political, a completely different thing to Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Laws are social, not merely political. Dharma also has politics. It is not good to bury your head in the sand.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Secular ethics can be promoted by judges, the police and politicians, it doesn't need to be promoted by Spiritual Teachers who have a more important job to do in spreading genuine spirituality.

Malcolm wrote:
Religious teachers need to promote secular ethics as well. For example, one of the reasons there is a clash between the Muslim world and the West is that there are so many variations in religious Islamic law. The obvious solution to me is that Muslim religious leaders should support the open secular society in their countries as the best way to safeguard their own freedom to worship Allah as they see fit. It is for this reason that it is vitally important that spiritual teachers and secularists come together in agreement over common secular ethics so that EVERYONE can live in harmony and at the same time practice whatever spiritual tradition they want.

Your solution is a kind of religious isolationism — fine if you're Amish, but then, the Amish are disappearing, since they are not integrated into the larger US society.

Tsongkhapafan said:
If everyone practises a genuine spiritual path there is no need to enshrine ethical values in law because people will practise moral discipline.

Malcolm wrote:
But the only genuine path you recognize is Buddhism. So, your view is as impractical as it is utopian.

There will never be a time on this planet when all people follow the Dharma just as there has never been a time on this planet when all people followed the Dharma.

Therefore, the realistic and practical alternative to your pie in the sky utopianism is the further development of the liberal secular state based on the principle of a democratic, open society. Actually, you and the people who think like you are making a huge mistake by deriding secular ethics. Why?, because the Dharma will have its best chance to touch the lives of many people in precisely the kind of open, liberal society I am advocating.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You can argue that only those who possess the eight freedom and ten endowments have the opportunity to practise Dharma but there may be many such people who have the potential to practise but cannot at the moment because they don't have access to a centre or to a Teacher, so we should try to provide that opportunity in my view and encourage people to find real solutions to their problems.

Malcolm wrote:
All sentient beings have the potential to practice Dharma, merely because they are sentient beings. But part of the 18 qualifications of a human birth is access to Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: The Buddha's Jihad! :D
Content:
DGA said:
"left wing liberal" is a strawman.  It's also contradiction in terms, at least in the context of US politics.  "left wing" means ending capitalism.  "liberal" means reducing state intervention--this is why the Clintons make such good bedfellows with Wall Street.  One wants to privatize the economy; the other seeks to end private control over social and economic life.  These are completely different objectives.

Paul said:
"Liberal" has changed meaning over time, especially in the US. It's usually taken to mean a combination of left wing economics with social liberalism. Isn't this completely common knowledge?

Malcolm wrote:
The reason why I say that there is no "liberal elite" is that quite frankly, there isn't one. It is a Fox News trigger word, meant to shut down the frontal lobe of its viewers, place them in a hypnotic state, in order to prepare them for being conditioned by talking points they want to shovel into the minds of their viewers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: No External Objects
Content:
Matt J said:
Maybe to go further, I will summarize my understanding of Mipham.

First, all we know of the external world are appearances in the mind.

Second, we infer common objects because we compare appearances with other minds. However, Mipham points out a few problems with this. First, we are using subjective impressions, which differ, to establish something that does not differ, i.e. external objects. There is a logical contradiction in using subjective impressions to prove objective objects. In addition, external objects are not appearances (they cause appearances), so they can be never known. If they can never be known, why posit it in the first place?

So instead of saying that there is a common external world, we say there are common karmic seeds.

I agree with Mipham but it doesn't seem to establish no external objects, it just makes me agnostic. Who knows what is beyond appearances? Maybe something, maybe nothing. Although, maybe this is his point--- even though he uses Chittamatra arguments, in the end he is a Madhyamika.

Malcolm wrote:
Your conclusion is known Tibetan tenet systems as "the half-eggest" Yogacara approach.

The general consensus is that the most profound Yogacara system, that of Ratnakarashanti, is the false aspectarian system, in which indeed, all external appearances are merely the activation of common and specfic traces in our mindstreams.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: The Buddha's Jihad! :D
Content:
Rita_Repulsa said:
This is odd, but the intertwining of Buddhism with left wing liberal politics in the US seems to have something to do with the fact that it first came with Asian immigrants to our Pacific Coast. It spread into the mainstream from there alongside everything else we associate with the culture and politics of that region. This has "poisoned the well" for many when it comes to Dharma, and there are many who seek it out but ultimately give it up because of the interpretations of it they find available.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma first gained its currency among those who had experience in the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements in the 1950's and 1960's. This is one reason why Dharma attracts many people of progressive values, whether or not Asian Buddhists actually share or possessed those values.

Rita_Repulsa said:
For our liberal elites, Dharma seems to be this cool toy that can be wielded against hinterland dwellers for extra gravitas in an argument.

Malcolm wrote:
What liberal elites? There is no such thing.

Rita_Repulsa said:
Our elites, on the other hand, won't defend Dharma...

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, this is just empty rhetoric. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you also have no experience "defending" the Dharma against anyone or anything.

Rita_Repulsa said:
Dharma is a treasure. It's worth defending...

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha pointed out in one sūtra that the Dharma can never be destroyed from outside, but only from inside. All of this sturm and drung about defending the Dharma from some imaginary outside foe is simply deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Obama hasn't given in to the fear-mongers:
http://www.upworthy.com/3-things-president-obama-said-about-refugees-that-we-all-need-to-hear


Kim


Malcolm wrote:
Of course, the governors of those US states claiming they wont accept refugees are just blathering on in ignorance. In reality, states within the US cannot close their borders to any persons residing in or visiting the US. When the Federal Gvt. processes those Syrian refugees, they will settle them wherever they like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
boda said:
Is there a forum rule about not mixing thought with quesitions?

Malcolm wrote:
No, but there is a general consensus that if you do not write clearly, you can't very well expect the blame lies with others if they do not understand you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm... have you looked at the state of the world today?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, I see a world that need Dharma, not feel good platitudes. I rest my case.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you see that most humans lack the 18 qualifications that constitute a precious human birth?

Case closed.

By the way, secular ethics are not "feel good" platitudes. Secular ethics are necessary in order to negotiate fairness and justice between different peoples of different faiths and political orientations.

Let me give you an example. A number of years ago I was attending a conference at Smith College on Mongolia. As you know, Mongolia is a country where there are a large number of people who follow the practice of Dorje Shugden. A friend of my introduced me to the Secretary General of the Mongolian Consulate to the United States, because he was quite concerned about the Dorje Shugden practice, and felt that is was a large problem in his country. After discussing various problems with the practice and its history, he asked me point blank if Mongolia shouldn't just outlaw the practice. I asked him whether or not Mongolia has a law on the books about freedom of religion, and indeed it does. I pointed out to him that in this case, a country which believes in separation of Church and State cannot be involved in banning this or that religion. You will be shocked to learn that I said to him that this kind of policy could not happen in Mongolia, that the Mongolian Gvt. would be wrong to ban Shugden practice because they value religious freedom and so forth. He was not terribly happy with my answer, but he understood it.

You see, the point is that is an instance of secular ethics, the separation of church and state are vital to everyone's freedom. A liberal open society requires a firm grounding in secular ethics for the benefit of everyone. Secular ethics are the foundation of the liberal state, they are the foundation of any open society. Thus, even though I personally think the practice of Dorje Shugden is harmful and deeply misguided, by the same token, in a liberal state, an open society, I have no choice but to accept that there are those who wish to perform this practice because of their religious beliefs.

You yourself invoked a separation of Dharma and politics. This is not a value that comes from the Dharma, this is a secular value, which finds its roots in the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution. Your and my best hope for religious freedom, economic wellbeing and justice is based precisely on the very secular ethics you are deriding. In other words, when you live in a pluralistic, diverse society like the US and Europe, one has no choice but to develop a strong and robust framework of secular ethics. It is absolutely necessary for everyone's wellbeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:


boda said:
DGA appears to understand my interest. Maybe he's the forum telepath.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, after I pointed out that you did not ask a clear question that you wanted answered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
tomschwarz said:
tsongkhapafan wants all to have access to the Dharma. that is a truly beautiful wish.   I think we all need to go to your meditation class )))))))

Malcolm wrote:
We all want everyone to have access to Dharma. Some of us understand that this is not going to happen, and mostly because most humans do not have a precious human birth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
DGA said:
boda, I'll try to address your interest in the matter of seeming self-indulgence that isn't really in the context of the precepts.

What seems to happen seems to happen because of the afflictions of people.  I see things the way I do--things seem to me the way they seem--because of my own conditioning, karma, problems, hangups, whatever.  So I see someone take an action that may seem outrageous to me and I make certain assumptions about it, and have a certain kind of response.  Where do those assumptions come from?

For example, there's a precept against harsh speech.  OK, fine.  One day I saw a teacher I respect very much shouting instructions VERY VERY LOUDLY AND DIRECTLY AND NOT POLITELY VERY HARSHLY HOLY MOLY at a student.  It wasn't just a scolding.  The teacher really ripped him a new one.  Now, someone who witnessed this burst into tears.  Why?  Because she had grown up with an abusive father, and couldn't understand why anyone would resort to the methods of an abusive father like that.  Someone else thought it was funny and had to stifle a laugh.  And the person on the receiving end?  Just apologized meekly and went on with his life in clear repose.  That teacher clearly broke the precepts in a way that looked careless and, well, self-indulgent.  It would have been harder to simply pull the student aside and have the "Hey now, we need to talk" conversation.  Instead he just popped off and made an example out of the poor sap.

We later found out that the whole thing was a pre-arranged stunt to teach someone else a completely different lesson.  It was Dharma theater, and it worked like a charm to break that third party of a pernicious habit.  Now, was the response of the person who started crying true or false?  Did the teacher really break the precept?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, today we should have provided a trigger warning, and made sure there was a "safe space."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:


boda said:
I wrote "Besides those thoughts, I was wondering..." Besides means 'in addition to'. And had you read further my interests may have been clearer, or you may have just ignored what I wrote, or you didn't care to give it your full attention. Who knows.

Malcolm wrote:
A thought is not a question. What I observed was that everyone addressed your question, a few people tried to address your thoughts, but you castigated them for not addressing your question. If you don't write more clearly, people will not be able to answer you very well. It is your responsibility to communicate clearly, it is not our responsibility to guess at what you want in reply.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 17th, 2015 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
BrianG said:
I will answer your question for the Nth time, hopefully this will clarify.

If the situation requires it, and it will benefit sentient beings, a Bodhisattva must break the precepts.

Which part of this is confusing to you?

boda said:
I suppose the confusing part is that no one is responding to what I'm actually asking about. And I've been explicitly clear about what I'm asking about.

Malcolm wrote:
The only question in your OP Is:
I was wondering what else is okay for the advance practitioner besides intoxicants. Is lying, stealing, killing and sexual abuse also okay for the advanced practitioner? Is there a line and how do you determine it?
So, if no one is answering the question you intended to ask, it is because you did not ask a question apart from the one above. Many people have answered the question you actually asked. Mind reading is hard enough without having to try and do it over the internet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
TKF thinks we ought to be standing on street corners evangelizing the Dharma.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Malcolm is settng up a strawman because he doesn't agree with his idea about my views, which he misrepresents.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh, I don't agree with my own ideas? Ok.

Tsongkhapafan said:
I have never said that we should evangelise Dharma, what I have said is that Dharma should be readily available for those who are able to practise it and anyone with compassion would want to make it available, in an appropriate situation, for example by holding and advertising Buddhist meditation classes.

Malcolm wrote:
It is.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It seems to me that Teachers like the Dalai Lama have such a great opportunity, so selling secular ethics instead of genuine Dharma is selling people short as these will not lead to liberation and enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not "selling" secular ethics. The HHDL regularly gives advertised Dharma teachings in the West. He also understands, however, that a liberal society, based on secular democratic ideals, is the best way humans being have to get along with each other. Not everyone is interested in Buddhist ideas of enlightenment.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Any one can teach that we should be nice to people, it's a no brainer. What people need are methods to develop their love, compassion and wisdom, not just to be told that we should be more compassionate.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm... have you looked at the state of the world today?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: OT posts from "Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris"
Content:
philji said:
Can the heading of this thread be changed as it is misleading.. I cannot find one post about the Paris attacks????

Malcolm wrote:
OT means off topic...

Anyway, we are apparently not permitted to voice any comments about Islam itself, since all such critical comments will apparently be regarded as hate speech. But perhaps the mods will let this Muslim woman speak to the issues:

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]



Or this one:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@Ayaan) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/Ayaan
1 day ago As long as Muslims say IS has nothing to with Islam or talk of Islamophobia they are not ready to reform their faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:
tingdzin said:
A society with no state control was as much out of the question in 1930s Europe as it is today.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the idea of the absence of a state is frankly ridiculous. It is not like we are going to return to hunter-gather bands. One interesting trend to emerge from the anarchists in general however is Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism — the platform of the Kurdish P.K.K., amazingly enough.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: Anarchist Buddhist teachers, present and past?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anti-state =  incoherent and poorly thought out.



tingdzin said:
Buddhists have no business getting romantic notions about any political ideology.

Malcolm wrote:
I agree, to a point — but where I disagree is that I feel Dharma practitioners should support the modern liberal state along lines I have elsewhere outlined, and should be deeply engaged in the Environmental movement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
You won't find those purported 60% of Thai men quoting Buddhist scripture to support what they are doing. This has to do with Thai culture, not Buddhist culture.

Tenso said:
You sure about that?
A conqueror, a water channel, a creeping plant,
Women and the blind, these five,
How they are led by the crafty!
And this leading places them in the power of others.

182. A woman's appetite is twice (that of a man),
Her deceitfulness four times (as much),
Her shame six times,
And her passions eight times--so it is said.

194. When milk is got from a horn,
When the reed-flower drops honey,
Then, when a woman is true,
The lotus will grow in dry ground.

246. An evil man, gold, a drum,
A wild horse, women and cloth
Are controlled by beating.
These are not vessels for elegant doings.]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/srdb/srdb.htm


Malcolm wrote:
Surely not one of Nagarjuna's high points. Buddhidm too has some work to do in terms of ridding itself of adharmic sexism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
dreambow said:
Malcolm, 'Quite frankly, these are all side issues. The real issue, the core of the whole thing, is women's rights. And in general, most Muslims don't believe in this'    This mechanical declaration is based on group think and its quite untrue. The terrorist attacks are so much more complex and multi layered then this flat, politically correct statement.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is based on having looked at what groups like ISIS actually say about the West, why they hate us, and the sheer amount of energy they spend oppressing women.

And, also frankly, most Muslim women are in subjugation. They do not enjoy the freedom that women in liberalized societies like ours do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Why only women's rights?

