﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
LunaRoja said:
Hello,

Why is the rainbow body accomplished from Naro Kacho practice different from the rainbow body accomplished through togyal? I am not clear on why there is a difference.

Malcolm wrote:
It isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
conebeckham said:
I've not taken LamDre, but is it true that there are actual "ritual transmissions" for completion stages, etc., or are they merely graduated instructions?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. The path empowerment for candali yogas,etc., the Nairatmya blessing for the practices connected with third and fourth empowerment.

conebeckham said:
Very interesting, thanks! Shangpa has "empowerments" for each of the six yogas, as well as empowerments for Chagchen Ga'uma, Khacho Karmo, the 3 LamKhyers, and Deathlessness of Body and Mind as well. I think there are a few similarities between these systems....

Malcolm wrote:
Lamdre has some extra transmissions of guru yoga, but beyond that, not much in terms of empowerments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
merit will accomplish this perhaps faster and better, IMHO

Malcolm wrote:
Merit will let you sit more still?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
conebeckham said:
I've not taken LamDre, but is it true that there are actual "ritual transmissions" for completion stages, etc., or are they merely graduated instructions?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. The path empowerment for candali yogas,etc., the Nairatmya blessing for the practices connected with third and fourth empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Pero said:
No but it's implied. If people "should strive to attend in person" it means that people generally don't strive to attend in person (since there's the possibility of webcasts).

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see it that way.

ChNN said there is no difference, however, some teachings he won't webcast.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
conebeckham said:
Frankly, it saddens me that we even have to have these discussions about "broadcast" and "Recorded" empowerments.   People should strive to attend in person, physically, some sort of complete Wangkur, for a practice, or with a guru, with which/whome they feel a connection.

Pero said:
What saddens me is that you think that we attend webcasts because we're taking the easy way.

Malcolm wrote:
He didn't say that...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Yes, and I naturally lean towards Yogacara; still, my understanding was that they were synthesized early on.

EDIT: On second reading I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "separate" continuums and how this relates to Yogacara.

EDIT 2: And isn't Chinese Yogacara rather distinct from classical Yogacara?


Malcolm wrote:
Separate as in distinct and unique. This is why my karma does not ripen on you and yours does not ripen on me. The reason we share the common perception of a universe is due to similarities in traces.

No, not really, Xuan Tsang was very much in the Indian model.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As the Yogasūtra says:
Sthira-sukham asanam
Asana is steadiness and comfort.

dzogchungpa said:
tirthika.jpg


Malcolm wrote:
Well, I have the transmission for that, that's all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Thank you Astus, Dan, Wayfarer et al for these really useful replies. I'm glad I brought this up here.

But here's something else:

I know this will sound funny but, if the objective world is an illusion or fabrication, then how do we understand "individual minds"? In other words, "who" or "what" are you Astus, Dan, Wayfarer, Muni? You "exist" for me only in relation to my mind, which is all I know. But from your perspective, I myself am part of the illusion of the objective world. But reality is nondual. I guess the question is, how do we explain "my mind" and "your mind"? I know in the Absolute sense they cannot be found, but how does that work "on the ground"?

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of "nondual" discussed in Buddhadharma; nondualism ala yogacara, the absence of an external world, aka mind-only and nondualism ala madhyamaka, i.e. that absence of existence and nonexistence. The former school argues that minds are separate continuums. Madhyamaka accepts the existence of separate continuums conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
repeat: tregcho/togal is the swift and effortless path; someone here might say it's so hard to make the vision come; well because you can't make them... as long as you can sit still, you're good... and the more you practice the easier it gets, like anything else.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is the sitting still part that most people have trouble with. When we say "effortless" here, we actually mean that all effort impedes the path, whether physical, verbal or mental. Thus, it is not nearly as "easy" a path as some people imagine.

Hence yantra, etc.

Crazywisdom said:
Ganapuja. Very very important

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but I mentioned yantra because it is helpful in allowing one to sit very still. As the Yogasūtra says:
Sthira-sukham asanam
Asana is steadiness and comfort.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And as I have written elsewhere, logic and inference are not authorities in Vajrayāna, scripture is. The Abhibodhikramopadeśa of Master Āryadeva states:
At the time of the ultimate view of secret mantra,
the direct perception by the mind and sense organs
as well as inferences are not authorities;
the profound scriptures and intimate instructions are authorities.

Astus said:
That clarifies it then for me why there aren't really works discussing the functioning of Vajrayana in a way that other Buddhist methods are usually discussed, describing the various mental elements and conditions at work. And thank you for the previous responses as well, you're really helpful.

Malcolm wrote:
There are actually, but first you have to be ripened even in order to see such books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is why it is very important to understand and follow the proper ritual procedures if one is both a master of Vajrayāna as well as a student of Vajrayāna. One's very realization is at stake.

dzogchungpa said:
Do the scriptures say what the proper ritual procedures for a webcast are?

Malcolm wrote:
No, and this is of course is the reason most Lamas think the idea of giving deity transmissions via webcast is controversial. For example, ChNN gives what he calls "don dbang" i.e. meaning empowerments, which involve no ritual objects via webcast, but he will not give full fledged empowerments via webcasts. Garchen Rinpoche on the other hand frequently gives traditional empowerments via webcast. In my opinion, as long as one is participating in real time, then either way is not really an issue. That being said, attending in person is always better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
fckw said:
What has not been touched in this discussion yet is that there might be causal and subtle energies being involved in an empowerment that naturally cannot be recorded.

dzogchungpa said:
You mean zapping? I keep bringing it up but nobody seems to be interested.

Malcolm wrote:
CHNN to a student who complained that she could not feel any "vibration" during his transmissions:
"I am very sorry I could not give you any vibration....he he he"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
smcj said:
So on the student's side, what is necessary to receive it? Faith in the guru. This is above and beyond what the 5 senses can perceive. What kind of faith? That the guru holds the lineage for the empowerment and has summoned the deity to be present and accessible at that place and time via himself. As Malcolm said, afterwards the guru dissolves the mandala and the empowerment is over. Somebody showing up late doesn't get it even if they get bonked with all the various implements, etc.

So a Chinese soldier guarding an empowerment would not receive it. Nor would a student that had a closed mind and refused to believe that something metaphysical was occurring. And "occurring" is the operative word here. It is a window into the metaphysical, which closes at the end of the empowerment.

Malcolm wrote:
All that is necessary to receive the empowerment is one) a guru with the lineage; two) interest in the practice;  three) willing participation in the rite (as it is occurring), just as in any other kind of ordination rite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Astus said:
I think I understand that for empowerment to happen the described procedures have to be followed, as that is the definition of what an empowerment is. Similarly to marriage that is defined in a specific way by the law, and regardless of how people live or what they do, they are not married as long as the correct procedure was not followed. However, people can do the same things both with and without a marriage certificate. That is, one can still live together and have children without marriage, while it is said that without empowerment one cannot practise Vajrayana effectively. So, the disciple must obtain something during empowerment that makes him different from the uninitiated. That is why I first of all try to analyse from the perspective of the receiver and ask the question of what is transmitted from master to student. Everything delivered through the five senses can be obtained from a recording as well. The methods of the practice and the precepts to follow can also be learnt from other sources. What makes the recipient of a correctly performed empowerment different from the one who did not receive it when they both engage in the same practice and uphold the same precepts? Is it perhaps related to the knowledge that "I have the empowerment" in the former that is missing from the latter person?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference between the former and the latter is that the former is a like a field that has been tilled, fertilized and planted; whereas the latter is like field that has not been tilled, has not been fertilized and not been planted.

A person who has received an empowerment is termed "ripened", whereas those who have not received empowerments are termed "unripened." If one has not been ripened, one is not a candidate for the liberating instructions.

And as I have written elsewhere, logic and inference are not authorities in Vajrayāna, scripture is. The Abhibodhikramopadeśa of Master Āryadeva states:
At the time of the ultimate view of secret mantra,
the direct perception by the mind and sense organs
as well as inferences are not authorities;
the profound scriptures and intimate instructions are authorities.
This being the case, the Mahāmudratilaka Tantra states:
There is no siddhi for one who lacks empowerment,
just there is no butter from churning sand.
If one pridefully expounds the tantras and agamas
without empowerment,
immediately upon death master and disciple
go to hell even if siddhi has been attained.
So, you see, for Vajrayāna the issue of proper empowerments is not really something that depends on reason and inference. It depends on scripture and intimate instructions. And understanding that intellectuals might argue with such ideas, again Aryadeva writes in the Abhibodhikramopadeśa:
In evil future times,
without relying on profound scriptures and intimate instructions,
those who prioritize the twin reasonings of validation and proofs
will each grasp their own philosophy as sublime;
satisfied with a mere hidden meaning
and without any interest in the ultimate profound view, 
again they make refutations,
destroying themselves and others.
So when it comes to Secret Mantra, the tantras are the definitive authority. Also the rites must be properly performed, as the The Great Commentary Tantra of the Mayajala states:
Akaśagarbha, you should listen!
All of the tantras like mine
endowed with nondual wisdom,
like wishfulfilling gems, wish-granting trees 
and excellent vases
are proper places for devotion.
Even one [tantra] has inconceivable power
through different methods,
yielding accomplishment in the same way.
However, there is no accomplishment with defective rituals.
This is why it is very important to understand and follow the proper ritual procedures if one is both a master of Vajrayāna as well as a student of Vajrayāna. One's very realization is at stake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Pointing out
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are very clear and specific signs for each Vajrayāna system that will let one know whether one is qualified to give Vajrayāna teachings, apart from one's guru telling one to go teach.

fckw said:
I am aware that there are these criteria. However, 1) I did not know that for example the 3. vision is regarded as a required preliminary to teach Dzogchen, 2) often the traditional descriptions are either very lofty (e.g. various siddhis being mentioned) because they only mention the highest class of practitioners and may not even talk about the vast majority of lower class practitioners, and also because the language they use is often hard to understand. That is, unless you have a master telling you in more accessible words what is actually meant.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, one should not give Vajrayāna empowerments until one has reached strong heat on the path of application. But these days, well...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Pointing out
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The technical qualification for being able to truly give Dzogchen teachings is having attained the third vision. But this is rather rare and so these days, many people are giving Dzogchen instruction who have only entered the second vision.

fckw said:
Thanks, did not know that, very illuminating!

Malcolm wrote:
There are very clear and specific signs for each Vajrayāna system that will let one know whether one is qualified to give Vajrayāna teachings, apart from one's guru telling one to go teach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Pointing out
Content:
fckw said:
"Us"? You are referring to whom exactly? Dharma practitioners in general? Westerners? Western dharma practitioners?

What about such a qualification: "Having practiced the dharma for, let's say, 40 years, having read old Dzogchen texts in original old Tibetan and translated them with the guidance and support of high ranking lamas, plus a reasonable degree of realization, plus permission and support from high-ranking Tibetan lamas to do so." Would that qualify a Western teacher to give out pointing out instructions for Dzogchen? Or do you prefer to receive them from a 18 year old Tibetan "Tulku" who happened to have inherited such a title from his father?

Malcolm wrote:
The technical qualification for being able to truly give Dzogchen teachings is having attained the third vision. But this is rather rare and so these days, many people are giving Dzogchen instruction who have only entered the second vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The misconception which Astus has is the notion that an empowerment is merely communicating information received through the five senses, thus for him there is no difference between an empowerment and a recording of an empowerment, it is merely information. While it is true that information is being communicated through the five sense, that is not all that is happening, there are samadhis involved on the part of both the master and the students at the same time, there is the dependent origination which needs to be actively created between the master and the student at the same time, particularly in the lower empowerments; there are the samaya vows conferred and received and the agreement to follow them (Whatever you say boss, all that I will do....), and so on — all of the things which I have now explained exhaustively.

Astus said:
Yes, my basic assumption is that what benefits one on the path must be learnt, understood and experienced personally. So for the disciple what can have any effect for him is what he visualises during the empowerment, not what the master.

Malcolm wrote:
In this case, the master must do his job, before the disciple can do their job, and if the master has finished the empowerment and dissolved the mandala, it is too late.


Astus said:
You say it is the rite that matters, and it can be completed only when both the master and the student works together at the same time. But isn't the very point of performing the rite is to benefit the disciple? The question then is how the presence of the master and what he visualises affects the disciple. How can one enter a mandala that is mentally created by another?

Malcolm wrote:
At the most basic level, it is simply a question of procedure: in order for a master to confer an empowerment, he must first create himself in the form of that mandala or deity, as well as create a front-created mandala or deity (from which one actually receives the empowerment) before he can introduce students to that mandala in the form of a series of guided visualizations, which he does through a series of verbal instructions and visual cues, which include mantras and mudras.

If the steps  above are not taken, no empowerment will be have been conferred. That is just how it is. For example, if on an assembly line you do not assemble the parts in the proper way, your product will not work. So it is with an empowerment: if the procedures of the ritual are not carried out properly and in their correct order, the empowerment will not be valid.

If the master conferring the empowerment has not himself received the empowerment, the empowerment will not be valid. If he has not done the basic retreats, or at least received permission from his own guru to give the empowerments, the empowerment will not be valid, and the master will himself have broken his own samaya regarding revealing secrets to those who have not been ripened by empowerment (you may ask whether I am breaking samaya by discussing this — the answer is no, because I am not discussing specific details of Vajrayāna practice). If he omits parts of the ritual of the empowerment, the empowerment will not only not be valid, it will not have taken place at all.

Empowerments are very precise formula of ritual procedures which are designed to give transmissions into very specific practices in a structured way. Thus if the structure of the empowerment is violated, the transmission does not happen. Therefore, the idea that a recording of a mere part of an empowerment (the activities for disciples) can serve as an empowerment is a deeply mistaken idea on the part of anyone who holds it. Not only will there be no master conferring the empowerment; since there is no master, the conditions for the creation of the mandala/deity are absent, thus there is no mandala/deity. If there is no mandala/deity, there is nothing into which the student may be initiated. Therefore, the empowerment depends on the creation of the mandala/deity, the mandala/deity depends on the samadhi of the master, and the master's ability to confer the empowerment itself depends two things: a) he himself has received the transmission and b) he has either done the retreats for that practice or been commanded by his own guru to confer the transmission.

In addition there are ten things a master must know to be qualified to give empowerments. This can be looked up elsewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So what is the least difficult path then? Are they all equally difficult?

Again,  I understand this is not really a well-posed question, but I've often wondered about it.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayana in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
“I have but one answer which I have tried to formulate in various ways in this book, on the basis, invariably, of a study of the Pāli canon and of the Nikāyas in particular, that is: the Buddha does not deny the Upaniṣadic ātman; on the contrary, he indirectly affirms it, in denying that which is falsely believed to be the ātman.”

asunthatneversets said:
A conclusion of this nature requires quite a bit of extrapolation and conjecture, there really is no evidence that Śākyamuni affirmed the Upanisadic ātman via negation. In fact the Pali Canon states in no uncertain terms that "right view" is a freedom from extremes.

The buddhadharma is not apophatic theology.

Will said:
Reigle is giving some of Bhattacharya's views; for evidence one needs to study Bhattacharya's book.

Malcolm wrote:
It's the same old tired evidence trotted out by Zenmar, blah blah blah....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
repeat: tregcho/togal is the swift and effortless path; someone here might say it's so hard to make the vision come; well because you can't make them... as long as you can sit still, you're good... and the more you practice the easier it gets, like anything else.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is the sitting still part that most people have trouble with. When we say "effortless" here, we actually mean that all effort impedes the path, whether physical, verbal or mental. Thus, it is not nearly as "easy" a path as some people imagine.

Hence yantra, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of "not hard".

Malcolm wrote:
Compared to sūtra, Vajrayāna methods are not hard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Heh. Practice what really hard in retreat, snark master?

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever your main practice is. If it is Dzogchen, then Dzogchen; if it is the two stages, then practice that. Both, practiced hard, will cause you to realize Buddhahood in this life, or in the bardo.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, but I was asking about the easiest way. Are you saying these ways are equally easy? I don't know that much about Dzogchen but I believe there are various methods so are they all equally easy? I'm actually curious about this. Also, keep in mind that I'm not concerned with speed of attainment here, except inasmuch as it relates to ease of attainment.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, these two systems are equally easy, if you define "easy" as getting out samsara with rapidity compared to other paths — this is the criterion by which they are described as "easy."

For example, a common person, or so it is said in Dzogchen texts, would need to spend a minimum of twelve years in strict retreat to achieve Buddhahood in this life; the best practitioner, six months.

Like anything else, you get out what you put in.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
“I have but one answer which I have tried to formulate in various ways in this book, on the basis, invariably, of a study of the Pāli canon and of the Nikāyas in particular, that is: the Buddha does not deny the Upaniṣadic ātman; on the contrary, he indirectly affirms it, in denying that which is falsely believed to be the ātman.”

Malcolm wrote:
Oh Yawn...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Heh. Practice what really hard in retreat, snark master?

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever your main practice is. If it is Dzogchen, then Dzogchen; if it is the two stages, then practice that. Both, practiced hard, will cause you to realize Buddhahood in this life, or in the bardo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
mutsuk said:
Buddhahood in Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen is Bodies+Wisdoms+Activities. The way that manifests in these specific paths is different but the state is the same.

dzogchungpa said:
This might be a little off topic, but what is the easiest way to achieve this state, if one is not concerned about the way it manifests?

Malcolm wrote:
Practice really hard, in retreat, and ignoring this advice, "The Vajrayana path is basically achieving enlightenment while having fun."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: All Shambhala Publications profits to Nepal today (April
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Does anyone know what percent of the price, roughly, would be profit for Shambhala?

Malcolm wrote:
60%

dzogchungpa said:
Interesting, I didn't realize it was that high.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you buy directly. In general, the list price is a 40% markup in a book store, 50% if they are B&N, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: All Shambhala Publications profits to Nepal today (April
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Does anyone know what percent of the price, roughly, would be profit for Shambhala?

Malcolm wrote:
60%


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Pointing out
Content:
philji said:
I have noticed a couple of western teachers offering dzogchen teachings and pointing out instructions. One of these is  a well respected author and has a long background in dharma. I am wondering what it us that enables one/ permits one to give pointing out instructions?

Malcolm wrote:
One decides that one is a Dzogchen master either out of delusion or because one has really developed one's practice, and then one goes to town.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Brief members bios - please contribute!
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Many years ago I was to affiliated with TOPY.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, now it all makes sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Brief members bios - please contribute!
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Funny random anecdote on the David Tibet thing Loren: I remember having a copy of As The World Disappears by Current 93, which had song titles and other stuff written in Tibetan. At the time I worked with this zany characer, ex-monk with a mischievous sense of humour who worked as night auditor and asked him to translate...so technically  Current93 was involved one of my first experiences with Vajrayana too;)

Malcolm wrote:
Many years ago I was to affiliated with TOPY. The first time I heard thighbone trumpets was on PTV's  Force the Hand of Chance, circa 1984.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Yes that was i expecting, this answer from you.

mutsuk said:
Malcolm's answer was correct. The Bönpos do not say otherwise.


Malcolm wrote:
I see, so it is Reynold's error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Well the indivisibility of pure appearance and primordial purity as described in Guhyagarbha seem to suggest a result very different than the dissolution of the appearance in the completion stage as described in the usual HYT.


Malcolm wrote:
Huh? The result of HYT is the state of union, mahāmudra, the union of the so called illusory body (pure appearance) and luminosity (primordial purity).

Crazywisdom said:
Yeah, according to tantras like Kalacakra. The mother tantras emphasize to the exclusion of everything else it seems if you hear the lamas tell it the clear light... the union of form is something to me it seems like a higher realization... I look forward to being corrected if its wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure where you got this idea, but it is wrong. There is no real difference between the Buddhahood explained in mother tantras and the father tantras. But this is the bon forum so we should probably discuss this elsewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
a related point i've read and heard is that the nine yanas are all steps leading further along to the final ninth and the ninth divides up further also ; I believe Longchenpa might have made this argument;


Malcolm wrote:
This applies only to Nyingma and Bon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Well the indivisibility of pure appearance and primordial purity as described in Guhyagarbha seem to suggest a result very different than the dissolution of the appearance in the completion stage as described in the usual HYT.


Malcolm wrote:
Huh? The result of HYT is the state of union, mahāmudra, the union of the so called illusory body (pure appearance) and luminosity (primordial purity).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Amida Is A Real Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It then follows that you grant Amitabha the same level of conventional reality you grant yourself.

Yuren said:
Indeed.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you have no problem granting that it is a real place where people take rebirth, just as you took rebirth here in this world system.



Yuren said:
No, the idea that we can reduce Sukhavati to a metaphor is actually the more modern POV.  Definitely not. The idea that buddhakṣetras, of which Sukhavati is but one, are actual physical places purified by bodhisattvas as part of their path is pervasive in Mahāyāna Buddhism.
It is common place in Chan Buddhism to interpret the Pure Land as an expedient expression for the Pure Mind; and to interpret Amitabha as our "self nature". Let me know if you need me to point to specific Chan texts. But really, even if you pick a Chan text at random, you will probably find that kind of interpretation in it, if there is a mention of Amitabha. There are some exceptions such as Hanshan Deqing perhaps, but they are the exception and not the rule in the Chan Buddhist tradition. And this is not an arbitrary method of interpretation, either, it has support in the Sutras.  In Mahayana Buddhism, the Vimalakirti Sutra advocates that “When the mind becomes pure, the Buddha land also becomes pure,” while the Avatamsaka Sutra asserts that “One should contemplate the nature of all things in the Dharmadhatu, and realize that they are all created by the mind,” and that “The mind, like a skillful painter, paints all sorts of skandhas" - so there is support for that interpretation, and then there is the Contemplation Sutra's own statement that Sukhavati is "not far away" and that "the mind creates (Amida) buddha" - So whether it is a physical place or not, it remains true that it is mind-only.

Malcolm wrote:
Varying levels of understanding understand different things on different levels, none of which are necessarily in contradiction. Thus, one can understand Mt. Potala, Avalokiteśvara buddhafield  on outer, inner, secret and ultimate levels without having to choose one as better or worse, more true or less true. The same applies to the buddhafields in the ten directions. They are both literal places, as conventionally real as this world system is, their purity or impurity are also functions of the purity or impurity of the mind, as is the purity or impurity of this world system and so on. So, we can have our cake and eat it too — but to maintain that Sukhavati is merely a metaphor, and not a real place, that is an extreme of denial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Amida Is A Real Buddha
Content:


Yuren said:
First we should ask ourselves what we mean by "real". What is real? Is the keyboard in front of you real? Why? Because it's there, out there, right, how could it not be real? Then when you dream, a keyboard can appear in your dream. And again, it's out there. You can touch it, type on it. But then you wake up and the keyboard vanishes. So was the keyboard real or not? And if it wasn't, what guarantees that the keyboard you're typing on at this very moment is any more real?

Malcolm wrote:
It then follows that you grant Amitabha the same level of conventional reality you grant yourself.


Yuren said:
The next word you have to reflect upon in that question is "buddha". What is a Buddha? When you say: is he a real buddha? You have to understand the word Buddha. The Diamond Sutra says that if you see forms, you are not seeing the true buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the true buddha is the dharmakāya, who, in response to the needs of sentient beings spontaneously produces the two rūpyakāyas.

Yuren said:
I would say that the "literal place" idea is the one that is truly modern.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the idea that we can reduce Sukhavati to a metaphor is actually the more modern POV.

Yuren said:
The "mind only" interpretation is thousand years old. But the idea that Amida is a guy living in a place called Pure Land, this brutal literalism, is definitely modern, and influenced by Christianity.



Malcolm wrote:
Definitely not. The idea that buddhakṣetras, of which Sukhavati is but one, are actual physical places purified by bodhisattvas as part of their path is pervasive in Mahāyāna Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Apart from the Gelugpas, all Madhyamaka approaches, including Nāgārjuna's clearly underline the need to negate all four extremes in the ultimate, not merely one.

BuddhaFollower said:
Negation of all 4 extremes is done simply by understanding non-arising?

Is that right?


Malcolm wrote:
No, not if you are an ordinary person. If you are an ordinary person, you must go through step by step and analyze all four extremes. Having ascertained through analysis that a phenomena existing through the four extremes does exist in the relative, one then applies that analysis to the ultimate, finding that also that there is nothing which can be found in the ultimate existing by way of the four extremes. Then, as Khenpo Ngalo states:
Likewise, the mind free from the trio of arising, ceasing and abiding, existence and nonexistence, and being and nonbeing, is naked in the emptiness free from proliferation. In one’s experience, the unceasing stream of mere clarity and mere awareness is empty at the time of being clear and clear at the time being empty — do not grasp clarity or emptiness. Rest wholly, nakedly and freely in the state that is free from extremes, without divisions, inexpressible and beyond thought. 
Finally, rest free of concepts [had de chad de] without grasping in mere inexpressibility.
This means that having completed one's analysis one simply rests in the nature of the mind as one finds it, without modifying it in anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek Dzogchenpas,

Question:
- Does the person who comes through the Sutra Path achieve Buddhahood? -
- Does the person who comes through the Tantra Path achieve Buddhahood? -
- Does the person who comes through the Dzogchen Path achieve Buddhahood? -

Our Yongdzin Rinpoche:
The name is the same, but is Buddha the same or not?

The answer is no.

No they are different. If you say that you will receive a lot of criticism, but it does not the matter, it is explained according our Dzogchen way.


Mutsug Marro
KY

Malcolm wrote:
They are all Buddhas, but the difference lies in the degree and kind of their omniscience. This is noncontroversial.

What is controversial is asserting that Dzogchen results in a buddhahood that is higher than highest yoga tantra. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu asserts there is no difference between the Buddhahood realized through practicing Dzogchen and the Buddhahood practiced through the two stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
None of this changes my basic point that the passage in question concerns the four reliances (dharma, meaning, wisdom, definitive meaning), not the equivalence dharmatā = tathāgata, which is not found in the Indian version of the text.

Astus said:
The Chinese translation is from the early 5th century. Is there actually an original Sanskrit anywhere, or you call the Tibetan Indian? Still, it was not the only quote.

Malcolm wrote:
If it's missing in the Tibetan text, it was not there in the Sanskrit original. But we can do a passage by passage comparison if you like. But it should be in another thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Sakyas say tummo or physical karmamudra for attaining Buddhahood while alive.


Malcolm wrote:
No, actually this not true — where did you hear this?

BuddhaFollower said:
Then correct.

Malcolm wrote:
You forgot serving the guru. It is stated in Lamdre that those of the best capacity realize mahāmudra through serving the guru without meditating at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
None of this changes my basic point that the passage in question concerns the four reliances (dharma, meaning, wisdom, definitive meaning), not the equivalence dharmatā = tathāgata, which is not found in the Indian version of the text.


Astus said:
The Yamamoto translation says,

"Being based on Dharma means nothing other than basing oneself on the Mahaparinirvana of the Tathagata. All Buddhist teachings are none but “Dharmata” [essence of Dharma, essence of Reality]. This “Dharmata” is the Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. Any person who says that the Tathagata is non-eternal does not know “Dharmata”."

Mark Blum's translation (p 194, BDK Edition):

"the dharma to be taken as one's refuge is none other than this mahaparinirvana of the Tathagata. As the dharma of all buddhas, it is the dharmata, the nature of reality. And as the dharmata, it is what the Tathagata is. This is why the Tathagata is a permanently abiding presence without change. If someone were to say that the Tathagata is impermanent, that person would not understand, he has not seen the nature of reality."

Here's my simple version from the same 40-fascicle Dharmaksema translation (T12n374, p401c3-5):

依法者。即是如來大般涅槃。一切佛法即是法性。是法性者即是如來。是故如來常住不變。若復有言如來無常。是人不知不見法性。

Relying on the Law is [relying on] the Thus Come One's Great Parinirvana. All Buddha Laws are the Law-nature, the Law-nature is the Thus Come One, so the Thus Come One is eternal and permanent. If it were said that the Thus Come One is impermanent, that person would not know and would not see the Law-nature.

But to further clarify this section, a little later the sutra says:

Yamamoto:
"Basing oneself upon Dharma means basing oneself upon “Dharmata”; not basing oneself on man refers to the sravaka. “Dharmata” is the Tathagata, and the sravaka is the created. The Tathagata is Eternal, but the sravaka is non-eternal."

Blum:
"The dharma to take refuge in is the reality of dharmata; the person not to take refuge in is a sravaka disciple. The reality of dharmata is a tathagata; a sravaka disciple is a created phenomenon. A tathagata is permanently abiding; a created phenomenon is impermanent."

So, it is not really discussing differences between teachings, it turns it into the difference between unconditioned and conditioned. Same happens with the other three seals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Sakyas say tummo or physical karmamudra for attaining Buddhahood while alive.


Malcolm wrote:
No, actually this not true — where did you hear this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
Dharmata is not buddhahood.

Astus said:
"Dharmata is the Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 8, p 84)

Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the passage you citing is referring to reliance on the Dharma (among the four reliances). It says in full in the Sanskrit -- > Chinese -- > Tibetan translation:
"Relying on the Dharma" is the parinirvana of the Tathāgata. The Dharma of the Buddha is the dharmatā of Dharmas. So-called "dharmatā" is the Tathagāta. That being so, the Tathāgata is permanent and unchanging. Any person who says the Tathāgata is impermanent, that person has not seen nor known dharmatā
The Tibetan translation direct from Sanskrit however however reads a little more clearly:
Dharmatā is the parinirvana of the Tathāgata. The Tathāgata is permanent, stable, and eternal. This is the dharmatā of all the Buddhas. Whoever sees the Tathāgata as impermanent, they do not know dharmatā."
So it is not really clear that the Nirvana Sūtra makes the bold declaration that dharmatā = tathāgata. It seems that the sutra is actually saying that the permanence, stability and eternity is the dharmatā, or real nature, of all buddhas. That is a much different message than the one you want to present. In fact, I would just say that the Chinese translation upon which you are relying is embellished and somewhat inaccurate and whenever someone reads something in it, they need to check it against the Tibetan translation direct from Sanskrit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Amida Is A Real Buddha
Content:
plwk said:
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]


So, not all Shin Buddhists regard Amida as a metaphor after all.... why am I not surprised

What do you think folks?
Is the video's presentation a sufficient way to convince our 'own people' firstly, not to mention from other Buddhist traditions and further on to non Buddhists?