Malcolm wrote:
Because that is what they hate most about the West. They hate the fact that women in the west are not slaves of men. They basically hate women.

BrianG said:
Besides Saudis I haven't really noticed that.  Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, I've never noticed anything overly misogynistic about the people.

The criticism about "Muslims opressing women" could easily be applied to Buddhist cultures.  60% of Thai men think it's ok to beat women.  I have heard similar things about Tibetan men.

Regardless, I don't think women's rights are responsible for the Paris attack.  ISIS is doing exactly what it has said it would - draw the west into the Middle East.

Malcolm wrote:
I said before this:
Women's rights, from over the control of their bodies to their ability to live free of control of men and so on are the main thing that fundamentalists hate, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
You have to look at WHY they want to draw the West into a total war. It has everything to do with the slow, inexorable, dismantling of patriarchal power.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddihism without Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Isn't it more the case that secular philosophy often defines itself in such a way to distinguish itself from wht it understands as religious thinking. So that often manifests as the criticism of what it sees as being religious elements that have appeared in Buddhism. In that view, of Bachelor and others, the original form was more like today's secular humanism, before it became associated with ideas from the sorrounding culture, of which belief in rebirth was a key one.

dharmagoat said:
Overlooking, it seems, that the Buddha did actually teach rebirth himself. The question remains whether the Buddha taught rebirth as an expedient. It is a question that has no satisfactory answer.

Malcolm wrote:
It has a satisfactory answer — the answer is no. Buddha taught the existence of four kinds of realized persons defined by how many lifetimes it would take them to attain nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
This is why secular ethics is selling people short and we should make every effort to get Dharma to those who can practise it.

dharmagoat said:
You seem to be giving the impression that secular ethics and Buddhist ethics are mutually exclusive.

Aren't secular ethics a subset of Buddhist ethics?

Malcolm wrote:
TKF thinks we ought to be standing on street corners evangelizing the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Flight of the Garuda
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Tony Duff has one too.

Malcolm wrote:
I also have one. It will be published in due course.

swooping said:
Do you have any books that are currently available?
Is there a website or mailing list to here about new releases?

Malcolm wrote:
Wisdom is publishing one of my books next year.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Hmmm, I don't know, but I think hating women is a symptom, not a root cause.

They hate that other systems of values can exist without Allah mainly.

Western women converts often say they feel more respect under Islam for femininity.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because these women have been brainwashed. Women's rights are at the forefront of liberal values in the modern western world, when you attack those, you are attacking the very foundation of upon which the rights movement is presently built on. Women's rights, from over the control of their bodies to their ability to live free of control of men and so on are the main thing that fundamentalists hate, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Women's rights are basic to all rights human beings enjoy. You may not see it this way now, but if you think about long enough, you will see that this whole thing between the Muslim world, and our fundamentalists at home is a result of the West's clumsily and blindly lurching beyond patriarchy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 16th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Why only women's rights?

Malcolm wrote:
Because that is what they hate most about the West. They hate the fact that women in the west are not slaves of men. They basically hate women.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
[
That's true, of course, but how far back should we look?
I looked back about a century, and I think that's far enough for most purposes because it has the strongest impact on our present. It covers the lived history of everyone alive today, and most of the histories they heard from parents and grandparents.

Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Quite frankly, these are all side issues. The real issue, the core of the whole thing, is women's rights. And in general, most Muslims don't believe in this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
If whenever someone says something you have no answer to you say it is not what you are talking about, then you must have no shortage of irrelevancies. No doubt this was also irrelevant.

Malcolm wrote:
I could have answered, but it is a waste of time, because your whole statement was irrelevant.

maybay said:
I am sure it applies to the object of critique, if we are open to debating it.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not apply, because I was not recommending any of the things Dudjom Rinpoche was criticizing.

maybay said:
She wasn't deluded on that count, they were trying to discredit him.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that there is no substance in your criticisms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: No means No
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Funny -- I was just reading a https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/home/blog/ by Bhikkhu CIntita, a Theravadin monk, on the topic of ethics. He writes:
The weaknesses of precepts as guides to ethical conduct are that they...don’t permit appropriate exceptions, that is, precepts are porous and rigid.  There is the case in which the Gestapo shows up at our front door and asks us, gleefully aware that a Buddhist will not lie, if we are hiding Jews in the attic, or that in which one of us just happens to be returning from a softball game with a  bat in his hand and walk in right behind a man who has just “gone postal” and is about to embark on taking out fellow employees. There are, moreover, many harmful, generally mildly harmful, behaviors that simply are not covered in precepts, like taking up two parking spaces.

Nonetheless, it is significant that the Buddha rarely sanctioned exceptions to precepts to correct their rigidity. I suspect this is because he wanted us to be fully aware of, and live with, the contradictory nature of the human condition rather than regulating it away.
How do you think a good Buddhist should behave in the kinds of situations he mentions?

Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty obvious — you lie to the Gestapo and strike down the man who is killing others with the bat. This is proper Buddhist response. Any other response is irresponsible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
smcj said:
For example, in order to destroy the world, kill millions of Jews and so on, Hitler had to have had great merit to rise to such power; the same can be said of Stalin and Mao.
I don't think that is right.

Malcolm wrote:
You would be wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Zooming into the details you hope to distract from the bigger picture of falling morality and a Dharma in decline...

Malcolm wrote:
Now you pretend to know my inner motivations? Shame on you for being so presumptuous.


maybay said:
One cannot take the lives of disembodied beings. Sorry, it is just not possible.
It doesn't matter. The point is not to take what you think is life, just as actions in a dream bare karmic fruit.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it matters, if you are being accurate and truthful. Something you supposedly hold as a value.


maybay said:
It is not possible to take responsibility for anyone's behavior but one's own. One cannot control what others do, nor should one try, unless those persons are acting out of bounds of law or parental authority.
By living with people, by choosing a certain profession, a certain employment, a city, by associating on an Internet forum, with a Gar about to go bureaucratic, you are effectively endorsing them. It is unavoidable that you as an ignorant sentient being, should be affected by their actions and they by yours, because unless you have seen through the illusion of your individuality you will be subject to that shared experience.

Malcolm wrote:
This is irrelevant. You like to bring in irrelevancies, I have noticed.


maybay said:
I have not asked anyone to abandon anything.
Noted, but the word I used was provoke.

Malcolm wrote:
I have not provoked anyone either.


maybay said:
This does not apply to what I am saying.
This is unfortunate. There is no better way to establish authority than through the writings of a master.

Malcolm wrote:
When using an authority, you should make sure it applies to the object of your critique.  Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time writing things that miss the side of the barn, much less hit a small target.

maybay said:
For example, while some people, because they are either foolish or blind, may require a fence to protect them from falling over the edge of a cliff; other people do not require such safety measures.
Perhaps, but for you to say so. Your example conjures up images of a jaded outcast walking a knife-edge existence. Is this your medicine for people?

Malcolm wrote:
I can't help what fantasies you conjure in your own mind.


maybay said:
One has to understand the essence of the teachings, not adhere to outer forms.
This does not speak of a balanced view. It comes across as reactionary, myopic.

Malcolm wrote:
I can't help your perceptions — even the Buddha was accused by a desperate women of making her pregnant. All I can do is point out that under your dress is a trough, not a child.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
pael said:
Does dedication mean dedicating without wishing reward?

Malcolm wrote:
It means dedicating by understanding that the merit, the recipient of merit and the dedication are all ultimate empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
smcj said:
Vows can also be crutches for the weak minded, who are actually able to walk without their support.

One has to understand the essence of the teachings, not adhere to outer forms.
That's a somewhat Nyingma type perspective. Most Nyingma lamas are not monks. The more monastic sects of Vajrayana do not necessarily agree. HHK 16 was a monk that kept his vows. He was not "weak-minded".

Malcolm wrote:
SMCJ, he was an ārya on the stages, or so many people believe.  Such people are simply incapable of breaking their vows at all, so how can they "keep" them? What they do is represent the principle of holding vows, but in reality their conduct is beyond holding vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
If vows are so elementary then why do you provoke practitioners to abandon them?

Malcolm wrote:
I have not asked anyone to abandon anything.

maybay said:
Dudjom Rinpoche:

Malcolm wrote:
This does not apply to what I am saying.

maybay said:
And from Counsels from my heart:
The teachings say therefore that we should avoid one-sided attitudes regarding the view and action. Like eagles soaring in space, we should be clearly convinced of the view, but at the same time we should heed the karmic principle of cause and effect, as finely as if we were sifting flour.
As Buddhists, we rely on the teachings of the Buddha, and must therefore have heartfelt confidence in the supreme Dharma. Whoever we are, we need to have a good heart, sincere and without deceit. At all times and on all occasions, we must maintain an irreversible trust in the sacred Dharma, and our minds must be steady and constant. These three things are our firm foundation: steady faith, sincere devotion, and constancy. Furthermore, whatever the Dharma contains, it is all Buddha’s teaching. We must therefore have pure perception and an appreciation of all Dharma traditions, those of others as much as our own. We must respect them all.

Malcolm wrote:
This also does not apply to what I am saying.

maybay said:
Not committing evil acts is one thing, but making a commitment to that way of life is another. We are not mindful all the time and mistakes happen. This is why Buddha explains right effort

Malcolm wrote:
One does not need a vow to have such a commitment.

For example, while some people, because they are either foolish or blind, may require a fence to protect them from falling over the edge of a cliff; other people do not require such safety measures.

maybay said:
A vow is actually a pretty simple way to remind us of that possibility, that humaness and vulnerability even, and it promotes a sense of communal identity and allows one to develop confidence and understanding for holding more strenuous vows.

Malcolm wrote:
Some people understand that śila has nothing to do with vows and pledges. Other people don't.

maybay said:
Vows are a corrective for weak minds, and they are almost an expectation of those coming from other religions who still expect the same signs of legitimacy.

Malcolm wrote:
Vows can also be crutches for the weak minded, who are actually able to walk without their support.

One has to understand the essence of the teachings, not adhere to outer forms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Quite right! Actually I picked up a copy of a really interesting but dense book by Jay Garfield, http://amzn.com/0195146727, which has a lot of these ideas. It's starting to come together for me. I don't see any major contradiction between some of those 'idealist' elements in Western philosophy and the mind-only approach, except the latter is firmly grounded in meditation and not just conceptual analysis. But it does help to join the dots, so to speak. Which in one of the reasons I am very grateful to Dharmawheel Forum and its learned contributors.


Malcolm wrote:
Jay is in the same philosophy department as my father [Smith College].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, four of the five lay precepts are just based on all three physical non-virtues and one of the nonvirtues of speech. If you need a vow not to kill things, engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, steal and lie that does not say very much for your moral character, does it?

BrianG said:
But morality, if you define it as training in, engaging in wholesome actions, and abstaining from unwholesome ones, does require precepts.  At least according to my interpretation of Sakya Pandita's Distinguishing The Three Vows.

Malcolm wrote:
If you subscribe to an excessively legalistic frame of mind, i.e., the one characterized by late Indian and 13th--15th century Tibetan thinking about the three vows, perhaps. According to their argument taking a vow of not killing makes both your practice of not killing and the act of killing stronger. There is some truth to this, but only in the sense that a vow indicates a strong resolve.

So, if you are already have a strong resolve not to take life, for what reason do you need a vow not to do so? Please recall, there was no Vinaya in the beginning, the first five monks had no vows per se. The Vinaya gradually grew slowly as Buddha tried to deal with misbehaving monks causing problems.

The fact is that all three vows are scholastic constructions.

The three vows can also summarized into three principles: cause no harm; help sentient beings; cultivate pure vision. If one is following these three principles, then you are training śila.

Otherwise, a monk with all 251 vows can be a very harmful person, refuse to help sentient beings, and have completely impure vision, and nevertheless keep their 251 vows perfectly —— is this really training in śila? Of course not.

On the other hand a lay person who has gone for refuge but feels they cannot follow the five precepts, such a person can actually practice ahimsa, help sentient beings and cultivate pure vision. Such a person I would say is actually training in śila.

maybay said:
There are many examples of spirit beings we don't ordinarily pay attention to.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot take the lives of disembodied beings. Sorry, it is just not possible.

maybay said:
Or your response to someone else killing sentient beings is an automatic distancing from them, instead of sharing the responsibility for their conduct and feeling remorse.

Malcolm wrote:
Why should one share responsibility for someone else's actions? For example, when someone sells crack on the corner, I don't feel it is my responsibility at all, nor should I, nor should you.

maybay said:
Then what is the threshold at which you recognize your own greedy consumption as depriving others of property? Stealing is not always so clear cut.

Malcolm wrote:
Stealing is pretty well defined as taking that of which some other human person claims ownership. Unfortunately, Buddhist ethics does not count the feelings of animals and other small creatures when it comes to "property." If it did, farming would be impossible.

maybay said:
You say you don't lie. But lying is about deception and misrepresentation. Hiding the truth is effectively lying.

Malcolm wrote:
Lying is the intention to deceive someone.

maybay said:
Acting contrary to convention, like entering a house through a window, could be seen as deceitful, even if you know the owner well.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you intend to deceive someone.

maybay said:
They say the Buddha would never speak to you at an angle. He would always turn to face you like an elephant. Even with our eyes and our handshake we can lie.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you intend to deceive someone.

maybay said:
Sexual misconduct is more deception, against others, and against your inhibitions.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. First of all, these "inhibitions" are largely cultural, which is why they vary so much from one culture to another. Secondly, sexual misconduct is clearly defined as sexual activity which is exploitative, such sex with minors and the ill; sexual acts which damage social contracts, such as marriage; and sexual acts which are seen as inappropriate or indolent, such as sex in shrines or during the day; and sexual acts which are seen as physically unhealthy, such as oral and anal sex. It is a physical act that is being censured.

maybay said:
Which brings us to intoxication, with substances, with ideas, worldly activities, plans. Shameless intoxication that precludes mindfulness.

Malcolm wrote:
Intoxication is confined to becoming intoxicating substances.

maybay said:
There is infinite depth to the precepts. For the sake of ritualizing them they are iconified.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the five precepts are just Hinayāna vows. They are very simple, something relative, and something which do no apply at all times and in all circumstances.

maybay said:
Second point, morality is a group effort.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is an individual practice.

maybay said:
There is wholesome behaviour, assurances of loyalty to wholesome behavior that calms the fears and the passions others, and censure and punitive action against immorality.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this is all very subjective. You are just making a case for colonialism: for example, the Victorian redesign of the sari, because the Victorian English were both titillated and offended by women's breasts.

maybay said:
Its impossible not to take responsibility for other's behavior to at least some degree.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not possible to take responsibility for anyone's behavior but one's own. One cannot control what others do, nor should one try, unless those persons are acting out of bounds of law or parental authority.

maybay said:
We are not moral citadels in the world.

Malcolm wrote:
We need only to take responsibility for ourselves. That's it.

maybay said:
Of course, liberality is emphasised at times. Anyone who has something to sell another person will begin by highlighting their sovereignty of choice in the matter. It's your choice to do anything from buy our Pepsi to practice our Dharma. What is really being said is that you should forget your prior commitment, loyalties, savings etc. So when they ask Dalai Lama what is the best religion, he tells them. Yours.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you need to get out more.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, four of the five lay precepts are just based on all three physical non-virtues and one of the nonvirtues of speech. If you need a vow not to kill things, engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, steal and lie that does not say very much for your moral character, does it?

smcj said:
Really? By that way of thinking you would come to the conclusion that HHK 16, Deshung R. and HHDL to all have been of inferior moral character.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you really think these three men needed vows to avoid such things?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Multiple terrorist attacks in Paris - Hostage situation
Content:
BrianG said:
The president of France called it an act of war, and the Islamic State claimed responsibility, so this is the WW3 pre-game.

Malcolm wrote:
Worldly "logic" dictates a massive military response and reoccupation of Iraq, and now Syria.

In any case, our hearts should go out to all who are suffering from the terror of war and violence. It seems likely that more is on the way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Because it highlights the difference between what a lot of people would take for granted about the reality of things, from the proposition that 'Whatever thing or being we perceive are concepts, mental fabrications.' I know, I also post on Philosophy Forum, and if you posted that line of argument, it would either be ignored or ridiculed, whereas I'm starting to understand how it could be true.

Malcolm wrote:
I see. Well, given that I was raised by a philosopher, you might want to drop the name "Berkeley" to those guys.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This knowledge is meant to cut attachment to appearances as being real.

Wayfarer said:
Right - whereas for 'modern thought', only appearances are real.

Malcolm wrote:
What does that have to do with the question?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
The teacher is more important than your practice.

Malcolm wrote:
My guru wouldn't say so. Without practicing, a teacher is useless; like a doctor when the patient won't take the medicine.

maybay said:
I'd like to hear more about what your guru says.


Malcolm wrote:
You can listen to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu any time.

But my real point is that it is practitioners first and foremost who are the gatekeepers, or rather, more aptly (since gatekeepers sound like those who keep people out) stewards of the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:


maybay said:
The teacher is more important than your practice.


Malcolm wrote:
My guru wouldn't say so. Without practicing, a teacher is useless; like a doctor when the patient won't take the medicine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Oh I'm sure of it. So where does that leave us now? How can we get on better with the gatekeepers of the Dharma, keep a pure perception of the Guru, and be mindful of our own faults rather than seeking error in others?

Malcolm wrote:
Maybay, everyone who is a practitioner is a "gatekeeper of the Dharma," not just Tibetans.

maybay said:
Not everyone who practices teaches.

Malcolm wrote:
Even so, they are gatekeepers of the Dharma. Practice is more important than teaching.

maybay said:
We need to respect realized persons, not people of this or that ethnic extraction.
We need to respect all people, of whatever ethnic extraction. It wouldn't hurt to try understand them either. They would probably accept it as a great kindness on your part.

Malcolm wrote:
Given the amount of I have spent with Tibetans both in the West, and in Tibet and Nepal, learning their language, customs, sciences and religion, I am fairly sure I have a pretty good handle on who they are.

I respect whoever is worthy of respect. One does not have to earn my respect. Once my disrespect it earned however, it is difficult to restore my respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Oh I'm sure of it. So where does that leave us now? How can we get on better with the gatekeepers of the Dharma, keep a pure perception of the Guru, and be mindful of our own faults rather than seeking error in others?

Malcolm wrote:
Maybay, everyone who is a practitioner is a "gatekeeper of the Dharma," not just Tibetans. We need to respect realized persons, not people of this or that ethnic extraction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
boda said:
We might judge from the example that no intoxicants is part of the path for good reason, simply.

Malcolm wrote:
Or we might judge from the example that we should not drive while drinking. Quite frankly, attitudes toward drinking differ considerably amongst Buddhists. What is appropriate and necessary for one person is not automatically appropriate and necessary for another.

For you, mindful drinking is not part of your path. For me, mindful drinking is included. For you, it is not possible drink and be mindful. That is your limitation. I don't have that limitation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
boda said:
It's a sad day when we find the simple truth demonizing.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, the demonizing is not in the truth of things, but rather the judgements people make as a result, and their ensuing hysteria.

The simple truth is that Trungpa was in an accident cause by drinking too much. He was in great pain as a result. He drank to kill the pain. He eventually died from complications related to diabetes, high blood pressure and liver damage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Flight of the Garuda
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Tony Duff has one too.

Malcolm wrote:
I also have one. It will be published in due course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


tomschwarz said:
So the follow on question, is there liberation without Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
If one's error can be exhausted without the Dharma, then yes. If not, then no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
ironic, isn't it?

boda said:
I was thinking more like not clear headed, and less generously, criminally irresponsible.

Malcolm wrote:
People like demonizing Trungpa. It has become something of an internet sport in Buddhist forums. Mostly it is jealousy.

If there is something to find offensive in Trungpa's behavior, it is the episode when he tried to shoot a bird. Of course he missed, having never handled a firearm, but...

oh hell, there is no end of potentially offensive things to find in Trungpa's bio...but at the end of the day, he was the most influential Buddhist teacher of the 1970's and 80's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
So the function of conditioned and unconditioned merit is also different?

I.e. Conditioned merit can take one higher and higher in samsara, but does nothing directly for liberation. Unconditioned merit takes one along the paths and stages (in causal vehicle) but does not necessarily mean you will have a high position in samsara, in fact, you might be materially poor?

Malcolm wrote:
It is possible — I would rather be a poor person in the Dharma than a rich person who never heard of the Dharma. It all depends on what you define as "riches". In terms of Dharma riches, I am one of the wealthiest men in the West. Definitely part of the .001%. We all are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:


boda said:
Unfortunate for people like Chögyam Trungpa that this transmutation didn't turn the toxin into something that wasn't addictive, and didn't destroy the liver.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as Trungpa and drinking goes, people usually fail to observe the obvious — Trungpa was in intense pain all of the time from his accident. Alcohol was the only pain killer that left him clear minded. He accomplished what he needed to, then he died.

boda said:
Speaking of failing to observe the obvious, it's reported that the accident was caused by...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it was reported that was is the case, ironic, isn't it? People often burn their houses down while cooking, but no one suggests we should all cease cooking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Hurrah for Mahayana ethics. I reiterate, what good are Hinayana precepts if you feel no shame in breaking them?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, four of the five lay precepts are just based on all three physical non-virtues and one of the nonvirtues of speech. If you need a vow not to kill things, engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, steal and lie that does not say very much for your moral character, does it?

maybay said:
What are you trying to say Malcolm. My point was clearly about the question of shame and the possibility of increasing understanding and sympathy with Tibetan teachers, in a very Mahayana manner I might add. But you seem to want an argument about stock standard precepts. Should I take a break from the forum do you think?

Malcolm wrote:
Here is your statement:
Just on the perception of Westerners by Tibetans and why they harp on about morality: If we appear shameless to Tibetans, then they assume we must lack morals.
American Indians appeared shameless to Europeans. Should they have assumed, as they did, that American Indians lacked morals?

Tantric Buddhism appeared immoral to Victorian sensibilities. Should they have assumed, as they did, that Tantric Buddhism was immoral?

Maybe the problem lies with those are doing to the perceiving and not with the object they are perceiving.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
So if one dedicates merit inexhaustibly it is not destroyed by an instant of anger?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Only conditioned merit is destroyed by anger.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 14th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
pael said:
Where I can study/read about those three things which do not exist?

Malcolm wrote:
The Diamond Sūtra for one. The point is that mundane merit, exhaustible merit, is created by those who have no knowledge emptiness. This causes rebirth in higher realms, but that is all. Inexhaustible merit causes progress along the paths and stages, according to the view of the causal vehicle, and is a direct cause for realizing dharmakāya, again, according to the view of the causal vehicle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
pael said:
How to dedicate before that happens?

Malcolm wrote:
You understand when you dedicate that these three things do not exist. It does not mean you have to be on the path of seeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Just on the perception of Westerners by Tibetans and why they harp on about morality: If we appear shameless to Tibetans, then they assume we must lack morals. What good are precepts if you feel no shame in breaking them and you're too obdurate to feel remorse? How could someone tell if you were moral? Isn't that important?

Malcolm wrote:
Morality does not lie in keeping precepts — this is the point, actually, of Mahāyāna ethics.

maybay said:
Hurrah for Mahayana ethics. I reiterate, what good are Hinayana precepts if you feel no shame in breaking them?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, four of the five lay precepts are just based on all three physical non-virtues and one of the nonvirtues of speech. If you need a vow not to kill things, engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, steal and lie that does not say very much for your moral character, does it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mind-only refers only to the container universe, including bodies; it does not mean that other's minds are only your mind. Relatively speaking, i.e. false relative truth, there are still outer appearances, etc. True relative truth is that all these external appearances are just activated traces in the mind. Ultimate truth is that even mind is not established as truly existent and real.

Lazy_eye said:
Okay -- sorry to be thick-headed here -- how does this apply to daily interactions with others? Acquaintances, friends, relatives, significant others, etc? These are statements indicating how things are, but what do we do with this knowledge when we interact?

Malcolm wrote:
This knowledge is meant to cut attachment to appearances as being real. If we understand that all our appearances and so on are merely the activation of karmic traces in the mind and have no reality at all apart from being our common and personal mental projections, then it is assumed our clinging to these appearances will be lessened.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
pael said:
How do you create non-samsaric? Is it enough to say after good act 'I dedicate this merit for supreme enlightenment'? If not, how then?

Malcolm wrote:
Inexhaustible merit is created through understanding that three things do not exist: merit itself, object of dedication and the act of dedicating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:


boda said:
Unfortunate for people like Chögyam Trungpa that this transmutation didn't turn the toxin into something that wasn't addictive, and didn't destroy the liver.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as Trungpa and drinking goes, people usually fail to observe the obvious — Trungpa was in intense pain all of the time from his accident. Alcohol was the only pain killer that left him clear minded. He accomplished what he needed to, then he died.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Merit -- how would you explain this?
Content:
prsvrnc said:
If someone has merit, would that entail that they have a certain amount of "leverage" in the world...?  They would be able to orchestrate situations more harmoniously and get goals met because of their merit?  Would you say that is true?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

prsvrnc said:
And maybe we could say this is true because they are more in touch with actual reality?  They are in the path of the good, so to speak, in tune with how things ready happen?

Malcolm wrote:
No. For example, in order to destroy the world, kill millions of Jews and so on, Hitler had to have had great merit to rise to such power; the same can be said of Stalin and Mao. But of course, since they were on a completely wrong path, they exhausted any such merit by turning that to evil purposes. So having great merit from past lives is not guarantee of being in touch with reality.

In order to be Indra, or to be reborn in the deva realm in general, you have to have even more merit than a million Hitlers, Stalins and Maos. But this merit too will be exhausted unless you meet the Dharma and practice it properly. An emperor in this life will be a beggar in the next. Merit is not necessarily nirvanic. There is also samsaric merit. Keep this in mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
I'm wondering how this works on an interpersonal level. I mean, yes, ultimately it's all concepts and fabrications, but practically speaking there are other people and it seems important to interact on a human level. How do we cultivate the "mind-only" perspective while not losing sight of other people's needs, concerns, presence and humanity?

Malcolm wrote:
Mind-only refers only to the container universe, including bodies; it does not mean that other's minds are only your mind. Relatively speaking, i.e. false relative truth, there are still outer appearances, etc. True relative truth is that all these external appearances are just activated traces in the mind. Ultimate truth is that even mind is not established as truly existent and real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out through Appearances
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I can see how it applies to many of the things that people assume are real, or to things that we attribute importance to. I get that, but I can't see how it applies to the raw truth of experience as such.

Malcolm wrote:
The raw experience i.e. the appearances of your senses, including the appearance of your body and its pleasures and pains, is just the activation of traces.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
Ayu said:
I don't have any certain members in my mind, but generally speaking:
Often I wonder, if speech would have been used less aggressively, if the members would refrain from touching their keyboard after their second drink.

Malcolm wrote:
I suspect that it is more like their second cup of coffee...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma is not about following rules blindly.

Tenso said:
It's also not about making up your own rules either. I've personally benefited greatly from following the precept against intoxicants.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't follow any path based on rules. That said, if you find that following the precept against drinking is good for you, then by all means continue.


boda said:
It's about following a path. A path that doesn't include intoxicants, for good reason.

Malcolm wrote:
Your path may exclude drinking wine with dinner. Or having a drink with friends. Mine doesn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Just on the perception of Westerners by Tibetans and why they harp on about morality: If we appear shameless to Tibetans, then they assume we must lack morals. What good are precepts if you feel no shame in breaking them and you're too obdurate to feel remorse? How could someone tell if you were moral? Isn't that important?

Malcolm wrote:
Morality does not lie in keeping precepts — this is the point, actually, of Mahāyāna ethics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one here cannot knock you down, silence you, intimidate you or gang up on you.

dharmagoat said:
Maybe not in reality, but it can feel that way.

Seven years ago when I joined ESangha I was very sensitive to this. I would actually feel sick with fear when checking replies if I felt that I might be criticised by someone more competent than myself. If Namdrol had confronted me then (he never did), I would have ducked and run.

Malcolm wrote:
Namdrol never participated much in the beginners forums. Malcolm doesn't either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Not for some people.

Tenso said:
Buddha strictly forbade it. You should know this.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma is not about following rules blindly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
Dan74 said:
Purpose is the key word that was mentioned above. What is the purpose of most exchanges here?

boda said:
The question asked above was basically: what is the purpose of bullying?

I think Malcolm answered that pretty well above:

Malcolm wrote:
... if you can't take the heat, well, go try and find a Dharma kindergarten somewhere.

boda said:
Talk about elitism, condescension, and harshness... the purpose is to drive away the dissonate voices.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no bullying here. That is in your imagination. No one here cannot knock you down, silence you, intimidate you or gang up on you. All they can do merely share their point of view. You can either agree or disagree. If you can't take disagreement, that says something about you, not the person who is disagreeing with you.

[sarcasm on] Maybe we should have trigger warnings on posts, just so people can avoid posts that might hurt their feelings. [/sarcasm off]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
Tenso said:
Best to take the Buddha's advice and avoid it all costs.