Malcolm wrote:
Of course Amitabha is a real Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Quite well. Mundane happiness is the result of virtuous karma; suffering the result of non-virtue, supreme happiness means nirvana.

Challenge23 said:
But you just said that the Dharma will grant you freedom from suffering which is not the same as happiness.  Are you saying that the result of the Dharma is not nirvana?  Or are you saying that supreme happiness is not happiness?  I swear I'm not trying to be pedantic here.  I'm trying to pin down exactly what you are saying here.

Malcolm wrote:
Happiness is are those conditions in which there is an absence of suffering. Supreme happiness is nirvana, in which there is a total absence of suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Quite well. Mundane happiness is the result of virtuous karma; suffering the result of non-virtue, supreme happiness means nirvana.



Challenge23 said:
Then where does the happiness come in?  How your point squared with the Four Immeasurables?

The Four Immeasurables said:
May all beings have happiness
and the cause of happiness.

May they be free of suffering
and the cause of suffering.

May they never be dissociated from
the supreme happiness without suffering.

May they remain in boundless equanimity
free from both attachment to relatives
and hatred of enemies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Huh?

Crazywisdom said:
TD is a big wonky looney.

Malcolm wrote:
Do tell...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Sherlock said:
Why are you so enamoured with Chogyam Trungpa when you have no possibility of receiving teachings from him? Did he authorize any of these students to teach Mahamudra or Dzogchen in their entirety?

Tony Duff is also a student of Trungpa and presents himself and Trungpa as very traditional BTW.

Crazywisdom said:
Can't wait to slap his ass around good.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
Nature of mind = dharmata

Dharmata is not buddhahood.

If you are a Buddha there are very precise descriptions of what you can do, even in the Hinayana canon. The 6 abhijnas, the twin miracle, seeing the results of karma etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, given that the sūtra Astus cites clearly states that not even tenth stage bodhisattvas can actually see the buddhadhātu/tathāgatagarbha, he can hardly defend his position that seeing the nature of the mind equals buddhahood on that basis of that sūtra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I thought it says Bodhisattvas on the bhumis can see it when taught by the tathatgatha?

Malcolm wrote:
I dont think so.

Anyway, the term translated into Tibetan through the Chinese as sangs rgyas kyi rang bzhin, buddhanature, seems to be a Chinese gloss on the Sanskrit term buddhadhātu. Perhaps the buddhadhatu (sangs rgyas kyi kham) morphed into buddhanature because of the Sanskrit --> Chinese --> Tibetan route of the expanded version. The term buddhaprakṛti, buddhanature does not seem to be an attested Indian term. I am not going to say one hundred percent it does not exist, but if it does, it is rare and does not carry the meaning we normally associate it with in English. The term buddhadhatu, however does exist in the Indian text.

The term sangs rgyas kyi rang bzhin appears a total of 679 times, 176 times in the first volume, the rest in the second of the Chinese to Tibetan version.

In the Sanskrit to Tibetan version, the term tathāgatagarbha shows up 69 times; where as in the Chinese version it shows up 32 times, but only in the first volume, it is absent from the second volume entirely. Buddhadhātu shows up 20 times.

As for your question, as above, the Indian version states:
Son of a good family, bodhisattvas of the tenth stage can seen only a general approximation of the tathagātagarbha that exists in their bodies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
Astus quotes from the dubious chapters of the sutra.

Dan74 said:
Why are they dubious? I thought you said Mahayana sutra is a common ground we can proceed with..?

Sherlock said:
A large section of the Chinese translation by Dharmaksema has never been found by Chinese who visited India nor found by Tibetans. Modern archaeologists found fragments of the core chapters in Sanskrit all over Asia but never these dubious chapters. This has been discussed here before.

Malcolm wrote:
The dubious chapters are in the later portion of the text, according to Hodge. The larger one is in Tibetan, translated from Chinese.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
Anyway even assuming this quotation is a legit indian source, it does not say that ordinary people can see Buddhadhatu.

Sravakas and pratyekabuddhas can't see it, and they are aleeady more advanced than ordinary practitioners. And it is referring to Bodhisattvas on the Bhumis who can see it when a tathagatha explains it. So you need to be on the bhumis, this corresponds with the Prajnaparamita quotation by Nubchen.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, not even bodhisattvas on the stages can see buddhanature/tathāgatagarba. This is why this sūtra refers to buddhanature as the tathāgataguhyagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
According to the other thread you  believe recognizing nature of mind is Buddhahood.

Astus said:
"When one sees the Buddha-Nature, one attains unsurpassed Enlightenment."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 9, p 93)

Malcolm wrote:
Given that the buddhanature is a synonym of dharmakāya, it is also no surprise that in this sūtra (Chinese version) the Buddha states:
Son of a good family, buddhanature can be seen by only a buddha, and not a śravaka [arhat] or a pratyekabuddha.

Astus said:
"Although innumerable Bodhisattvas may well perfectly practise the paramitas [spiritual perfections], they might only reach the stage of the ten abodes [“bhumis”] and yet may not be able to see the Buddha-Nature. If the Tathagata speaks, they may see to some extent. When these Bodhisattvas have seen all, they will say: "Oh, wonderful, O World-Honoured One! We have been repeating birth and death and have been worried by selflessness. " O good man! Such Bodhisattvas may well reach the stage of the ten soils [“bhumis” - stages of Bodhisattva development], and yet they cannot clearly see the Buddha-Nature. How could sravakas and pratyekabuddhas well see [it]?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because not even a tenth stage bodhisattva can see the dharmakāya since they still have very subtle knowledge obscurations, that is until they are on the second half of that stage.

The Indian version states:
Son of a good family, bodhisattvas of the tenth stage can seen only a general approximation of the tathagātagarbha that exists in their bodies.

Astus said:
...
The Buddha-Nature that one has is the deepest and the most difficult [thing] to see. Only the Buddha can know it well. It is not within the reach of sravakas and pratyekabuddhas."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 12, p 110-111)

Malcolm wrote:
This merely harms your case that seeing the nature of the mind (dharmatā) is Buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[ Yes, heat on the path of preparation/application is a conceptual mind, it is a samadhi on an inferential emptiness.

The point I am making here, however is a little different. When TKF states that an inference becomes a direct perception, this is nonsensical, it is impossible.
Given that this is the case, how is it that the path of seeing, which develops directly from the path of preparation, is a non-conceptual mind, but you claim that a non-conceptual mind cannot arise from a conceptual mind. Could you please clarify?
A conceptual mind can never produce a nonconceptual mind — it is impossible. The mind (sems) is always with concepts (rnam par rtog pa).

The path of seeing arises from a cessation of concepts about the four extremes. To paraphrase Shantideva:
When neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before mind, at that time since there is no other possibility, the mind is pacified.
Thus, this avoids the ridiculous notion that conceptual minds produce nonconceptual minds, or that inferences transform into direct perceptions.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Good luck with trying to develop a non-conceptual realisation of emptiness without a conceptual experience - you'll be the first person in the history of Buddhist practice who has been able to do it.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not understanding the point — an inference cannot turn into a direct perception. All an inference will allow you to do is recognize something you have not seen before.

But even here, since the realization of emptiness at the first bhumi is nonconceptual, when you are realizing it, are you aware of it during the path of seeing? Or is it something you post-facto conceptually recognize that you have experienced? If it is as in the first case, then how is the first bhumi nonconceptual? And if it is the second case, then there is a missing link in your account, because we all clearly agree as long as one has not attained the Mahāyāna path of seeing, our notion of emptiness is strictly a conceptual inference.

It is for this reason there is a big debate which approach to emptiness one takes: the generic approach to emptiness of all three vehicles, the emptiness of inherent existence, or the special emptiness of Mahāyāna, the freedom from all four extremes (which alone can produce the Mahāyāna path of seeing). Apart from the Gelugpas, all Madhyamaka approaches, including Nāgārjuna's clearly underline the need to negate all four extremes in the ultimate, not merely one.

This has direct bearing on the mind of a Buddha. The mind of a Buddha cannot have concepts because the mind of a Buddha is never separate from state of equipoise on reality — a Buddha is in equipoise 24/7/365. The mind of a buddha is a nonconceptual stream of clarity and emptiness that is unsullied by any remaining obscurations. A Buddha response to the wishes of sentient beings spontaneously, like a wishfulfilling gem, without any intention or thought at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
People make this claim, but have nothing with which to back it up, making truly lame excuses like Rongom that the path is so fast one does not have have time to accumulate merit to manifest the qualities of the bhumis (which are actually measures of qualities and not realizations). Generally, I like Rongzom, but sometimes he makes very unfounded and rash assertions.

Sherlock said:
Malcolm you yourself mentioned thod rgal bas before:
But have you ever met one? In any case, vyukrantikas (thog rgal ba) are considered those above the path of seeing. Now I have met people I think are above the path of seeing, but none of them ever claim to be vyukrantikas.
I think like you said, at the end of the day, you prefer Sakya Pandita, that's great I guess. IMO Rongzom and Nubchen had access to sources that later Tibetans didn't have so I believe them when they are talking about Chan. Not that I practice Chan of course.

Malcolm wrote:
Stage skippers are people who jump from say the fourth bhumi to the seventh, or the seventh to the ninth, not the first to the tenth.

The realization of Buddhahood depends on the two accumulations — people who think otherwise are merely fantasizing.

Nyangral basically supports Ba Salnang's account of the Samye Debate, FYI.

I think we need to be careful about claims that Nub was a Chan practitioner — I think it is very doubtful, he is too late.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


cloudburst said:
Just to clarify, can you give a definition for first and second order cognitions? As of this discussion, I am assuming that they relate to direct and indirect cognitions.

In another discussion, you specified that the heat stage of the path of preparation was a conceptual mind. I agree.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, heat on the path of preparation/application is a conceptual mind, it is a samadhi on an inferential emptiness.

The point I am making here, however is a little different. When TKF states that an inference becomes a direct perception, this is nonsensical, it is impossible.

cloudburst said:
Given that this is the case, how is it that the path of seeing, which develops directly from the path of preparation, is a non-conceptual mind, but you claim that a non-conceptual mind cannot arise from a conceptual mind. Could you please clarify?

Malcolm wrote:
A conceptual mind can never produce a nonconceptual mind — it is impossible. The mind (sems) is always with concepts (rnam par rtog pa).

The path of seeing arises from a cessation of concepts about the four extremes. To paraphrase Shantideva:
When neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before mind, at that time since there is no other possibility, the mind is pacified.
Thus, this avoids the ridiculous notion that conceptual minds produce nonconceptual minds, or that inferences transform into direct perceptions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since when can an inference turn into a direct perception. This like claiming that if I look at smoke long enough, eventually I will see fire.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You generate a generic image of emptiness using valid reasons. The first moment is an inferential cognizer and the second and subsequent moments are direct perceivers.

Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely backwards. There is no way a second order cognition can transform into a first order cognition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
This is according to sutra, but according to Tantra, one can attain enlightenment in three years and three months. Many of Je Tsongkhapa's disciples did this.


Malcolm wrote:
One can even attain awakening in six months. The three years, three month thing is a figure from Kalacakra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Do you somehow imagine that conceptually meditating on emptiness will get you to the first bhumi, let alone Buddhahood?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Sure! How else are you going to get experience of emptiness? Tsongkhapa is very clear on this point. We first need to develop an inferential cognizer of emptiness which will later turn into a yogic direct perceiver. Without conceptual experience of emptiness we will never have a direct, non-conceptual experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Since when can an inference turn into a direct perception. This like claiming that if I look at smoke long enough, eventually I will see fire.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I am not a Chan person, I just follow Nubchen, Rongzom, Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa, ChNN

Malcolm wrote:
If one can achieve Buddhahood in a single life via Chan there is no reason to follow Vajrayāna at all, let alone Dzogchen.

You have yet to produce your sutra citations.

Sherlock said:
One can go from 1st bhumi to 10th with Chan. It is based on having achieved 1st bhumi already if not then it is like other sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
People make this claim, but have nothing with which to back it up, making truly lame excuses like Rongom that the path is so fast one does not have have time to accumulate merit to manifest the qualities of the bhumis (which are actually measures of qualities and not realizations). Generally, I like Rongzom, but sometimes he makes very unfounded and rash assertions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I am not a Chan person, I just follow Nubchen, Rongzom, Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa, ChNN

Malcolm wrote:
If one can achieve Buddhahood in a single life via Chan there is no reason to follow Vajrayāna at all, let alone Dzogchen.

You have yet to produce your sutra citations.

Sherlock said:
One can go from 1st bhumi to 10th with Chan. It is based on having achieved 1st bhumi already if not then it is like other sutra.

The citation is translated in SMS Level 1 text, 2008 edition.

Malcolm wrote:
What section?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I thought 1st bhumi used to be quite common?
It's more of the progress through the other bhumis that takes 3 kalpas.

On the other hand there are some sutras that say you can instantly go from 1st to 10th bhumi which Chan quotes.

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtras such as?

Sherlock said:
Nubchen just says "the prajnaparamita" so I assume its one version of the Prajnaparanita.

Malcolm wrote:
Where does Nubchen say this. Then it is easy find out if the citation really exists in the PP sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I am not a Chan person, I just follow Nubchen, Rongzom, Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa, ChNN

Malcolm wrote:
If one can achieve Buddhahood in a single life via Chan there is no reason to follow Vajrayāna at all, let alone Dzogchen.

You have yet to produce your sutra citations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Challenge23 said:
Please forgive me, but I'm a little confused.

If actual buddhahood doesn't happen in the desire realm, then how does any Buddhist method work at all, especially Vajrayana which promises Enlightenment in one desire realm lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
As to your first question, if you are common Mahāyāna practitioner, you are already know the path is long and so you do not practice with the expectation of achieving buddhahood in this lifetime.

As to your second, Vajrayāna has special methods.

Challenge23 said:
Ahh.  That makes more sense.  And I didn't see your clarification that you were speaking exclusively about sutrayana practice.  I apologize.  Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course Chan people think this is all bullshit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I thought 1st bhumi used to be quite common?
It's more of the progress through the other bhumis that takes 3 kalpas.

Malcolm wrote:
path of accumulation to 8th bhumi two incalculable eons; 8-10, one incalculable eon.


Sherlock said:
On the other hand there are some sutras that say you can instantly go from 1st to 10th bhumi which Chan quotes.

Malcolm wrote:
Such as?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
I thought 1st bhumi used to be quite common?
It's more of the progress through the other bhumis that takes 3 kalpas.

On the other hand there are some sutras that say you can instantly go from 1st to 10th bhumi which Chan quotes.

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtras such as?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Challenge23 said:
Please forgive me, but I'm a little confused.

If actual buddhahood doesn't happen in the desire realm, then how does any Buddhist method work at all, especially Vajrayana which promises Enlightenment in one desire realm lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
As to your first question, if you are common Mahāyāna practitioner, you are already know the path is long and so you do not practice with the expectation of achieving buddhahood in this lifetime.

As to your second, Vajrayāna has special methods.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I know this is a Mahayana board, but there's a whole section of the book of the twos in the Anguttara Nikaya about happiness  or sukhaṃ in Pali. It might just be marketing though.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


BuddhaFollower said:
What about KDL?

Malcolm wrote:
Through sutrayāna, I should have clarified.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point still stands, however, no one attains Buddhahood in the desire realm.

smcj said:
Sakyamuni? Padmasmbhava? Bodhidharma?

Malcolm wrote:
The latter two were emanations, I don't know if Bodhidharma was a Buddha or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
smcj said:
Unless someone is some kind of emanation (which cannot be externally ascertained), we can assume that having been born in the desire realm, we are very much beginners on the path.
Statistically? Yes. Specifically? No, regardless of whether or not you retroactively deem someone an "emanation".

Malcolm wrote:
The point still stands, however, no one attains Buddhahood in the desire realm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A promise of happiness underlies all successful marketing.

dharmagoat said:
Doesn't the Buddha promise happiness too?

Malcolm wrote:
He does not make promises of that kind. But what he does say is that if you follow the Dharma, you can discover total freedom from suffering. If you want to call that happiness, ok. But it is more like describing absence of disease as health.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
I'm going to stick with tantra.

Can accomplish whole path in 1 lifetime.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what we practice, but we study sūtra to understand what it is that tantra is seeking to accomplish so rapidly, and also so that we maintain a correct Madhyamaka view. To some extent the latter is not strictly necessary, because even Yogacarins attain full awakening through the sadhana method even though in post-equipoise their view is a little extreme. This being so, there is much hope for both gzhan stong pas and their mirror image, the Gelugpas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
smcj said:
The point being that, unless we can see someone's individual karma, we do not have enough data to know how those types of teachings apply to a specific case.


Malcolm wrote:
Unless someone is some kind of emanation (which cannot be externally ascertained), we can assume that having been born in the desire realm, we are very much beginners on the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
I assume these 3 incalcuable eons have to be perfect practice as well?

Malcolm wrote:
Right, this assumes the practitioners of the highest capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This discusses conceptual analysis, not meditation.

Greg said:
Do you hold that conceptual analysis is never "meditation?"


Malcolm wrote:
Correct, it is only a post-equipoise exercise. One should not engage in conceptual analysis in equipoise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
smcj said:
Even then it takes three incalculable eons, Chan is no shortcut.
Ah yes, but nobody knows whether or not somebody has already put in 2.9999 eons of work into it already!

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it takes two incalculable eons achieve the eighth bhumi. It takes another eon after that to attain full awakening. Moreover, actual buddhahood does not happen in desire realm, but rather in Akanistha Gaṇḍavyuha in the presence of the Sambhogakāya. Only emanations appear to attain buddhahood here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Bakmoon, read this thead:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4704&start=0

Bakmoon said:
That thread deals quite a bit with Tantra, but you don't need Tantra to attain a nonconceptual realization of emptiness. Sutric meditation can also lead to it.

Sherlock said:
Sutrayana takes kalpas to get nonconceptual for most people, unless you have high capacity for Chan.

Malcolm wrote:
Even then it takes three incalculable eons, Chan is no shortcut, they just pretend that since everything is empty, paths and stages do not matter because they are not ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Conceptual meditation on emptiness is a necessary precursor to non-conceptual meditation on emptiness though.

Malcolm wrote:
How can a conceptual meditation turn unto a nonconceptual meditation?

Bakmoon said:
It occurs as it is described in the Kashyapa Parivarta Sutra which says: For example, two trees are dragged against each other by the wind and from that a fire starts, burning the two trees. In the same way, Kashyapa, if you have correct analytical discrimination, the power of a noble being’s wisdom will emerge. With its emergence, correct analytical discrimination will itself be burned up.


Malcolm wrote:
This discusses conceptual analysis, not meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Conceptual meditation on emptiness is a necessary precursor to non-conceptual meditation on emptiness though.

Malcolm wrote:
How can a conceptual meditation turn unto a nonconceptual meditation?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
anjali said:
My goodness. Who would have thought that the phrase, "Drop your mind," would be controversial? This seems like a tempest in a teacup.

Tsongkhapafan said:
What's in a word? everything! Everything is mere name, so we need to be very precise in terms of how we use words to convey meaning. 'Drop your mind' is a bit too throwaway from my point of view. Is he encouraging us to abandon conceptual thoughts (bad idea), or deluded conceptual thoughts? (good idea). The difference is very important.


Malcolm wrote:
Do you somehow imagine that conceptually meditating on emptiness will get you to the first bhumi, let alone Buddhahood?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For the purposes of an empowerment there are three kinds: a drawn mandala, a powder mandala and a body mandala.

With respect to the first two, there is a procedure of setting out the mandala, i.e. preparing the site, laying it out, coloring it and so on. With respect to the last it is based completely on the samadhi of the master conferring the empowerment, whereas the other two are supports for the samadhi of the master, but primarily as a aid to students of lesser capacity.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, then the question is, in what sense does one "enter" any of these mandalas? The only real explanation of this I see in what you said has to do with "dependent origination" but honestly, for me, this doesn't explain much.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, first what happens is that master leads you to the eastern door, etc. I thought you were paying attention during the empowerment? Or did you just enjoy watching HHST sit there more?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
A promise of happiness underlies all successful marketing.

dzogchungpa said:
OH SNAP!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Still, someone should probably ask the Rinpoche. Otherwise don't be surprised if the issue doesn't disappear.

Malcolm wrote:
People's misunderstandings will never disappear completely. This is why the same questions are raised again and again, and the same answers given, again and again.

dzogchungpa said:
Maybe the real question that needs to be answered is: "What is a mandala?"

Malcolm wrote:
For the purposes of an empowerment there are three kinds: a drawn mandala, a powder mandala and a body mandala.

With respect to the first two, there is a procedure of setting out the mandala, i.e. preparing the site, laying it out, coloring it and so on. With respect to the last it is based completely on the samadhi of the master conferring the empowerment, whereas the other two are supports for the samadhi of the master, but primarily as a aid to students of lesser capacity. Whichever the case may be, the mandala is in any case created and then dissolved at the end of the rite. After that it is up to the students to do the daily practice themselves.

So for example, the Vajrakilaya empowerment you attended with HHST has been dissolved — it no longer exists in that space, in that place. The minute HHST was done with the rites of conferring the empowerments, he began to finish the Ganapuja (empowerments are actually a branch of ganapuja activities), offer tormas and in the end he dismissed the wisdom beings in the front created mandala and the vase mandala and dissolved his self-creation thus ending the rite completely apart from the dedication of merits, aspirations and benedictory prayers.

The only sense in which we can say that mandala continues is in the mandala of students who attended the empowerment. But until you yourself do the retreats, and so on, you cannot give that empowerment to someone else. That mandala does not exist on the video as a living entity. It cannot practice the sadhana, it also cannot grant empowerment, etc.

The misconception which Astus has is the notion that an empowerment is merely communicating information received through the five senses, thus for him there is no difference between an empowerment and a recording of an empowerment, it is merely information. While it is true that information is being communicated through the five sense, that is not all that is happening, there are samadhis involved on the part of both the master and the students at the same time, there is the dependent origination which needs to be actively created between the master and the student at the same time, particularly in the lower empowerments; there are the samaya vows conferred and received and the agreement to follow them (Whatever you say boss, all that I will do....), and so on — all of the things which I have now explained exhaustively.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Why such resistance, though? There is obviously confusion about the issue that could be cleared away with a simple question. It's not some minor technical issue but something which could apparently lead to serious obstructions for the many people who seem to have interpreted his words as meaning that recorded empowerments are possible. Anyway, I hope somebody does ask him when they see him, that's all.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly — and no disrespect intended towards Garchen Rinpoche — it does not really matter what his answer is.

For example, let us say some one claims "Oh, there is God in Buddhadharma, I heard my guru say so" and even goes so far as to find a quote where this or that  guru says there is God in Buddhism. This does not mean that this is correct, or that there is fact the doctrine of God in Buddhadharma, or that we need to take that statement literally.

Let us say for example, that someone claims "My guru says that there is no rebirth and no karma in Buddhism" and even goes so far as to find a quote where this or that guru says there is there is no rebirth and no karma in Buddhadharma. This does not mean that this is correct, or that there is fact no doctrine of rebirth and karma in Buddhadharma.

This is why, in the end, even what one's guru says must be subjected to scrutiny, it must be measured against what is taught in the tantra and the authoritative opinions of masters of the past. If someone who one regards as a guru teaches something that does not correspond with Buddhadharma, one must ignore those statements.  Since we subject all the Buddha's words to scrutiny, why should we not do the same with respect to what our gurus say? Why should we abandon our critical thinking merely because we think our guru is a Buddha? We should not.

In particular, when confronted with novelties such as the assertion that people can receive empowerments from recordings of past empowerments, people must use common sense in addition to reason. Who is making this claim? Why is this claim being made?, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Religious transference: Nichiren Buddhism and Catholicis
Content:
nichirenista said:
I should probably clarify that I wasn't consciously attracted to Nichiren Buddhism because I consciously thought it was similar to Catholicism. Here is what attracted me to Nichiren Buddhism: The idea that I could get what I want by chanting for it, which is most definitely NOT taught in Catholicism...

Malcolm wrote:
It is also not taught in Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Still, someone should probably ask the Rinpoche. Otherwise don't be surprised if the issue doesn't disappear.

Malcolm wrote:
People's misunderstandings will never disappear completely. This is why the same questions are raised again and again, and the same answers given, again and again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
WeiHan said:
Is there a similar thread asking if Bikkhu and Bikkhuni ordination can be obtained from recording?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not, because no one would be so stupid as to imagine they could receive an ordination from a recording. I already addressed this point as well.

WeiHan said:
I was just curious why people so liberally leverage such scrutinizing questions on Vajrayana practices but ignore that other yanas have similar practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is because most people really do not understand the process of empowerment, even people who have been following Vajrayāna for years — so they get strange ideas in their heads, indulge in fantasies, and generally invent very many strange practices. It has been happening for a long time, which is why Sapan wrote the Three Vows to begin with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Sherlock said:
Malcolm could you answer this question? Thanks

Malcolm wrote:
The Union of the Sun and Moon Tantra states:
After that, “Nonconceptual Great Muni” made offerings with offerings of non-attachment to the Teacher, Mahāvajradhara; petitioned with a melody of non-invocation, held a thought of non-abiding, rose from the seat that was not laid out, donned a garment that was not fabricated, invoked with a song that was not intoned, and requested with words that were not spoken. Having arisen before those with faith that clears the darkness, in this way he made a request to the teacher with the words of the song of the vajra:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
WeiHan said:
Is there a similar thread asking if Bikkhu and Bikkhuni ordination can be obtained from recording?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not, because no one would be so stupid as to imagine they could receive an ordination from a recording. I already addressed this point as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharma is about how things are, and how things are is sarvadukkham.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I'm not an expert on either Shambhala or Ray, but from what I understand this is not the Shambhala view, and if I am not mistaken, for Ray the Shambhala view is fundamental.

Malcolm wrote:
A promise of happiness underlies all successful marketing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
narraboth said:
Even the recording contains all activities that the guru has done or prepared, the actual mandala has gone by the time when students watch or hear it. Unless whenever you watch or listen to the recording, the mandala re-generated, but that doesn't make sense. Live-stream empowerment is different: if the guru includes certain students in the mandala with his visualisation, no matter the student is sitting in the Gompa, outside of Gompa, another building or another country, there is a actual mandala AT THAT TIME so it is possible. In non-real-time case, even the guru visualise the uncertain students all in the current mandala, there still won't be that mandala at the time when those people hear it; when there was a mandala and the guru visualised them in, those people do not aware anything thus could not create any link. So it is illogical, not just against the text, for any empowerment that needs a mandala or object to be given with non-real-time recording.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.

narraboth said:
However, it is totally possible that whenever a student watch a video or hear an audio of empowerment from a truly great master, if he or she generates genuine faith, the master and deity will appear in front of him or her to grant blessing. It will certainly create a link with that deity and master, but it is not the same thing as receiving empowerment in an actual mandala.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.

narraboth said:
Can it still be called 'empowerment'?

Malcolm wrote:
No.

narraboth said:
Well, if the empowerment people receive in guruyoga by their prayer and visualisation also an empowerment, then why not.

Malcolm wrote:
As you state below, the empowerments in Guru Yoga are a path empowerment one is authorized to do by having properly received empowerment in the first place.

narraboth said:
Whilst it is actually required that students receive 4 empowerments in actual mandala before they can practice guruyoga, although nowadays many masters just give glung of guruyoga no matter what.

Malcolm wrote:
And this is not a correct practice.

narraboth said:
I still think there is a difference between them. I mean, I personally think if people practice guruyoga without actually receiving 4 empowerments, it would be more like a blessing+practicing. Guruyoga is called path empowerment, you can't have path without base. I guess same apply to the case here.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, a master has to create the mandala: there is the master's creation of himself as the mandala, the front created mandala, the mandala in the vase and so on and so forth.
Once the ritual has finished, all these mandalas and so on are dissolved so they do not exist anymore since they are not being maintained by the master's visualization, having been dissolved. I explained all of this already in the other thread on this point.
Not only that, but the recording generally only covers the activities for the disciple. All the activities that the master has to do before conferring the empowerment are not recorded.
Thus the recording is incapable of doing recreating these things since a recording has no mind, no volition and so on.

Astus said:
What the master visualises and does before the empowerment does not show for the receiver either when he is present phyiscally or when it is through a live broadcast. How is it any different for the person watching a recording? Whether the master followed the prescribed procedure to give the empowerment or not, it cannot be known by the receiver. Whatever is received by the disciple exists only as physical sensory perception, so anything beyond that does not have any role in receiving the empowerment. But if you say it does, then what and how?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the point. The point is whether the rite is complete or not with all its parts.

A master does a sadhana, creates a mandala, invites the students into that mandala and closes the mandala.

If the master does not do the sadhana before hand, creating the mandala, even if he reads the portion of the initiation text meant create the students as the mandala, it won't happen. The master must be visualizing himself as that specific deity for which he is giving the empowerment having already properly performed the sadhana himself, before he can give the empowerment. Likewise, during the empowerment, the master must visualize all the students in the form the deity, he must summon the wisdom continuum of that deity to merge with the visualized form of the students he has visualized as the deity, make it firm, and then bestow the various blessings of body speech and mind will maintaining all of this visualization continuously. Also the student from their side must try their best to follow and do the described visualizations at the same time the master is doing them.

Finally, and importantly, at the end of the ritual the master dissolves the mandala completely. Once he finishes his sadhana, the mandala has been dissolved. One cannot receive empowerment into a mandala that has been dissolved, just as one cannot enter a house that has been constructed and then dismantled.

For example, while one can watch a video of a house being constructed and dismantled, one will never be able to enter that house at any time while one is watching the recording. If one the other hand you are there for the raising of the structure, you can enter the structure until it has been dismantled. Likewise, in terms of receiving an initiations, if you are present for the master's creation of the students as the mandala, then you can enter that mandala, but if you are not present in real time, then it does not work. Why? Because the master and the student have to be engaged at the same time in the process of the giving and receiving the empowerment, they have to be in the mandala together. This is impossible with a recording.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So if I received a proper empowerment from Garchen Rinpoche, and then he said watching recordings of some of his empowerments can function as an empowerment, I should take that to be true, right?
Even so you have to check whether what your guru says accords with the Dharma, and if not, you need ignore it. Otherwise, one is just becoming someone who has blind faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One can either follow what the Buddha taught in valid tantras, or one can follow the opinion of the crowd, really, its your choice.

dzogchungpa said:
Aren't you supposed to view your guru as a Buddha?