Herbie said:
or take the middle way

Tenso said:
There's no middle way with alcohol unfortunately.

Malcolm wrote:
Not for some people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Basically, it is very simple. There are people here who are knowledgable, and there are people here who are not. If you [not you specifically] wish to improve your own knowledge and understanding, then it is useful to put aside your projections about other people's personalities [whom you do not in fact know] and listen to what they have to say. If you are unable to do this because of your own ego problems, well, then it is likely you will continue to have unsatisfactory interactions with people here and in other web forums.

boda said:
Great advice, but this takes us back to where we started. Be respectful and learn from the 'masters', but if you bring any of your own ideas...

Malcolm wrote:
If someone wishes to prosecute their own ideas about Dharma in a place like this, it is no different than any other Dharma forum in history —— your ideas will be challenged if they are unusual, and if you can't take the heat, well, go try and find a Dharma kindergarten somewhere. At least here you wont be executed for losing a debate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
tomschwarz said:
his holiness the dalai lama often talks about happiness, that all beings have a right to be happy and how to attain happiness.

he often addresses the subject of drinking alcohol.  he says that it may give you some happiness, for example alliviate some aspect of anger.  but then the next morning you still feel bad or worse.

has anyone had contradictory experience?   have you experienced stable and long lasting improvements to your feeling of happiness drinking acoholic beverages?

Malcolm wrote:
He is talking about getting drunk, not having a glass or two of wine with dinner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:


boda said:
So the bullyboys have been to Potala? If that's the case then perhaps Potala is somewhat overrated.

Malcolm wrote:
It really depends if you are interested in going to the Potala, or just having a unrestricted free for all of ideas. If the latter is your aim, it is understandable that you might interpret so called "bullyboys" [and girls] in a negative light.

boda said:
Let me put it this way, if people who live in Potala appears to be wise I would want to go there. If people who live in Potala are asshats then I see no point in going there. There are more than enough asshats where I live.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, it is very simple. There are people here who are knowledgable, and there are people here who are not. If you [not you specifically] wish to improve your own knowledge and understanding, then it is useful to put aside your projections about other people's personalities [whom you do not in fact know] and listen to what they have to say. If you are unable to do this because of your own ego problems, well, then it is likely you will continue to have unsatisfactory interactions with people here and in other web forums.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:


boda said:
So the bullyboys have been to Potala? If that's the case then perhaps Potala is somewhat overrated.

Malcolm wrote:
It really depends if you are interested in going to the Potala, or just having a unrestricted free for all of ideas. If the latter is your aim, it is understandable that you might interpret so called "bullyboys" [and girls] in a negative light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Generally, before making innovations in a given discipline, it is expected that one has learned the discipline. This seems to be true everywhere but in politics and religion.

boda said:
"In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few”
― Shunryu Suzuki

You probably saw that coming. But anyway, politics and religion are the most resistant to innovation. I imagine that has something to do with maintaining the status quo.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, there are those who talk about going to Potala, what it might be like, how big it is, and so on, but they really have no idea what the Potala is like. Then there are those who go there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
At least in a liberal democracy, leaders are explicitly accountable to the people, installed by the people and rule only at the whim of the people, for better or worse.

maybay said:
You are like a doctor looking to administer the best medicine for the present suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am after all, a doctor.

maybay said:
Buddha as physician. Its all well and good. But I want to discuss the issues. Buddha as teacher. You want to reduce the options, I want to explore them. You put things in their place, I kick things around.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha did not discuss issues, he recommended cures. So, I don't think that Buddha was the kind of teacher you seem to modeling yourself on. Plato maybe, but not Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
DGA said:
Generally, when someone comes to the board and says "Hi I'm new, I'm here to learn, here's what's going on..." and engages in conversation in a courteous way and in good faith, then that person has a good experience.

boda said:
But if you bring any of your own ideas...


Malcolm wrote:
Generally, before making innovations in a given discipline, it is expected that one has learned the discipline. This seems to be true everywhere but in politics and religion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
It depends on the context. Hereditary systems are very conservative and everyone involved is honour bound and primed intensively for their role. I'm not against them.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read Āryadeva. He points out completely the fallacy of relying upon hereditary monarchs. Hereditary systems are extremely corruptible.

maybay said:
What do you mean by relying on? Anything constructed is corruptible. It just depends on the context.

Malcolm wrote:
You prove your moral strength by meeting obligations and discharging your responsibilities without being reckless with your increasing freedoms and benefits. It takes moral strength to avoid the temptations of power.
Then by this standard, virtually all kings fail.

maybay said:
What do you mean by fail? Kings are crazy. They live on a knife edge, and all the layers of people around them create a body of vested interests that relies on, among other things, the honour of the king and his court. If he is not able to preside with dignity over his kingdom, there will be rivals. There are rivals anyway, at home and abroad.

Malcolm wrote:
You have it exactly backwards my friend, kings are completely dependent upon the subjects for their power. If they are successful they manage to spin the illusion that power resides in them, but the reality is otherwise. This is why Āryadeva states that there are no fools greater than kings.

At least in a liberal democracy, leaders are explicitly accountable to the people, installed by the people and rule only at the whim of the people, for better or worse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Paul said:
And whose morals?

maybay said:
I guess it depends on the system. The incumbent authority, the electorate.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, with  this guy it is all top down, it does not matter who is in power, just that they are in power.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
People shouldn't rise to positions of authority without proving their moral strength.

Malcolm wrote:
So I take it you are against hereditary systems then, kingships and the like?

And just how do you "prove" your "moral strength?"

maybay said:
It depends on the context. Hereditary systems are very conservative and everyone involved is honour bound and primed intensively for their role. I'm not against them.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read Āryadeva. He points out completely the fallacy of relying upon hereditary monarchs. Hereditary systems are extremely corruptible.

maybay said:
You prove your moral strength by meeting obligations and discharging your responsibilities without being reckless with your increasing freedoms and benefits. It takes moral strength to avoid the temptations of power.

Malcolm wrote:
Then by this standard, virtually all kings fail.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I just deal with the words on the page in front of me. I don't make judgments about the person writing them — by and large I don't know any of you.

dzogchungpa said:
Oh please.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I am happy to make judgements about you if you like, but it isn't necessary for me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
People shouldn't rise to positions of authority without proving their moral strength.

Malcolm wrote:
So I take it you are against hereditary systems then, kingships and the like?

And just how do you "prove" your "moral strength?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He meant that the Dharma should have made Tibet a better place and Tibetans better people — but it didn't.

dharmagoat said:
In your estimation has the Dharma done better in China and Japan?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am merely addressing the idea that Mahāyāna was best preserved in Tibet — other people just may not see it that way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He meant that the Dharma should have made Tibet a better place and Tibetans better people — but it didn't.

dharmagoat said:
Yet it would appear that Mahāyāna has been preserved in Tibet better than anywhere else.

Malcolm wrote:
I think Chinese Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists would not endorse this assessment at all.

Anyway, by whom was Mahāyāna preserved in Tibet? By an elite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Disappointed with this site
Content:
DGA said:
Generally, when someone comes to the board and says "Hi I'm new, I'm here to learn, here's what's going on..." and engages in conversation in a courteous way and in good faith, then that person has a good experience.  At least, that person is unlikely to have his or her issues reflected back.

There have been instances of bullying and piling on at DW, and I don't want to dismiss those or minimize them.  I do want to point out that not everyone reacts well when their pretensions are pointed out to them.  Dunning-Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

dharmagoat said:
It seems we decide whether certain posters are inherently pretentious, deluded, naive or innocent and treat them accordingly, with more kindness shown to the latter.

I agree that pretensions ought to be pointed out, but it is too easy to do this unkindly. In our culture the sentiment behind the expression "teach someone a lesson" is essentially unkind.


Malcolm wrote:
I just deal with the words on the page in front of me. I don't make judgments about the person writing them — by and large I don't know any of you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dezhung Tulku opined that the Dharma failed in Tibet.

tomamundsen said:
Well, obviously it wasn't a complete failure. So, what exactly does he mean by the Dharma "failing"?

maybay said:
He means its our turn.

Malcolm wrote:
He meant that the Dharma should have made Tibet a better place and Tibetans better people — but it didn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
maybay said:
Its not about needs, or even the individual who takes the vow.


Malcolm wrote:
The point I am responding to is the chauvinistic narrative that permeates a lot of conversations among Western Buddhists [like you] about how Westerners are somehow ethically and morally stunted. It simply isn't true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Wayfarer said:
You do sometimes see 'dharma' translated as 'law' and is also sometimes equated with 'duty'. Karma likewise has sometimes been referred to as a law. Are these mis-translations?

Malcolm wrote:
There are ten definitions of the term "dharma."

The basic term, dhṛ, means "to bear."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 13th, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Harimoo said:
It is interesting to read books about pre-invasion Tibet, like wayfarers describing their journey.
A part of Alexandra David-Neil's book where she depicted the life of the "slaves" in Tibet was censured in the second edition. I'm reading a book written by a kashmiri merchant who was astonished by the prescribed tortures for the robbers (lost head nails in the fingers).
The difference between then and now (in the East and the West), it's "religious" practise, which became "religiosity".

Malcolm wrote:
It is important to understand that in old Tibet there were no real laws per se that governed the behavior of people outside of Lhasa. There were very few courts, and aristocrats had a very free hand to dispense punishments pretty much as they saw fit. Those punishments were often cruel by modern standards, but certainly not by seventeenth and eighteenth century standards. Tibet was largely governed by custom and local councils.

Banditry was a family business in much of Eastern Tibet, right up through the 1950's. Paltrul Rinpoche's brother in fact was one of the most famous bandits in Tibetan history.

Tibet was not a Shangri-lha, but it was also not the medieval hell some leftist writers have tried to make out. It was like anywhere else humans have lived. People like to think that because the Tibetans preserved the Dharma it is a "nicer" place — but I think they would be in for a rude surprise. We mainly know Tibet from the point of view of an educated elite. We have very little knowledge of the subaltern Tibet, the Tibet of illiterate farmers, wives, merchants, hunters, soldiers, prostitutes, criminals and bandits. The fact that our main window into old Tibet is through the window of the elite skews our view quite a bit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
are the Sravakayana and Mahayana vehicles are actually headed to the same destination?

Astus said:
Yes. I think it is best illustrated by the five aggregates. They are already impermanent, dependently originated and without self. The difference between delusion and enlightenment regarding that is what results in either attachment and dissatisfaction or freedom and peace. So there are the "five aggregates with attachment" for the deluded, and the "five aggregates" (as they are) for the enlightened. This is true in every Buddhist system I'm aware of.
Nirvana according to...
This is where things can become difficult, as texts and people can use all sorts of poetic language to talk about nirvana for various reasons. To keep it simple, it's just as in the four noble truths: the end of the cause of suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
Liberation is the exhaustion of error.
—— Maitreyanatha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely the annihilationist nirvana of which Mahāyana is so critical.

Lazy_eye said:
But Sujato and Thanissaro would say they are accurately presenting what is found in the nikayas. So what are the options? I can think of three:

-- Go with Mahayana sources
-- Try to show their view is wrong/debatable even from a "nikayan" or "sravakayana" perspective
-- Attempt to use historicity to settle the argument

Malcolm wrote:
We can assume they are not stream entrants, not speaking from personal experience. So why would we actually credit what they say? I think Peter Harvey would disagree with them. See his Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvāṇa in Early Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Nibbana according to Thanissaro and Sujato:

Thanissaro said:
Nibbana itself is not the same thing as the awakened mind. The fact that you have a mind that’s still functioning in the world after awakening that is part of the fuel remaining when you have nibbana with fuel remaining and nibbana with no fuel remaining. When you hit the point with nibbana with no fuel remaining there is no activity at all.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=20626&p=357794&hilit=nibbana+thanissaro#p357776

Sujato said:
...the Buddha’s real teaching is not to temporarily escape materiality, but to reach an ending of suffering. And since all forms of viññāṇa (yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ…) are said countless times to be suffering, even the infinite consciousness has to go.
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/

Lazy_eye said:
Not to mention the http://www.audiodharma.org/series/5/talk/1847/...

Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely the annihilationist nirvana of which Mahāyana is so critical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Dezhung Tulku opined that the Dharma failed in Tibet.
And one Sakya tulku's opinion is supposed to be gospel?

Malcolm wrote:
I tend to trust the opinions of those who have personal experience over the opinions of people of those who don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It was more streamlined, i.e., men pretty much raped whoever they wanted. Rape has been a huge cultural problem in Tibet for millenia. This is nothing new. Nuns in particular were targets for rape. Deal with it.

.

Adamantine said:
It's a huge cultural problem here, now.

Malcolm wrote:
Have you seen the rape stats for Tibetan women? It is not better.

Adamantine said:
It is clear that the five poisons have been present throughout the history of humankind, sure, this is samsara. However it appears that at times when the dharma has taken deep root in a culture it has had a pacifying effect to a degree.

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, what fantasy planet are you living on?

Adamantine said:
I certainly don't think of old Tibet as a shangri-la, that's your own projection but not at all my view. However for a few centuries it was likely a much more supportive environment to study and practice the dharma in.

Malcolm wrote:
Dezhung Tulku opined that the Dharma failed in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha...you think casual adultery was not rampant among pre-modern Tibetans? .

Adamantine said:
I don't think it was this streamlined: https://www.ashleymadison.com

Malcolm wrote:
It was more streamlined, i.e., men pretty much raped whoever they wanted. Rape has been a huge cultural problem in Tibet for millenia. This is nothing new. Nuns in particular were targets for rape. Deal with it.

Tibetan aristocrats did whatever they wanted to poor people with no remedy. This is a fact. I have had long conversations about this with Tibetan Lamas raised in Tibet. Tibet was just a human land and the things aristocrats would do to poor people were nothing short of unbelievably barbaric as well as widespread and systematic.

You do understand that Tibetans hunted a lot? Right? Where do you think they got all those furs they loved to wear?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 11:07 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha...you think casual adultery was not rampant among pre-modern Tibetans? How about lying, gossip, harsh speech and calumny? You think our modern cultural conditioning makes these nonvirtues worse? This is utterly foolish thinking.

Have you ever seen how Tibetans treat their dogs? I have and it is nothing praiseworthy.

Adamantine said:
I'd agree those things were probably happening fairly often but I think the value of lives of even small creatures was more ingrained in their conditioning than in ours.

Malcolm wrote:
My friend, you are living in a fantasy.



Adamantine said:
And the potentials for idle chatter, gossip, harsh speech etc. are infinitely multiplied now with the glorious tech assistance of smart phones and social media sites. There are entire new trends of cyber-bullying, flame wars, twitter wars etc. Nowadays, at least in urban centers people are scarcely finding a few minutes without some kind of chattering. I don't think this was the case in old Tibet, or old India, or old anywhere. But it's our cultural context that developed these smart devices, programs and apps.