Malcolm wrote:
This presumes you have received a proper empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some of you people are, understanably, ignorant of what an empowerment entails, what makes an empowerment valid and dies not constitute a valid empowerment. It is not something which is subjevt to the shifting opinions of this or that Tibetan.


Johnny Dangerous said:
That is only true if people accept that you are the sole authority on the subject Malcolm, no offense.

Malcolm wrote:
I suggest you in particular read Sakya Pandita's Three Vows.

One can either follow what the Buddha taught in valid tantras, or one can follow the opinion of the crowd, really, its your choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Hey Malcolm,

Is there any difference in terms of power or at least ease for the master between empowering one student and one thousand?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, their capacity for visualizing each person as the deity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some of you people are, understanably, ignorant of what an empowerment entails, what makes an empowerment valid and dies not constitute a valid empowerment. It is not something which is subjevt to the shifting opinions of this or that Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Sherlock said:
Practicing what the guru teaches is the best offering, so when we do guruyoga, sing SoV and dedicate at the end, we are offering.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because the context of the original teaching of SOV was as an offering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Title: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course, who ever said it was otherwise?

Astus said:
Then there is no difference between a live broadcast and a recording in terms of visual and auditory impressions. Maybe even mass empowerments are similar as well.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is a difference, as I told you.

For example, a master has to create the mandala: there is the master's creation of himself as the mandala, the front created mandala, the mandala in the vase and so on and so forth.

Once the ritual has finished, all these mandalas and so on are dissolved so they do not exist anymore since they are not being maintained by the master's visualization, having been dissolved. I explained all of this already in the other thread on this point.

Not only that, but the recording generally only covers the activities for the disciple. All the activities that the master has to do before conferring the empowerment are not recorded.

Thus the recording is incapable of doing recreating these things since a recording has no mind, no volition and so on.

Really, there is no chance a recorded empowerment can actually confer empowerment, it is just not possible.

You see, this is why when people like yourself, who really have zero understanding of Varjayāna weigh in in such topics, your words are a best ignorant and at worst misleading.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, that is never the case, it is more like a stamp and its impression. A recorded empowerment can never be a stamp, it can only be an impression. In this case, an inert impression. A student, who receives an empowerment, is an animate living person upon whom an impression has been made, and when they have realized the meaning, they too can make impressions on others.

This is essentially why, for all who reading, the idea that one can receive an empowerment from a recording is a corrupt idea that will destroy lineages if people take it seriously.

Astus said:
How does the stamp meets the wax? Isn't it through the five outer senses?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, who ever said it was otherwise?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
You seem to be saying that misery needs to be instilled in us before we can practice the Dharma. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am saying it is already there. If you are not recognizing it, it is because you have not really understood what suffering is.

dharmagoat said:
For those that already recognise the hopelessness of saṃsāra and are suffering, might a degree of positivity in the message be encouraging?

Malcolm wrote:
Sachen Kunga Nyingpo says:
If one carefully reflects on the absence of happiness wherever one is born in samsara’s three realms, whatever one does will become Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
You seem to be saying that misery needs to be instilled in us before we can practice the Dharma. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am saying it is already there. If you are not recognizing it, it is because you have not really understood what suffering is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Can the message be something between the two extremes of negative and positive? A middle way, perhaps?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra states:
Hell beings experience the flames of hell. 
Pretas experience hunger and thirst. 
Animals experience eating one another. 
Humans experience short lives. 
Asuras experience conflict and violence. 
Devas experience unconcern. 
There exists no happiness 
in samsara, even the size of a pinpoint.
Vasubandhu says:
The childish, like a hand, 
do not see the suffering of the conditioned, like a hair. 
The Āryas, like an eye, 
always flinch because of them.
Maitreyanatha says:
Just as there is no sweet smell in feces, there is no happiness in the five migrations.
Nāgārjuna says:
The gentle regret this samsara,
the source of many sufferings of
impoverishment due to desire, death, illness, aging and so on. 
Also one must hear about its flaws.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, when you have medicine that tastes really bad, you have to convince people the disease is worse, that's all.

dharmagoat said:
That sounds like a recipe for even more suffering. A double dose of negativity.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if all you want is someone beaming positive messages at you, try another religion.

Dharma is about how things are, and how things are is sarvadukkham.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
WeiHan said:
What assumes a type of mental connection that is bound by time?

Astus said:
That the mental state of the person giving the empowerment influences the receiver's mind, as if there were a direct connection between two mind-streams.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is never the case, it is more like a stamp and its impression. A recorded empowerment can never be a stamp, it can only be an impression. In this case, an inert impression. A student, who receives an empowerment, is an animate living person upon whom an impression has been made, and when they have realized the meaning, they too can make impressions on others.

This is essentially why, for all who reading, the idea that one can receive an empowerment from a recording is a corrupt idea that will destroy lineages if people take it seriously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
smcj said:
Sorry, there really is no sugar that will mask the taste of rebirth and karma -- it a very strong medicine for a strong disease.
Malcolm, I think I'm just as right wing/hardcore about this subject as you are, but I disagree with your approach. You can't leave people at the bottom of a cliff and say that there is a door to Dharma at the top of the cliff. You've got to give them a way to get there. Simply abandoning them like that could very well be breaking the bodhisattva vow.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, when you have medicine that tastes really bad, you have to convince people the disease is worse, that's all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
smcj said:
You cannot be a Dharma practitioner and yet reject rebirth. Do we really have to have this conversation yet again?
I doubt that someone like Trungpa rejected rebirth in his own practice, yet he did not make a huge issue out it with his students. If so, then how he chose to guide his students towards Dharma is limited only by his own realization and upaya/skill. Thus there is room for acceptance or rejection of what he did, but based only on how one sees his attainments, not on how much latitude a realized teacher has on guiding their students towards Dharma.

For me, he was not my teacher, so I feel no need to formulate an opinion about whether he was realized enough to use his discretion to adapt things the way he did. But I acknowledge that there is room for that type of thing within the tradition--if needed and by a fully realized teacher.
You do realize that he participated in Dagara initiations with an African teacher named Malidoma Patrice Somé?
He is very open minded, maybe too much so. He has not limited his open-mindedness to the teachings coming from Tibet. That may or may not be a good thing. Personally I leave my comfort Zone at the edges of the Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, teachers like this are not for me. And apart from these things, I really don't have an opinion. People are free to follow whatever they want and whoever they want.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:


dharmagoat said:
I think I need to make it clear again that I am not talking about rejecting rebirth, but rather finding ways to accommodate it.

WeiHan said:
Do you mean evidence for rebirth? Or how it fit into your world view?

dharmagoat said:
Being introduced to it in a way that does not incline one to reject it.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, there really is no sugar that will mask the taste of rebirth and karma -- it a very strong medicine for a strong disease.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
You are just having a knee-jerk reaction to one thing he said somewhere though, again, he may departs somewhat from traditional views i'm sure, but he is hugely far from a materialist or secular Buddhist etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I am never said he was either. I simply don't like the way he phrases "rebirth" in his talks and later works as if it is some initiation process. He uses that language over and over again in many places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You cannot be a Dharma practitioner and yet reject rebirth. Do we really have to have this conversation yet again?

dharmagoat said:
It is not the same conversation. Your response is the same, that is all.

I think I need to make it clear again that I am not talking about rejecting rebirth, but rather finding ways to accommodate it.

Malcolm wrote:
One can either accept it or not. There is no way to "accommodate it" without a great deal of conceptual proliferation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
You are just having a knee-jerk reaction to one thing he said somewhere though, again, he may departs somewhat from traditional views i'm sure, but he is hugely far from a materialist or secular Buddhist etc.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that he participated in Dagara initiations with an African teacher named Malidoma Patrice Somé?

Johnny Dangerous said:
"...of particular impact in my study with Malidoma was an all-night 'earth burial' which, through its initiatory death and rebirth process, allowed my life to crumble and then arise in a way that established earth and the 'body work' once and for all, as the core of my spiritual life"

Malcolm wrote:
—— Touching Enlightenment

If you look around, you will discover that Malidoma Patrice Somé is fervent advocate of sacrificing animals. I can't say that this was part of Ray's initiation (though I would be surprised if it was not). We all know how the Buddha felt about animal sacrifice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you only have one lifetime, and you want to dedicate yourself to the benefit of sentient beings, it is better done in service as a doctor, nurse, fire fighter, aid worker, etc. rather than pretending to oneself that one is a Dharma practitioner.

dharmagoat said:
Not that they are not mutually exclusive.

As Dharma practitioners, we each do what we can. To think that someone is either a fully-fledged Dharma practitioner or not one at all does seem rather... dualistic.

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot be a Dharma practitioner and yet reject rebirth. Do we really have to have this conversation yet again?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:




Malcolm wrote:
But if incarnation is viewed as a sort of metaphor

Case closed.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Have you read his books? If not, then no, case not closed..unfortunate use of terms maybe, but you can't know his views from one little snippet of text.

Unless he's revised his views, he's definitely not what you are implying here at all, you think he believes in Dharmapalas..but takes a materialist view of rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
Ray is very influenced by shamanism. One can have an animistic view of the world and yet not accept rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:




Malcolm wrote:
But if incarnation is viewed as a sort of metaphor

Case closed.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Have you read his books? If not, then no, case not closed..unfortunate use of terms maybe, but you can't know his views from one little snippet of text.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. I understand that in his books he presents a normative view. It is what people actually teach their students that is more salient, for me at any rate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
So, Malcolm, what are your thoughts on Dr. Reggie Ray as a teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have any opinion about Ray at all, apart from a bit of discomfort about his having decided to introduce brand new "Tibetan" "dharmapāla" he calls "Ritrö Gonpo" based on some vision he had of Kit Carson Peak and an interview where he seemed to dismiss the importance of teachings on rebirth and karma.

More here:

http://www.soundstrue.com/store/the-protectors.html


Johnny Dangerous said:
I'd guess you are misreading the rebirth and karma quote..he is quite far from a 'secular Buddhist" or something similar, even a cursory reading of his books will show that. In fact, he often goes off on tangents about how a  big part of what Vajrayana changes for westerners is our de-sacralized, materialist worldview. I think he purposely makes his presentation accessible to people who might be waffling, but in terms of his own views he seems pretty solidly like any Vajrayana practitioner.


Malcolm wrote:
But if incarnation is viewed as a sort of metaphor

Case closed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If one does not accept rebirth, one has no motivation to practice Dharma, except as an ego trip. It is that simple.

dharmagoat said:
I don't see how a person dedicating to the benefit of all beings what they perceive as their one-and-only life can be considered an ego trip.

Malcolm wrote:
If you only have one lifetime, and you want to dedicate yourself to the benefit of sentient beings, it is better done in service as a doctor, nurse, fire fighter, aid worker, etc. rather than pretending to oneself that one is a Dharma practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
smcj said:
….I solved the dilemma by understanding what was going to make my practice move ahead, and choosing my practice over my doubts.
The underlined part is what most people don't see. Only now am I getting to the point where I can try to say how that is so for myself, and doing it very badly. If you have a coherent presentation of that understanding, I think people would be interested.

Malcolm wrote:
If one does not accept rebirth, one has no motivation to practice Dharma, except as an ego trip. It is that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
He is providing a way to engage with Buddhadharma for those that may otherwise dismiss it.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the common apology for such sentiments, but I have never accepted it as valid.

dharmagoat said:
That is understandable if you have never experienced the dilemma yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, I solved the dilemma by understanding what was going to make my practice move ahead, and choosing my practice over my doubts. Then of course, over time, I also discovered the clear rational for why it is irrational to believe that mind stream can arise from material causes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
He is providing a way to engage with Buddhadharma for those that may otherwise dismiss it.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the common apology for such sentiments, but I have never accepted it as valid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Thanks, Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
... an interview where he seemed to dismiss the importance of teachings on rebirth and karma.

dharmagoat said:
Which interview is this? Could you provide a link?

Malcolm wrote:
Some interview, it was several years ago. He said:
The whole belief in past lives is something that Buddhism inherited from Indian Tradition. And I think, as with many things in Asian Buddhism, we need to take a critical look at this and see…you know, the Buddha said to his own students “…anything that I teach you, don’t take it at face value, don’t believe it just because even I said it– you have to look at it and evaluate it within your own framework and see if it makes sense. And if it doesn’t make sense, dump it, get rid of it.” And I think that incarnation, ah… reincarnation, as a literal teaching, I don’t find it helpful for anybody because it takes your focus away from this life. But if incarnation is viewed as a sort of metaphor for the fact that we humans are on some kind of extremely long spiritual journey that happened before we were born, and it’s going to keep on going, then I think it’s helpful.”
Personally, I think such sentiments are misguided.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
So, Malcolm, what are your thoughts on Dr. Reggie Ray as a teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have any opinion about Ray at all, apart from a bit of discomfort about his having decided to introduce brand new "Tibetan" "dharmapāla" he calls "Ritrö Gonpo" based on some vision he had of Kit Carson Peak and an interview where he seemed to dismiss the importance of teachings on rebirth and karma.

More here:

http://www.soundstrue.com/store/the-protectors.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are a number of levels at work here, but the most fundamental is that when you receive an empowerment, you are in fact receiving a number of vows, refuge vows, bodhisattva vows as well as vows of secret mantra. It is not simply "instruction."

dzogchungpa said:
This is interesting. I don't know about secret mantra vows, but can't you take refuge and bodhisattva vows by yourself?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a Mahāyāna system for going for refuge and generating bodhicitta on one's own if one cannot find a master. It is also not at all clear that when one goes for Mahāyāna refuge in this way, one is adopting the five vows of a lay person as well as the bodhisattva vows.

But, one cannot self-ordain as a novice, or a monk, nor can one confer upon oneself any empowerment.

In general one should receive the three vows from a master and then enhance them by renewing them daily. Unless of course you are a very high Dzogchen practitioner like so many people we see on Buddhist internet boards who have transcended the need for mundane things such as paying attention to the state of their vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, this is a stupid conversation — you cannot receive empowerments from a recording of an empowerment, period. End of story. Just like you cannot receive monks vows from a recording, and so on. People who think they have received an empowerment from a recording are just deluding themselves and received nothing whatsoever. Even if they recite mantras and practices they think they have received from a recording there will be no benefit whatsoever, in fact the opposite will be the case.

If you want to receive a vow, any vow, you have to do it in the proper way, and receiving them from a recording cannot be construed as proper at all.

Dan74 said:
Malcolm, could you elucidate why this is so? Or point me to a resource??

From my non-Vajrayana perspective I can easily see how in some instance face-to-faces interaction with a teacher who knows your heart is indispensable, but a lot of other instruction can be received in various formats. What mechanism in empowerments makes it work when it is live and fail when it isn't?

_/|\_
dan

Malcolm wrote:
There are a number of levels at work here, but the most fundamental is that when you receive an empowerment, you are in fact receiving a number of vows, refuge vows, bodhisattva vows as well as vows of secret mantra. It is not simply "instruction."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddhas' minds are non-conceptual but they do possess the five all-accompanying mental factors as this is the valid basis upon which mind is imputed. They have omniscience and therefore they also possess the object ascertaining mental factors.


Malcolm wrote:
and what is your citation for this?

Tsongkhapafan said:
You know I can't give my citations because of the TOS, however, I will quote Dharmakirti's definition of mind which is 'that which is clarity and cognising'. Buddhas have minds, minds cognise, cognition requires mental factors, ergo, Buddhas have minds with mental factors. Bliss for example is experienced by mental factor feeling.

Buddha are not like stones.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you can give your citations. But I meant from Sutra.

When one says that a Buddha has jñan̄a, but not vijñāna, this does not mean a Buddha is inert, it means the opposite.

Cognition for an ordinary sentient being requires mental factors, but a Buddha's jñāna does not require mental factors.

For example there is a sutra passage cited in the Yogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṃgrahanī that states:
"Bhagavān, how should the mental factors of the tathāgatas be known?"

"Mañjuśrī, the mind (citta, sems), intellect (yid, manas) or consciousness (vijñāna, rnam shes) of tathāgatas are indeed not differentiated in discerning wisdom, but the mind of a tathāgata arises without formations, and should known to be like an emanation."

"Bhagavān, it being the case the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is free from all action of formations, on the other hand, do mental factors arise without the action of formations?"

"Mañjuśrī, it is due to past cultivation of method and wisdom.

Mañjuśrī, one awakens [from sleep] because of the power of past formations, but though there are no formations for arising in the concentration on cessation, one arises [from concentration] only through the power of past formations. Just as like the mental factors of sleep and the concentration on cessation, the mental factors of the tathāgatas should be known to be formations of past cultivation of method and wisdom."

"Bhagavān, do the emanations of the tathāgatas have minds or not?"

"Mañjuśrī, Though they do not have minds, they are also not mindless, because minds are neither independent nor dependent."
In other words, the mind of a tathāgata is like an emanation, it appears to function in all the ways that a mind functions, but in reality, there are no present active formations happening. Everything that seems to happen in the mind of a Buddha is based on some past cultivation of method and wisdom on the path.

So Buddhas seem to have minds, but in reality, all they have is wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddhas' minds are non-conceptual but they do possess the five all-accompanying mental factors as this is the valid basis upon which mind is imputed. They have omniscience and therefore they also possess the object ascertaining mental factors.


Malcolm wrote:
and what is your citation for this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Dharmata teachings.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
but they do have two kinds of omniscient wisdom (sarvajñāta jñāna).

BuddhaFollower said:
Which is synonymous with dharmakaya?

Malcolm wrote:
Both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Dharmata teachings.
Content:
fckw said:
Does anyone know what sort of practices he teaches? Apparently his background is Nyingma.

dzogchungpa said:
BTW, today he said that the only thing he has been teaching for the last ten years, which he is going to keep teaching for a very long time, is "Drop your mind".


Tsongkhapafan said:
Become like a plank of wood - not very contructive!
Buddhas have minds.


Malcolm wrote:
What they have is jñāna, not vijñāna, it's a little different a "mind (citta)."

Buddhas do not have thoughts, they do not minds (citta) or mental factors (caitta), but they do have two kinds of omniscient wisdom (sarvajñāta jñāna).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Dharmata teachings.
Content:
fckw said:
Does anyone know what sort of practices he teaches? Apparently his background is Nyingma.

dzogchungpa said:
BTW, today he said that the only thing he has been teaching for the last ten years, which he is going to keep teaching for a very long time, is "Drop your mind".



Malcolm wrote:
Well, that makes for short Dharma talks. རང་སེམས་བབས་ཡོད་རེད་


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Yes, we already know that is your view. But the question, which you haven't really answered, is how do you know that the Rinpoche doesn't think otherwise? It doesn't seem that you really do know. Can anyone clarify?

Malcolm wrote:
Garchen Rinpoche is a very traditional lama, who would never advocate that one can actually received an empowerment from a chunk of inanimate metal and plastic that makes noise and projects an image.

He himself never said that this was a possibility.

Anyway, it cannot be done. It does not depend on this or that lamas opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Take for instance the issue of recorded empowerments, which I think were deemed acceptable by Garchen Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
Um no...this was an example of enthusiastic over reach on the part of some of his students in one center. Many "innovations" happen this way.

Anders said:
I don't pay close attention, but last time i checked the quotes seemed to indicate the contrary.

How was it established it was students overreaching?

Malcolm wrote:
Because, in the end, when the Khenpo at the center where those students were making that assertion was pressed on the issue, he would not confirm that this in fact was Garchen Rinpoche's point of view.

Anyway, this is a stupid conversation — you cannot receive empowerments from a recording of an empowerment, period. End of story. Just like you cannot receive monks vows from a recording, and so on. People who think they have received an empowerment from a recording are just deluding themselves and received nothing whatsoever. Even if they recite mantras and practices they think they have received from a recording there will be no benefit whatsoever, in fact the opposite will be the case.

If you want to receive a vow, any vow, you have to do it in the proper way, and receiving them from a recording cannot be construed as proper at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Kalachakra Tantra
Content:
EarthMudra said:
so is the Kalachakra Tantra considered Pure Vision?

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by pure vision?

EarthMudra said:
it was taught by the Buddha. I guess that answered my question. Thanks Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, then yes you think it was taught by the Buddha. The tantra itself was not actually written down at first, only much later, and there are a couple of versions a long one which we do not have, and the short one which we do have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Sakya lam-rim text?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Will you have an Abhidharma course soon?

Ifi have the money I am interested in participating.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh I don't know. Abhidharma takes about a year, twice month. And that is just a course in how to read the book, not a detailed, cover every point course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Sakya lam-rim text?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Same.


Malcolm wrote:
PM me your facebook ID's. I closed the group and am in the process of trimming it down.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Healthy sex life as a householder
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
This has nothing to do with Buddhist Vajrayāna practice, FYI — this is a new age trip based on physical bliss. The aim of Vajrayāna is connate bliss, which is beyond any physical sensation.


Saoshun said:
Do you think you can have physical orgasm for couple days and months? New age do not touch this realm because they use spirituality to hijack woman into sex as excuse. There are various ways  to attain body-samadhi which is beyond bliss which is nice state to transform body channels to more subtle things and siddhis, I don't know if this is Vajrayana view, I have only my personal experience. Also practices like this are not only exclusive to Vajrayana, any decenet practice with time you develop (with proper instructions) experiences that suppress physical orgasm. (consider having orgasm couple days and months and just having it for couple seconds)

Malcolm wrote:
If it is physical, it is not that interesting, it is just mundane, and this is addressed and dismissed in the tantras such as the Hevajra Tantra:
The first bliss is the hero,
supreme bliss is the yoginī,
the bliss of intense pleasure is certain for all,
the true knowledge is from the method of their pleasure.
The pleasure of of bliss is slight,
supreme bliss is more than that,
the bliss beyond bliss is free from attachment,
the remaining one is the connate. 
The first is the desire to touch,
the second is the desire for pleasure,
the third is the perishing of passion,
therefore, the fourth can be meditated. 
Supreme bliss is called existence,
the bliss beyond bliss is called nirvana,
the middle is mere bliss, 
the connate is free of these. 

Without desire, and not without desire,
nothing perceived in the middle,
Here there is no method and wisdom,
the appearance of true reality,
can’t be described by another, the connate
cannot be found anywhere,
but one can understand it in dependence on the Guru, 
time and method, and from one’s merit.
YMMV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Sakyong has integrated the Shambhala teachings into the Buddhist path over all, rebranding their lineage as Shambhala Buddhism.

smcj said:
Does it still end up at Vajrayana?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, but rather than Shambhala teaching being a separate path, they are now integrated. So there is a Shambhala ngondro, etc., all culminating in Gesar practice, the so called Werma sadhana, along with other practices authored/revealed by CTR


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Kalachakra Tantra
Content:
EarthMudra said:
so is the Kalachakra Tantra considered Pure Vision?

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by pure vision?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Healthy sex life as a householder
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Just to clarify, though, must the partner also be a Vajrayana practitioner?

Malcolm wrote:
For a Vajrayāna practitioner, yes. Reduces the pool of choices a bit though...


Lazy_eye said:
Also, would you say the answer you gave is consistent with all schools of Buddhism

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I think so. In addition, no minors, spouses partners of others, crazy people. Sex is normal, but it must be conducted responsibly and with care.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: Healthy sex life as a householder
Content:
duckfiasco said:
What does having a healthy relationship with sex mean to you as a householder?

Malcolm wrote:
It means having a women I like, in my bed, consensually, in a long term relationship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Healthy sex life as a householder
Content:
duckfiasco said:
What does having a healthy relationship with sex mean to you as a householder?

Jetavan said:
Fortunately, all the answers are in the "Kamma Dhamma Sutta". Unfortunately, this sutta was considered irrelevant by the early bhikkhus and was not written down. Fortunately, the upasaka/upasika oral transmission of this sutta has continued into the 21st century. Unfortunately, I cannot share it with anyone just yet. Fortunately, look for it in 2017, at a bookstore near you.

Saoshun said:
If someone wants to have fulfilled sex life I suggest to use tantric methods to prolong orgasm for couple days to couple months and it will develop high level samadhi, but it's need big discipline and already at least medium level achievement of meditation, empty mind, clean prana/chi channels.

Malcolm wrote:
This has nothing to do with Buddhist Vajrayāna practice, FYI — this is a new age trip based on physical bliss. The aim of Vajrayāna is connate bliss, which is beyond any physical sensation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
smcj said:
In that presentation what, if anything, comes after Shambhala? Or is it presented as a path to full enlightenment?

Malcolm wrote:
The Sakyong has integrated the Shambhala teachings into the Buddhist path over all, rebranding their lineage as Shambhala Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
pael said:
If it isn't can they be monk or holder of 5 vows?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Dōgen lived in Japan in the 13th century,

Malcolm wrote:
What I meant was that Dogen did not seem to think that his Shikantaza was innovative or his own approach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... in Soto Zen, for example, "Just sitting" is considered Buddhahood itself.

dharmagoat said:
Could this be a later development in Ch'an/Zen?

Malcolm wrote:
Dogen didn't seem to think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words, in Kagyu mahāmudra practice, you have to develop one-pointedness first, then non-proliferation, then one taste, etc. Whereas in Soto Zen, for example, "Just sitting" is considered Buddhahood itself.

dharmagoat said:
I suspect this is an oversimplification of Soto Zen.

"One taste" does occur in the Zen literature, as far as I am aware.

Malcolm wrote:
Talk to some Soto folks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
dharmagoat said:
What do you base that on? I ask so that I may get a better idea of why it is so unlikely.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two places where the term mahāmudra is used; the first is in Yoga tantra, where it refers primarily to the form of the deity. The second is in anuttarayoga tantra where it is described as the siddhi of mahāmudra, an accomplishment, the attainment of Buddhahood.

In other words, the term arises solely in connection with Vajrayāna practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
Sherlock said:
What makes you even think there is a direct link between Chan and Mahamudra?

dharmagoat said:
The similarity is plain for everyone to see.

Malcolm wrote:
How so? Mahāmudra (as in four yogas of mahāmudra) as practiced in the Kagyu tradition is a gradual approach based as much on the Bhavanakrama as it is the dohas; Chan/Zen is always a sudden approach.

In other words, in Kagyu mahāmudra practice, you have to develop one-pointedness first, then non-proliferation, then one taste, etc. Whereas in Soto Zen, for example, "Just sitting" is considered Buddhahood itself.

DG, have you ever received teachings on any of this? It just seems to me that you are engaging in a lot of proliferation around these issues.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But given that the term "mahāmudra" never appears in any sūtra...

dharmagoat said:
Is it possible that Mahāmudra was a development of Chinese Mahāyāna that made its way back to India and was then appropriated by Vajrayāna without an acknowledgement of its origin?

Malcolm wrote:
Not a chance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Take for instance the issue of recorded empowerments, which I think were deemed acceptable by Garchen Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
Um no...this was an example of enthusiastic over reach on the part of some of his students in one center. Many "innovations" happen this way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
qwerty13 said:
This is offtopic, but can somebody explain me in simple way what is the difference between sutra mahamudra and Zen/Chan buddhist practice? Both have prajnaparamita as essential text, but we cant say that Zen/Chan practitioner is actually mahamudra practitioner, or am I wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
In the end it boils down to whether mahāmudra is merely the nature of the mind, in which case there is no difference; or whether mahāmudra is a specific result, a siddhi, of a specific kind of practice, in which case there is a huge difference.

But given that the term "mahāmudra" never appears in any sūtra...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
As far as I know, Dr. Ray does not refer to his approach as 'modernist', so it would seem that the use of this term is a red herring as far as this thread is concerned.


Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, I don't think anyone did use it with respect to RR...I was addressing another issue which you introduced with your enthusiasm for "innovation."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
DesertDweller said:
So what do we mean by "modernism"?
Modernism: A Roman Catholic movement, officially condemned in 1907, that attempted to examine traditional belief according to contemporary philosophy, criticism, and historiography.

Malcolm wrote:
Remove the "Roman Catholic", and you get my meaning.
Modernism: A movement that attempts to examine traditional belief according to contemporary philosophy, criticism, and historiography.
This is deeply incompatible with Vajrayāna.

Hence we can speak of Buddhist Modernism, people like Stephen Batchelor, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
I'll read his book, I'm curious enough. The difference between orthodoxy and modernism seems to be mostly about presentation and differences on focus IMHO.

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna there is no such thing as modernism. There is the lineage, and how the lineage presents the teachings. The lineage is unalterable and without a lineage there is no Vajrayāna to speak of.

Zen, for example, is a sūtrayāna teaching, and this while there is rhetoric about the lineage of patriarchs, ancient buddhas and so on, there is not a universally held idea that the lineage is something inviolable or absolutely necessary. Plenty of people practice Zen without the kind of guru devotion that characterizes Vajrayāna. Also these days many people practice Zen who really do not believe that Zen was actually passed down in a lineage from the time of the Buddha. There is more room for so-called "modernism" in Zen.

But in Vajrayāna, the Vajrayāna teachings are held to come directly from Buddha Vajradhara to our gurus. There is truly little point in trying to practice Vajrayāna if you don't believe this. The second thing is that one should have faith that one's root guru is actually a Buddha, or at least one should try to develop that sincere conviction over time. If one does not have this conviction, it is very difficult to make progress in Vajrayāna practice; but if one has this conviction, it becomes very easy.

Since there is no way to modernize this essential feature of Vajrayāna, Vajrayāna will always resist modernization.

For example, there is a well known story about how Naropa displayed a mandala in the sky to Marpa, and asked Marpa to whom he would prostrate, the guru or the mandala, Marpa, thinking that he saw his guru everyday, but never saw such miraculously manifested mandalas, chose to prostrate to the mandala...big mistake that cost Marpa his family lineage...

So, Mahamudra in the modern world is an impossibility, if by that one means, how can Mahamudra be adapted to fit modern society — it can't, we can only adapt ourselves to Mahāmudra, mahāmudra cannot be adapted to suit us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It is religious orthodoxy that I avoid, not tradition. I always been inspired by the line of innovators within the Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, Tilopa, Nāropa, Milarepa, Marpa...