Malcolm wrote:
You really need to study Tibetan history. You are succumbing to a sort of nostalgic "it was so much better in the good old days."

Humans beings have never lacked for opportunity to be mean spirited and nonvirtuous. The idea that we Humans are worse now than we were before is really just a total fantasy. The truth is that we are the same, we have not gotten worse, and we have not gotten better. It is absolutely absurd to suppose that Tibet was this Shangri-la where everyone was more virtuous. It really isn't true. If it is were true, then how can we explain all the hyper-critical remarks we find great Dharma practitioners making about Tibetans from the earliest period of the presence of Dharma in Tibet —— was it all sour grapes?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 10:59 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


maybay said:
About your argument, rights culture is really about the resurgence of the political classes over the religious, jurists over priests, the laws of men over the law of God.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no laws of God. Never have been.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Apparently Buddha thought we were all pretty pathetic.
Nevermind.  I know Buddha didn't invent Vinaya as a Buddhist Moral Code.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps you have to remind Khampa lay people not to kill each other; but in America, most people who come to Dharma are already inclined not to kill each other.

Adamantine said:
Hmmmnn.. most Westerners, including a fair share of those who might identify with Buddhism, don't even think twice when they smash an annoying bug or lay poison out for pests. . .  the vow of not killing and intentionally preserving lives is not only intended for human lives, as you know.

No need to mention idle chatter, gossip and lying. . .

sexual orifice extravaganzas, casual adultery. .  I don't think our modern cultural conditioning is remotely in line with the 10 basic ethical conducts so it is somewhat against our habitual tendencies to follow them, and many people will try to change Buddhism, or outright reject it before they change their habits, sadly.. and this has already happened plenty enough times.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha...you think casual adultery was not rampant among pre-modern Tibetans? How about lying, gossip, harsh speech and calumny? How about rape and stealing?

You think our modern cultural conditioning makes these nonvirtues worse? This is utterly foolish thinking.

Have you ever seen how Tibetans treat their dogs? I have and it is nothing praiseworthy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
Paul said:
Can I come along? I can bring chocolate biscuits and a Krishna Das CD...

dzogchungpa said:
You're in.


Malcolm wrote:
How about Suns of Arqa and little Bonobo?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Apparently Buddha thought we were all pretty pathetic.
Nevermind.  I know Buddha didn't invent Vinaya as a Buddhist Moral Code.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps you have to remind Khampa lay people not to kill each other; but in America, most people who come to Dharma are already inclined not to kill each other.

conebeckham said:
The main point regarding ethics this Lama stressed was, as Dzoki refers to, "discipline." The discipline to keep vows, yes, but also a more general sort of discipline--not to be confused with the inability to relax.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzoki's post was typical of western Buddhists beating up their brothers and sisters. It is sad really. Convert syndrome. Most so-called "Buddhists" are not "serious," whether they are Tibetan, American, European, Japanese, Chinese, etc. It's total bullshit to single out Westerners for some special criticism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:


conebeckham said:
Great post, Dzoki, by the way....and if it matters, I will say that I had a very intimate conversation with a Lama who echoed the feeling regarding ethics lacking in Western Vajrayana culture, and feeling that the only complete and successful transplantation of Vajrayana to the West will occur when Ethical traning becomes the foundation.  Not necessarily "Monasticism," mind you.....

Malcolm wrote:
Listen, this is too heavy handed. The only ethics we need are to understand is that we should avoid ten things and do their opposite. All this sturm and drung around "the lack of ethics" among western Buddhists is a bunch of culturally biased nonsense. Tibetans and other Asians should examine themselves first, especially teachers, especially, lamas, especially Asian monks.

Honestly, whoever needs a vow to avoid these ten things is really pathetic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Trouble at Tricycle Magazine
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
However, you can see in the instructions he gave to kings that he consistently advised against the kind of policies we today characterize as neo-liberal (expansionism, conquest, imperial ambitions) and advised liberal policies frequently. Moreover, we can see that Nāgārjuna gave similar advice (provide health care, maintain and upgrade infrastructure, eliminate capital punishment, etc.).

Queequeg said:
Indeed. However, Liberalism in the US anyway, has become closely aligned, if not synonymous with the heavy, ham handed force of bureaucratic government. Hence, I can't imagine Buddha agreeing with its MO, except as an expedient.

That said, I'm feeling the Bern.

Malcolm wrote:
When businesses are allowed to become huge, a large government is necessary to control them. This is the lesson of the late 19th century monopolies, and the beginning of the monolithic federal period in US history, which was actually initiated by Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Queequeg said:
One of the problems in the West with the rise of Secularism is that the entire Rights framework is ungrounded when religion, and specifically, God, is removed from the equation. The idea of Rights comes from a variety of sources including in no small part, Natural Law which has been understood as God's Law.

Malcolm wrote:
You should read Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic. It may cause you to revise your opinion.
...the most popular narrative concerning the very idea of America— one that unites Christian nationalists with a large number of sober historians— has it that the American Republic owes its independence and its individual freedoms to its Protestant Christian legacy. 86 This narrative often comes with a distinguished lineage that traces the ideas of individual rights and freedom of conscience to seminal Protestant thinkers such as John Milton (1608– 1674), and it characteristically represents Jefferson, Madison, and precursors like Locke as latitudinarian Protestants or (to use a label that at the time would have sounded like a gross oxymoron) “Christian Deists.” 87 But this gets the history of ideas almost exactly wrong. It is to confuse mere precedence in time with causality. It is to suppose, falsely, that the ideas that best explain the actions of a collective are those that a majority of people within it pretend to carry around in their heads. Reformed religion brought carnage to Britain and Germany in the seventeenth century and madness to America in the eighteenth because it was a symptom of modernity, not a cause— a pathology, not a theory.
Stewart, Matthew (2014-07-01). Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic (pp. 72-73). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

And:
For the further clarification of the meaning of this “Religion of Nature’s God,” he referred his readers to “[ Alexander] Pope’s little Essay on Man, confessedly deduced from the inspiration of Lord Bolingbroke, and perhaps every sentence adopted by me.” In some alternate universe— such as perhaps the one constructed from the nationalist myths that have long gripped American historiography— Young’s peculiar “Religion of Nature’s God” might have amounted to little more than a historical oddity. It was just the cloudy reflection of a disturbing individual who was always fishing in troubled waters. To judge from the hate that filled the newspapers of the time, it was a quite unpopular form of belief, deeply at odds with all the accepted varieties of the Christian religion. Yet the curious fact is that Young, like Allen, manifestly saw his unusual religion as an intimate component of the revolutionary political struggle in which he was engaged. The rights he claimed on behalf of his countrymen against the British Parliament and even against the Crown itself were not the rights guaranteed to Englishmen by their constitution, nor the rights due to Christians, but the rights deriving from the laws of nature and of “Nature’s God.” And Young and Allen were far from alone in their revolutionary theology. Indeed, “Nature’s God” was the presiding deity of the American Revolution. Franklin invoked it in his newspaper articles as early as 1747.
Stewart, Matthew (2014-07-01). Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic (p. 138). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.


And:
In most versions of America’s revolutionary history, the term “deism,” if it appears at all, is taken to refer to a superficial theological doctrine about a “watchmaker God” who fashions a world of mechanical wonders and then walks away to the sound of ticking noises. Deism, according to this line of interpretation, was just a watery expression of the Christian religion, adulterated somewhat with the platitudes of the Enlightenment. It was the opposite of atheism, as the dictionary tells us, and it should count as thumpingly religious by modern standards. It arose in Britain around the turn of the eighteenth century and arrived in America in a moderate and conciliatory mood, quite different from the atheistic Enlightenment that took hold in France and elsewhere. The informed consensus today further supposes that deism was a detachable doctrine, present to some degree among the educated elites in revolutionary America, but only incidentally connected with the political ideology of its revolutionaries. All of this, I now think, is not quite right. “Deism” in its own day referred not to a superficial theological doctrine but to a comprehensive intellectual tradition that ranged freely across the terrain we now associate with ethics, political theory, metaphysics, the philosophy of mind, and epistemology. It was an astonishingly coherent and systematic body of thought, closer to a way of being than any particular dogma, and it retained its essential elements over a span of centuries, not decades. In origin and substance, deism was neither British nor Christian, as the conventional view supposes, but largely ancient, pagan, and continental, and it spread in America far beyond the educated elite. Although America’s revolutionary deists lavished many sincere expressions of adoration upon their deity, deism is in fact functionally indistinguishable from what we would now call “pantheism”; and pantheism is really just a pretty word for atheism. While deism could often be associated with moderation in politics, it served principally to advance a system of thought that was revolutionary in its essence and effects. This essentially atheistic and revolutionary aspect of deism, I further contend, is central to any credible explanation of the revolutionary dimension of the American Revolution.
Stewart, Matthew (2014-07-01). Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic (pp. 5-6). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
dzoki said:
So in the end the situation is such that there are people who have entered vajrayana and then left, there are people who have stayed on but have even become worse than they were before they received their first empowerment, there are people who stagnate and there are a very very few fortunate ones who have gotten it right from the beginning and who seriously practice the path.

Malcolm wrote:
You forgot the fifth kind of Westerner — the people who enter Buddhist teachings and instead of becoming more flexible, smooth and kind, use the Dharma to become more and more rigid, rough and intolerant of others, more insufferable and self-aggrandizing because they believe they are "doing it right" [complete with hair, clothes, and ritual gear] — building nice cages for themselves and very uncomfortable prisons for others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Can Westerners REALLY be Dharma practitioners?
Content:
amanitamusc said:
He definitely had extreme opinions of western practitioners and Bhudha Dharma in general.

His underware was a bit tight?

He should have gotten out a bit more?

Karma Dorje said:
At least he could spell "Buddha". And "underwear".

Malcolm wrote:
He had editors — but really a spelling flame? That is so 1990's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Dealing with Christian Fundamentalists, Part 2
Content:
DGA said:
[ This includes fundamentalist Christians, of course, but also Jews, Muslims, vegetarians, Subaru enthusiasts, Trekkies--anything, really.

Malcolm wrote:
And Republicans...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: the idea of historicity and spiritual practice
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Again, I'm just wondering what is the intersection between these ideas of historicity, and how they actually inform one's view as a Dharma practitioner.

Malcolm wrote:
It is useful to use these concepts:

Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Legend: a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated

Fable: a short story, typically with animals as characters, conveying a moral.

Chronicle: a factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence.

History: the study of past events, particularly in human affairs:

For example, sūtras mostly fit the bill as legend. However, there are a number of texts in Hināyāna and Mahāyana that can only be described as myths. The tantras, for the most part are myths, but some, especially lower tantras, more in line with legends. Dzogchen tantras are entirely within the realm of myth.

The Jatakas are clearly fables in the modern sense of the term.

The premodern "histories" we encounter are more properly considered chronicles.

Prior to the 20th century, really, there was no Buddhist history. Buddhist history is an entirely modern thing. True, these other terms I am using are also modern categories, but I think they are useful ways of approaching the different kinds of texts in the Buddhist tradition. For example, as practitioners, we are mostly inspired by the myths, legends and chronicles which form context for our practice. We are not so much concerned [to greater and lesser extents] with history in the modern sense of the term.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
maybay said:
The question is whether ignorant sentient beings are better off when Dharma fails to be institutionalized.

dharmagoat said:
Well put.

Despite my dislike of institutions in general, I think all living beings are better off for having Buddhism so accessible.

YesheDronmar said:
I agree as well; without libraries and gompas and *places* to hold the precious teachings, I never would have met the dharma nor have had access to so much grace and blessings. There is a balance in all of this. And, some of us actually prefer to join into organizations instead of practicing alone. Some of us learn more quickly in groups. There are many different methods for the many types of sentient beings. Creating and maintaining institutions is one method, though not the only one.

Malcolm wrote:
Libraries are great. The problem is that in general access to them was and is restricted. Monasteries are great, but they are mostly engaged in worldly activity, not Dharma activity. There is no problem with a group of practitioners meeting, but it is good to be clear on the distinction between practice and socializing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Trouble at Tricycle Magazine
Content:
Queequeg said:
As for the Neoliberal MO being at odds with Buddhism, so is the Liberal MO. I don't think Buddha would have been a Democrat. Not a Republican, either.

Buddha would have given this whole thing the face-palm mudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he would have been neither.

However, you can see in the instructions he gave to kings that he consistently advised against the kind of policies we today characterize as neo-liberal (expansionism, conquest, imperial ambitions) and advised liberal policies frequently. Moreover, we can see that Nāgārjuna gave similar advice (provide health care, maintain and upgrade infrastructure, eliminate capital punishment, etc.).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
DGA said:
A free association is the forming of a group, political alliance, or other organization without any constraint or external restriction. There isn't a bureaucracy in the DC. Each gar has a rotating board, a person responsible for maintaining the grounds and buildings, and a secretary for handling official business. The DC has a center, but no hierarchy. ChNN is basically the first member of the DC.
That's well and good--but what you are describing are the protocols of a specific kind of bureaucracy that are active within a particular kind of social institution.

Malcolm wrote:
bureaucracy |byo͝oˈräkrəsē|
noun (pl. bureaucracies)
a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.
• a state or organization governed or managed as a bureaucracy.
• the officials in a bureaucracy, considered as a group or hierarchy.
• excessively complicated administrative procedure, seen as characteristic of bureaucracy: the unnecessary bureaucracy in local government.
This definition does not apply to the DC. The DC is an association, it is not a bureaucracy.

DGA said:
This isn't a criticism of the DC by any means.  It's just an observation on the role of institutions as means for people to relate to each other.  Institutions are simply the forms in which human relationships are structured and mediated.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps we need to recognize there is a spectrum between formal and informal institutions. My focus is primarily on the former.


DGA said:
Parenthetically:  Weber's description of how a free association oriented around a charismatic leader inevitably coalesces into an institution with steadily increasing bureaucratic tendencies (unless it disintegrates) is among is most durable ideas.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is when I leave the DC.


DGA said:
This is a little off the issue — my point in general was that Dharma exists in people, not institutions. Institutions are not persons. Dharma only exists person. The extent to which Dharma exists in its members, only to that extent can we say that Dharma lives in this or that institution.
I don't dispute your point that Dharma exists in people.  I am merely pointing out that institutions are means by which people relate to each other.

Malcolm wrote:
The point I am making is that people put too much importance on the container, and not enough importance on the contents. A gold vase can contain shit. A clay vase can contain gold. Which vase will you pick?