Malcolm wrote:
How can you possibly believe that these four masters were innovative in any way at all?

dharmagoat said:
Okay, maybe those four can't actually be called 'innovators', but they were transmitting a system that was new to Tibet at the time.

Malcolm wrote:
You Mean Marpa? Vajrayana had already been wide spread in Tibet for 200 years by the time Marpa went to India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It is religious orthodoxy that I avoid, not tradition. I always been inspired by the line of innovators within the Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, Tilopa, Nāropa, Milarepa, Marpa...

Malcolm wrote:
How can you possibly believe that these four masters were innovative in any way at all?

Tilopa (Prajñābhadra) was a Nalanda educated Pandita, as was Naropa. Marpa was a faithful student of Naropa, and Mila was his student in turn.

None of these masters innovated a thing.

Not only this, but Tilopa and Naropa are not just a "Kagyu" masters, though these days people certainly seem to have this misconception. They are shared also with Sakya, Gelug and old Kadampa, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Ray seems like a good guy to me. If you can ignore Waylon Lewis, this is actually a pretty interesting interview:

Malcolm wrote:
Investigating a Vajrayāna teacher for twelve years seems like a good idea in this case...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 25th, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:


cloudburst said:
It seems you are over-reaching here, RJ simply states that the 5DL was critical of the Panchen's interest in the Kagyu and their doctrines. The article itself concerns the fact that there is a debate over whether or not the Ganden mahamudra has any connection with Kagyu at all. Many Gelugpa believe that the mahamudra practices of Je Tsongkhapa were transmitted directly from Manjushri, therefore being critical of the Panchen regarding interest in Kagyu doctrines does not necessarily imply any criticism of so called Sutra Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps. You need to follow up and look at Samten Karmey's article where he reviews this issue. It seems pretty clear to me that the Fifth was very influenced by Sakya in this regard. [He was from a Sakya family, wrote important texts on Lamdre and Naro Khachod, etc.].


cloudburst said:
I'm interested, thanks. Do you have the title of the article?

Malcolm wrote:
It is in the footnotes of the first article.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:


cloudburst said:
It seems you are over-reaching here, RJ simply states that the 5DL was critical of the Panchen's interest in the Kagyu and their doctrines. The article itself concerns the fact that there is a debate over whether or not the Ganden mahamudra has any connection with Kagyu at all. Many Gelugpa believe that the mahamudra practices of Je Tsongkhapa were transmitted directly from Manjushri, therefore being critical of the Panchen regarding interest in Kagyu doctrines does not necessarily imply any criticism of so called Sutra Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps. You need to follow up and look at Samten Karmey's article where he reviews this issue. It seems pretty clear to me that the Fifth was very influenced by Sakya in this regard. [He was from a Sakya family, wrote important texts on Lamdre and Naro Khachod, etc.].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Well, that's an interesting point. Why do you think he might feel that way?

dzogchungpa said:
I don't know, maybe Malcolm can explain it to us.

Malcolm wrote:
He probably means it is not necessary to become an expert on scholastic arguments in the Kośa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Wandering in Samsara
Content:
godhead said:
I am very anxious to know as to dzogchen is a part of BUddhism or not?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Dzogchen is part of Buddhadharma.

godhead said:
If yes then how does it contradict direct words of Guatam Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't, not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
cloudburst said:
Malcolm, in another thread you wrote: This sutra mahāmudra of the Panchen Lama was very controversial in Gelug, and still is, to some degree. The 5th Dalai Lama was very opposed to it, in fact.
This seems doubtful to me as the Panchen Lama was a guru of the Fifth. Do you have any support for this claim?

Malcolm wrote:
See Roger Jackson's article in Changing Minds: Contributions to the Study of Buddhism and Tibet in Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Gaden mahamudra (kagyu/gelug mahamudra)
Content:
qwerty13 said:
I have been reading book "Kagyu/gelug tradition of mahamudra" from here and there and there is one thing that I find difficult to understand. The mahamudra practices that are given in the root text ( The main road of triupmhant ones ) contain two mahamudra methods, sutra and tantra. However nowhere in the text or in the related commentary  there is anything said about receiving "pointing -out" instructions. Kagyu traditions have sutra mahamudra and there is a lot of talk about receving pointing out instruction from qualified teacher.
But nothing is said about receiving pointing-out  instructions in context of Gaden mahamudra practice. Why is this?  Are they unnecessary here? I thought these are neccesary in sutra mahamudra practice.


Malcolm wrote:
The text is the pointing out instruction. It is not a direct introduction like what you receive in Dzogchen. Nor is it an introduction such as you receive in the four empowerments. Of course the fact that the text says:

Meditate next on a profound path of guru-yoga and, after making hundreds of very strong, fervent requests, dissolve your visualized guru into yourself.

This automatically means you must be someone who has received niruttarayoga tantra empowerment. There is no guru without a such an empowerment, so how can one speak of guru yoga? Guru Yoga is a method exclusive to higher tantra, the name of which is not encountered in lower tantra much less sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Yuren said:
No offense meant but Malcolm's orthodox catechism reminds me why I never want to get involved with Tibetan Buddhism, at least its institutional form.
To answer OP's question, Reginald Ray created an audio course on Mahamudra, he even gives Ground Mahamudra Transmission  in it.



Malcolm wrote:
Ground Mahāmudra transmission? What a joke! You already have ground mahāmudra, how can someone give you something you already have!


Yuren said:
The idea that transmission cannot work remotely is of course mere superstition.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that you can receive transmission from a recording is complete nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
...why wouldn't they seek out a qualified spiritual guide and learn at their feet instead of practising 'internet Dharma'?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, because it is much easier to surf the web while listening... and less obtrusive then surfing the web on your smart phone...

dzogchungpa said:
Oh snap!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
...why wouldn't they seek out a qualified spiritual guide and learn at their feet instead of practising 'internet Dharma'?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, because it is much easier to surf the web while listening... and less obtrusive then surfing the web on your smart phone...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Yuren said:
The orthodox catechism of Malcolm reminds me why I never want to get involved with Tibetan Buddhism, at least its institutional form.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, because our own concepts are just so much better and effective...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
The special view of Lamdre is called the inseparability of samsara and nirvana. This view can only be meditated upon after one has received the cause Hevajra empowerment. It is meditated upon prior to engaging in the meditations of the creation and completion stage. The way this is meditated is through thirty-two examples which establish phenomena as mind, mind as an illusion and illusion as natureless. Not only this but there is an inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the path and also an inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the result.

M

WeiHan said:
Hi Malcohm,

I have received Lam Dre but there are just some subtle points which I cannot make the connection and it is not apparent in the teaching. Regarding the above paragraph, do you mean the 32 examples are a method to meditate on the inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the basis. And then there is a method to meditate on this same view when on the path which is called the inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the path. And then the final fruition, realizing the view in actuality is called the inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the result?

I just need the above general clarification. Thanks in advance.

Malcolm wrote:
it is a bit complicated to summarize.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not only this but there is an inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the path and also an inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the result.
M

WeiHan said:
Hi Malcohm,

inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the path
inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the result.

What does the above mean?


Malcolm wrote:
You need to take Lamdre and find out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
sherabpa said:
I read you yourself recently advising someone to pay close attention during the vase initiation of Vajrakilaya given by HHST, I think it was.  But yeah, I agree it is possible to miss the empowerment entirely while being physically present.

Malcolm wrote:
I advised them to pay careful attention through all four empowerments...

dzogchungpa said:
Yes, starting tomorrow!


Malcolm wrote:
Vajradhara in person:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
sherabpa said:
I read you yourself recently advising someone to pay close attention during the vase initiation of Vajrakilaya given by HHST, I think it was.  But yeah, I agree it is possible to miss the empowerment entirely while being physically present.

Malcolm wrote:
I advised them to pay careful attention through all four empowerments...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The only way to extract the butter of mahāmudra is to take the milk of the nature of the mind and churn it with the two stages. Other than that, there is no way to realize mahāmudra.

sherabpa said:
What then is the purpose of guru yoga in Sakya?  If it is not to enter directly into the wisdom of mahamudra during empowerment, without any need for the two stages, what purpose does it serve?  Is it not the case that the two stages are only for those who do not attain mahamudra in the actual empowerment.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru Yoga can produce a wisdom that resembles the wisdom produced by the two stages, indeed, but really, this is only for the people of highest capacity or who have developed their capacity through much practice. And of course, to be qualified to practice guru yoga, one should have received all four empowerments in a proper way.

Sadhana practice is indeed for those who do not manage to attain buddhahood during the empowerment. People misunderstand empowerments, thinking they are merely a method of introducing this or that practice. Actually, empowerments are meant to cause people to attain buddhahood; failing that, they practice sadhanas with the two stages and guru yoga.

The reality of it is however that very few people in history have attained buddhahood during an empowerment, or even the bhumis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
sherabpa said:
Thanks for responding.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course this ignores the important point that Naropa was already a Vajrayāna practitioner by the time he met Tilopa.

sherabpa said:
Implying this was a prerequisite for his receiving the wisdom blessing of Tilopa.  This transmission was not a practice based on previous initiations, but a wisdom empowerment.  All that was needed was his devotion to Tilopa.  According to Situ, there are many examples in India and Tibet of such transmissions.  However, this method was apparently a specialty of Gampopa.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the cause empowerment tills the field which makes the student a proper basis. The idea all the previous Varjayāna trainingand practice that Naropa had undergone had no bearing on his time with Tilopa is simply ludicrous. For example, Amyezhab records in his history of Cakrasamvara, that following his meeting with the old lady who had eighteen characteristics of ugliness, since Naropa doubted whether she was a dakini or not, he did an accomplishment retreat of seven hundred thousand near essence mantras of Cakrasamvara to confirm this. Thus, the idea that Naropa was not a very advanced Varjayāna practitioner when he met Tilopa really is not correct nor is the idea that his previous practice had not prepared him for his time with Tilopa. Also Tilopa aka Prajñabhadra, realized Mahāmudra through the two stages of Cakrasamvara having received it from his guru, Antarapa.

Yes, I am aware that there is a Kagyu tradition that Tilopa was an emanation which is found in Gampopa's brief bio.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Is that HYT?

Can we classify the result as Mahamudra?

Malcolm wrote:
Lamdre speaks about a basis, a path and a result.

The basis is the ālaya cause continuum — this is exactly the same thing Kagyus call "ground mahāmudra." It is nothing more nor less than the nature of the mind.

In Lamdre, when ālaya, aka the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, is approached via sūtra methods in the Triple Vision teachings, one meditates upon it via śamatha and vipaśyāna.  In the beginning, in terms of śamatha, one uses an external object, a blue flower, then a blue cloth or the sky and finally, one focuses inwardly on the naked clarity of the mind itself. In terms of the vipaśyāna, one establishes that the appearances are mind, the mind is illusory and dependently arisen, and finally that dependent arising is natureless and free from all extremes. When one is capable of resting in the naked clarity of the mind in conjunction with the insight that this clarity is empty and free from extremes, this is called the union of śamatha and vipaśyāna. However, this is merely a sutrayāna meditation and will not lead to Buddhahood in a single lifetime no matter how good a meditation it may be. As the Nalendra Khenpo, Ngawang Lodo states in his Lamp of the Path of Freedom and Omniscience:
In one’s experience, the unceasing stream of mere clarity and mere awareness is empty at the time of being clear and clear at the time being empty — do not grasp clarity or emptiness. Rest wholly, nakedly and freely in the state that is free from extremes, without divisions, inexpressible and beyond thought.
But this is not the state of mahāmudra nor is it the realization of mahāmudra.

The special view of Lamdre is called the inseparability of samsara and nirvana. This view can only be meditated upon after one has received the cause Hevajra empowerment. It is meditated upon prior to engaging in the meditations of the creation and completion stage. The way this is meditated is through thirty-two examples which establish phenomena as mind, mind as an illusion and illusion as natureless. Not only this but there is an inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the path and also an inseparability of samsara and nirvana of the result.

Then there is the path method continuum, which is equivalent to so called "path mahāmudra" in the Kagyu system. This refers to the practice of the creation and completion stages.

Finally, there is the result mahāmudra continuum. This refers to the buddhahood that is the result of the two stages. This is equivalent to the result mahāmudra in the Kagyu system.

Now, it may be wondered, "Are these three continuums the same or are they different?" These three continuums are merely names for phases of a single continuum, much like the way Maitreyanath distinguishes between sentient beings, bodhisattvas and buddhas by labeling them respectively impure, pure/impure and pure. And as Jetsun Rinpoche points, the natural perfection of the qualities of buddhahood in the all-basis cause continuum or so called ground mahāmudra does not contradict transformation.

So you see it is not simply enough to realize the nature of the mind and call that "mahāmudra." In order to achieve a result, a path is called for. The only way to extract the butter of mahāmudra is to take the milk of the nature of the mind and churn it with the two stages. Other than that, there is no way to realize mahāmudra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Malcolm, how does Lamdre correlate with Highest Yoga Tantra?

Malcolm wrote:
Lamdre is an intimate instruction on the practice of the Hevajra Tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
sherabpa said:
Pardon me if I missed it, but I don't think anybody mentioned what Situ Panchen says about the situation.

On the point of whether there is a paramitayana mahamudra, he says there are two positions on it from 'our tradition' and neither one is official.  The first is that the sutra system is for those who are not suitable to receive empowerments (for whatever reason) and so, by practicing paramitayana, it would prepare them to receive empowerments later on.  This is nevertheless called 'sutra mahamudra'.  Apart from the name, this is unobjectionable.

The second view is that the wisdom of paramitayana is itself the same as mahamudra. This is the controversial one since it destroys the distinction of paramitayana and mantrayana.  Go Lotsawa is a good example of of someone who asserted the second view, saying that Gampopa was able to produce mahamudra in people who had not attained empowerments and he provides a couple of scriptural citations to defend against Sapan's criticism.

Situ Panchen does not say whether he think Gampopa held either position but allows for both.

Situ Panchen also points out, perhaps more importantly, that 'empowerment' does not simply mean going through a ritual of some kind, but is essentially the guru's blessing of the transference of wisdom (ye shes pho ba'i byin labs).  In this respect, the fourth initiation, that of mahamudra, can occur outside of what is normally understand by the term 'empowerment', i.e. a ceremony involving the four initiations, and indeed Tilopa's initiation of Naropa is an example of this kind of empowerment.  Equally, one can sit through any number of elaborate ceremonies, but not have received empowerment, e.g. like a cat or dog.  Sapan's claims about mahamudra and empowerment seem to overlook this detail.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course this ignores the important point that Naropa was already a Vajrayāna practitioner by the time he met Tilopa. As to your second claim, this is only possible if you sit there like a stone, and or refuse to participate at all, having something like a picnic instead, watching the ritual like a baseball game or as a form of entertainment, the way some non-Buddhist Westerners these days attend Kalacakra empowerments.

Go Lotsawa's opinion is noted, but it is just that, an opinion by a scholar who lived many centuries after Gampopa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:


Astus said:
The difference between the purely sutric method and the Mahamudra method lies in whether there is pointing out the nature of mind or not, as mentioned above.

Malcolm wrote:
There are so many problems with this, I do not have time to even go into it. But according to you then, this instruction from Prajñāpāramita is mahāmudra:
There is no mind in the mind, but the original nature of the mind is luminous


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:


Astus said:
As noted earlier, tantra uses an indirect method with deity yoga and the channels to reach buddha-nature, while Mahamudra goes there directly. .

Malcolm wrote:
This completely false. You really have no idea what you are talking about now. In Vajrayāna, pointing out the nature of the mind, the all-basis (ālaya) and recognizing it, is the foundation for creation and completion stage practice. Mahāmudra is not just the nature of the mind.

If it were as you say, we would have examples of Indian Mahāsiddhas who attained buddhahood on the basis of merely meeting someone and having a discussion, but we don't, training gradually in ṡ́amatha and vipaśyāna.

What we do have are examples of mahāsiddhas, very many in fact, who attained awakening and realized mahāmudra during the process of receiving the four empowerments. We have many other examples of mahāsiddhas who, having received the four empowerments, practiced the two stages and swiftly realized mahāmudra and so attained buddhahood. We have no examples of any Indian mahāsiddhas who did either based on a mere conversation, or through merely practicing śamtha and vipaśyāna, whether sprinkled with pithy saying from the dohas or not.

So I guess, Tibetans must have much higher capacity than Indians, because according to you, these vaunted Tibetans are capable of realizing Mahāmudra based on sutrayāna conversations, sprinkled with dohas, merely practicing śamatha and vipaśyāna. But the reality is, no one realized mahāmudra without practicing the two stages, including Gampopa.

Astus said:
Also, the fourth empowerment is generally equated with the pointing out instruction

Malcolm wrote:
Which pointing out instruction? Whose? What precise text? If you intend the means of pointing the "sūtra" mahāmudra system, for example, in Bokar Rinpoche's famous condensation of the 7th Karmapa's long Mahāmudra text, this is in no way shape or form equivalent with the fourth empowerment.


Astus said:
As above, the specialty of Gampopa's Mahamudra is the direct introduction without empowerment.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a direct introduction, it is a gradual introduction, that takes many sessions, like all sutra-based systems. You yourself admitted that Gampopa's "mahāmudra" was "sutra" mahāmudra.

Now, when it comes to essence mahāmudra, there is an empowerment (the descent of the wisdom vajra empowerment) based in Indrabhuti's famous text, the Jñānasiddhi, and this is in fact a direct introduction, just like the fourth empowerment.

All I can conclude from this discussion, Astus, is that you are not really very clear on the difference between "pointing out instructions", which is gradual,  and "direct introduction," which is immediate.

Further, what you seem to fail to understand is that in actual practice, in general the Kagyus all practice creation and completion stage, combine the four yogas of mahāmudra with the completion stage, and practice the main practice of essence mahāmudra, Guru Yoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 9:35 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
DesertDweller said:
I'm not at all interested in finding a lama, becoming a disciple in the Vajrayana tradition, etc. As I said, I'm coming from a Chan/Zen background and am merely interested in learning "about" Mahamudra as a sort of comparative activity and "enhancement" to my Zen meditation. My ideas about Mahamudra were essentially informed by various comments I have seen from Zen practitioners and teachers to the effect that Mahamudra is sort of like "Tibetan Zen" and is worth "looking into". Taigen Dan Leighton, for example, in his introduction to his translation of Master Honzhi, notes what he perceives to be the great similarities between Silent Illumination meditation and Mahamudra. Others have recommended various Mahamudra books as useful ways of looking at Zen from a different angle that is essentially the same. Now this is what I've been hearing. As to whether Mahamudra and Zen are really the same in essence is something that I'm not qualifies to answer with any authority, though to be honest, based on several descriptions of Mahamudra that I have read, I really can't see much difference. I know that Tantric practitioners will squirm at such a statement, and it may open up a whole 'nother can of worms, but that's my honest impression. As for empowerments, etc, as a non-Vajrayana practitioner I can't say I'm at all convinced by the assumption that the highest enlightenment isn't possible without 'em, based on Sutra methods alone. I have nothing against Tantra, but I won't buy into the polemic that it offers some sort of enlightenment that isn't available to someone who just follows the Diamond Sutra, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
We dont squirm, we just understand that you are looking at sugar rather than tasting it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
That's where you'd be completely wrong Cone. Don't be so sectarian.

Many people think that Je Tsongkhapa was a great scholar but he was also a great Yogi.

conebeckham said:
I never said he wasn't a great Yogi.  Let me ask you, though--is your Mahamudra tradition that called the "Kagyu/Genden Tradition" or "Kagyu/Geluk" tradition? Or is it that which your New Kadampa tradition calls "Mahamudra Tantra, and which is "ONLY"  the result of Highest Yoga Tantra? The Clear Light Mind of Bliss that realizes Emptiness, as I believe it's described?

Malcolm wrote:
It, Ganden Mahamudra, begins with the First Panchen Lama, but claims to depend on an oral transmission through Gyalwa Ensapa — which may very well be true, since Samten Karmey found an eighty folio book in Bhutan titled "The Ganden Miraculous Volume" that consisted of pithy instructions which comes through Ensapa, a text which seems not to have survived in Tibet.

This sutra mahāmudra of the Panchen Lama was very controversial in Gelug, and still is, to some degree. The 5th Dalai Lama was very opposed to it, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It does not in any way shape or form go beyond Prajñāpāramita, and since there is no empowerment, there is no experiential view to be cultivated. As Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso told me, and as you can confirm by reading Kongtrul, sūtra mahāmudra was invented for those Gampopa deemed unready for Secret Mantra.

conebeckham said:
Malcolm--Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso is one of my teachers, and in fact one of my Mahamudra teachers.  I will partly confirm your claim--Khenpo-la specifically told me that Sutra Mahamudra wasn't even a "term" until Kongtrul's time, if I recall.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not true, Sakya Pandita definitely rejects a so called "sūtra mahāmudra", and his teacher, Jetsun Rinpoche states quite clearly:
Having accepted Secret Mantra as Dharma,
without possessing the ripening path abhisheka
and separated from points of the liberating path method,
because one does not meet a Lord of Secret Mantra;   
also leave Mahāmudra Dharma and go!

conebeckham said:
But the techniques Gampopa used, guiding some students based on instructions without an explicit empowerment, was not felt by Khenpo-la to be "incorrect."

Malcolm wrote:
It is not incorrect, it just wont lead to the realization of actual mahāmudra sans empowerment no matter how fantastic a meditation it is.

conebeckham said:
Khenpo-La himself referred to Maitripa's tradition, and Saraha's instructions.  He noted that both of these Mahasiddhas were indeed Tantrikas, but he felt that did not mean that the paths they outlined, and the paths that Gampopa drew from, must be preceded by empowerment.

Malcolm wrote:
If it is not preceded by empowerment, then you can be certain that it will not result in Mahāmudra realization, which is something very precise and specific. And indeed, those mahasiddhas are in accord with that view, as Brunholzl himself also admits.

conebeckham said:
In fact, much of what Gampopa drew from, for this "guidance system," was from the Kadam, as I said earlier, and Brunnholzl fleshes this out more completely.

Malcolm wrote:
That is interesting, but it does not change the basic facts. Kagyus in general tend to rely on three authors to argue their claim that there can be a mahāmudra that does not depend Secret Mantra methods, but when you actually examine the texts of what those three authors say — Vajrayāna practitioners writing about Madhyamaka — it is a very slim and contrived argument.  And of course Sapan addresses this issue as well. And BTW, this idea is not universally embraced by all Kagyus. For example, the Drikungpas do not really take this approach to mahāmudra at all.

conebeckham said:
Most Kagyupas, in fact, recognize Gampopa as an innovator.  All the Kagyu Lamas I've talked with, about this issue, will readily admit this. With pride.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, why not? He was innovative, it is not so much Gampopa that is the problem as it is how he was variously interpreted — for example, Lama Shang. But for sure, Gampopa's system was unknown to Milarepa, Marpa, Naropa, Tilopa and so on.

And, for what it is worth, these issues need to be hashed out again and again...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Malcolm,


Are you are saying Mahamudra is the term for Buddhahood that is the result of Highest Yoga Tantra's 4 empowerments, 2 stages and/or guru yoga?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in essence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Greetings friends.
A question: while it goes without saying that having a teacher is always best, is it possible to study and practice Mahamudra on one's own, at least until such a time as a teacher can be found? Is it a discipline which requires empowerments, etc.? If it is possible to practice without a teacher, what are some helpful resources available online?

Any insight on this will be most appreciated.
Here's the OP's question again.

I intuit the answer here is something like "sure, you can practice Shamatha , but hey, find a teacher".

I don't think (correct me if i'm wrong) the OP really had in mind whether or not he could achieve Mahamudra, or receive blessings in Vajrayana sense by practicing some techniques from Barth's manual or similar. I had to study Vajrayana writings, get empowerments, and ask lots of questions for a year before I even could properly contextualize what "Mahamudra" even means..still not even sure I get some of the nuances behind how the term is used. I believed in the beginning it was simply a type of meditation - and I am assuming that this is how the OP is framing it, since he is not a Vajrayana practitioner.

So it begs the question, what (if any) usefulness could be gleaned from that kind of practice without a teacher? Further, since some of those techniques (following breath, just sitting etc.) have equivalents in other (sutra) Buddhist traditions, and are certainly publicly taught to those without initiation, bot within Vajrayana and outside of it, why would this be different than practicing those?

Basically, to move the thread along...should he not practice at all if he's not going to find a teacher? That is what it sounds like people are saying in places, if that isn't what people are saying, then can the message be clarified for the sake of the thread?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is no, it is not possible to study and practice Mahāmudra on one's own. Hell, not even the Dharma in general can be practiced without a teacher. Studied, yes; practiced, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Mahamudra can only exist in the minds of students who have fully committed themselves to the vajrayana path alone...
Trungpa


Malcolm wrote:
It's nice to know that Trungpa and I have the same point of view on this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, which "prajñāpāramitā" is he discussing? The practice of prajñāpāramita? Or the result, Prajñāpāramita?

Astus said:
Gampopa writes: "Setting the mind this way is the unmistaken method of practicing wisdom awareness." (p 249) and where he gives the list of all those things he beings with: "When one is endowed with the meaning of emptiness, there is not a single thing which in not included in this path." (p 252) In the commentaries by Ringu Tulku and Thrangu Rinpoche they both talk about resting in the natural state as taught in Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Settling mind in what way? In which path is everything included? How is this path introduced, can you just look it up on the internet?

Astus said:
The difference between sutra and tantra in terms of Mahamudra are quite practical: "According to Mahamudra teachers, the sutric Mahayana approach uses external phenomena as the object of vipashyana meditation, whereas the tantric Mahayana approach of Mahamudra uses the mind itself as the object." ( http://www.lionsroar.com/meditating-on-the-mind-itself/ ).

Malcolm wrote:
How is that possible? Have these teachers never heard of Yogacara? And even here, why make a distinction between the tantric Mahāmudra approach and the sūtra Mahāyāna approach if in reality they are both "mahāmudra"?



Astus said:
Also,

"Gampopa said that there are three different paths with different practices, but these three paths have the same nature. These are taking inference as the path, taking blessings as the path, and taking direct experience as the path. Taking inference as the path refers to, for instance, the various reasonings set forth in the Madhyamaka that show that all things are neither single nor multiple. Taking blessings as the path refers to, for instance, meditation upon the body of a deity or the practices involving the subtle channels and subtle energies. Taking direct perception as the path is mahamudra. Mahamudra is pointed out to us, and we recognize it, become accustomed to it, and take direct experience as the path.
We can also classify the different paths into three groups: the paths that abandon the ground, paths that transform the ground, and paths that recognize· the ground.The first path of abandoning the ground is the vehicle of transcendent action of the sutra vehicle, in which some things are abandoned and others are remedies for those things to be abandoned. The second path, transformation of the ground, refers to the practices of the Vajrayana in which we purity our body and mind by meditating on our body being a deity. Our body is thus transformed into the pure body of the deity, and our mind is transformed from discursiveness into wisdom. In the third path, recognizing the ground, is mahamudra.We know that we do not need to abandon or transform the ground; rather, we know it as it is. When we know the ground as it is, we recognize all appearances as the magical display of the mind. Thus, mahamudra is a matter of using direct perception as the path. This is also called the quick path."
(Thrangu: Essentials of Mahamudra, p 78-79)

Malcolm wrote:
Drogmi Lotsawa states that the difference between sūtra and tantra is that tantra uses direct perception as the path. This direct perception is the basis of all Secret Mantra meditation and is the experiential view introduced in the very beginning during the empowerment, this is why Secret Mantra is a quick path. But there is no separate means of introducing this experiential view outside of the empowerment, there is no mahāmudra that exists outside of Vajrayāna.


Astus said:
As for the so called Sutra Mahamudra (that actually stands for Gampopa's Mahamudra):

"The meditation of Sutra Mahamudra essentially consists of resting one's mind, free of mental activity, in the state of nonconceptual wisdom. This is the fundamental definition of Sutra Mahamudra: mind resting in the state in which it experiences the dharmadhatu, which is the expanse or nature of all things. This resting is essentially a nonconceptual wisdom beyond all elaboration, or the unity of clarity and emptiness. In this context, one meditates in the following way: The object of one's meditation is luminosity free of any projections; the perceiving subject is the lack of mental engagement; and one meditates without mental engagement. There are many extensive explanations on meditating without mental engagement, found primarily in the teachings of Maitripa and Sahajavajra.
The Sutrayana approach to Mahamudra is seen as a very profound method because it does not require any of the sophisticated and complex tantric rituals, deity yoga visualization practices, or samayas. It is a simple sutra approach, yet it conveys the direct transmission of the tantric essence of awakening."
(Dzogchen Ponlop: Wild Awakening, 31-32)

Malcolm wrote:
It does not in any way shape or form go beyond Prajñāpāramita, and since there is no empowerment, there is no experiential view to be cultivated. As Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso told me, and as you can confirm by reading Kongtrul, sūtra mahāmudra was invented for those Gampopa deemed unready for Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Vasana said:
Regardless of whether one can practice Mahamudra without the empowerments and introduction, you can at least, as this thread has mentioned , realize Prajnaparamita, which in turn will lead to 'anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi' as mentioned in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Mañjuśrī parivarta Sūtra.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but only after one has progressed through the five paths and ten stages, and that takes at minimum three incalculable eons, two just to reach the level of the eighth  bhumi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
conebeckham said:
...guard our samayas...

Malcolm wrote:
Have to have received an empowerment to even have those.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
conebeckham said:
People talk about "causing oneself harm" by trying to practice Tummo from a book, etc., but the harm of mistaking pith instructions can be potentially as damaging, I think.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as for example the vast wasteland of the clueless leading the blind on the internet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
conebeckham said:
Well, Dzogchen, at least in theory, also does not rely on the "two stages" --at least in some presentations.  Right?  I grant you, it's "tantra," and not sutra, and no one ever claimed it was.....but it is an example of a "Vajrayana path" that, at least in theory, relies on Pith Instructions, Pointing Out, etc., sometimes even without the elaborations of The Four Empowerments and the Two Stages.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen absolutely relies on empowerment, which is why it is considered part of Secret Mantra. This why The Mind Mirror Tantra states:
Where will there be accomplishment without relying on the empowerments of secret mantra? For example, it is like a boatman without a paddle, how will one be able to cross to the other side? If the empowerments are fully obtained, all secret mantras not accomplished will be accomplished.
Further, as we know, guru yoga is indispensable in Dzogchen.

conebeckham said:
I just don't see the value in getting hung up on defining whether or not a valid path can be ascribed to Sutra, Tantra, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you be pretty upset if you bought a cd advertised as being the music of a virtuouso bass player, and found out it was really bass kazoo they were talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
conebeckham said:
Moi? No, I just read stuff.

This is an endless "debate," actually, and all I can say is that I trust the words of my Gurus, and the methods they have transmitted.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem, dear Cone, is that you actually cannot practice sūtra mahāmudra even if you wanted to. You have received too many empowerments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
conebeckham said:
Quoting from "When the Clouds Part," Brunnholzl, who quotes from Kongtrul's Treasury of Knowledge:
...In the Tatvavatara composed by the master Jnanakirti, it says: "Another name of mother Prajnaparamita is Mahamudra because it is the very nature of nondual wisdom."   Thus, (Kongtrul) not only explains that the prajnaparamita taught in the sutras and the Mahamudra of mantra are synonyms, but he also explains these conventional terms:"As for those of highest capacities among the persons who exert themselves in the paramitas, when they perform the meditations of calm abiding and superior insight, even at the stage of ordinary beings, this grants them the true realization characterized by having it's origin in Mahamudra."
Kongtrul also goes on to note that important sources of this tradition came from the Kadampa lineage, in particular Atisha's "Pith Instructions on the Two Armors of Connate Union Mahamudra." Brunnholzl also notes Karmapa Mikyo Dorje's statement that this system of guidance is based on Atisha's Bodhipathapradipa.  However, Mikyo Dorje says:"Nevertheless, in the approach of practice of most heart sons (of Gampopa), the instructions in Mahamudra are taught in such a way that they are preceded by conferring an empowerment.  Thus, they hold (Mahamudra) to be the approach that is common to sutra and tantra."

This can be found in Brunnholzl's text, beginning on p. 155.  He continues the discussion about Sutra sources.

Malcolm wrote:
This is akin to saying, "Vajravārāhī is another name for Prajñāpāramitā, therefore, I can practice Vajravārāhī without empowerment and I will achieve exactly the same result whether I have the empowerment or not." So are you willing to accept the consequence? If not, then you have to explain the difference between mahāmudra and Vajravārāhī. Why can't there be a "sūtra" Vajravārāhī" if there can be a "sutra mahāmudra?"

conebeckham said:
Brunnholzl also refers to Sahajavajra's Tattvadasakatika as a source for the blending of Sutra and Mantra.   And of course Maitripa's tradition of "Amanasikara" is seen as the core of Kagyu Mahamudra. Sahajavajra's position is that the "Sutra approach adorned with pith instructions" is inferior to the Secret Mantra approach, but superior to a "straight paramita" approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, as I said KB just rehashes Dieter-Matthis' book. Also for example, the Rigpa Rangshar tantra equates Dzogchen with Prajñāpāramitā, so now are we going to say that if we merely practice sutrayāna śamatha and vipaśyāna and sprinkle it with some pithy quotes from sems sde, this constitutes a "sūtra dzogchen"? C'mon...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The important point in this thread is that there has been shown to be a system of Mahāmudrā that does not require empowerments as a prerequisite for practice.

Malcolm wrote:
No such system exists.

conebeckham said:
Read Brunnholzl's latest book on the Uttaratantrashastra and it's connection to Mahamudra for some interesting, and varied, opinions on this matter.

Malcolm wrote:
KB just goes over the same ground that Deiter-Matthis did in his book on the Go Lotsawa's treatment of the Uttaratantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If someone asserts there is an actual mahāmudra result outside of the practice of the two stages or guru yoga, that person is mistaken, regardless of their title, position or rank.

Astus said:
Well, that one was Gampopa. See how in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation he included all practices within prajnaparamita http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=111558#p111558.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, which "prajñāpāramitā" is he discussing? The practice of prajñāpāramita? Or the result, Prajñāpāramita? For example, Vajrayāna is included in Mahāyāna, but this does not mean that the methods of Secret Mantra are found in common Mahāyāna. There is no fault in saying that reality called prajñāpāramita and the reality called "mahāmudra" are the same, but one indicates the result of practicing sūtra, and the other indicates the result of practicing Niruttara tantra. Even though mahāmudra is indeed mentioned in Yoga tantra, it does not mean the same thing as the term "mahāmudra" discussed for example by Saraha in his commentary on the Buddhakapala Tantra, and so on.


Astus said:
If the introduction to the nature of mind occurs outside the context of having received the four empowerments, that instruction does not go beyond prajñāpāramita meditation — which is a perfectly fine practice, but it is not mahāmudra. It is something like calling an ordinary geshe a "buddha" in order to arouse faith in his disciples.
...
However, meditating on the intimate instructions of mahāmudra divorced from completion stage practices and or the intense devotion of guru yoga is a slow path even if one has received the four empowerments in a proper way. If one has not received the four empowerments at all, the idea that one is going to realize mahāmudra is a completely hopeless fantasy, like wishing for a stone to be saturated with water because one leaves it in a pond.
If the view and the conduct are identical, how could the result be different because of the empowerments/guru yoga? Although, as above, all the empowerments and guru yoga are included in resting in the natural state, at least according to certain Mahamudra teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
The intellectual view of sūtra and tantra (freedom from extremes) are identical, but their methods are different, their conduct is different and so on.

Since there is no method of directly introducing this so called "natural state" that can be found in sūtra, one must depend on the methods taught by the Buddha in the tantras. And if one must depend on the methods taught by the Buddhas in the tantras, for what reason can one claim that is beyond or outside the Vajrayāna?

There is only one ritual taught in common Mahāyāna that bears on our discussion in a real sense — that is the ritual of generating relative bodhicitta. Apart from that, the other rituals in Mahāyāna such as the recitations of dharanis and so in do not bear on our discussion.

Secondly, since there is no method in common Mahāyāna for introducing or generating ultimate bodhicitta at all, how can one claim there is a method in sūtra for introducing mahāmudra? Even the word "mahāmudra" does not exist in any sūtra. If you claim there is such a method of introducing mahāmudra outside of a Vajrayāna context, in what sūtra is it taught, what Indian master composed the method?

You might claim, suchness is the same whether we are discussing prajñāpāramitā or mahāmudra, and to that I will readily agree — but the issue is not about reality per se, it is about how that reality is realized, what method is used and where that method comes from. Even the results of sūtra and tantra are not the equivalent. For example, there is no discussion in sūtra of the seven limbs of the three kāyas — this is purely related to the result, mahāmudra. Just as for example, one can find only four wisdoms in sūtra, but there are five wisdoms mentioned in Vajrayāna, in sūtra the word "Vajradhara" is never heard, and likewise, the term "mahāmudra" does not occur even once. If you are going to say there is mahāmudra in sūtra, why stop there? Why not say there is a sutra connate bliss, a sūtra Dzogchen, a sūtra tummo, a sūtra consort practice, none of which require empowerments?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The important point in this thread is that there has been shown to be a system of Mahāmudrā that does not require empowerments as a prerequisite for practice.

Malcolm wrote:
No such system exists.

dharmagoat said:
It would depend on whose scripture you believe. This is where it becomes an interschool squabble.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you see this is the problem, because there are actually no scriptures which support such a notion. The controversy arose only in the 12th century when people asserted, without any basis at all in the tantras or the sūtras, that there was such thing as a) a mahāmudra that exists in sūtra b) a mahāmudra that is independent of Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whose instructions? Which ones?

Astus said:
Wangchuk Dorje, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, Tsele Natsok Rangdrol, Traleg Kyabgon, Khenchen Thrangu, Tsultrim Gyamtso, Tenzin Palmo, Ken McLeod.


Malcolm wrote:
If someone asserts there is an actual mahāmudra result outside of the practice of the two stages or guru yoga, that person is mistaken, regardless of their title, position or rank.

If the introduction to the nature of mind occurs outside the context of having received the four empowerments, that instruction does not go beyond prajñāpāramita meditation — which is a perfectly fine practice, but it is not mahāmudra. It is something like calling an ordinary geshe a "buddha" in order to arouse faith in his disciples.

If the introduction to the nature of the mind happens on the basis of the four empowerments, that introduction can swiftly lead to the realization of mahāmudra, especially because that introduction is based on the example wisdom the disciple experiences during the ritual of the four empowerments at certain points. When that subsequent introduction is combined with completion stage practices such kumbhaka or the intense devotion of guru yoga, mahāmudra can be realized rapidly. However, meditating on the intimate instructions of mahāmudra divorced from completion stage practices and or the intense devotion of guru yoga is a slow path even if one has received the four empowerments in a proper way. If one has not received the four empowerments at all, the idea that one is going to realize mahāmudra is a completely hopeless fantasy, like wishing for a stone to be saturated with water because one leaves it in a pond.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The important point in this thread is that there has been shown to be a system of Mahāmudrā that does not require empowerments as a prerequisite for practice.

Malcolm wrote:
No such system exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
DesertDweller said:
It does sound like purely interschool squabbling to me, and squabbling over semantics. None of which is of interest to me. But you guys can feel free to knock yourselves out.


Malcolm wrote:
It is in fact an important point. For example, if you go to a store and buy a Gucci suit, but you later find out that you have been sold a cheap knockoff, you will not be happy. Likewise, if you receive some information about Dharma somewhere, and then find you have been misled, you will not be happy.

In general, you cannot practice the mahāmudra instructions of the Indian mahāsiddhas without a teacher. Even something like Gampopa's own system of the four yogas of Mahāmudra cannot be practiced without personal guidance from an experienced teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
These two ideas — that there is such a thing as mahāmudra in the sūtras, and that there is a mahāmudra path independent of Vajrayāna — are meritless delusions.

Astus said:
Do you think that the mahamudra instructions regarding seeing the nature of the mind are incorrect?

Malcolm wrote:
Whose instructions? Which ones?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: The Great Mantra
Content:



kalden yungdrung said:
---------------OM MA TRI MU YE SA LE DU --------------------

Malcolm wrote:
The depicted mantra is actually,
A oṃ hūṃ ā a dkar sa le 'od a yang ōṃ 'du


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:54 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It sounds a lot like interschool squabbling to me.

Don't we just follow the line of our chosen school? For the purposes of this thread it is Kagyü Mahāmudrā.

Malcolm wrote:
The forum is labeled simply Mahāmudra, not Kagyu Mahāmudra. I checked before responding.

dharmagoat said:
So has this become a Gelug/Sakya vs. Kagyü thing?


Malcolm wrote:
I don't really think of it that way. Just because Sakya Pandita says something does not mean it has to be accepted. One must do one's research and see if what he or anyone says about anything has merit.

These two ideas — that there is such a thing as mahāmudra in the sūtras, and that there is a mahāmudra path independent of Vajrayāna — are meritless delusions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: Sarvastivada Abhidharma and Theravada Abhidharma
Content:
daverupa said:
I'm trying to remember where I read, recently, the idea that perhaps the Sautrantikas didn't have an official Abhidhamma. I mean, everyone has abhidhamma in terms of their interpretation of Dhamma (up to and including Dharma; the Sautrantikas had some wild ideas despite not having official Abhidhamma books, to say nothing of the craziness of radical Theravadan momentariness & Sarvastivada 'time always exists' silliness... ), but not all of the old schools came together to make a Scholastic Abhidhamma for themselves.


Malcolm wrote:
Sautrantikas measured the ideas of other schools in terms of whether they were justified on the basis of the Agamas or not. Where they were, they left them alone, where they were not, they criticized them. The Abhidharmakośa is a collection of mainly Sarvastivadin doctrines, the bhaṣyam is a critical commentary on those.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:45 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It sounds a lot like interschool squabbling to me.

Don't we just follow the line of our chosen school? For the purposes of this thread it is Kagyü Mahāmudrā.

Malcolm wrote:
The forum is labeled simply Mahāmudra, not Kagyu Mahāmudra. I checked before responding.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
"practicing Mahamudra" without a teacher...

Malcolm wrote:
...does not exist.

Mahāmudra is not a practice, it is a realization, a realization that comes from either practicing the two stages or guru yoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
...churning water will never produce butter.

Malcolm wrote:
Nor will grinding stone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Astus said:
From a teaching by http://www.samyeling.org/about/buddhism-and-meditation/teaching-archive-2/mingyur-dorje-rinpoche/vajrayana-and-empowerment/ (underlines added):

Within the Secret Mantra Vajrayana path there are two divisions. The first one is the path of skilful means and the second is the path of liberation. If we explain further what the path of skilful means is, there are various methods through which to realize directly our nature of mind. It is revealed to us through these various types of practice.

Malcolm wrote:
If it is a  Secret Mantra Vajrayana path, it depends on empowerment.

Astus said:
The Vajrayana path can be divided into three sections. There is the development stage, completion stage and path of liberation (kyerim, dzogrim and drollam). Within these three paths one can decide whatever one likes to do, whatever one is feeling positive towards. But the best actually is the path of liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
If it is a  Secret Mantra Vajrayana path, it depends on empowerment.
Yes, this is a mistaken tradition that cannot be defended in anyway whatsoever.
You mean you cannot accept the Dakpo Kagyu teaching of the white panacea, the method independent (and superior) of tantra, the path of liberation?
Correct, it is a completely mistaken teaching of Lama Shang.

Johnny Dangerous said:
you can use Mahamudra techniques, but their result and function would be like sutra meditation
If the techniques provided in Mahamudra cannot produce the results promised, how can they be even called Mahamudra?

Malcolm wrote:
The techniques for realizing mahāmudra are just the two stages and guruyoga, apart from that, there are no other techniques for realizing mahāmudra at all.

Johnny Dangerous said:
As for the actual basic methods, although there are many ways of asserting mahamudra, there are two when divided according to the sutras and tantras...

The former refers to the ways of meditating on voidness as directly indicated in the expanded, intermediate and brief (Prajnaparamita Sutras). The supremely realized Arya Nagarjuna has said, “Except for this, there is no other pathway of mind leading to liberation.” Here I shall give relevant instruction on mahamudra in accord with these intentions of his and discuss the methods that lead you to know the mind, face to face, in keeping with the exposition of the lineage masters.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as mahāmudra in the sūtras. The term does not occur in sūtra at all, so how can it be a result in sūtra? This is just calling prajñāpāramitā "mahāmudra, but it is not real mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Mahamudra realisations depend upon the blessings received by relying upon a qualified Vajrayana spiritual guide through the practice of Guru Yoga, therefore it is impossible to gain realisations without having a Guru and without receiving a Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment and practising the two stages sincerely.


Malcolm wrote:
At least we agree on something.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Astus said:
From Mahamudra the Moonlight (2nd edition):


"On the other hand, if one follows venerable Gampopa’s system in elucidating Mahåmudrå alone, it is not necessary to bestow the empowerment upon devotees. "

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is a mistaken tradition that cannot be defended in anyway whatsoever. Many have tried, none have succeeded, and this is why everyone who wishes to actually realize Mahāmudra has received empowerment and practiced the two stages, including Gampopa, and especially Tilopa, Naropa, Maitripa, Saraha, Shavaripa, you name it, all the Mahasiddhas of the past.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Medicine buddha sadhana "Drop of Ambrosia"
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
If you have the empowerment, you have the lung for the sadhana.

topazdreamz said:
Why do you say this? Is it generally understood that if one has the empowerment, one has the lung for any given practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Because during the empowerment the guru recites all the main parts of the sadhana to create the disciple in the form of the deity, as well as the refuge and bodhicitta that we recite with the master, and he gives the transmission of the mantra and so forth.

So yes, in general, if you have the empowerment, you have the lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I don't really see the contradiction Malcolm. He seems to be saying that it is of greater benefit to practice Ngondro is one is going to practice Mahamudra, but also saying that sutra level Mahamudra meditation instruction is available in some sense without them.

Since some teachers seem to teach "sutra Mahamudra", whether they class it as that or not, to me it stands to reason that one is better off doing that than doing nothing at all, whether or not they choose to undertake Ngondro or other tantric practice, get empowerments etc. This is doesn't seem unusual, for basic meditation instruction to be offered independent of any tantric practice. Granted the manual goes beyond that, but part of it is just basic shamatha etc. instruction..and the parts of the manual that go beyond that are labeled as such.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot practice Guru Yoga in a real sense without empowerment. Ergo, it is a Vajrayāna path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Medicine buddha sadhana "Drop of Ambrosia"
Content:
ratna said:
Since Garchen Rinpoche gave the empowerment from Namchö, the Stream of Lapis would indeed be appropriate. But I think it would be better to receive oral transmission for the sadhana.

R

qwerty13 said:
Yes, the reading transmission would be important for this practice. Well, I just have to keep my eyes open for that opportunity. I really, really  love this sadhana.


Malcolm wrote:
If you have the empowerment, you have the lung for the sadhana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
DesertDweller said:
I've been looking at Peter Barth's manual [ http://www.mahamudracenter.org/MMCMemberMeditationGuide.htm#_Toc420995709 ], and it has actually cleared up quite a lot of confusion, the first being the status of Mahamudra as a complete path in itself, independent of ngondro, tantra, etc:.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course this person directly contradicts himself on the same page: He says:
Certainly, Mahamudra can be practiced independent of the path of tantra or in conjunction with the path of tantra, however one chooses.

In the Kagyu lineage and other lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, the ordinary preliminaries are taught prior to meditations of the type included in this manual. These include reflection on and awareness of (1) the precious human existence, (2) impermanance, (3) cause and effect or karma, and (4) the prevalence of suffering (samsara). In addition, special preliminaries are taught as a foundation to tantric Mahamudra and tantric Dzogchen practice. These include (1) refuge and bodhicitta, (2) Vajra Sattva purification, (3) mandala offering, and (4) guru yoga. Dzogchen has its own set of preliminaries which in some schools include reflection on and awareness of the illusory body and the practice of heat yoga (tummo). Interestingly, practices similar to these are advanced practices of the Kagyu and Gelug/Kagyu lineages.

In any case, preliminaries are indispensable to the practitioner. It is commonly noted by teachers that the preliminaries are in no way less important than the main body of teachings. In fact it is said that the preliminaries are (1) helpful at the outset to get one to turn to the dharma, (2) helpful on the path to get one to persist in dharma practice, and (3) helpful at the end to help one complete realization. Thus, their importance should be underscored. Several excellent texts are now available for those who want to follow the Tibetan traditions within the context of individual lineages. Serious students should refer to these.
Vajrasattva is a Vajrayāna practice; mandala offerings and guru yoga are practices unique to niruttarayoga tantra. Without receiving empowerment into a mandala such a Hevajra, Cakrasamvara and so on, there is no Mahāmudra to speak of, much less realize. He declares first that Mahāmudra is an independent path, and then second that that Vajrayāna practices are indispensable for Mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
After the high lama of Khyungpo Yundrung Palri, Chime Rigzin Rinpoche’s mind departed into the the dharmadhātu (bon dbyings), his remains remained just like that for the length of four weeks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: dalai lama refuse rebirth vs bodhisatva vow
Content:
Simon E. said:
He didn't say that he wouldn't be reborn at all.
He said this may be his last birth as the Dalai Lama.

tobias said:
ok,
but how do you interpret that?  I mean it is not but point to call this rebirth "Dalai Lama" as long as it's the rebirth of Buddha Chenrezig.

Malcolm wrote:
It means he is putting an end to the political institution of the Dalai Lama.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 8:04 PM
Title: Kalacakra war prophecy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
please see my post on the issue:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17283#p249776


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:


Gyurme Kundrol said:
If this can be realized, really what use is Ngondro?

Malcolm wrote:
To realize this.



Gyurme Kundrol said:
but just keep our intention towards supreme enlightenment as pure as possible.

Malcolm wrote:
But isn't this a modification? And if you need this, then you need the rest of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
"Rainbow body" is a name for what happens when the elements of body reverts back to their original nature as pristine consciousness as a result of the process of Dzogchen practice or completion stage practice. A key point of Vajrayāna is that there is no buddhahood that is not grounded in the body. Hence, the attainment of rainbow body, or the body of light, is regarded as proof that a practitioner has attained buddhahood. This is never mentioned in sūtra because sūtra has no methods of practice that involve the body as a vehicle for awakening.


Saoshun said:
Okay I agree, but the same things happen in samadhi but samadhi is stepping stone so I guess there must be master or guru who can relate to this point well.

Malcolm wrote:
Rainbow body is a result cultivating a very specific set of practices all of which involve skill in samadhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Tenso said:
What is the difference between mahayana sambhogakaya and rainbow body?

Malcolm wrote:
The Mahāyāna Sambhogakāya is visible only to 8th stage bodhisattvas on up. While lesser rainbow body is only observable through the sign of the shrinking of the body after death, the so called great transformation body, rainbow body attained while still alive, is visible to everyone. Only a small handful of practitioners have achieved this result. Most practitioners of Vajrayāna, regardless of tradition, attain Buddhahood during the bardo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:


Challenge23 said:
So yeah, Vajrasattva.  Not a fan.

Malcolm wrote:
You just need to do more of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Saoshun said:
Rainbow body is not enlightenment but definitely high level of achievement in form of skandha.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. Rainbow body is the attainment of buddhahood.

Saoshun said:
If we look in the sense of skandhas it's skandha of form which was transformed into light so it cannot be counted as enlightenment as it's pretty logic. When you exhaust skandha of form you can dissolve and consciously be reborn which is great for bodhisattva path

These so-called 'transmutations of vijnana' are only changes of appellation and not a change of substance. - This argument of Hui neng is hard to beat.

But I trust your knowledge Malcom and hope you can explain why this should be considered as Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
"Rainbow body" is a name for what happens when the elements of body reverts back to their original nature as pristine consciousness as a result of the process of Dzogchen practice or completion stage practice. A key point of Vajrayāna is that there is no buddhahood that is not grounded in the body. Hence, the attainment of rainbow body, or the body of light, is regarded as proof that a practitioner has attained buddhahood. This is never mentioned in sūtra because sūtra has no methods of practice that involve the body as a vehicle for awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Saoshun said:
Rainbow body is not enlightenment but definitely high level of achievement in form of skandha.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. Rainbow body is the attainment of buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But you do admit conventionally there is a person who practices a path, has realizations, manifests qualities and attains buddhahood correct?

muni said:
Conventional is, but not without absolute.
I again must say, Tsoknyi Rinpoche makes it clear.

Malcolm wrote:
So what is the point of saying, "It is "the one having" these qualities which isn't."

When you make such statements, you are then forced to contradict yourself because you then have admit, "Conventional is."

Which all then results in nothing but pointless verbiage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:


muni said:
Yes. It is "the one having" these qualities which isn't.

Malcolm wrote:
Even conventionally?

muni said:
I find this explanation giving a contemplative light on how the idea of “a one” arises as an entity/identity:
http://www.tsoknyirinpoche.org/1431/the-four-egos-part-two-of-two/

Malcolm wrote:
But you do admit conventionally there is a person who practices a path, has realizations, manifests qualities and attains buddhahood correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Depended arising
Content:
Rroman said:
Can someone help me with the concept that the Buddha never taught karma.

Malcolm wrote:
That would be impossible — the Buddha mostly definitely taught karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:


muni said:
Yes. It is "the one having" these qualities which isn't.

Malcolm wrote:
Even conventionally?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 19th, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Karma
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Satire Alert.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 19th, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:
muni said:
Even 10th level bodhisattvas "Take Refuge" from their own ignorance, subtle though that may be.
I found these levels and stages always a bit confusing.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhumis measure qualities, not realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All practice is preliminary. Preliminary to what? Buddhahood.

dharmagoat said:
Would "ngöndro" be better translated as "initial practices" rather than "preliminary practices"?

Punya said:
I have heard ngondro described as a foundational practice and not something to be "got out of the way". As has been discussed elsewhere on DW it is not that unusual to complete more than one ngondro.


Malcolm wrote:
Literally, sngon du 'gro translates pūrvaṁgamaḥ, "what goes (gama) before (purva)."

Preliminary means "before the threshold."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Mantra Recitation - Do You Do Enough?
Content:
PorkChop said:
I can't imagine how you guys do it with really high numbers of full-body prostrations.

EarthMudra said:
I'm going to have to work on my prostrations.  Eek.  When I do them I do them mentally but need to do physical also.  Have not done enough.

I wonder how many prostrations, mental and physical Lama Tsongkhapa did altogether??

Malcolm wrote:
Millions, from what I understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Buddha awoke countless eons ago, even the path of the bodhisattva recounted in the jataka tales, which shows the conduct of a bodhisattva who had achieved patience for the nonarising of phenomena, was just a display for showing the path.

This is the Mahāyāna POV. The Hinayāna POV is a different.


Saoshun said:
Ma anussavena.


Malcolm wrote:
You don't have to accept it, but this how it is taught in Mahāyāna. As the Lotus Sūtra states:
The devas, humans, and asuras in all the worlds all think that the present Buddha, Śākyamuni, left the palace of the Śākyas, sat on the terrace of enlightenment not far from the city of Gayā, and attained highest, complete enlightenment. However, O sons of a virtuous family, immeasurable, limitless, hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas have passed since I actually attained buddhahood.
Given that this a board devoted to Mahāyāna, one would assume that Mahāyāna teachings would be considered normative here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
It is worth noting that the Buddha didn't have Buddhism on his path to becoming enlightened.

Malcolm wrote:
It is worth noting that the Buddha was already a Buddha and that his twelve deeds from birth to nirvana were merely a display for showing the path.

dharmagoat said:
But what of his previous births? He did not have Buddhism as such to guide him.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha awoke countless eons ago, even the path of the bodhisattva recounted in the jataka tales, which shows the conduct of a bodhisattva who had achieved patience for the nonarising of phenomena, was just a display for showing the path.

This is the Mahāyāna POV. The Hinayāna POV is a different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: who is an advanced buddhist and who is a beginner?
Content:
Saoshun said:
The less information about buddhism you gather the more advanced buddha you are.

dharmagoat said:
It is worth noting that the Buddha didn't have Buddhism on his path to becoming enlightened.

Malcolm wrote:
It is worth noting that the Buddha was already a Buddha and that his twelve deeds from birth to nirvana were merely a display for showing the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All practice is preliminary. Preliminary to what? Buddhahood.

dharmagoat said:
Would "ngöndro" be better translated as "initial practices" rather than "preliminary practices"?

Malcolm wrote:
In general there are common and uncommon practices of Ngondro.

The practices of the common ngondro are reflecting on precious human birth eight freedoms and ten endowments, the faults of samsara, death and impermanence, and karma, in some order or another. Everyone must meditate on these.

After that, in sūtra, the main practice is the six perfections.

In Vajrayāna, one must practice prostrations in order to prepare the body for meditating the two stages; one must go for refuge and generate bodhicitta, likewise, one must purify with Vajrasattva. One must accumulate vast amounts of merit with mandala offerings which is a part of guru yoga. And one must supplicate the guru. It really does not matter much how much of these one does. What counts is that one does them with full attention as much as possible. You should practice each of these practices until you experience the signs associated with them, which can be learned from the texts so I wont mention those here. Don't focus on numbers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 18th, 2015 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All practice is preliminary. Preliminary to what? Buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
maybay said:
Generally on a forum like this, the problem is not competing definitions, but a basic lack of understanding, and everyone thinking they are doctors without completing their due diligence.

Malcolm wrote:
The prescription for that is Abhidharma studies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist
Content:
Simon E. said:
Criticisms of " appeals to authority " are meaningless in terms of the Vajrayana..such critiques apply only to mundane authority.

dharmagoat said:
Why is this?

Could you (or someone else) please explain this further?


Malcolm wrote:
The Great Commentary Tantra of the Mayajala states:
The Dharma of sophists who 
do not understand scriptures is impure. 
Also, scripture precedes
whatever the rishis know.
Just as the blind guessing with their feet
run into a ravine, 
it is difficult for those who prioritize
inference not to stumble.
The Abhibodhikramopadeśa of Master Āryadeva states:
In evil future times,
without relying on profound scriptures and intimate instructions,
those who prioritize the twin reasonings of validation and proofs
will each grasp their own philosophy as sublime;
satisfied with a mere hidden meaning
and without any interest in the ultimate profound view, 
again they make refutations,
destroying themselves and others.
And:
At the time of the ultimate view of secret mantra,
the direct perception by the mind and sense organs
as well as inferences are not authorities;
the profound scriptures and intimate instructions are authorities.
The Dhyānottara-paṭalakrama Tantra states:
This great ocean of Secret Mantra
cannot be realized through
examples, authorities, arguments,
inferences or discerning wisdom.
The Abhidhānottara Tantra states:
The yogin who does not know the scriptures
is a Buddhist tīrthika.
Never forsake the scriptures.
Never forsake the Three Jewels.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: What is Authorisation?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mostly it means you claim that some lama tapped you on the shoulder. Sometimes it means you are actually qualified.

Astus said:
You mean there are no papers and procedures - besides those given by educational institutions - in Tibetan Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. In general, in the past, if your guru asked to you teach or lead students, then you would. If he did not, theoretically you wouldn't dream of arrogating yourself to the position of teacher.

In the past, being a Dharma teacher was a professional occupation that was preceded by many years of training. In the West all kinds of people, both qualified and unqualified, Tibetan and Western, hang out a shingle and seek to lead students.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
And worldly people's things exist. [/list] [/i]

Malcolm wrote:
Not so fast, Kimosabe:

Chandra himself states this passage means:
Since the existence of mundane entities is also established without investigation, everything is established.
In other words, we only accept unexamined mundane entities as "existent". Once they have been examined, we cannot find their existence in anyway, inherently or otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:



undefineable said:
Possibly my impression has more to do with the impossibility of understanding what enlightenment is with as much recognition as one understands what samsara is. For example, I think I once read one or two passages like the ones you quoted ( ) but wrote them off as mere metaphors, to be returned to at a much later date in case I was wrong. But it doesn't still have to be as simple as 1-100 simultaneous localised mind-body complex[es], right?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no limit to the number of nirmanakāyas the Sambhogakāya emanates.



undefineable said:
OK - I raise you "any substantive links (not just any overlaps ) between the awareness of any individual -including a fully enlightened Buddha- and anything outside his/her/its own mind" {A Buddha's an "it" after the death of his or her last body, right?!} This still sounds confused and confusing, but then that's partly my point.