DGA said:
Transmission of Dharma is about relationships, and relationships take specific forms.  These forms may or may not be helpful at a given time, which is why your point about the mutability of these institutions is an important one.

Malcolm wrote:
The transmission of Dharma is a family thing. You have a teacher, and fellow students. The minute it becomes more than this, the minute the organization becomes the main point, at that moment, Dharma ceases being transmitted.

DGA said:
I just don't buy the anarcho-libertarian argument that institutions are inherently problematic, and the solution is simply to free individuals to do free individual stuff.  Institutions just are.  Their value or pathology depends on how they are used.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

For Dharma, formal institutions have inherent problems because they are so easily corrupted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 11th, 2015 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Trouble at Tricycle Magazine
Content:
DGA said:
And they may be fighting over nothing in the end.  I know that libraries buy Tricycle; does anyone else? Is their online presence profitable?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think many people take Tricycle very seriously. Especially not after Tworkov went after Trungpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Trouble at Tricycle Magazine
Content:


DGA said:
I don't know anything about Mr Shaheen.  Was he on the Tricycle board when this went down?

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Authors/Samuel%20Bercholz/Open%20Letter%20to%20Tricycle/Open%20Letter%20to%20Tricycle.htm

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
DGA said:
for the record, even a free association is an example of a social institution.

it's merely a social institution with a specific kind of bureaucracy.  (anyone want to argue that a free association generally or the DC specifically lack bureaucracy?)


Malcolm wrote:
A free association is the forming of a group, political alliance, or other organization without any constraint or external restriction. There isn't a bureaucracy in the DC. Each gar has a rotating board, a person responsible for maintaining the grounds and buildings, and a secretary for handling official business. The DC has a center, but no hierarchy. ChNN is basically the first member of the DC.

This is a little off the issue — my point in general was that Dharma exists in people, not institutions. Institutions are not persons. Dharma only exists person. The extent to which Dharma exists in its members, only to that extent can we say that Dharma lives in this or that institution.

The Buddha did not leave behind any institutions. He established no authority to take up his mantle upon his passing. He did create a discipline, but all the Buddhist institutions we have today arose after the Buddha and none were established by him. We should keep this in mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:


Kunzang said:
Don't be silly.  Of course it is.  Even has a tulku ready to take the helm when the master passes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the DC  is a free association, with no hierarchy.

Karma_Yeshe said:
Of course it has a hierachy. It has a president (currently Chögyal Namkhai Norbu), who has many special rights.

See page nr. 8 of the Statute of the International Dzogchen Community: http://dzogchencommunity.org/assets/International-Dzogchen-Community-Statute_new-version_15102013_edarev-Registrato-notaio.pdf

Malcolm wrote:
This is just for show, in order to correspond with European laws of association.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Those of us living in the West, i.e. the US, Australia, Canada Latin America, etc., should be aware that we are only here because of centuries of systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide of First Nations. We need to deal with this as a civilization and stop sweeping it under the rug. Until we openly confront the colonialist underpinnings of "Western Civilization" we will continue descend into barbarisms like the Iraq war and so on.

All talk of "the sacred" should be conducted with this in mind.

boda said:
Religion can help to mobilize a nation to take resources from "heathens" (nothing about them being sacred).

Malcolm wrote:
Precisely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Reality is sacred. The translation of the Tibetan term for emptiness (lack of inherent existence) 'dön dam denpa'  literally means 'holy object truth'. 'dam' is the word that equates to holy or sacred.

The Three Jewels are holy. Anything that permanently liberates ourselves from suffering is holy and it is a vital and important term that also signifies the importance of Buddhist faith.

Malcolm wrote:
No, don dam bden pa is a translation of paramārtha-satya. It means, literally, "truth of the ultimate goal."

Dam pa itself simple means superior or sublime, it's synonym is 'phags pa, and also yang dag pa, i.e. true, and mchog tu 'gyur ba, i.e. supreme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
maybay said:
A concept of an afterlife and a concept of liberation are not necessary for the construction of a coherent, robust and comprehensive system of morals and ethics.
If you are attached to this life, you are not a person of Dharma. Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen:
First, for non-attachment to this life, you must put aside the non-Dharma person's manner of practicing moral conduct, hearing, contemplation, and meditation which are performed for the sake of this life.

Malcolm wrote:
Great advice for someone who want to follow Dharma but it is irrelevant to the statement to which you are objecting.

maybay said:
Today they simply act out norms without examination.

Malcolm wrote:
This a baseless judgement, an expression of opinion, not a fact.

maybay said:
One of the developments of political culture has been the separation of people from their office. The role is one thing, the person another.

Malcolm wrote:
People have always been separate from their office — there is never, ever been a divine king. Not one.

maybay said:
So before a king would exercise moral judgement as himself, now a president must act as a president acts, for the duration of his presidency.

Malcolm wrote:
Kings and presidents are no different. Each has a term, each has an office, neither is a power unto himself.

maybay said:
Of course people will always have moral agency, but the roles people must take in the institutions of secular society don't facilitate that agency or its development.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, yes, as if Europe under Rome was a highpoint of moral fiber, etc. Religious domination of a culture does not ensure the facilitation of the moral agency of either its rulers nor its subjects. History demonstrates this again and again. In fact, arguably, Religions again and again corrupt people's moral agency by imbuing some people with imputed value based on a social hierarchy that is merely a product of economic arrangements.

maybay said:
In a corporatized, risk averse society, the whole question of morality is a liability. The liberal society's problem of competing religions is the problem of competing morals, which is why secular society is amoral.

Malcolm wrote:
In a religious society, moral agency is a liability since people who exercise their moral agency generally find themselves challenging religious authorities merely by their actions. Religious societies indeed generally strip people of their moral agency by insisting they behave according to catechism rather than conscience.

The so-called liberal society is the only means of finding a common ground in a pluralistic world and ensuring everyone is treated with fairness.

Asian cultures have more fear from corporatization, as their social history has programmed Asians into sublimating their egos into the group.

One of the great legacies of the First Nations in North America to European settlers who eventually exterminated them by and large, is our American sense of individualism and personal freedom— because that certainly did not come from the European experience.

Modern corporatization is just an extension of European Colonialism. There will always be dissenters from it here in the US. But not in Asia, it fits in with the Asian mentality too well.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
The Tibetan lamas I know do not have an issue with the word "sacred". In no small part that is because for them Christianity is a non-issue.

For us Christianity is a major issue, and anything that reminds us of it--even peripherally--is completely unacceptable. That prejudice is just as toxic to the transition of the Dharma to the West as inappropriate importation of western ideas imho.

Malcolm wrote:
The Chinese understood quite well the need to exclude Taoist terminology from Buddhist texts. We should follow suit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
smcj said:
With or without an equivalent word in their language, the idea that Tibetans do not consider Dharma to be "sacred" is preposterous from what I've seen and heard.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not preposterous when you understand that the word "sacred" does not really map well to Tibetan or even Buddhist ideas about things.

We constantly impute/inflict our own linguistic assumptions on cultures outside our own. As much as I am pretty conversant in Tibetan language and sciences such as medicine, astrological calculation and so on, culturally speaking I am an outsider looking into Tibetan culture [as distinct from Dharma] through the window of their language and texts. As an outsider, it is important that I am aware of my own penchant to impute/inflict concepts and so on onto Tibetans they just don't share with Anglo-American culture.

This is one of the reasons I am so opposed to using language in translations that is saturated with native meaning for English speakers that does not reflect implications of a given term in the source language — in this case Tibetan. I gave an example, i.e. translating the Tibetan term gzhi, basis, as "ground of being", a theological term largely coined by the Catholic Theologian, Paul Tillich that has no meaning nor corollary in Buddhist discourse.

All the terms we might wish to gloss as "sacred" generally mean high, supreme, sublime, glorious, and so on, much more than they match our concept of "sacred" or "holy".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The passage where the Buddha declares that he has 'seen the house-builder' and will be 're-born no more' has no secular equivalent, as there is no way in secular thinking to accomodate that.

boda said:
I was wondering, how does anyone accommodate that? How do you accommodate it?

Wayfarer said:
When I say 'accomodate', what I mean is that a secular-scientific worldview doesn't have any categories in terms of which such a statement can be understood or explained. From the scientific-secular point of view, it is off the map, it is radically diferent to anything that can be accounted for in terms of the physical sciences or evolutionary biology.

In liberalism, there is an inbuilt 'respect for freedom of conscience' - that is basic to liberalism, and it's a good thing. However one of the consequences is that such ideas are accomodated as 'individual or social beliefs'. So Nirvāṇa is no longer a or the fundamental reality of existence - it's 'a belief'. People or groups are allowed to have such beliefs, but they're essentially either private, or socially-mediated, because they can't be accounted for in scientific terms. Hence that tends towards relativism, the idea that ultimately it is just a matter of belief, or to all intents, an opinion, and doesn't concern anything real.

Now maybe where that is changing is in the various attempts at cross-cultural dialogue, and there's some good things happening there. So it's not all doom and gloom. But for us living in the west, we need to be very aware of the background, lurking normativity of the 'scientific secular' worldview, as the 'arbiter of what is real'.

Malcolm wrote:
Those of us living in the West, i.e. the US, Australia, Canada Latin America, etc., should be aware that we are only here because of centuries of systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide of First Nations. We need to deal with this as a civilization and stop sweeping it under the rug. Until we openly confront the colonialist underpinnings of "Western Civilization" we will continue descend into barbarisms like the Iraq war and so on.

All talk of "the sacred" should be conducted with this in mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
maybay said:
Many people live, in the words of philosophers, an unexamined life.

Malcolm wrote:
Following a religion is no guarantee of living an examined life, indeed, it can utterly prevent it by providing a rote catechism.

maybay said:
Many people live, in the words of the Buddha, as if dead.

Malcolm wrote:
Religious belief does not mean you are exempt from Buddha's critique.

maybay said:
So lacking in mindfulness, so full of conceit, they consider themselves sovereign individuals first, and later, by choice, part of a tribe.

Malcolm wrote:
This is your imputation of a "moral" principle. Having the feeling that you belong to a tribe is just an extension of one's egotism. It does not make your egotism better.

maybay said:
A Hobbesian fallacy. You should know community is natural to humans. But a religious person sees not his tribe first, but a higher group which he chooses to recognize, e.g. "kingdom of God" or "all sentient beings".

Malcolm wrote:
Oh what rubbish. Many religious people do not recognize people of other religion as human. Honestly, you are deluding yourself with eloquent fantasies. The notion that religious people necessarily see the kingdom of god or all sentient beings above and beyond their affiliation is deluded.

maybay said:
Those people you know, they think they aren't religious, but they still embody so many sentiments and cultural artefacts of centuries of religious thought.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not religious people at all. They have none of the beliefs you claim are a necesssary precondition for moral action.

maybay said:
There are parts of the world where people don't put the welfare and benefit of strangers above their own. They think it's the wrong thing to do.

Malcolm wrote:
And many of those people are religious, indeed, most of them are.


maybay said:
You say people matter not institutions. But today more than ever we find ourselves in roles without moral agency, mediated by secular institutions. In removing human error, technology, algorithms, are replacing the very possibility of being a fallible human.

Malcolm wrote:
No one is ever without moral agency. And technology will never remove the fallibility of being human, indeed much technological development is precisely a result of human folly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
maybay said:
Yes, I accuse those religions of lacking coherent, robust moral systems.

Malcolm wrote:
Staggeringly wrong-headed.

maybay said:
Any system of thought that ignores realities outside this life reduces the possibilities for action in this life to nothing more than rational self interest. That is not what I consider morality.

Malcolm wrote:
This is false reasoning. Many people with no religious belief in an afterlife or liberation nevertheless put the welfare and benefit of others above their own continually simply because they feel it is the right thing to do and they have the ability to be a benefit to others. I know many such people.

maybay said:
The notion that religious thinking a priori results in moral and ethical action is ludicrous.
It results in moral possibility. That's all I'm saying.

Malcolm wrote:
What you are saying is obviously wrong. Religion is not at all necessary for moral and ethical action. It is not at all necessary for "moral possibility."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
maybay said:
All religions illustrate two essential possibilities for the future, typically either heaven vs hell, or entrapment vs liberation, or a combination. The moral decisions one makes plays a causative role in determining that future. But secular culture either makes no claims to the future, or settles for oblivion. Therefore, for the non-religious, moral actions in this life can play no part in determining that future. The future you experience (or don't) is unrelated to the moral decisions you make. Morality becomes indeterminate. Amorality.

Malcolm wrote:
One, not all religions make this claim; for example, Judaism has no concept of an afterlife or liberation. Neither do Confucism or Taoism. Would you accuse these faiths of lacking a coherent, robust ethical systems? I think not. In fact, the Purva Mimasa too do not believe in rebirth or liberation.

Therefore, your premise is stillborn.

A concept of an afterlife and a concept of liberation are not necessary for the construction of a coherent, robust and comprehensive system of morals and ethics.

For the nonreligious, the pursuit of an ethical life becomes an end in itself. Quite frankly, given the colonization and globalization that has destroyed the environment of the world and has lead to impoverishment of billions for the benefit of a few million, the ethics of the religious have not proven to a boon to humanity. There is very little correlation between a person's supposed religiosity and their ethical behavior. In fact, religion is used time and again for perpetrating highly immoral and unethical actions. The notion that religious thinking a priori results in moral and ethical action is ludicrous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:


Kunzang said:
Don't be silly.  Of course it is.  Even has a tulku ready to take the helm when the master passes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the DC  is a free association, with no hierarchy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
DGA said:
How is the Dharma transmitted in the absence of social institutions committed to the systematic practice and transmission of Dharma?

Malcolm wrote:
The amazing thing is that Dharma continues to be transmitted despite institutions. There is no Dharma in institutions, there is only Dharma in people, and frankly — most people in Buddhist institutions are not very interested in Dharma.

Kunzang said:
Dzogchen Community is an institution. Do you feel this way about your vajra sibs too?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really isn't, not in the way most people think about Dharma institutions [no monks, no monasteries, etc.]. There are some buildings, it is true. Who knows what will happen to those.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:


Punya said:
So what does "lha" as in "lha chos" mean Malcolm? And is this a collective term in Tibetan that would refer to the "specialness" (for want of a better word) of stupas of stupas relics, temples etc or is there another word?

(Interesting topic Tingzin)

Malcolm wrote:
The original meaning of Lha in Tibetan is "royal." Originally Dharma was the " chos " of the Tibetan Kings [ chos is derived from a root which means to "rectify, repair." Lha also means "high." It also means a god. It has associations with high status.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
With regard to your last comment, "sacred outlook" does not work for dag snang. You do not need to consecrate anything to have dag snang. Dag snang is self-arising. You cannot fabricate dag snang.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, maybe, but as you like to point out, language is diachronic. I don't see why you can't repurpose 'sacred' in order to refer to a kind of natural or self-arising sacredness/purity or whatever.

Malcolm wrote:
You can, I won't. I like to keep terms with other religious as well as philosophical connotations out of Dharma discourse as much as possible. Its one of the reasons I object to the term "ground of being" so vehemently as a translation of gzhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
DGA said:
I'm not so sure about the concept of the sacred simply because, at least as I've been taught, everything without exception and everyone has sacred qualities--and if everything is sacred, then nothing isn't sacred, and the concept has no real meaning anymore.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, maybe. I think there is definitely a sense in Buddhism that things like stupas, relics, temples, certain people and places, images of Buddhas etc. are "special" in some positive way.

FWIW, CTR used the word 'sacred' quite a lot, and in particular translated "dag snang" as "sacred outlook", see e.g. "The Tantric Path of Indestructible Wakefulness".


Malcolm wrote:
With regard to your last comment, "sacred outlook" does not work for dag snang. You do not need to consecrate anything to have dag snang. Dag snang is self-arising. You cannot fabricate dag snang.

Stupas, relics, temples, are sacred precisely because they are "set apart," nevertheless, there still is no Buddhist word of which I am aware that maps to "sacred".

OED:
sacred |ˈsākrid|
adjective
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration: sacred rites | the site at Eleusis is sacred to Demeter.
• religious rather than secular: sacred music.
• (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion: a sacred Hindu text.
• regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual: an animal sacred to Mexican culture.
• sacrosanct: to a police officer nothing is sacred.
The nearest Tibetan word that overlaps might be " lha " in some of its uses, like " lha chos ", for example.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 9th, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: The Sacred in Buddhism [from Dharma Decline]
Content:
tingdzin said:
Split from "Dharma Decline" thread http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=21203

Kim O'Hara said:
I wouldn't mind at all (well, hardly at all) except that in losing religion we are losing ethics and morality (admittedly imperfect ethics and morality) faster than we can replace them with a more rationally based version of them.

tingdzin said:
This is a very interesting point, I think. Some posters have recently, on other threads, expressed the opinion  that ethics and morality can exist without religion, and it seems a case made be made for this proposition. I would say that Kim is right, however, to point out that an ethical code based on an incomplete understanding of reality is still better than no ethical code at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Most secular people are of the opinion that a) reality is not completely understood, and b) religions [including Buddhism] are based on a far less complete understanding of reality than the present level of scientific knowledge.

Despite the fact that United States was founded on the ethnic cleansing of entire nations from their lands, which all Americans need to learn about, an important concept enshrined in the US Constitution is the Establishment Clause, which mandates what is popularly termed "the separation of church and state."

Because this is such an important principle in modern civilization, we have no choice but to continue to forge and strengthen a liberal ethical consensus apart from our individual religious convictions.


tingdzin said:
To shift the focus, though, I myself am of the opinion that when  religion is lost, humanity also loses a sense of the sacred.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with this at all. Religions tend to make "the sacred" beyond the reach of common people, creating celestial hierarchies that do little more than mirror the social divisions of the peoples they pretend to serve.

tingdzin said:
What does "sacred" mean to you?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not really a Buddhist word — I can't think of a single Buddhist term in either Sanskrit or Tibetan that truly maps to this term in the way it is used in English.

We can go back its root, consecrate, which really means to set something apart. We also have the word "holy" which ultimately derives from the word *kailo — whole, uninjured, of good omen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 9th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
DGA said:
How is the Dharma transmitted in the absence of social institutions committed to the systematic practice and transmission of Dharma?

Malcolm wrote:
The amazing thing is that Dharma continues to be transmitted despite institutions. There is no Dharma in institutions, there is only Dharma in people, and frankly — most people in Buddhist institutions are not very interested in Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 9th, 2015 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Rita_Repulsa said:
Tsongkhapafan, I think it's interesting that some here claim things like, "Buddhism isn't and evangelical religion" despite the fact that Buddhism is well know for being the first evangelical religion in recorded history. The Buddha said:

Go forth for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction. Teach the Dharma which is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle and beautiful at the end. Proclaim both the letter and the spirit of the holy life completely fulfilled and perfectly pure.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course the Buddha wanted the Dharma to spread, but he did not want people to be zealots, which is what "evangelical" means outside of its specifically Christian meaning.

This is why there were strict rules laid down in the beginning about who could teach, who could be taught, when and where there could be teaching, and so on.

Evangelists don't care about context and decorum in their zeal to spread "the good news" and create converts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 9th, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Decline
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
The dharma is the dharma. It is not the corrupt institution of Buddhism.

dharmagoat said:
We see the dharma through the lens of institutional Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
You may, I don't.

dharmagoat said:
Buddhism defines 'the dharma'.

Malcolm wrote:
Not for me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 9th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Mani Kabum
Content:
Tigersnest said:
Are there any here who are experts regarding the Mani Kabum? As it has been translated to English and is freely available I wonder if the practices therein are open for Buddhist practitioner to use? As I have heard usually Chenrezig practice is openly available to practice...

Malcolm wrote:
The Mani Kabum is a collection of instructions on the three inner tantras. The empowerment for it is called "The King's tradition Avalokiteśvara."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 8th, 2015 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


Rita_Repulsa said:
Buddhism


Malcolm wrote:
You can keep Buddhism. I have no use for it at all. I prefer Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: altar blessing
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
How important is it, and why? What should be done with statues which cannot be filled? Can someone bless their own altar when no other option exists?

I've read/heard so many things, curious on opinions out there.

Malcolm wrote:
You put a piece of paper in the statue with Oṃ aḥ and huṃ written on it. You summon the wisdom beings into the statue, you recite the mantra of dependent origination. That is enough.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:
Tenso said:
Which text?


Malcolm wrote:
I am not precisely sure, this is according to ChNN.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: How can karma know,and how do for instance hell wardens
Content:
boda said:
The question isn't about distinctness or contents, it's about values (good and bad) and interactions (cause and effect).

Malcolm wrote:
I was responding to your objection, not his question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: How can karma know,and how do for instance hell wardens
Content:
Seishin said:
We know good and bad because of the discriminating mind and we are the creators of our own karma. It is not outside ourselves, not governed by a supernatural being.

boda said:
How could it be only inside ourselves? Or do you believe that everything, including other minds, are only a projection of your mind? If I'm not mistaken that's called solipsism.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara argues there is no container universe in reality, but that nevertheless, mind streams are distinct and unique.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Assembly Photos
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Beautiful photos with promises of more to come from the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2015/11/05/stunning-photos-from-tibetan-buddhists-bliss-dharma-assembly/?hpid=hp_no-name_photo-story-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Malcolm wrote:
This place was founded by one of my most important gurus, the late Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: How can karma know,and how do for instance hell wardens
Content:
Ervin said:
Also, where they come from and who created them? How did they form? Because it seems that they know!!! Are these beings who are tottering wrongdoers also creating a bad karma, if not? How come?

Paul said:
He'll guardians are not sentient beings - they are projections from the mind of the hell being in question. It is not possible, therefore, to be reborn as a hell guardian. That also explains how they 'know' about the being they are torturing.

I think it was Asanga who explained this, but I'm not certain and can't look it up right now.

Ervin said:
Thanks Paul,

Is there any chance that you could provide a name and an excerpt of the sutra that explains what you are writing abou?

Thanks

Malcolm wrote:
Read Vasubandhu's Viṃśatikākārikā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
I see. Point out the primordial state?

Malcolm wrote:
As Alpha states, no one can point it out to you; however, one's self-recognition can be encountered only with the help of a master. This is accomplished because we have experiences, and a master knows how to work with a student so that based on their own experiences they can recognize their own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 7th, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Everybody needs Buddhism...

Malcolm wrote:
No, everyone does not need Buddhism. Some people need food more, others need safety from threat of violent death, etc.

The practice of Buddhadharma is only within the grasp of those who have leisure and endowment.

Fundamentalists are those who insist that only their own path is good and everyone else's is wrong. This is not Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma sees the good in all worldly paths, and encourages that. It never suggests to people who are following other paths that they need to change, etc. If someone is interested in Buddhadharma, great. But there is no need to evangelize the Dharma — it won't work anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: The Buddha's Jihad! :D
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your argument is very much like saying there is no point is giving people medicine if they won't take up Dharma as their personal religion. It is quite extreme. A physician does not require his patients to change their religion in order to give them medicine. Buddha didn't either. He also taught the so called vehicle of gods and humans which concerns mundane ethics in order to create worldly benefit.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, it's not. The vehicle of gods and humans has as its foundation a belief in karma.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually it does not. Again, refer to the Kalamas Sutta.


Tsongkhapafan said:
You have to give people methods for practising ethics, you can't just tell them to 'be good' because without a method for being a good person, you will try, fail and feel guilty. This is many religious practitioners' experience if they don't have a path. Secular ethics is not a path because, being devoid of religion, it's just telling people to be good. It doesn't work. Ethics devoid of meditation doesn't work.

Malcolm wrote:
Secular ethics is not a path in the Buddhist sense, certainly.

Apparently you have never heard of Confucianism, a perfectly lovely example of secular ethics where ethical conduct is engaged in purely because it results in social harmony.  It is however a means of ensuring social good and harmony, and those are themselves worthy ends in their own right.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Sure, of course not all people have the propensity to practise Dharma, but many do, many more than at present have access to it and therefore it would seem to be a good idea to create the conditions for them to be able to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
I though you understood the principles of karma. In any case, your original claim that His Holiness does not stress Buddhism is really complete and total nonsense. But by the same token, he is a political liberal, and understands the need for forging consensus and tolerance across religious lines — that cannot happen if he is constantly encouraging people to abandon their traditions for a new one. He is not an evangelist, unlike the Popes. That is not his job, and that has never been the job of Buddhist leaders.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Humanism talks about it which is great but doesn't give people the methods to develop anything - without a path, without methods, there's no chance of success.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not need a method to develop love and compassion other than recognizing suffering and having the desire to do something to alleviate it as much as possible. Quite honestly, I know a lot of religious people who don't do shit to help others, Buddhists included, who spend all their time arguing about religion and praying rather than getting off their assess and helping others. I know a lot of completely non-religious people who devote their lives to helping others, and frankly, I know more of the latter who are actively engaged in helping others than the former.

[qupte]
Those people who already have highly developed love and compassion have so because they met a spiritual path in the past and were able to practise moral discipline and meditations to improve their love and compassion. If there is no method there is no practice and no success. Just telling people to be good doesn't work.[/quote]

From the point of view of the narrative we follow, this makes sense. But it does not make sense to people who have not drunk the Buddhist koolaid and there is no good reason on earth that we should try and force people to accept our views. Instead we should encourage people, without reference to religion, to be good, ethical people as ends in themselves because this leads to a harmonious society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The preliminaries are for those who have not yet understood what the primordial state is. Tregchö and thogal are inseparable: sometimes however, tregchö is parsed as "sudden" and thögal as "gradual", but this too is in reality misleading.

Astus said:
So, there is a gradual path for those who have not yet attained understanding. And once there is understanding, one should still follow through tregcho and thogal practices, so again, it seems gradual.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a "path" in the sense that one goes from here to there, as alpha pointed out to you. There is no path like "first train in śamatha, then train in vipaśyāna; first train on path of accumulation, then application, then seeing, etc., first do creation, then do completion," etc.

Tregchö and thogal are not "practices" in the sense that one is making effort to generate a result from some cause. Tregchö and thögal are how one continues in the confidence of liberation, or as CHNN parses it, how one continues in the state.
The long and short of it is that Dzogchen teachings did not fit in the mold of gradual and sudden dichotomy [which is a conversation is only tangentially relevant to Dzogchen due to the conflict in Tibet over Indian and Chinese approaches to Mahāyāna sūtra]. They also do not fit into the mold of ultimate and relative truths. They do not fit into the mold of paths and stages.
Sudden means direct access to the ultimate. If there are stages involved in the path, it is necessarily gradual. So, if Dzogchen were just recognising the primordial state, then it would be a sudden method. If preliminaries and follow up practices are also included, it is gradual.
"Ultimate and relative" have no meaning in Dzogchen. Dzogchen is not "a method of directly accessing the ultimate," if it were, it would be Chan. Because this is so, Dzogchen is not a "sudden" system. One does not need to have realized emptiness in order to have knowledge [ rig pa ] of their primordial state [ thog ma'i gzhi, a.k.a. original basis]. There is no need to gather accumulations and so on.

To the extent that there are stages in Dzogchen, there is only one stage and everyone is already on it. The Rig pa rang shar tantra likens it to being on a lake. No matter where you go on a lake, you never leave the lake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
It's a commitment of the Refuge Vows to encourage people to go for refuge out of compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You don't. Dharma [ Lha chos ] is about personal transformation, not social transformation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Why are Buddhists interested in social transformation? All meaningful change comes from personal transformation so anyone who wants meaningful change should be promoting inner change, not politics.
Dharma is not an evangelical religion.
Bodhisattvas and Buddhas out of their great compassion want everyone to practise Dharma as this is the only real solution to human problems. Of course they will try to create conditions to give people opportunities to do this.

Malcolm wrote:
Your argument is very much like saying there is no point is giving people medicine if they won't take up Dharma as their personal religion. It is quite extreme. A physician does not require his patients to change their religion in order to give them medicine. Buddha didn't either. He also taught the so called vehicle of gods and humans which concerns mundane ethics in order to create worldly benefit.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You ought to study the freedoms and endowments again. Not everyone has the karma to be a practitioner of Dharma. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
That's a bit defeatist. At the very least one would work to give everyone the opportunity to practise Dharma if they have the propensity for it.

Malcolm wrote:
News flash! Not everyone has the propensity to practice Dharma. In fact, a very tiny minority of sentient beings have the propensity to practice Dharma. This is what it means to have a precious human birth with the eight freedoms and ten endowments.

In the meantime, secular ethics are necessary to keep the world from blowing itself up. Wy? Because it is not possible to convert everyone to Buddhadharma. We do not live in the Kingdom of Shambhala.

Tsongkhapafan said:
In the meantime, secular ethics are what the world needs. They will lead eventually to Dharma.
Humanism isn't going to lead to Dharma, and neither is politics or social change movements. The world needs a genuine spiritual path not secular ethics that implicitly deny the value of religion.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it will. Humanism encourages people to develop compassion and love for others, and encourages them to avoid non-virtues of body, voice and mind. This will cause them to accumulate merit and continue to take rebirth in higher realms. This is precisely the vehicle of gods and men that the Buddha taught, for example, in the famed Kalamas Sutta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The three series are a literary division.
"Preliminaries, trekcho, togal and its visions" are not stages or levels.