Malcolm wrote:
What kind of substantive links did you have in mind? Please define them.

A buddha, technically speaking, is the dharmakāya. The Ārya-aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states:
Those who are attached to the tathāgata as a form or a name are childish and have corrupted discerning wisdom… the tathāgatas are not to be seen as the rūpakāya; the tathāgatās are to be seen as the dharmakāya.
The dharmakāya is ultimate, and therefore is unconditioned and permanent. It is only confusing when you mistakenly identify a buddha as the rūpakāya, a material body.

undefineable said:
I was already talking about awareness rather than particular experiences, although I'm aware that this distinction can get tricky _ _ .

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by awareness as opposed to an experience? Is the latter permanent whereas the former is transient? If not, then what is the difference between awareness and experience if both are transient?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas practice Ngöndro?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Ngondro was present in Dzogchen tantras, apparently Sakyas never had it until very recently though so it might not have been part of the Indian sarma tantras.


Malcolm wrote:
Sakyas did not have a seperate ngondro text, as such, but they always had preliminaries. The idea of counting them all 100,000 at a time seems to be a relatively recent innovation. In the past, when doing a retreat one typically did each for a week or a month, depending one's time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Sherlock said:
Sachen and Sakya Pandita also were guided by Manjushri.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently Sachen did not understand that "If grasping arises, one does not have the view" actually meant, "If grasping to inherent existence arises, one does not have the view", but grasping to existence is ok.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
He was guided along the path by Manjushri himself.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are to believe Khedrup Je's bio.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Interesting sunglasses
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
http://www.dharmaco.com/products/dharma-police

Malcolm wrote:
It can never replace this:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
there is a conventional continuum that continues even after parinirvana

undefineable said:
The Buddhist approach to assertions such as parts of one's mind literally also being parts of others' minds has always looked rational rather than mystical to me; I.e. the approach seems to be that there are no such overlaps, even (or except? ) in the case of Siamese twins fused at the brain (although parts of their mental lives would of course be identical at a moment-to-moment level). What I've never found was anything to rule out the kind of 'fuzzy edges' that tend to be associated -rightly or wrongly (or more likely both)- with Buddhist doctrine, especially with [lack of] teachings on paranirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
Refer to the teachings on the three kāyas, parnirvana is not real, it is a display.

undefineable said:
When I first discovered Buddhadharma, I actually liked the idea of a mental continuum surviving paranirvana, but dropped it because I didn't find any teachings to back it up. Since you make the whole thing sound so cut-and-dried, maybe you could share a link a quote for this idea unless it's only available in secret teaching?


Malcolm wrote:
The Suvarṇaprabhāsottama Sūtra: The Buddha never passes into nirvana
and the Dharma never declines, 
but parinirvana is shown
in order to ripen sentient beings.
And:
One can count the drops 
of all the water of the oceans,
but the lifespan of Buddha Śakyamuni
cannot be counted by anyone.
The Nirvana Sūtra states: Aging and illness do not exist for me.
Also my lifespan is inexhaustible.

The Saddharmapundarika Sūtra states: When sentient beings perceive and think
this world is on fire because of the end of the eon, 
at that time, this buddhafield of mine
will be entirely filled with devas and humans…
though my buddhafield will exist forever,
others will see always sees this as burning because of the end of the eon.
And:
Son of a good family…in order to benefit the world, through the power of aspiration, I have been born as a human in this Jambudvipa in order to properly explain this class of Dharma. Know that after my parinirvana, in order to benefit sentient beings and out of compassion, I will be born as a human in order to very properly explain this class of Dharma.
Thus, there is actually no parinirvana at all. At least, not for Mahāyānis.
And of course, all that arises from causes and conditions is empty.


OK - Take the example of the pure power of awareness regardless of any object of consciousness. At a level that most here will recognise, it would be hard to find evidence -or even 'points of entry'- for the notion that there is an awareness without an object of consciousness, let alone for the notion (much as I wrote on page 1) that this awareness is somehow held in common. However, if you assert that there are never any substantive links between the 'aware nature' aspects of an individual's mind and anything outside that mind -even after all the structures that hold together the sense of being an individual (ego, duality[, etc.]) have been removed-, then you also assert a defining characteristic as far as I can see - A self-enclosed 'unit of reality' instead of 'vast emptiness'.
But I never made such an assertion. I merely stated a basic Abhidharma definition: "all phenomena" are included in one aggregate, one sense base, and one element. All of my dharmas therefore, are unique to me in the sense that "I" am but a designation on a collection of aggregates. The basic definition of the material aggregate includes all sense organs and sense objects. The sounds, smells, sights, and so on, all sense objects in other words, are not part of my mind, per se, since they are material, and they are external to my physical sense organs (which is only half of the material aggregate).  Material aggregates may and do interact, for example, if you can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch someone else's body, their body is part of your material aggregate and vice versa. People with meditative capacity can observe the minds of others. I have never read in any sūtra and tantra that Buddha was able to "project" himself into the mind of another sentient being or influence another with his thoughts. His ability read the thoughts of others however is undisputed.
Of course, the Buddha had a lot of definite things to say about samsara, but was far more cautious in defining enlightenment,
Buddha defined Buddhahood quite well in a number of places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Sherlock said:
Tsongkhapa knew very well his interpretation of Madhyamaka was not the one he learned while he was a Sakya student.

It came from his dreams.

The interpretation he learned as a Sakya student is simply that of all Indian and Tibetan masters before him, and which is still dominant in Sakya today. So are you going to say that they are all wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
This is how the introductory verses to the Essence of Eloquence is understood in Gelug, as essentially saying that no one apart from Nāgārjuna and son, Candra, Shantideva and Atisha had rightly understood Madhyamaka and that everyone else was mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: What is Authorisation?
Content:
Astus said:
It is mentioned http://www.charliemorley.com/full-bio/ that there was an authorisation given to teach. What form, if any, does such an authorisation take in Tibetan Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Mostly it means you claim that some lama tapped you on the shoulder. Sometimes it means you are actually qualified.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Denying the validity of conventional appearances is tragic and a big mistake that Gorampa made.

Malcolm wrote:
Where does Gorampa deny the conventional validity of appearances? He merely asserts that when a conventional entity is investigated it cannot be found at all upon analysis. He says:
Therefore all those objects and everything defined on those from the perspective of appearing to a mundane mind is said to be the meaning of defining the relative through the perspective of the conventional.
And:
The characteristic of the ultimate truth: since the noble’s equipoise is beyond cognitive range of ordinary beings, also dualistic vision subsides because of immaculate wisdom, ultimate truth is asserted to be never seeing any extreme of existence and non-existence, permanence or annihilation and so on.
And:
That being so, when seen by a human eye consciousness, regardless of what is seen or not seen by the eye consciousness of the other five kinds of living beings, apart from conventional water appearing to that eye consciousness the others are not perceived, Ultimately there is no also perception of water itself. Your apportioning the substance into six parts is wasted effort of grasping at things. 

That being so, although it has been much boasted that “It is necessary to define the relative as an appearance to non-analytical mind” ultimately it appears to have been defined through an analysis with reason, therefore, there has been a degeneration in the [Gelugpa] presentation of the relative of the prāsangika madhyamaka system.
And:
Although the mere I, the perceived object apprehended by innate self-grasping as “I am” existing conventionally is the prāsangika madhyamaka system, the [Gelugpa] assertion “The mere I exists conventionally even though it is not found to be the same as, different than or both [the same as and different than] the aggregates when its sameness or difference is sought to be established” is very invalid because when it is sought like that even the mere I is necessarily found to be non-existent.
And:
That mere I itself conventionally is the agent of action and also is the experiencer of ripening in this system defined by the power of appearing to mind of the relative subject because to the mind of a mundane person, the mere I appears as the agent of action and the experiencer of a result, i.e. “I did an action”, “I experienced a result.”
And:
Prāsaṇgika and Svatantrika do not differ in the presentation of the conventional because the Prāsaṇgikas also accept autonomous arguments in the presentation of the conventional.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Should it be dry-cleaned?
Content:
Lingpupa said:
Amidst all the profundity that gets discussed here, this question may seem almost banal. But it still matters.

I have been wearing a ngagapa shawl on appropriate occasions for some time now. Now although, of course, I know very clearly which teacher told me that I should wear it and why, I can no longer in fact remember where I acquired it. And what with usage, the cat sleeping on it (sorry, it wasn't intended) and so forth it could maybe do with a clean. So I have to wonder whether it is colour-fast and can be washed (perhaps at low temperature) in ordinary water and washing agent, or whether I have to take it to the dry cleaner.

I know that the type that I have is not uncommon, so I'd very much appreciate it if anybody who reckons that they have *exactly* the same kind of shawl and has gone as far as to wash it can let me know whether the colours run in a water wash or not.

Picture attached, and thanks in advance. Shawl reduced.jpg

Malcolm wrote:
Do not wash, dry clean.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Meaning of Vajrayana Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
Then Dzogchen is to Vajrayana as non-gradual Mahayana is to gradual Mahayana.

You don't need to be cigcarba to practice, but Dzogchen is a more direct path than 2 stages. Self-liberation vs transformation. This is what Karma Chagme and Namkhai Norbu say, I'm sure more masters say the same.

Malcolm wrote:
So called self-liberation (rang grol) just means being free from grasping, no different than the fourth of the parting of the four attachments, "If grasping arises, one does not have the view."

I have studied and practice both Vajrayāna and Dzogchen side by side, and I have still yet to find that Dzogchen results in freedom from grasping more effectively than Vajrayāna. They are just different means for different sorts of people.

I also have not noticed that Dzogchen practitioners rapidly increase in realization at a pace swifter than say Vajrayogini practitioners or Hevajra practitioners, or Vajrakilaya practitioners.

There is also the fact that Dzogchen tregchö, Kagyu Mahāmudra, the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana (Sakya) all have the same point — sustaining an unfabricated awareness in all activities and at all times. If one can do this, that is self-liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
All this talk about Madhyamikas having no position is nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
If I had a proposition, I would be at fault;
as I alone have no proposition, I alone am without fault.
—

I guess Nāgārjuna was just talking a load of nonsense then.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, his meaning is - if I had an actual findable position, I would be at fault, but since my position is mere imputation, I alone am without fault.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Dhama Wheel posters, not so much.

Malcolm wrote:
I have always found it is better to just be consistent in tone and style. Sooner or later people stop taking it personally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the term "all phenomena" is a technical term which covers the material aggregate, the mental consciousness and mental objects. It does not include other sentient beings.

undefineable said:
Whaat?
You seem to be depicting an infinite number of pan-multi-universes/realities/whatever, each of which is the everlasting mind-stream of a sentient being {'Everlasting' because absolute separateness puts enough of a cordon around a mind-stream for it to appear as a 'thing-in-itself' - This reality, then, consists only of a single individual, a view better known as Solipsism _ _   I'm getting lost - No wonder everyone here advises regular Buddhist coaching!

Malcolm wrote:
Appearances are sometimes deceptive, especially when people read things into them that are not there, for example, mistaking mist for smoke and thinking there is a fire.

Sarvadharma, in this context, refers to the phenomena proper to a given "person" formed from a unique set of causes and conditions, some of which are shared, and some of which are not. For example, the container universe is a condition we all share, karma is not a condition we all share, karma is unique and individual, even when its ripening appears to be collective, for example, just as cherries tree blossom at the same time in the spring, but every tree is a unique and distinct individual arising from its own set of causes and conditions.

The inseparability of the two truths means merely that empty things arise from empty causes, like for example, separate and distinct empty mind streams.
So 'things' -even emptiness itself- are empty, but other supposed truths -like separateness/distinction- are not empty at all? Again, why don't people just make all this clearer, rather than leaving the water muddy as they usually do?[/quote]

One of the conventional rules of causation is homogeneity — wheat from wheat seeds, corn from corn seeds, apples from apple seeds and so on. In regards to human beings, we all have our unique set of causes and conditions that both enforces our clade (human) at the same time that it provides us with our individual capacities in intelligence, vision, strength, health, longevity and so on.

Mindstreams are also unique in the sense that karma that I perform will not ripen on another, nor will the karma of others ripen on me.

And of course, all that arises from causes and conditions is empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
undefineable said:
I do wish the dharma could just put up neon sign (like with the Three Seals) saying "There is an ABSOLUTE and ETERNAL separation between each individual mind".

Malcolm wrote:
It is not like that — however, every mind stream arises from its unique set of causes and conditions which in turn enforce the uniqueness of not only every mind stream, but every conventional entity that can be considered to be composed of parts.


undefineable said:
The question is, is there still an absolutely-separate mind in paranirvana? If so, why? And why would anyone need that like anything-but a kick in the head after all the trouble of getting there?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is a conventional continuum that continues even after parinirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
All this talk about Madhyamikas having no position is nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
If I had a proposition, I would be at fault;
as I alone have no proposition, I alone am without fault.
—

I guess Nāgārjuna was just talking a load of nonsense then.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
In other words:
"While you accept real dependent entities,
I do not accept them even conventionally.
For effect, I say they exist even though they do not.
Taking the perspective of the world, I speak of a self." (Page 231)


It is not so easy to put the Gelug position into a box, or to refute it, because (as quoted) there is no position.

Thanks for this nice conversation.
Good night.

Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty easy to put Gelug's in a box, because Tsongkhapa is very clear. Here, Chandra is addressing Hinayāna realists.

If you did a little deeper, you will find it is exactly as we say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
This sounds somehow invalid comparing to what I have learned about LamRim BRING BA (the onla German translation)

Malcolm wrote:
Elizabeth Napper's book on Dependent Origination covers this point extensively.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
No.
Maybe we should clarify, which "Gelugpa" view we are talking about.
The Prasangika Madhyamaka position is: the conventional phenomena are mere appearances and they "exist" only as that.
The view Tsongkhapafan is fighting for in this discussion is not the view of Che Tsongkhapa, although their names sound quite similar.

heart said:
I mean the Gelug tradition no disrespect, but I left Dharamsala after the few months I spent there with exactly the impression Malcolm sum up above.

/magnus

Ayu said:
I heard an intense lecture about this topic. It is easy to misunderstand. It would be too long to quote here, but I recommend reading and meditating LamRimChenMo, Part Two (of Part 3) "Insight". At the end it comes out, the conventional phenomena are mere illusion. This does not mean, they would not exist at all, but they do not exist either.
"Not existent and not non-existent". That is the fact about Tsongkhapas teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, one of the key points of disagreement with Tsongkhapa is his formulation in Lamrim Chenmo that in the four-fold negation, the first negation, not existent, means only "not existent ultimately", and that that second negation, not nonexistent means "not nonexistent relatively" and since the third and fourth negations are double negatives they are to be considered superfluous.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
IN some places, yes Cone, definitely.

conebeckham said:
OK.  But am I correct that Tsong Khapa's followers often qualified Nagarjuna and Chandra's word "Existent" with the word "inherent" when it was not explicitly there?

Also, Malcolm, what are the Tibetan terms for this "inherent"?  dngos.?

Malcolm wrote:
Inherent existence (svabhāva) is either ngo bo nyid (older translations) or rang bzhin (more recent translations).

And yes, followers of Tsongkhapa often patch the word existence (bhāva, dngos po) with "sva", leading to the aforementioned criticism leveled by Gaden Chophel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna states very clearly the former is to be included in the latter, in no uncertain terms.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's just an interpretation of his words. Tsongkhapa interprets it differently.

conebeckham said:
That's the position of followers of Tsong Khapa, yes.  But can you point to "inherent" in Nagarjuna (or Chandra's) texts themselves?

Malcolm wrote:
IN some places, yes Cone, definitely. The end of the chapter I cite above states:
Thus, whatever exists through inherent existence, that cannot be accepted as not existing later, because its nature is immutable; because of that, there will be a view of permanence from the view ‘it exists’. That existent ‘previous produced earlier, but presently non-existent’ is a view that existing existents perish; therefore, it will be an annihilationist view. As such, why? There will be many faults for the view ‘is and is not’ in existents, because of that, that statement ‘existents are without inherent existence", is seeing the truth, is the middle way, that is ultimately established.
But the main flaw that can be seen in the Gelugpa view is that they jump through hoops trying to preserve conventional phenomena, seemingly without realizing the purpose of Madhyamaka is not to defend relative truth but rather to realize the reality which relative truth conceals (that there is no reality at all).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna states very clearly the former is to be included in the latter, in no uncertain terms.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's just an interpretation of his words. Tsongkhapa interprets it differently.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is how Buddhapalita inteprets Nāgārjuna words:
If there is an existence, it is counted as an inherent existence or dependent existence. Because of that, if there is inherent existence and dependent existence, existence will be established. Also when there is no inherent existence, at that time there is also no dependent existence. There is no description of an existence not included in inherent existence and dependent existence. Where will that existence be alone without becoming inherently or dependently [existent]?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
No, I don't mean that emptiness is a thing. Perhaps I should have said that emptiness is a phenomenon, an existent.

Matylda said:
Even phenomenon or existent, how could unborn and free of 4 extremes be called or labeled in such way? If it is phenomenon etc. then isn't it just like any other category of things?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Existence isn't an extreme for me, only inherent existent is.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna states very clearly the former is to be included in the latter, in no uncertain terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
muni said:
I do not think the inseparability of the two truths can be described.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it can. As Gorampa points out:
“Matter is empty…” removes the extreme of the imputation of existence. “Emptiness is matter…” removes the extreme of the imputation of non-existence. “There is no other emptiness apart from matter; there is no other matter apart from emptiness…” shows the inseparability of the two truths.

muni said:
Yes they can be described, as well by form-emptiness, emptiness-form but not the experience. Since the experiencer and the experience are not two.
Buddha remained silent.

Malcolm wrote:
That very much depends on what kind of experience you are talking about. Buddha remained silent for a while because he thought no one would understand him.

But it is useless talk about experiences we have not had, for example, awakening. It is like someone talking about California who has never been to California. Don't get me wrong, it is ok to say "I have heard California is nice, I would like to go there. I have a book written by someone who has been to California, and it is supposed to be quite good. In this book and in these reports I have heard this and that."

But too much of the conversation around here winds up with people making pompous proclamations as if they really have experienced awakening, when in fact they are just reciting things they have heard, and even then, often their understanding of what they have read and heard is inaccurate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
muni said:
I do not think the inseparability of the two truths can be described.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it can. As Gorampa points out:
“Matter is empty…” removes the extreme of the imputation of existence. “Emptiness is matter…” removes the extreme of the imputation of non-existence. “There is no other emptiness apart from matter; there is no other matter apart from emptiness…” shows the inseparability of the two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
muni said:
Malcolm wrote: he is not making a statement that ultimately there are no sentient beings besides oneself.

I never said that. By the union or inseparability of the two truths there is no one (subject) clinging to other (object). And therefore how nature is, is not individual but is so experienced in separation of the two truths.

Malcolm wrote:
The inseparability of the two truths means merely that empty things arise from empty causes, like for example, separate and distinct empty mind streams.



muni said:
It does not include other sentient beings.


Certainly not, the separation is by the individual mind.

Malcolm wrote:
This admits there is an individual mind that separates.

muni said:
The ego arises from that in which there is nothing to label. As this habitual tendency to ego-belief solidifies, names are formed as father and mother, child and possessions, enemy and friend, objects of the senses and so forth. In this way ego-belief and labelling delude you into the six realms. Guru Rinpoche


Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Indeed, but still this is not a statement there is some Mind (capital M) of which everything is nondually composed, and that if we just realize that unity, that is buddhahood. It is not like that.

Guru Rinpoche's statement in this respect refers to one's subjective experience from yogacara point of view. His statement does not mean that there are not conventionally speaking, infinite myriads of sentient beings, the traces of all of whom sustain the appearance of the container universe. Minds have no form, but they generate appearances based on traces; minds have no form, and yet they are sustained on their own individual sets of causes and conditions — hence we say that they are empty. The inseparability of the two truths means that we do not reject appearances, for example, sentient beings, and we do not imagine that they arise due to any other reason than arising from conditions, which means they are empty, just as we are. It certainly does not mean that as soon as we cease looking at a mountain it ceases to exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Matt J said:
This is also posited in Vedanta. The idea is that the "mind-stuff", or citta, goes out and takes the form of the world, created vrittis made out of citta.

The holo-deck is actually supported by dreams and dream research. Looking at brain imaging, many of the same areas of the brain that relate to perception are activated in dreams that are activated in the waking state. B. Alan Wallace has explained that being awake is like dreaming with constraints (i.e. the "external" world) and dreaming is dreaming without such constraints.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference of course is that in Advaita, everything is made of Brahman, an ultimate substratum. This kind of ultimate substratum is rejected by every Indian and Tibetan Buddhist school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


muni said:
Woopsee! When Guru Rinpoche say others are the biased perception of ego ( ego = an imagination as an entity existing on itself) then this is also Advaita? The Avatamsaka is Advaita? All seems to be that Advaita these days. Lol!

All phenomena are not same as mind but not different. Longchenpa?

I am not rejecting the conventional existence of beings, not clinging to emptiness, be sure. Actually this turns again to the inseparability of the two truths.

Malcolm wrote:
When Guru Rinpoche describes "otherness" as a biased perception, he is referring only the appearances of rtsal energy of the mind — he is not making a statement that ultimately there are no sentient beings besides oneself.

The Avatamska does not deny the separate continuums of sentient beings either.

As I explained before, the term "all phenomena" is a technical term which covers the material aggregate, the mental consciousness and mental objects. It does not include other sentient beings. It is a very misunderstood term, leading to strange solipsistic interpretations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
muni said:
Malcolm wrote:
Further, what does this have to do with other sentient beings?
Other sentient beings are in misperception other beings, and so other than me ( me = that what I think I am). Other sentient beings (all) are very necessary means to realize our own Nature in which, they are not so "other sentient beings".

Even "others" are biased perception of the individual mind, on our path they all are means to recognize our own nature. It depends completely on own perception, own mind only, how all appears and how all is.

I just see this here;
"The mind is like an artist
The mind created the aggregates.
All the world systems in existence
Have been drawn by the mind".

Malcolm wrote:
It seems your point of view is no different than Advaita.

Vasubandhu and so on go through very detailed arguments which prove the conventional existence of others minds despite the fact that container universe is "mind only."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


muni said:
"It is said in the Great Perfection teachings that one cannot become enlightened through a contrived mind; rather, the basic mind is to be identified, in relation to which all phenomena are to be understood as the sport of the mind ".
-The Dalai Lama


Malcolm wrote:
All phenomena, chos thams cad, refers to one skandha (the material aggregate), one āyatana (the mental sense base) and one dhātu (the dharmadhātu, Hinyāna style, which contains all mental factors and the unconditioned dharmas). These are all understood in Dzogchen sems sde specifically to be the sport of the mind.

muni said:
When we identify ourselves as a phenomena we see only other phenomena and all is very solid real, including what we habitually learned to call our mind-body with which we then identify. Then again the metaphor mirror( Mind) and its' reflections( phenomena). In this selfless unsubstantial mirror-like Mind is no thing, no form out there.

Malcolm wrote:
Is it really necessary to confuse things by bringing Dzogchen concepts into the mix? Especially amongst a population that is not necessarily practicing Dzogchen?

Further, what does this have to do with other sentient beings? This has only to do with the container universe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
To all,

This discussion seems to have gone into an endless loop. Additionally, from the recent posts even civil discussion seems to have been lost. It seems time to let it drop.

Best regards and wishes to all,
Jeff

Malcolm wrote:
Sometimes when people are offensive without realizing it stronger words are required to alert them to their breach of manners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Many people experience delusions that directly comtradict Buddhadharma, your's is just one more.

Jeff said:
I do not at all think it contradicts Buddhadarma. That is my point, which the Rinpoche (or at least the translator) seems to share.

Malcolm wrote:
You dont understand Buddhadharma because, unfortunately, you are ignorant of its basic principles. You are recalcitrant, and clearly have no interest in understanding the subject at hand. it us a pity since  you merely cut yourself off from true knowledge, preferring instead your own delusions. Cest la vie.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
That was the nature of the question, the relative connection "framework". Why I have recently posted the question (multiple times) about the computer network analogy. Malcolm is the only one who has really voted. Stating that in Buddhadarma there is no mind to mind connection, that the mind is limited to the physical body.

I was asking if everyone else agreed with that because as I have stated many other traditions have such capability/connection framework.

asunthatneversets said:
Study the two-truths, it would resolve the seeming contradictions and inconsistencies you feel you're encountering.

Right now you're struggling with your attempts to reconcile these issues through a neo-nondual type approach where you're forced to posit some sort of universal substratum, and that view is refuted by the buddhadharma, for good reason.

If you simply made an effort to comprehend how conventional designations and relative cognitions relate to ultimate truth (i.e., their emptiness), then you'd undoubtably resolve these issues you are struggling with.

Jeff said:
Think of it more like a shared consciousness that is the Form component of emptiness, just as we all seemingly exist in the same multi universe. I have no doubt relative to emptiness.

The struggling component comes from the groups description of Buddhadarma that is in contrast to what is directly experinenced by many relative to mind-mind contact/connection.

Malcolm wrote:
Many people experience delusions that directly comtradict Buddhadharma, your's is just one more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As Garchen Rinpoche said: Ultimately, there is a single ground within which all beings are one. Because we are connected to all beings on the ultimate level, we can pervade them with love. They can actually receive our love.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is what Garchen's translator said for him, who knows what Garchen actually said (in Tibetan, he does not speak English).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Malcolm, I in no way am attempting to impose Advaita Vedanta concepts on Buddhadarma.

Bakmoon said:
But the actual position you are laying down is a textbook example of Advaita Vedanta. Can you name any substantial difference between your view and that of Adi Shankara?

Jeff said:
On why traditions say that it is located in the heart... That is because the unified field or light body is based in the heart. Additionally, I will stand in agreement with the sutra quote.  The mind is as vast as the entire cosmos. The body itself is a direct mapping to all that exists (or the entire cosmos). This is also part of the true meaning of the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya.

Best wishes,
Jeff

Bakmoon said:
You misunderstand that passage from the Avatamsaka. If you look at the entire passage it is clear that it is a collection of descriptions of the nature of the powers and activities of the various Bodhisattvas. Specifically, it says:
They are able to shake infinite worlds in the ten directions by spiritual powers; their minds are
broad, being equal to the cosmos. They know various explanations of truth, they know how
many sentient beings there are, they know the differences among sentient beings, they know
the birth of suffering, they know the extinction of suffering; while knowing all acts are like reflected
images, they carry out the deeds of bodhisattvas. They sever the root of all subjection to birth.
Everything in this passage is a description of the many spiritual powers wielded by the Great Bodhisattvas, and immediately after saying their minds are "broad [and] equal to the cosmos" it describes the extent of their knowledge of sentient beings. It is clear from context that the meaning of the passage is that the Great Bodhisattvas mind is broad and equal to the cosmos in terms of the scope of its abilities, not that the mind IS the cosmos.

Malcolm wrote:
I already tried to explain it to him, it is hopeless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Is not the nature of a discussion to present various positions? As with the sutra I provided, I think it shows a very reasonable counter point.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, you don't understand the sūtra's meaning, not to mention the fact it is not a reliable translation by any means.

Jeff said:
Are you now also saying that the Avatamsaka Sutra is unreliable and I have mistaken the very clear meaning (that I agree with)?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that you a) do not understand the meaning of the passage b) that the translation is any case not accurate and has been a topic of criticism for many years due to its lack of accuracy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Is not the nature of a discussion to present various positions? As with the sutra I provided, I think it shows a very reasonable counter point.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, you don't understand the sūtra's meaning, not to mention the fact it is not a reliable translation by any means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


muni said:
Due to thoughts linked to habitual patterns,
The myriad things arising from the mind
Appear to people as external.
They are no external phenomena
It is the mind that arises as the myriad things.
Body, activities, dwelling, and such
I declare that all these are only mind.
Lankavatara.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, external phenomena are considered mind-only in this sutra, but not other sentient beings.

Jeff said:
A perceived body is external phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: The 12 great Deeds Questions
Content:
Aemilius said:
Hi !
I have never heard of Svetaketu as a past incarnation of Buddha Gautama.

Malcolm wrote:
No confusion, Svetaketu was the bodhisattva's name while residing in Tushita heaven.

http://huntington.wmc.ohio-state.edu/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=showThisDetail&ObjectID=30030924


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


muni said:
Due to thoughts linked to habitual patterns,
The myriad things arising from the mind
Appear to people as external.
They are no external phenomena
It is the mind that arises as the myriad things.
Body, activities, dwelling, and such
I declare that all these are only mind.
Lankavatara.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, external phenomena are considered mind-only in this sutra, but not other sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Without entering Secret Mantra, there is no way around the "many eons" because the Paramitayāna just takes that much time.

Jeff said:
Agreed on the Secret Mantra concept.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, you don't even know what you are agreeing to, since you are not a practitioner of Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are imposing such concepts on Buddhadharma, a subject about which you know little.


Unknown said:
On why traditions say that it is located in the heart... That is because the unified field or light body is based in the heart. Additionally, I will stand in agreement with the sutra quote.  The mind is as vast as the entire cosmos. The body itself is a direct mapping to all that exists (or the entire cosmos). This is also part of the true meaning of the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Your understanding of the citation in question is quite simply mistaken. You don't know what it means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Matt J said:
If minds are individual, then they must have two things: 1) location and 2) boundaries.

Where is the mind located and what are its boundaries?

muni said:
Whether equipoise or thinking, depends how seen. All is Mind.  Reflections are in the mirror, inseparable.

Malcolm wrote:
"All" here refers to the skandhas, dhatus and āyatanas. It does not really include the minds of others apart from oneself.

It means all of one's sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Matt J said:
If minds are individual, then they must have two things: 1) location and 2) boundaries.

Where is the mind located and what are its boundaries?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind is located in the body. Its boundaries are the sense organs.

Jeff said:
Now there we definitely disagree... Repeating an earlier post to define my position...

From the Avatamsaka Sutra...

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm. Jeff, Mahābodhisattvas in general means bodhisattvas on the tenth bhumi.

In any case, this passage does not contradict my assertion that conventionally speaking, the mind is located in the body and its boundaries are the sense organs. All Buddhist traditions agree that mind is located in the center of the body mass, approximately at the heart. Someone might object and say, "What about when it says that when looking for the mind it cannot be found inside the body, outside the body and so on...", this is also true, but conventionally speaking we understand the mind to be located in the "heart".