Astus said:
So those literary divisions do not mean difference in the teachings, one superior to the other, etc?

If those are not stages/levels, then what? Gradual instructions maybe?

Malcolm wrote:
The three series do not mean that for example, man ngag sde is "superior" to the other two, though in fact it has been interpreted that way. The reality of it is that they focus on different aspects of Dzogchen teachings.

The preliminaries are for those who have not yet understood what the primordial state is. Tregchö and thogal are inseparable: sometimes however, tregchö is parsed as "sudden" and thögal as "gradual", but this too is in reality misleading.

The long and short of it is that Dzogchen teachings did not fit in the mold of gradual and sudden dichotomy [which is a conversation is only tangentially relevant to Dzogchen due to the conflict in Tibet over Indian and Chinese approaches to Mahāyāna sūtra]. They also do not fit into the mold of ultimate and relative truths. They do not fit into the mold of paths and stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The aggregates are a product of mind, correct?

Ye shes is a product of rig pa, correct?
M

alpha said:
At this point i will respectfully withdraw from this discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run.
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table,
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.
—— The Gambler

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: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Śakyamuni is one of the twelve teachers of Dzogchen teachings, beginning with Buddha Nanga Dampa and ending with Garab Dorje.

tomamundsen said:
Do we know what Dzogchen teachings Shakyamuni taught? Are there any tantras specifically revealed by Shakyamuni?

Malcolm wrote:
He did not explicitly teach Dzogchen, however, he predicted the arrival of Garab Dorje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which levels, stages and practices?

Astus said:
Semde, longde, menngagde. Preliminaries, trekcho, togal and its visions. And probably there are others associated with or included in Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
The three series are a literary division.

"Preliminaries, trekcho, togal and its visions" are not stages or levels.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Shabkar Natsog Rangdrol wrote:

Rongzom Pandita wrote:

Astus said:
If there are no stages and practices, what are all those levels, stages, and practices in Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Which levels, stages and practices?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is "No f**kin way!?"

Queequeg said:
In this sense


or this sense?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
DGA said:
that's the path of renunciation and negation.

the affirmative path (with a slightly different mantra) was posited some twenty to thirty years prior:

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0940183218

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is "No f**kin way!?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 6th, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[It is the Dharma] in which one abides in sameness, like the supreme lotus of the world, not avoiding anything.

dzogchungpa said:
What does "like the supreme lotus of the world" mean?


Malcolm wrote:
According to Mipham:
Further, in the Dharma in which all desires of the world are mastered and is also the supreme of abundance, not covered by any faults like a lotus, one’s conduct does not avoid anything. The reason for that is that there is no true difference between all faults and qualities, they are similar and not distinct, abiding in sameness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Who said the meaning of Prajñāpāramitā and Dzogchen were different? I merely said that in Dzogchen there were no caveats.

Astus said:
As you wrote, "Tibetan Buddhists in general interpret all sūtra paths as gradual paths". So, while there are five paths and ten bhumis, a bodhisattva does not get stuck by such conceptual fabrications.

"No caveats" here would mean that Dzogchen plays with open cards. How does it translate to the topic of gradual teachings?


Malcolm wrote:
Shabkar Natsog Rangdrol wrote:
The manner of obtaining each stage through the stages
of the cause and result of the common vehicles,
likewise the stage obtained through the effort and practice
of creation and completion according to outer and inner secret mantra,
here [in the Great Perfection] do not exist as [stages] upon which to train or make progress.
In reality, all vehicles are included and the paths and stages are complete
within the single stage of one’s pure vidyā.
Rongzom Pandita wrote:
To determine the greatness of the total non-existence of buddhahood, if buddhahood and non-buddhahood are non-dual, why is one seeking? Ascertain there is nothing to seek. The yogins in whom such a meaning is present effortlessly abide on the undifferentiated stage of Samantabhadra. The undifferentiated stage of Samantabhadra is the universal stage of all Buddhas. Whatever the meaning of the Great Perfection might be, that is it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Innermost Great Potentiality states:

The Soaring Garuda states:

The Cuckoo of Vidyā states:

Astus said:
"no suffering, origination, cessation or path; no gnosis, no acquisition and no non-acquisition. ... Due to non-acquisition, the bodhisattva, having relied on Perfect Wisdom, dwells without mental obstruction. From the non-existence of mental obstruction, he is fearless, he overcomes inverted erroneous views, and ultimately reaches Nirvāṇa."
( https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4-3ivsK5Q6MMWI3OGFjODctZTQ1Ni00NzU5LWJiOTgtMjdiNWM1YWE4N2Nk/view )

"if the bodhisattva refrains from taking up the practice of any particular dharma, because he does not apprehend any dharma whatsoever, he may thereby succeed in realizing prajñāpāramitā. How can this be the case? All practices are essentially false and unreal."
(Nagarjuna: Realization of Prajñāpāramitā through no Seizing on Practices, in http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-15.pdf )

Malcolm wrote:
Who said the meaning of Prajñāpāramitā and Dzogchen were different? I merely said that in Dzogchen there were no caveats.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:
Queequeg said:
Regarding lineage...

ChNN seems to say that the DC lineage originates in Tibet... Is that correct? That's why I ask above about what place Shakyamuni has in the DC 'pantheon'.

Malcolm wrote:
He does not say this. He says [consistent with the teachings of the lineage] that Dzogchen originated in Oddiyāna, which was located somewhere in Pakistan.

Śakyamuni is one of the twelve teachers of Dzogchen teachings, beginning with Buddha Nanga Dampa and ending with Garab Dorje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No. "Sudden" does not apply to Dzogchen, neither does "gradual." That's like asking the question, "Is a bar of gold suddenly gold, or gradually gold."

Astus said:
That's like saying Dzogchen lacks the path to liberation, while that is not actually true. In other words, one can get to that bar of gold either through the process of digging, clearing and melting (or something http://www.miningandmetallurgy.com/gold/assets/images/Gold_Technology_and_Gold_Production_Plant.PNG ); or by discovering it in its pure form. The former is the gradual, the latter is the sudden way. It is of no help to say that the gold is already gold regardless of its location or information of its whereabouts.

Malcolm wrote:
The Innermost Great Potentiality states:
In the dhātu of all outer and inner phenomena,
the pure experiential field,
buddhas and sentient beings are nondual,
how can there be fabrication with a path?

The inner potentiality which does not need to be accomplished is free from aspiration, 
it has already been naturally completed without activity.
The Soaring Garuda states:
The illness of those entering the path that is not a path is great;
those who wish to arrive are like wild animals chasing a mirage. 

Since there is no object to attain, there is nothing other than the three realms. 
Even relying on the tenth bhumi is an obstruction to awakening.
The Cuckoo of Vidyā states:
The primal nature of diversity is also nondual, 
in reality, free from the proliferation of partiality.
“Just as it is” is also not conceptualized,
Vairocana, Samantabhadra. 
Since it is perfect, the illness of effort is abandoned,
because of remaining naturally, equipoise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


alpha said:
We are not disputing the fact that the condition for them to be seen as wisdom is that one has to first  discover the primordial state. And that is because this discussion is not about questioning our personal abilities to recognise them as such but is about what they are in truth.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, not exactly.

The aggregates are a product of mind, correct? Mind is deluded correct? What a deluded mind perceives is a delusion, correct?

Ye shes is a product of rig pa, correct? Rig pa is undeluded, correct? What undeluded rig pa perceives is not a delusion, correct?

As the Pellucid Transcendent State[/i [dgongs pa zang thal] tells us, there is one basis, two paths, and two results. At the end of one of those paths lies the five aggregates and samsara; and at the end of the other path is the five wisdoms and nirvana.

However, there is a way in which phenomena of samsara and the phenomena of nirvana are the same, as Mañjuśrīmitra declares:
Therefore, because awakening and nonawakening are the same in terms of absence of characteristics, there is nothing to accept or reject.
So therefore:
[It is the Dharma] in which one abides in sameness, like the supreme lotus of the world, not avoiding anything.
And:
Abide in sameness without imputing duality, free from speech, nothing to do or to not do, nothing to accumulate or reduce.
And of course, it goes without saying we need to be careful about being arrogant about what we think we understand. As Mañjuśrimitra states:
The pride of promoting one’s understanding and lording it over all,
giving rise to attachment and aversion, is ignorance which does not see the meaning, producing conflict.
Mipham futher clarifies this:
If one engages in grasping such as, “Freedom from all views is seeing the ultimate meaning,” promoting the idea, “My understanding is the realization of the truth” and lording it over all, the pride caused by that view, causing attachment to one’s own views and aversion towards views of others, is ignorance which produces conflicts. Since there is no so-called “truth” or “falsity”, holding onto one’s view as true and holding onto the views of others as false are thoughts that does not correspond to the way both exist. Therefore, the authentic meaning of not perceiving either true nor false is not seen.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No caveats in Dzogchen...just saying...

Astus said:
Do you mean it is explicitly gradual or sudden?

(Sam van Schaik has a https://books.google.hu/books?id=0Tg6AwAAQBAJ on that subject.)

Malcolm wrote:
No. "Sudden" does not apply to Dzogchen, neither does "gradual." That's like asking the question, "Is a bar of gold suddenly gold, or gradually gold."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ka dag is ye shes.

alpha said:
But yeshe is also the five aggregates, good and bad karma, our ego, our perceptions, emotions, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
Let me modify my question - among active, living traditions?

Astus said:
Practically they all teach a gradual path. It's just that the https://books.google.hu/books?id=LyfysMjKooEC is naturally more popular.

If the unwise Bodhisattva counts the kotis of aeons,
And has the notion that it is long until the full attainment of enlightenment, he is bound to suffer,
And for a long time he will be suffering while moving unto Dharma.
Therefore he is inferior in the perfection of vigour, and essentially indolent.
(Ratnagunasamcayagatha, ch 30, tr Conze)

Queequeg said:
... all Sudden, with caveats... all Gradual, with caveats. Caveats, caveats, filling 84,000 volumes.



Brings me to the conclusion, "f**k it. Just do it."

Malcolm wrote:
No caveats in Dzogchen...just saying...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
Let me modify my question - among active, living traditions?

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhists in general interpret all sūtra paths as gradual paths, generally considering other interpretations incorrect and baseless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
http://www.shabkar.org/scripture/sutras/index.htm

Malcolm wrote:
None of these sūtras make the claim you are making, i.e. that eating meat is inherently harmful. They are mainly objecting to killing and then eating meat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Gradual Teaching
Content:
Queequeg said:
It occurred to me that, other than straw men in polemical screeds, I can't think of any Gradual Teaching Mahayana Buddhism. Is there such a thing? There are practices that appear Gradual in various traditions, but once you start scratching the surface, some Sudden teaching appears at a "deeper" level.

What do you think?


Malcolm wrote:
You need to read more Indian Mahāyāna sūtras and śastras. Why do you think there is such a huge debate between Indian Buddhism and Chan?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Sila is something a Buddhist undertakes as part of a practice aimed at personal transformation; it has no necessary bearing on the wider sociopolitcal sphere. The latter should be based on "a political conception the principles and values of which all citizens can endorse."

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Lazy_eye said:
That distinction seems to neatly untangle certain problems, such as how a Buddhist should approach contentious issues such as abortion. The answer would seem to be that a Buddhist should personally practice sila, which includes non-killing. But since there is no "overlapping consensus" about the morality of abortion, it would be inappropriate for a Buddhist to join up with pro-lifers, for instance; this would constitute an extension of religious doctrine into the civic sphere.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, this at least is my point of view, which is why I am personally opposed to abortion, but support a women's right to choose.

Lazy_eye said:
Now someone will raise the objection, "yes, but what about bodhicitta?"  But the answer would be that bodhicitta does not apply here because the term actually refers to the process of personal transformation, that is, the aspiration for enlightenment. It doesn't mean the aspiration to become a moral crusader.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
Is there a difference between gsal ba and ka dag? Is gsal ba also a potential?

Malcolm wrote:
gSal ba is a potential of ka dag. Ka dag is ye shes. This is the point that people do not seem to understand. Ka dag is the description of the original state of the basis, purity. The basis is ye shes, pristine consciousness, primordial wisdom, timeless awareness, [insert favorite calque here], etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Unnecessary.

What the world needs is a clearly articulated platform of secular ethics divorced from religions altogether.

Lazy_eye said:
Do you have any existing examples in mind, or anything that might serve as a useful model?

What would be the general outline of such a system?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a long discussion about this in the analytical philosophy tradition. Rawls in part answers your question:
The religious doctrines that in previous centuries were the professed basis of society have gradually given way to principles of constitutional government that all citizens, whatever their religious view, can endorse. Comprehensive philosophical and moral doctrines likewise cannot be endorsed by citizens generally, and they also no longer can, if they ever could, serve as the professed basis of society. Thus, political liberalism looks for a political conception of justice that we hope can gain the support of an overlapping consensus of reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines in a society regulated by it. Gaining this support of reasonable doctrines lays the basis for answering our second fundamental question as to how citizens, who remain deeply divided on religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines, can still maintain a just and stable democratic society. To this end, it is normally desirable that the comprehensive philosophical and moral views we are wont to use in debating fundamental political issues should give way in public life. Public reason—citizens’ reasoning in the public forum about constitutional essentials and basic questions of justice—is now best guided by a political conception the principles and values of which all citizens can endorse (VI). That political conception is to be, so to speak, political and not metaphysical.

Political liberalism, then, aims for a political conception of justice as a freestanding view. It offers no specific metaphysical or epistemological doctrine beyond what is implied by the political conception itself. As an account of political values, a free-standing political conception does not deny there being other values that apply, say, to the personal, the familial, and the associational; nor does it say that political values are separate from, or discontinuous with, other values. One aim, as I have said, is to specify the political domain and its conception of justice in such a way that its institutions can gain the support of an overlapping consensus. In this case, citizens themselves, within the exercise of their liberty of thought and conscience, and looking to their comprehensive doctrines, view the political conception as derived from, or congruent with, or at least not in conflict with, their other values.
Rawls, John (2011-02-10). Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (Columbia Classics in Philosophy) (p. 10). Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 5th, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the meantime, secular ethics are what the world needs. They will lead eventually to Dharma.

Lazy_eye said:
Should it be Dharma-based secular ethics, or secular ethics within a Dharmic framework? Or is that not necessary?

Malcolm wrote:
Unnecessary.

What the world needs is a clearly articulated platform of secular ethics divorced from religions altogether.