Sooner or later you are going figure out that you are trying impose Advaita Vedanta concepts on Buddhdharma, and you will realize that it does not work. Then you will have to decide which you like better and than follow that path. But they are not reconcilable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Seeing thing correctly means that one does not have relative obstructions to that view.

Malcolm wrote:
Seeing correctly means that one sees that things are empty by nature, not in an intellectual sense that we are discussing here, but in the sense of having realized emptiness. And that is just the start, because one still has to eliminate eons worth of affliction and knowledge obscurations, and outside of Vajrayāna, that takes eons practicing the path, even as a realized person.

Jeff said:
Fair enough on the Buddha point, I should have said "more like" or "potential". As one clears away the heavy obstructions, it is easier to notice one's true (or underlying nature).  There is nothing to "know" or "learn", just crap to clear away.

Malcolm wrote:
And that takes many eons.

Jeff said:
I agree that realization is what counts, not reading a book or intellectualizing...

On many eons... Guess that depends on your approach... But, if one is worried about it... They are definitely on the "many eons" approach...

Malcolm wrote:
Without entering Secret Mantra, there is no way around the "many eons" because the Paramitayāna just takes that much time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Of course there is such a thing as emptiness, it's the ultimate nature of phenomena. The ideas that people are expressing here that conventional and ultimate truths don't exist is just plain weird and contrary to the valid cognizers of ordinary beings and Yogis. I think it's a nihilistic view - but just because something is merely imputed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, in fact, that's how it actually does exist. Mere imputations are existent phenomena, and existent phenomena are those things and non-things that are apprehended by valid cognizers.

Matylda said:
Do you mean that emptiness is a thing? even if you call it ultimate nature.. how it can be a thing? I guess it was just uncontrolled use of words...

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, I don't mean that emptiness is a thing. Perhaps I should have said that emptiness is a phenomenon, an existent.

Malcolm wrote:
You understand that emptiness is defined as unconditioned in Mahāyāna, correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: The theory of how empowerments work?
Content:
Anders said:
@Malcolm,

Your posts here suggest that there are some ways that get more out of empowerments than others. Is that a general rule? Different tips for different empowerments?


Malcolm wrote:
Taking empowerment is a practice. When you understand this, your Vajrayāna experience will be more rich.

Anders said:
Can you expand a bit on that, as if to a somewhat dimwitted person ( )? I think I am missing some parts here to really make sense of that.

Malcolm wrote:
I cannot really elaborate on that here in this kind of forum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Matt J said:
If minds are individual, then they must have two things: 1) location and 2) boundaries.

Where is the mind located and what are its boundaries?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind is located in the body. Its boundaries are the sense organs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Seeing thing correctly means that one does not have relative obstructions to that view.

Malcolm wrote:
Seeing correctly means that one sees that things are empty by nature, not in an intellectual sense that we are discussing here, but in the sense of having realized emptiness. And that is just the start, because one still has to eliminate eons worth of affliction and knowledge obscurations, and outside of Vajrayāna, that takes eons practicing the path, even as a realized person.

Jeff said:
Fair enough on the Buddha point, I should have said "more like" or "potential". As one clears away the heavy obstructions, it is easier to notice one's true (or underlying nature).  There is nothing to "know" or "learn", just crap to clear away.

Malcolm wrote:
And that takes many eons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist
Content:
Simon E. said:
At least one well known Lama used to recommend Jesus and Mary as Yidams for Christians.

I am not commending this. Just sayin'.


Malcolm wrote:
It is a little strange, honestly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, what would you say was going on in the incident described by Tsultrim Allione here:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7186&p=172682e#p172682?
bump

Malcolm wrote:
She had a nice experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
But, that traps on into a limited relative view that one needs "eyes" to see and such is not the case.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as one is an afflicted person, one will see through one's eyes, smell through one's nose and so on.


Jeff said:
Rather than relative and absolute views... It is more like there is absolute with relative obstructions to that view...

Malcolm wrote:
There is no absolute. Ultimate truth just means seeing things correctly.

Jeff said:
One is an unbounded Buddha, not trapped to any form with eyes (or limited "mind"), but very often one's view is heavily obstructed.

Malcolm wrote:
This is total contradiction in terms. If one were an unbounded Buddha, one's view could never be heavily obstructed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
I totally agree that no individual mind/delusion is mingling. That is why I have attempted to introduce the "local" concept, but the computer network analogy also works. Do you agree that the computer network analogy/Internet is a reasonable one?

Also, probably better if we don't try to venture into what Hindus believe.

Malcolm wrote:
What is observed in the phenomena of abhijñā, knowing the minds of others, are conceptual thoughts, mental entities marked by characteristics in the minds of another. When our minds become free from such conceptual thoughts, our minds cannot be perceived by others any longer. For example, there were a group of devas fond of a certain monk, with whom they were friends. One day they became alarmed because they could not perceive him in the three realms anymore. They went to the Buddha, who told them that this monk had become an arhat and was in a samadhi of cessation, and therefore, since his mind was free from any characteristics while in that state, they could not perceive his mind. This how the abhijñā of knowing the minds of others works. This is why only a mind which embraces a characteristic can be known to a yogi who has such capacity.

Jeff said:
Makes total sense. But what we are discussing is the inverse. How a yogi with such capacity can know the mind (or contanct) the mind of one that is yet obstructed?

Malcolm wrote:
That is the point, such obstructions make the mind visible, such a mind has effluents, outflows, etc.

For example, the eye has the capacity to see from a distance, likewise, these abilities are called "eyes."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
If Form = Void/Emptiness and Emptiness/Void = Form, is not everything possible within Buddhadarma.

Mind is clear and pristine, there are no "boundaries"... Is that not correct?

Malcolm wrote:
You are conflating ultimate and relative truth. In ultimate truth, there are no minds, no buddhas, no sentient beings, no connections, no relations, no objects, etc.

Relative truth, on the other hand, is defined by what works. If you try to use a car as a space craft, you will not get very far. If you try to prove that all minds have a common substratum, your argument will fail for all kinds of reasons. If you try to prove that one mind can directly influence another, again, your argument will fail for all kinds of reasons no matter what you may have been led to believe.

Jeff said:
So does that mean that you also do not agree with the computer connected analogy?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a false analogy. It is not how minds work, that is how brains work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
I totally agree that no individual mind/delusion is mingling. That is why I have attempted to introduce the "local" concept, but the computer network analogy also works. Do you agree that the computer network analogy/Internet is a reasonable one?

Also, probably better if we don't try to venture into what Hindus believe.

Malcolm wrote:
What is observed in the phenomena of abhijñā, knowing the minds of others, are conceptual thoughts, mental entities marked by characteristics in the minds of another. When our minds become free from such conceptual thoughts, our minds cannot be perceived by others any longer. For example, there were a group of devas fond of a certain monk, with whom they were friends. One day they became alarmed because they could not perceive him in the three realms anymore. They went to the Buddha, who told them that this monk had become an arhat and was in a samadhi of cessation, and therefore, since his mind was free from any characteristics while in that state, they could not perceive his mind. This how the abhijñā of knowing the minds of others works. This is why only a mind which embraces a characteristic can be known to a yogi who has such capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
If Form = Void/Emptiness and Emptiness/Void = Form, is not everything possible within Buddhadarma.

Mind is clear and pristine, there are no "boundaries"... Is that not correct?

Malcolm wrote:
You are conflating ultimate and relative truth. In ultimate truth, there are no minds, no buddhas, no sentient beings, no connections, no relations, no objects, etc.

Relative truth, on the other hand, is defined by what works. If you try to use a car as a space craft, you will not get very far. If you try to prove that all minds have a common substratum, your argument will fail for all kinds of reasons. If you try to prove that one mind can directly influence another, again, your argument will fail for all kinds of reasons no matter what you may have been led to believe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
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: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: The theory of how empowerments work?
Content:
Anders said:
@Malcolm,

Your posts here suggest that there are some ways that get more out of empowerments than others. Is that a general rule? Different tips for different empowerments?


Malcolm wrote:
Taking empowerment is a practice. When you understand this, your Vajrayāna experience will be more rich.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
muni said:
An example of direct Connection   Master*student   is Devotion (not a devotion by one to one). Then when Aware, liberating guidance is available to push out of “the locked state of idea-being”. And then we are open mingling.

Malcolm wrote:
Merging one's mind with the guru's mind is a symbolic act. It does not mean that the guru's mind merges with your mind in reality, at least, not in Buddhadharma.

Maybe some Hindus believe this. In Buddhadharma is simple means that one is resting in the same state that the guru's mind represents.

muni said:
No individual mind ( delusion) is mingling at all. It is actually symbolic meant since Nature is been recognized, same Nature as the Guru. Absolute truth is dependence-emptiness, so not my Nature and your Nature and his, her..

Malcolm wrote:
Glad we agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
muni said:
An example of direct Connection   Master*student   is Devotion (not a devotion by one to one). Then when Aware, liberating guidance is available to push out of “the locked state of idea-being”. And then we are open mingling.

Malcolm wrote:
Merging one's mind with the guru's mind is a symbolic act. It does not mean that the guru's mind merges with your mind in reality, at least, not in Buddhadharma.

Maybe some Hindus believe this. In Buddhadharma is simple means that one is resting in the same state that the guru's mind represents.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is no universal mind, so your term "local" is useless.

Jeff said:
Yes, you have been very clear in your perspective of how Buddhadharma is not capable of doing certain things. It seems that muni has some different perspective with his "interconnectedness" concept. Since that would appear to imply that all minds are connected, it raises the question of "how all minds are connected" or "the broader framework for such connections to exist".


Malcolm wrote:
It has nothing to with my perspective, it has to with what Buddha taught.

It is well established by the Buddha that one mind is not capable of influencing another mind directly — in order words, a Buddha cannot exercise his will on the mind of another.

But you don't seem very interested in what the Buddha taught and instead seem more interested in evangelizing your distinctly non-Buddhist concepts here. And I have to question why you would be interested to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Because in the example, one mind would be affecting another. If there was not some form of overlap or connection, how would one reach/contact the other mind?

muni said:
Oh very easy by interconnection.

Then Sambhogakaya energy.
The individual mind cannot do such at all. Such is not its' domain but discussion can lead to the wish to practice to realize beyond the limited individual "mind" and so not trust that limited mind or identifying with it.

Interdependence-emptiness. Nothing individual apart and on its' on is other than deluded.
Malcolm wrote: Buddhas and bodhisattvas are unable to influence the minds of others — if they were able to influence the minds of others we all would have woken up eons ago and there would be no samsara.
Guidance, while we have to recognize. No Buddha or Bodhisattva can do it for another.

Jeff said:
I would agree that the individual (or local) mind does not have the capability. But with your "interconnection", it sounds like you believe it is possible and all minds are interconnected in some manner. Is that the case?

Buddha's do not "give". The can only introduce and share additional room to allow one to "drop". The individual sentient being still must be willing to drop the obstructions.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no universal mind, so your term "local" is useless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Astus said:
A story by Ven. Shengyan ( http://chancenter.org/cmc/1985/05/15/esoteric-and-exoteric-buddhism/ ):

In Taiwan, I have a disciple who has been practicing with me for quite sometime. He has a good command of English, so when a certain Tibetan rinpoche was scheduled to lecture, he was asked to translate. He was very nervous. He had never practiced Tantra, and was afraid that he wouldn’t understand what the rinpoche said. In a quandary, he finally decided that if he didn’t understand, it was the rinpoche’s responsibility to make him understand. With this thought he went to sleep. The rinpoche came to him in a dream, placed his hand on the disciple’s head, and said, “You don’t have to be nervous. You will understand everything I say tomorrow. You don’t have to worry.” He had a wonderful feeling when the rinpoche touched him. The next morning it was the rinpoche who woke him up. My disciple immediately prostrated to the rinpoche and thanked him for entering his dream. Curious, the rinpoche asked, “What happened last night?” The disciple told him, and after a few more questions from the rinpoche, he concluded that it might not have been the rinpoche but a “yidam,” a Dharma protector, who came to him.

Later I asked him if he had ever dreamed of me. He said, “Yes, indeed, many times.” Then I asked if he thought that it was me who had entered his dreams. He said, “No, because Shih-fu doesn’t have a yidam.” So then I said to him, “O.K., I will go and find myself a yidam so that the next time you dream of me, you will be sure that it is my yidam that is entering your dream.” My disciple objected, “But in Ch’an there is no such thing as a yidam.”

Jeff said:
Thank you for the story Astus. Does that mean that you disagree with Malcolm and such is possible in the Buddhadharma?

Malcolm wrote:
Why don't you try reading the paragraph immediately before these two:
In both traditions it is natural for a practitioner to have unusual physiological and psychological reactions — seeing, hearing, or even dreaming things out of the ordinary. A Tantric practitioner will take what he has seen, heard, or dreamt as signals that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are recognizing his practice. A Ch’an practitioner may also have such experiences, but they are not emphasized and are not taken as signals or signs of anything in particular.
Of course, the above statement is also inaccurate. A "Tantric" practitioner will do no such thing. Every practice as specific experiences that are outlined, including dreams, and when a practitioner has such experiences described in the text, it is taken as an indication that their practice is moving ahead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: The theory of how empowerments work?
Content:
fckw said:
@Malcolm: What do you mean by "taking path empowerment every day"? Isn't this just another way of stating: practice this tantra every day? Or are you referring to a special part of the Hevajra-Tantra?

Malcolm wrote:
I am referring to practicing the Hevajra sadhana everyday in which one takes the four empowerments in an elaborate way everyday.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist
Content:
Anders said:
Now the traditional Buddhist may argue that such a thing will never happen for the materialist due to his wrong view on rebirth (or even lack of right view on it), but this is a bit beside the point here imo....

Malcolm wrote:
Not, it is exactly the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Sakya lam-rim text?
Content:


kirtu said:
Malcolm is correct  -  but until fairly recently "Clarifying the Sage's Intent"
had not been published or was not available.

Malcolm wrote:
I am currently doing a lecture on this text and providing a chapter by chapter translation as we go along. I will cover the first of the six perfections on Saturday, 10:00 EST, April 18th. There have been three previous sections that interested parties may listen to.

Those who are interested may join the facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/sakyapandita/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:02 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Ok, then could you describe how the guru visits them in this "dream state" (which is in their mind)? If one is manipulating someone's perceptions in their mind, does that not constitute affecting them and directly disagree with what Malcolm stated earlier?

Malcolm wrote:
You might see a guru in your dreams, but it is still your dream and not them "visiting" you in some real sense.

Jeff said:
I think this issue with our discussion may simply that in the nomenclature used here (Buddhism), higher level discrimation is simplified down to one big "Wisdom" category.

Malcolm wrote:
I think the problem with our discussion is that you don't seem to really understand the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Because in the example, one mind would be affecting another.

Malcolm wrote:
This idea is rejected in Buddhadharma. The only way my mind can influence another mind is that another person chooses to listen to what I say, or responds to some physical act I perform.

Jeff said:
So you are saying that my proposed experiment is theortically impossible? No such thing as remote (energetic) contact and transmission?


Malcolm wrote:
Correct, that is what we have been saying to you now for several pages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
And thank you for finally agreeing that Buddhas and bodhisattvas can access and know the minds of others. Now we just need to just get the rest of the group to agree to such a concept.

Additionally, understand how that knowing is really the same as being with or "in" the local mind stream of the sentient being. With such "focus" of a high level being creating the void effect I described earlier.

asunthatneversets said:
Curious why you seem to be so enamored with this whole mind reading/interaction business?

Jeff said:
Not interested in mind reading at all. The topic goes more to the ability (and how) of gurus, Buddhas, Bodhisittvas and Dakini's to "help". Why such tantric (energy) practices lead to faster realization.

Malcolm wrote:
I suggest you properly study Vajrayāna under a qualified master. Then you will find all your questions answered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Because in the example, one mind would be affecting another.

Malcolm wrote:
This idea is rejected in Buddhadharma. The only way my mind can influence another mind is that another person chooses to listen to what I say, or responds to some physical act I perform. It is the same for the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:29 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
And thank you for finally agreeing that Buddhas and bodhisattvas can access and know the minds of others.

Malcolm wrote:
"Finally agreeing"? We were never in disagreement about knowing the minds of others. You should look up the word "abhijñā". "Access" provides a problem. Buddhas and bodhisattvas are unable to influence the minds of others — if they were able to influence the minds of others we all would have woken up eons ago and there would be no samsara.


Jeff said:
Now we just need to just get the rest of the group to agree to such a concept.

Malcolm wrote:
They already agree.

Jeff said:
Additionally, understand how that knowing is really the same as being with or "in" the local mind stream of the sentient being. With such "focus" of a high level being creating the void effect I described earlier.

Malcolm wrote:
When one sees a tree, one is not "in the tree", it is the same with knowing the minds of others, one sees the concepts of others much in the manner of the way ordinary people watch tv.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
So, I would like to theorize an experiment for the group...

If it could be done, would remote energy interaction be considered as experimental proof that minds overlap? Something that could be consciously percieved (energy, vibrations, temperature change or visions). As I have stated is possible for someone at the 7th bhumi.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously man, no one here, including you, is a seventh stage bodhisattva. If you think you are, you need psychological help.

Jeff said:
I was making no such statement. I was asking a theoretical question as to whether the group would consider that as proof.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no substratum, minds do not "overlap." The reason why Buddhas and high bodhisattvas can know the minds of others, know past lives, etc. is because the nature of everything is emptiness and therefore while there is no universal substratum there is also no impediments because everything is empty. And since everything is empty, Buddha's wisdom is unimpeded in all directions and times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
So, I would like to theorize an experiment for the group...

If it could be done, would remote energy interaction be considered as experimental proof that minds overlap? Something that could be consciously percieved (energy, vibrations, temperature change or visions). As I have stated is possible for someone at the 7th bhumi.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously man, no one here, including you, is a seventh stage bodhisattva. If you think you are, you need psychological help.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Ok, so you are saying that it is a definitional/title thing regarding "benefit for oneself" rather than really any sutra saying that a Buddha worries or cares about oneself?

My position is that appearance to those dwelling on the Bhumis, is really the broader energy/light interaction that I have previously described.  Additionally, my position is that a Dakini is also sometimes the Sambhogakaya body and directly interacts with high level practitioners.


Malcolm wrote:
The Śrī Maladevi sutra states:
In that respect, the dharmakāya of the tathāgatagarbha is definitely released from the sheath of afflictions. Bhagavān, the so called "tathāgatagarbha" is tathāgata's wisdom of emptiness that cannot be seen by śravakas and pratyekabuddhas.
Dharmakāya is just the total realization of emptiness. Nothing more.

Further, The Trikāya Sūtra states:
Kṣitigarbha, tathāgatas are endowed with the three kāyas: the dharmakāya, the sambhogkāya and the nirmanakāya…In that regard, the dharmakāya is visible to the tathagātas. The sambhogakāya is visible to bodhisattvas. The nirmanakāya is visible to ordinary persons on the stage of devotional practice.

Kṣitigarbha, for example, clouds are produced on the basis of an empty sky; rain is produced on the basis of clouds. Likewise, the sambhogakaȳa appears on the basis of the dharmakāya, and the nirmanakāya appears on the basis of the sambhogakāya.

Jeff said:
Yes, the Dharmakaya being the total realization of emptiness and also being the basis that the sambhogkaya appears on is what I meant by a stable bubble in emptiness (for the sambhogkaya).

Malcolm wrote:
Why don't you just properly study with a teacher rather than grasping at straws?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
Ok, so you are saying that it is a definitional/title thing regarding "benefit for oneself" rather than really any sutra saying that a Buddha worries or cares about oneself?

My position is that appearance to those dwelling on the Bhumis, is really the broader energy/light interaction that I have previously described.  Additionally, my position is that a Dakini is also sometimes the Sambhogakaya body and directly interacts with high level practitioners.


Malcolm wrote:
The Śrī Maladevi sutra states:
In that respect, the dharmakāya of the tathāgatagarbha is definitely released from the sheath of afflictions. Bhagavān, the so called "tathāgatagarbha" is tathāgata's wisdom of emptiness that cannot be seen by śravakas and pratyekabuddhas.
Dharmakāya is just the total realization of emptiness. Nothing more.

Further, The Trikāya Sūtra states:
Kṣitigarbha, tathāgatas are endowed with the three kāyas: the dharmakāya, the sambhogkāya and the nirmanakāya…In that regard, the dharmakāya is visible to the tathagātas. The sambhogakāya is visible to bodhisattvas. The nirmanakāya is visible to ordinary persons on the stage of devotional practice.

Kṣitigarbha, for example, clouds are produced on the basis of an empty sky; rain is produced on the basis of clouds. Likewise, the sambhogakaȳa appears on the basis of the dharmakāya, and the nirmanakāya appears on the basis of the sambhogakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
So your position is that a buddha (having a Dharmakaya) is "worried about their own benefit"?

Malcolm wrote:
No. I already explained it as did cone, the dharmakāya is termed "for one's own benefit" because one can only see it when one becomes a buddha. Only buddhas can see the dharmakāya, as has been said now several times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Where in sutra does it say for one's own benefit?

Malcolm wrote:
Everywhere.

Jeff said:
With the realization/formation of the Dharmakaya there is no "one who is worried about their own benefit"? They have dropped all such desires and attachments or there would be no such Dharmakaya. What sutra really says such a thing?

Best wishes.

Malcolm wrote:
Very many. This is because the dharmakāya only appears to buddhas, where as the sambhogakāya appears to high bodhisattvas and the nirmanakāya to everyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:



Jeff said:
Thank you for pointing out that the Form Kayas are for the benefit of others, can you please explain how the Sambhogakaya "helps" with the benefit of the others?  This seems to be impossible for most here as they believe that the mind cannot be affected by a buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
The sambhogakāya gives rise to the nirmanakāyas in all the different world systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Where in sutra does it say for one's own benefit?

Malcolm wrote:
Everywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:


Jeff said:
it works like this...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really doesn't. This is just some fantasy you are having.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
Sherlock said:
Zhangzhung Nyen gyud is Bon Dzogchen from a prior age before Garab Dorje.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, I have my doubts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
I guess that I have my answer.  Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
We have three dimensions, body, voice and mind. The Buddha's have three kāyas. The nirmanakāya exist because ordinary sentient beings cannot have contact with the sambgogakāya at all because of the afflictions they possess. When they remove those afflictions, then they can see the Sambhogakāya, but this takes many countless eons lifetimes of practice. Finally, when they become a Buddha, they can see the dharmakāya.

Therefore, all transmissions for ordinary people like ourselves occur on an external physical way, through speech and symbols. If we happen to realize the meaning of what is being taught, this is referred to a "mind transmission", but it is not really a transmission in the sense of a message communicated and a message received mentally. It is more in the sense of a message communicated through words and symbols whose inner significance is then realized directly. Anyone who tells you that there is some actually mind to mind transmission in Buddhadharma at the level of our impure perception is either lying or they have no idea what they are talking about.

Buddhas cannot communicate liberation into the minds of others. If they could, there would be no sentient beings left. The Buddha said famously, we cannot wash away suffering, he cannot remove it with his hand, nor can he make us liberated, but he can teach us a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
On putting it in words... In your tradition, is there no such thing as mind-mind transmission?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by mind to mind. What do you mean by mind to mind.

Jeff said:
Direct transmission. Without the need for talking/oral communication. Often sometimes called energy or light transmission.

Malcolm wrote:
Transmission of what, baseball scores, stock tips?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Your response seems to imply that you believe that a guru or bodhisattva cannot directly impact (or know about) other sentient beings. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
It implies no such thing.  And what does the abhijñā of knowing the mind of another have to do with the question?

Jeff said:
Then how does a guru or bodhisattva impact other sentient beings? How do they access the mind of the being if there is not some medium of overlap?

Malcolm wrote:
Why does there have to be a medium of overlap?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
On putting it in words... In your tradition, is there no such thing as mind-mind transmission?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by mind to mind. What do you mean by mind to mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Your response seems to imply that you believe that a guru or bodhisattva cannot directly impact (or know about) other sentient beings. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
It implies no such thing.  And what does the abhijñā of knowing the mind of another have to do with the question?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Jeff"]
On the translation, is there another version that you would prefer to discuss on the point?/quote]

Jeff, you really need to take a course in Yogacara so you will not be misled by theosophical edits of deprecated translations.

The ālayavijñāna is personal and individual, as anyone who has studied these texts any Buddhist primary language knows.

I can't even be bothered to explain this in detail because it would take much to long. However, you should educate yourself if possible:

http://www.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_T1593_GreatVehicleSummary_2003.pdf

This text explains very precisely what the ālayavijñāna is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Suzuki and Goddard translation.

Malcolm wrote:
Suzuki and Goddard translation.

hahahahahahaha....

No wonder you are so misled. That piece of crap should be burned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: Meaning of Vajrayana Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
Dzogchen is to Vajrayana as Vajrayana is to Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is nonsense. Dzogchen has no methods that allow one to attain awakening faster than one lifetime. As Zhigpo Dudtsi pointed out, he looked far and wide for cig car bas, but apart from Saraha in India, and Lingrepa in Tibet, he could not find any. Neither of these two persons were Dzogchen practitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Meaning of Vajrayana Buddhism
Content:
Anders said:
The very quick summary, as I understand it:

Vajrayana exists for two reasons:
*To provide a different and wider array of means for liberation that allows for more people to get there.
*To provide radically faster means to Buddhahood than traditional mahayana.

This traditionally involves bonding with a Yidam (fully awakened deity) via a guru and, through these bonds and their blessings, transform affliction into wisdom (as opposed to abandoning affliction with wisdom).

Beyond this, there are also Mahamudra and Dzogchen who focus less on the yidam part (guru devotion still mandatory) and more on being introduced to one's nature by the guru and work with this as a speedy means to buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra are Dzogchen are part of Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Sakya lam-rim text?
Content:
Luke said:
Does the Sakya school have its own lam-rim text?   Or do they generally just use other schools' lam-rim texts?

Malcolm wrote:
Clarifying the Muni's Intent by Sakya Pandita is our Lamrim text.

The other texts mentioned above are not lamrim texts since they have no account of refuge, the six perfections, ten stages, three kāyas and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: Tsok restrictions
Content:
yan kong said:
I've been going to a small practice group a little bit in the nyingma pema lingpa lineage led by a Bhutanese loppon. I've received no empowerments or initiations or anything from anyone, I'm certainly in the sutrayana area of practice.

Thing is the last time after the teaching on the four noble truths we chanted from a chod practice text (and when I say chanted I mean the loppon tried to teach us the basic rhythem of the text, it didn't seem like an actual practice). Additionally they invited me to one of their Tsoks.

So my question is, should I be doing any of this having received no initiation or empowerment of any kind?

tomamundsen said:
AFAIK, there are no restrictions to tsok. All beings are invited.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, those withouut samaya cannot participate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Does one need initiation to recite Vajrasattva mantra?
Content:
Punya said:
Because there is no initiation for Vajrasattva outside of Nyingma texts that come from India.
I'm curious what you mean by this Malcolm.

I'm aware of a number of Vajrasattva sadhana in Nyingma which I understand are derived from terma. I'm having trouble framing the question but what is the relationship between the initiation itself and the particular sadhana that a student is then expected to practice.


Malcolm wrote:
Guhyagarbha is that ultimate source of Vajrasattva initiations in Nyingma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Does one need initiation to recite Vajrasattva mantra?
Content:
kirtu said:
I do not remember a Vajrasattva empowerment of any kind in Sakya...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it does not exist.

Challenge23 said:
Interesting.  Are you comfortable with speculating with why that is?  I was under the impression that all of the schools had the same basic empowerments(such as Medicine Buddha and Vajrasattva) and ceremonies and differed mostly in regards to some of the more advanced concepts and how the basics are presented. For example, all of the schools have a Ngondro but the number of repetitions and exact wording differ from school to school.

Malcolm wrote:
Because there is no initiation for Vajrasattva outside of Nyingma texts that come from India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
dharmagoat said:
So as I read it, the scriptures are the authority, but careful understanding of them is required to make them effective.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is correct. This is the main reason why my posts generally are supported on citations.

dharmagoat said:
I think we are on the same page now.


Malcolm wrote:
It is also important to provide citations, because if for example, one has not understood something correctly, and uses a citation to support it, another may come along and point out to you why you have made an error.

It is a simple generosity, and you have no idea how much time I spend looking up citations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
dharmagoat said:
So as I read it, the scriptures are the authority, but careful understanding of them is required to make them effective.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is correct. This is the main reason why my posts generally are supported on citations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Kalacakra war prophecy
Content:
shaunc said:
Even if I was to accept this prophesy as 100% accurate. My question is how will this affect my life or my dharma practise now.

Will said:
Many Kalacakra initiates prepare now to help the Ruler of Shambala defeat the barbarians at the time of the war.  How do they prepare? One must ask a Kalacakra initiate.

Malcolm wrote:
If you receive the empowerment and maintain your samaya, this is sufficient to be reborn in Shambhala at that time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The Bhāvanākrama continues:
With an understanding of the meaning so differentiated, one should meditate on the reality of the pure state and not on its apparent aspect. If one meditates wrongly and fails to clear away all doubts, one will not achieve perfect awareness. As a result, the meditation becomes fruitless, like the meditation of the radical dogmatists.
What is this referring to?


Malcolm wrote:
This translation is a little strange.
After that, based on the meaning differentiated in that way, one should mediate on the true meaning and not on that which is not the true meaning. If one grasps that which is not [the true meaning], one's meditation will be incorrect and since one's doubt will not be removed, also right knowledge [samyagjñānam, one of the eight limbs] will not arise. Therefore, since one's meditation does not become meaningful, it is similar with the meditation of non-buddhist (mu stegs pa, tīrthikas)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The Bhāvanākrama continues:
With an understanding of the meaning so differentiated, one should meditate on the reality of the pure state and not on its apparent aspect. If one meditates wrongly and fails to clear away all doubts, one will not achieve perfect awareness. As a result, the meditation becomes fruitless, like the meditation of the radical dogmatists.
What is this referring to?


Malcolm wrote:
Which translation are you using, and which of the three Bhāvanākramas? I need to look at the Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The Bhāvanākrama of Kamalaśīla explains:
At the outset one should seek to develop wisdom by listening [to the dharma], for it enables one to grasp the meaning of the authoritative scriptures. Then, with analytical intellect one differentiates between the apparent and the ultimate meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is perfect. Of course, one must listen only to a qualified teacher of Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Also, one should understand that in Vajrayāna, direct perception and inferences are not authorities. The Abhibodhikramopadeśa of Master Āryadeva states:
At the time of the ultimate view of secret mantra,
the direct perception by mind and sense organs
and inferences are not authorities,
but the profound scriptures and intimate instructions are authorities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Does one need initiation to recite Vajrasattva mantra?
Content:
kirtu said:
I do not remember a Vajrasattva empowerment of any kind in Sakya...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Hearing other sect's lectures is negative?
Content:
ShakuShodoo said:
The title is very elucidative of this question of mine.

Let us say that I stick to Karma Kagyu tradition...
If I go to a Ch'an monastery, hear it's Masters teachings and seek pearls of wisdom...will I be doing something negative?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Unknown said:
If the scripture is a statement of an earlier Tibetan scholar, they dismiss it [saying]: “One who says something like that is a nihilistic fool.” If the scripture is identified as a statement of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, and so on, they patch it with words like “The statement ‘does not exist’ means ‘does not truly exist’” and “‘Is not nonexistent’ means ‘is not conventionally nonexistent,’” so that it fits with their own desires. In fact, the only difference is that if they direct refutations at the Buddha, they fear being labeled evil persons with evil views, [whereas] if they are able to refute earlier Tibetans, they are labeled heroic scholars.

Malcolm wrote:
Beautiful words...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Contradictions in the Mahayana Sutras?
Content:


Dan74 said:
One could of course go on to even more egregious statements, but yes, the Venerable is spreading misinformation.

_/|\_
dan


Malcolm wrote:
People like this dude do not deserve the title "venerable" as there is nothing venerable about him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Contradictions in the Mahayana Sutras?
Content:
frankc said:
Ven Dhammavuddho has some videos on youtube talking about some contradictions in the Sutras and giving some criticisms of the Mahayana teachings. Curious to know how a Mahayana Buddhist would explain and defend against the criticisms and contradictions he is talking about. Here are four short videos of an interview with him talking about Mahayana.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhcIyrq8Hs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKO0mM48Hj8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os8ZtNjE4zA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsHpUnUT1Us

Malcolm wrote:
He has no idea what is he talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Yes, of course, but when we are talking about "Buddhism" in a general way, Theravada is relevant. Even though Vajrayana may not teach a "gradual path," it would be incorrect factually to say that the notion of a gradual path is un-Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna does teach a gradual path, it is just much faster.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Actually, Tsongkhapa would say that teaching that the ultimate nature of phenomena is lack of inherent existence is Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and Chandrakirti's true intention.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not why other scholars fault Tsongkhapa. They fault him for other things, novel interpretations and internal contradictions in his later writings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
That's obviously different from simply having a high regard for the Buddha, or being drawn to aspects of his teachings. But is that degree of confidence a prerequisite for refuge, in your view?

Malcolm wrote:
There are three kinds of refuge, fear, faith and compassion. The first is hardly refuge at all.  One cannot take refuge without faith in the Buddha and his teachings, even if you mouth the words. However, even mouthing the words without faith sets up a cause for the arising of faith even if very weak.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The irony of my answer seems to have been lost...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Motova said:
Even if you were to sit on his lap there would be a delay.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm....?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
oldbob said:
Please to remember that webcast transmission (an officially accepted means of transmission) is not / not simultaneous, but is delayed by several minutes.

dzogchungpa said:
Is it really that much? I didn't know that.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not true. Sometimes, the video buffering can be a bit delayed, but the audio only is very much on track all the time. So people who are super neurotic about digital lag times can elect to follow audio only. Actually, they should really sit in Rinpoche's lap so there is virtually no time between when the air crosses his vocal cords and the sound hits your ear -- who knows, in those microseconds you might miss the transmission...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Hi Malcolm,

How is a "reliable person" defined according to Buddhadharma?

Malcolm wrote:
It would be the Buddha or his disciples. Really, what we are talking about here is citational or scriptural authority. The Samdhinirmocana Sūtra states:
As such, the reasoning of a valid proof is the authority of direction perception; the authority of inference, and the authority of trustworthy citations which is valid through the five valid characteristics.
Those five valid characteristics are:
The characteristic of being supported on a direct perception, the characteristic of being supported on a direct perception which is the basis for that, the characteristic of the application of example in one's own reasoning, the characteristic of perfectly establishment and the characteristic of a scripture proven to be completely valid.
You should look into this sūtra for a more detailed explanation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: How India Is Squandering Its Top Export
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Then of course there is this lovely little poem written by the Muslim Mahmud al-Kashgari about the invasion of Khotan in the early 11th century:
We came down on them like a flood, We went out among their cities, We tore down the idol-temples, We shat on the Buddha's head!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I've personally never heard anyone say that we should accept the Buddha's teachings just because. In fact, Buddhist epistemology (in contrast with some Hindu epistemologies like Nyaya) rejects the claim that scriptural and traditional authority themselves can serve as valid sources of knowledge apart from inference.

Malcolm wrote:
This is just not factual. There are three sources of authority in Buddhadharma: direct perception (pratykṣa), inference (anumana) and testimony of reliable persons (śabda).

Bakmoon said:
I thought that in Buddhist Pramana testimony is considered to be a subclass of inference rather than a totally independent source of knowledge.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a totally independent source of knowledge, and indeed Dharmakirti for example spends an entire chapter devoted to proving why we can for example accept the Buddha as an authority.

But we also have this from the Pubbakotthaka Sutta:
"Excellent, Shariputra. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
dharmagoat said:
They may ask the question "how is the doctrine of the Buddha superior to all other teachings?"
"Because it is" seems a poor answer.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the answer of course. Only the Buddha has properly identified suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path. That is why Buddhadharma leads to liberation and other Dharmas do not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I've personally never heard anyone say that we should accept the Buddha's teachings just because. In fact, Buddhist epistemology (in contrast with some Hindu epistemologies like Nyaya) rejects the claim that scriptural and traditional authority themselves can serve as valid sources of knowledge apart from inference.

Malcolm wrote:
This is just not factual. There are three sources of authority in Buddhadharma: direct perception (pratykṣa), inference (anumana) and testimony of reliable persons (śabda).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
shanehanner said:
What are the Dzogchen preliminaries?

Malcolm wrote:
You should learn those from a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: How India Is Squandering Its Top Export
Content:
Caodemarte said:
In response to the complaint that it was a bit lazy to not specify errors in fact and tone  in the cited article I should note (and I really thought I would not have to):

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks for replying.


Caodemarte said:
I doubt it was intended this way but the error in tone is pretty glaring.

Malcolm wrote:
One can't have an error in tone.



Caodemarte said:
In terms of fact, and respectfully, Bodhgaya is not like the Vatican or a Jewish congregation run by Protestants. It is not the organizational or religious HQ of Buddhism or of any Buddhist group.  Almost all religions have pilgrimage sites.

Yes, actually it is. Bodhgaya should be administered by an international coalition of Buddhist organizations.
In Buddhism, there is no one fundamental text that all must believe in with a requirement from God for all able believers to perform a pilgrimage to one site as a fundamental duty (let alone a Buddhist equivalent of the Kaaba in Mecca). It is simply incorrect to say that "Bodhgaya is to Buddhists what Mecca is to Muslims."

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, Bodhgaya is more to Buddhists than Mecca is to Muslims — there is no encouragement in the Koran for Muslims to worship at the Kaaba, per se. An ancient pilgrimage site, the Kaaba, eventually became associated with the house built by Ibrahim.

The Buddha, on the other hand, clearly stated that all Buddhists should try to visit the four memorial spots, the site of his birth, awakening, first teaching and nirvana.

Caodemarte said:
"In fact the demise of Buddhism in India is attributable to both the country's major religions, with Islam in effect finishing off what Hinduism began." would seem to be an unforced error or an interpretation, but not a fact.

Malcolm wrote:
Try reading "The Hardships and downfall of Buddhism in India by Verardi. In this book, he recounts a long history the decline of Buddhism in India. Hindu hostility to Buddhism in the Post-Gupta period is well documented, and supported by anecdotal reports of conflicts between Mahasiddhas and their Hindu enemies.

That Muslims delt the death blow to Indian Buddhism in the 12th century is beyond dispute.



Caodemarte said:
"...so Buddhists in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and other places that suffered foreign invasion, or in small, poor countries like Bhutan, might rejoice in China's emergence as a superpower"  because China has a lot of Buddhists. Well, no. You could argue that Indonesian Buddhists are mostly Chinese and that some of them take pride in China's rise, but that is hardly because of shared religious values. I guess you could say this is not an error of fact because of the word might, but c'mon.

Malcolm wrote:
DKR is making a rhetorical point, i.e., that marginalization of Buddhists in border countries might well cause them to look north in the growing showdown between China and India.

Caodemarte said:
"Western secular political correctness is on display..." No, Indian policy or sign writing  could never be cited as "Western secular political correctness."

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it can — but here again, you are getting caught up in DKR's rhetoric of irony — he knows very well that indignant Indians will react just as you have.

Caodemarte said:
He certainly was quite willing to  burn books (except the Quran) or anything that he could  not steal, but the motivation given in the article is suggestive of another legendary story about the library at Alexandria, but in any case seems off in this case.

Malcolm wrote:
Considering that reports indicate that the library burned for six months, it seems completely apropos.

Caodemarte said:
The idea that that the Indian government is trying to whitewash history to avoid offending Muslims, especially this one,  makes no sense to anyone familiar with Indian politics (please examine why Modi could not a get a US visa until recently).

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that a Mosque abuts the Bodhgaya stupa and it broadcasts its call to prayer loudly and insistently five times a day. There are quite a number of groups who, since Bodhgaya was "rediscovered" in the 19th century, have decided to attach themselves to the Mahabodhi Temple.

But it is a place for Buddhists — not Hindus, not Muslims, etc. In general, the sentiment of the article is correct. The Buddhist epoch in Indian history is most important, and yet most Indians these days know more about the history of England than they do Indian history during that point in time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
btw, since we are just going around in circles, the above is my last response to this issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: How India Is Squandering Its Top Export
Content:
Caodemarte said:
I found this article very bad in tone and content. Its many inaccuracies on history and Buddhism  (no, Bodhgaya for Buddhists is not the equivalent of Mecca for Muslims) really stand out when the article accuses India of "hiding the truth." I assume the publisher is responsible for the headline comparing Buddhism to a good for export and bears responsibility for that.

Malcolm wrote:
Inaccuracies such as?

Bodhgaya is one of the four main places Buddha told those who follow Buddhadharma that they should visit during their lifetime, the others being Lumbini, The Deer Park and Kushinagara. Of these four, Bodhgaya, Vajrāsana, the Bodhimaṇḍa is the most important.

Frankly your dismissal of the article seems rather lazy since you do not bother to list any so called "inaccuracies."

Buddhadharma was India's best and most enduring export besides which all others pale.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: How India Is Squandering Its Top Export
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
This article is spot on!
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/dzongsar-jamyang-khyentse/how-india-is-squandering-_b_7008922.html

Malcolm wrote:
indeed...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Conditioned phenomena are intrinsically contaminated and contaminating, that is the point of the passage. That is also Candragomin's point.

This is why sense objects are given up in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna — they are contaminated and contaminating.

Fruitzilla said:
Whoops, I'd better go looking for another tradition then.

Malcolm wrote:
You won't find such a tradition in Buddhadharma outside of Vajrayāna.

Of course, from the standpoint of the emptiness of all phenomena, phenomena are regarded as pure in Mahāyāna, however, this does not apply to people who are not awakened. If you still experience afflictions, this means for you phenomena are contaminated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:


Fruitzilla said:
That all (afflicted) emotions are painful I can understand. Phenomena being contaminated by themselves, and not by our relationship toward them, isn't anything I've come across before this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
Abhidharmakośa:
There are contaminated and uncontaminated phenomena. 
Condition phenomena apart from the path
are contaminated. Why? They
increase contamination.
The material aggregates consists of the five sense organs and five sense objects. All of it is contaminated. Also all mental objects, apart from cessation, space and path dharmas, are contaminated.

This is basic Buddhadharma everyone should know.

Fruitzilla said:
Apart from the strange reasoning and the protestant tone I don't see how this is different from what I stated.

Malcolm wrote:
You said:
Phenomena being contaminated by themselves, and not by our relationship toward them, isn't anything I've come across before this thread.
Conditioned phenomena are intrinsically contaminated and contaminating, that is the point of the passage. That is also Candragomin's point.

This is why sense objects are given up in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna — they are contaminated and contaminating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:


Fruitzilla said:
That all (afflicted) emotions are painful I can understand. Phenomena being contaminated by themselves, and not by our relationship toward them, isn't anything I've come across before this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
Abhidharmakośa:
There are contaminated and uncontaminated phenomena. 
Conditioned phenomena apart from the path
are contaminated. Why? They
increase contamination.
The material aggregates consists of the five sense organs and five sense objects. All of it is contaminated. Also all mental objects, apart from cessation, space and path dharmas, are contaminated.

This is basic Buddhadharma everyone should know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, but this is an erroneous way of seeing the self. Self is not empty of self, it's empty of inherently existent self, otherwise you are negating what exists. You seem to have a problem with conventionally designated things having a conventionally designated nature.

Malcolm wrote:
Things have no natures, conventionally or otherwise. Look, we can say water is wet, but actually, there no water that possesses a wet nature. Water is wet, that is all. There is no wetness apart from water and not water apart from wetness. If you say a given thing has a separate nature, you are making the exact mistaken Nāgārajuna points out in the analysis of movement, i.e., it is senseless to say there is a "moving mover." Your arguments are exactly the same, you are basically saying there is an "existing existence."


Tsongkhapafan said:
The self appears, how does it appear, what is its basis for appearance? Of you say that it is not the aggregates, than likewise, then the parts of a table are not the basis for the tables appearance. In both cases we are discussing an identity: self, table.
I'm not saying that the aggregates are not the basis for the appearance of self, I'm saying the aggregates are not the self.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are contradicting yourself, as anyone can plainly see who can read English.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Of course the parts of the table are the basis for designating table, but 'table' is the possessor and the parts of the table are the possessions of the table, and as Nagarjuna says, possessor and possessed cannot be one and the same.

Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely because of the above point I referenced. Nagārjuna clearly shows that characteristics/natures are untenable.

Candrakīrti points out that the possessor does not exist at all, but for the mere purpose of discourse, we allow conventionally the idea that there is a possessor of parts even though no possessor of parts exists. This mistake that we indulge in can act as an agent, for example a car, we can use it as such, but it is empty of being a car — an agent is as empty of being an agent as its actions are empty of being actions.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Phenomena do not have intrinsic characteristics even conventionally, so your insistence that they do indicates to me that you have not properly studied the great Indian Madhyamaka masters. Arthakriya, functionality, is not proof of nature-possession.
You've errected a strawman. I have not said at any point that phenomena possess intrinsic characteristics, but they do exist and they do have imputed characteristics and an imputed nature.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, you have fallen for a pyramid scheme.


Tsongkhapafan said:
The taste of tea is different to the taste of coffee because it's a different karmic appearance arising from different causes and conditions. Tea and coffee are different and hold their own natures conventionally.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus you fall again into the trap of realism — where do coffee and tea hold their nature? From their own sides? No, according to what you just said they owe their flavor to karmic appearances and therefore have no nature of their own at all.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Conventionally phenomena exist and have their own natures, everyone knows that.

Malcolm wrote:
No, conventional phenomena appear, and because no one knows they they cannot be established according to any of the four extremes (not merely like illusions) they are illusions and they become objects of false cognitions, aka relative truths.

Tsongkhapafan said:
To deny something that exists is nihilism, despite what others have said on this thread. You seem to be denying the valid conventional nature of phenomena, therefore this is tantamount to nihilism. This conventional nature is not intrinsic yet it exists and is apprehended by valid cognition.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot accuse someone of nihilism when they have not advanced the existence of something. Likewise, you cannot accuse someone of stealing merely because they have found an empty bank vault. Your assertion is like accusing someone who discovers a theft of the crime itself even though they are innocent. As Nāgārjuna states:
If I had a thesis I would be guilty, but since I alone have no thesis I alone am innocent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
Konchok Namgyal said:
You cannot correctly practice Dzogchen without vajrayana, the paths leading to dzogchen are only through vajarayana.
everyone want to practice dzogchen but doesnt want to do the work to get there and there are alot of false teachers of dzogchen.
without the Ngongdro, the blessings and the purification practices, any attempts at Dzogpachenpo are worthless !

Malcolm wrote:
Lots of false teachers?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Seriously tough, the stuff about sense objects being poisonous in themselves sounds quite silly to me, and certainly not something I can remember reading or hearing about in my (admittedly not very broad) exposure of Mahayana. And no, I've never heard of Candragomin.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a fundamental point of view about conditioned dharmas (apart from path dharmas) in general shared between Hinayāna and common Mahāyāna, i.e. the second seal:
All contaminated phenomena are suffering.
Now, I understand that basic Buddhadharma is not very popular around here of late, but who can argue with the second seal?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Therefore it follows that for you an illusory elephant is not empty of being an "elephant" because it bears the characteristics of an elephant (trunks, tusks, etc.) upon which one may impute the conventional designation elephant.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Correct. There is an appearance of elephant. That is the basis by which worldly people understand elephant as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is fast track to making yourself a laughing stock — can you ride an illusory elephant? If not, than how is an illusory elephant not empty of an elephant?



Tsongkhapafan said:
Tables hold their own nature? How, where? In their parts or separate from them? Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. A collection of parts designated a "table" is still empty of being a table even though it can be used as one, just as a collection of aggregates is empty of a self even though it can be designated one.
A collection of aggregates is never designated as a self

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.


Tsongkhapafan said:
- the self is not the body and not the mind. Self is imputed on the basis of body and mind. Chandrakirti and other Prasangika scholars refute that the aggregates are the self even conventionally.

Malcolm wrote:
No one said the aggregates are "the self", even conventionally. Nevertheless, when you see your body, you designate it TKfan and when someone says injurious words to you, your mind reacts as if your self has been injured. But in reality, this is only because you have designated this collection of parts "TKfan." But TKfan is empty of TKfan.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The self is not empty of self because it appears and can perform the function of self.

Malcolm wrote:
The self appears, how does it appear, what is its basis for appearance? Of you say that it is not the aggregates, than likewise, then the parts of a table are not the basis for the tables appearance. In both cases we are discussing an identity: self, table.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Similarly, the basis, body is not empty of body because it appears and can perform the function of body.

Malcolm wrote:
You are just repeating the same mistake over and over again. It does not matter whether we are talking about a self, table, body, mind, or anything else designated or imputed onto a collection of parts.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Not so. No phenomenon has a findable nature other than emptiness but that doesn't mean that conventionally they don't possess the nature of their imputed objects and can perform the function of those objects.

Malcolm wrote:
Phenomena do not have intrinsic characteristics even conventionally, so your insistence that they do indicates to me that you have not properly studied the great Indian Madhyamaka masters. Arthakriya, functionality, is not proof of nature-possession.

Tsongkhapafan said:
They do and this is why table is not empty of table.

Malcolm wrote:
They do not [possess the nature of their imputed object], and this is why tables can function as tables. Tables function as tables solely because we designate a collection of parts a table and use it as such. There is no table at all apart from our imputation. The table is empty of a table because a table is solely an imputation from our side. The collection of parts we are designating as a table has not been table from its own side ever and will never be such a table, and therefore is empty of the table we are imputing.

There is no table in absence of the parts either, since there is no basis upon which to impute the table.

Your argument suffers from being conned by the pyramid scheme of realism — the idea that you can just keep borrowing from someone else to pay off your previous investors. Your argument suffers from a hidden flaw of unconsciously resorting to parabhāva, gzhan dngos, dependent existence, which is just a form of inherent existence, svabhāva, rang bzhin.

The only way to correct your error is to accept your investment is a sham and accept your losses. Otherwise, you become like Bernie Madoff, constantly borrowing and making more and more inflated claims to rope in new investors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We were not talking about afflictions, we were talking about sense objects. In the common Mahāyāna and Hinayāna they are something strictly to be given up.

srivijaya said:
In what sense could they said to be given up. The sense objects appear in all cases, so it must be more to do with attachment towards them than their mere arising?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and in the lower vehicles, the way of dealing with attachment is much the same as how one relates with poison, as the citation from Candragomin illustrates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
Maybe from personal angle of view, it makes sense. But that is only perception and naming. As long as it is not clearyfied what is "table" in objective sense, I cannot agree.
What more than a name is "table"? Where to find the own nature of it, if you try to consider it beyond a certain perception?
For a man it is a table, for a dog it is a shed, for a fly it is an airport, for an animalcule it is a wide country.

It is no table, if viewed dispassionatly.

Tsongkhapafan said:
What makes table different from chair? Conceptual designation, function, characteristics that are merely imputed by mind. There is no objective table, but there doesn't need to be for to table to have the merely imputed nature of table. Table has the nature of table and chair has the nature of chair CONVENTIONALLY. Of course no nature can be found upon investigation other than emptiness, I'm not saying it does, but any normal person know the different between a chair and a table and the function of each, therefore table is not empty of table and chair is not empty of chair.

We don't have to be talking about the ultimate nature of these things all the time.

Malcolm wrote:
The minute you say that something is not empty, you are talking at the ultimate level. Here tables are empty of tables, but are used as such because a collection of parts is designated as such. If you say that tables are not empty of tables than you have to account for where the table holds a table — if you claim that tables are not empty of being tables because they are being designated as such, tables in fact are still empty of tables because the designation "table" is not a table either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Dan74 said:
In this medium I find it best to assume that the other poster has the best intentions possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:


dharmagoat said:
Also, the very efforts made by some to defend the Dharma could be damaging its reputation, particularly in the West.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha stated that Dharma can only be destroyed from within when his teachings are not properly studied and practiced.

Damage to the reputation of the Dharma can only happen if people do not study and practice properly. If people who are completely unqualified to do so pick up the banner of "Dharma teacher" and mislead people down a false path not taught by the Buddha, then the reputation of the Dharma will be damaged. But if we follow the advice of Sakya Pandita there will be no problem at all:
In brief, since that which has been spoken by the Buddha, gathered by the compilers, meditated by siddhas, explained by paṇḍitas, translated by the translators and known to scholars to be taught by the Buddha, it is necessary to hear, explain, meditate and practice that. 

If a teaching which is the opposite of those should arise, since it was not a doctrine of the Buddha, one should not listen to it, explain it, meditate on it nor practice it even if it seems very profound. Although there are other non-buddhist and false teachings that seem to be very good, leave them aside because they are not the doctrine of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
smcj said:
My Gelug mentor put it to me this way; the poisonous afflictions are never to be indulged in--and that is true in all forms of Dharma. In Vajrayana they are transmuted into wisdom. The analogy used was that the anti-venom from a rattlesnake bite is made from rattlesnake venom. If you are bitten you want the anti -venom. You don't want to get bitten again!

Just so when the poisonous afflictions arise you want the medicine of the wisdoms that are made from the afflictions, not more afflictions!

Malcolm wrote:
We were not talking about afflictions, we were talking about sense objects. In the common Mahāyāna and Hinayāna they are something strictly to be given up. In Vajrayāna they are something to be used. When we say that Vajrayāna is a path of nonrenunciation (and if anyone has doubts about this I suggest they go talk to HH Sakya Trizin, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and so on) we are not saying that it is a path in which one indulges one's afflictions. We are saying that it is a path in which one does not seek to give up sense objects in order to control afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Question: does there exist an appearance of a table or does there exist a table which appears?

Tsongkhapafan said:
To please Michael (and advance the discussion), there exists a mere appearance of table, but table is not empty of table because conventionally it has the characteristics of table. It is empty of inherently existent table, i.e., table is merely a conceptual imputation upon a the valid basis of imputation for table, the parts and the collection of parts. It is not an independent phenomenon as it appears to be.

The definition of element is that which holds its own nature, and this refers to any phenomenon. Table is a phenomenon that holds its own nature. What is its nature? Conventionally it is table and not non-table, so it is incorrect to say that table is empty of table as this is tantamount to saying that conventionally there is no table.

Malcolm wrote:
Therefore it follows that for you an illusory elephant is not empty of being an "elephant" because it bears the characteristics of an elephant (trunks, tusks, etc.) upon which one may impute the conventional designation elephant.

Tables hold their own nature? How, where? In their parts or separate from them? Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. A collection of parts designated a "table" is still empty of being a table even though it can be used as one, just as a collection of aggregates is empty of a self even though it can be designated one. It follows that if tables are not empty of tables then persons are not empty of persons, selves are not empty of selves and you have in one mistaken argument turned the whole of the Buddha's teaching on its head. According to you we must accept that the self actually exists merely on the basis of being designated upon the aggregates, which violates on the basic four seals, "All phenomena are not a self." Such a conclusion is not acceptable to Vasubandu in the Refutation of the Pudgala  much less Nāgārjuna, Aryadeva, Bhaviveka or Candrakirtī. Nāgārjuna states:
All living beings are causes and results.
There are no sentient beings at all. 
Empty dharmas are entirely  produced 
from dharmas strictly empty; 
dharmas without a self and [not] of a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
oldbob said:
Everything Malcolm writes is exactly correct, and it is clear that he has a greater understanding of these things, than I do.



There seems to have been a previous robust discussion of this issue, expressing many different viewpoints.


Malcolm wrote:
The only viewpoint that matters in this respect is ChNN's and he has made himself abundantly clear on this issue innumerable times to anyone who has ears to hear him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: The theory of how empowerments work?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, I'll make sure to pay close attention to what HHST has to say in a few weeks.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if he is giving the major two empowerment of Vajrakilaya, then pay special attention during the vase empowerment's eleven sections.

Othewise, try to receive the Hevajra empowerment, then practice it for a few years, taking the path empowerments everyday. You will definitely understand the principal experientially.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Lots of good discussion--but directing this back at the original poster's question:  In what way is a hermit's lifestyle, for instance, not deemed renunciation, and in what way is a strict retreat, with a certain amount of austerity, a Vajrayana practice?  How are the ideas of austere retreat and the Path of Sensory Pleasures, etc., compatible?

Malcolm wrote:
When you are in retreat you are practicing the creation and completion stages, using all sense objects, real and imagined, as a support for your practice and personal enjoyment.

conebeckham said:
Right, so it only appears as if one is "being austere" from the outside.  In reality, Milarepa was having one helluva party, 24/7/365!

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, as illustrated by the story of the geshe who was frustrated when local deities were impatient with him to finish up his torma offerings so they could go enjoy Milarepa's very abundant tormas. This geshe made elaborate tormas with many costly offerings, but when he arrived at Milarepa's cave to see what the fuss was about, all he saw was water sitting in shards of pottery.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Lots of good discussion--but directing this back at the original poster's question:  In what way is a hermit's lifestyle, for instance, not deemed renunciation, and in what way is a strict retreat, with a certain amount of austerity, a Vajrayana practice?  How are the ideas of austere retreat and the Path of Sensory Pleasures, etc., compatible?

Malcolm wrote:
When you are in retreat you are practicing the creation and completion stages, using all sense objects, real and imagined, as a support for your practice and personal enjoyment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: The theory of how empowerments work?
Content:
Luke said:
Hello, could anyone recommend a book which describes the theory of how empowerments work?

I have considered reconnecting with Vajrayana, but first, I want to read some things which will give me more of the necessary background information which I lacked before.


Malcolm wrote:
Put concisely, empowerments arrange a dependent origination between the cause, one's five aggregates and so on, with the result, the five buddha families and so on.

dzogchungpa said:
Could you put it a little less concisely? I'm kind of obtuse.

Malcolm wrote:
Take an major empowerment, pay very, very close attention to what is being said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:


heart said:
Actually there is nothing in the word "renunciation" that suggest that you should avoid exposure to sense objects. That is just one possible interpretation. If you accept that for example that "all activities" are a cause of suffering, then under what stone will you avoid suffering?

Malcolm wrote:
renounce:

renounce |riˈnouns| verb [ with obj. ]
formally declare one's abandonment of (a claim, right, or possession): Isabella offered to renounce her son's claim to the French crown.
• refuse to recognize or abide by any longer: these agreements were renounced after the fall of the czarist regime.
• declare that one will no longer engage in or support: they renounced the armed struggle.
• reject and stop using or consuming: he renounced drugs and alcohol completely.
• [ no obj. ] Law refuse or resign a right or position, especially one as an heir or trustee: there will be forms enabling the allottee to renounce.

renunciation:
renunciation |riˌnənsēˈāSHən|
noun
the formal rejection of something, typically a belief, claim, or course of action: entry into the priesthood requires renunciation of marriage | a renunciation of violence.
• Law a document expressing renunciation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Mahayana meditation does not actually make use of sense objects the way Vajrayana does.

Anders said:
Maybe not, but neither can it be characterised as a necessarily renunciate path.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it absolutely can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:


Anders said:
This gets to be a boring assertion in the long run, since this is also the classic assertion mahayana makes about hinayana.

Malcolm wrote:
It is completely different. Why? Because in common Mahāyāna it is only permitted to use sense objects if you have no attachment to them. The examples of Aryadharma, Sadaprarudita and so on are examples of āryas on the stages, not common people.

In your example you cite the following:
Manjusri said, "All defilements are equal [in reality]. I have realized that equality through right practice.
But who is Mañjuśrī? A bodhisattva of the tenth stage.

As for this assertion:
The whole point of emptiness in Mahayana is that there is nothing to renounce or be rid of since affliction is empty and samsara and nirvana are not two.
Secret Mantra and Paramitayāna share the same view, where they differ is in method. There is no method of practice in Paramitayāna for ordinary people to practice by taking desire into their path. It simply does not exist. Hence Candragomin, a quintessential Mahāyāna author writes:
Objects and poisons are alike, pleasing just when first tasted...
Moreover, in Mahāyāna one meditates on desire, anger and ignorance via antidotes. This is not the case in Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: The theory of how empowerments work?
Content:
Luke said:
Hello, could anyone recommend a book which describes the theory of how empowerments work?

I have considered reconnecting with Vajrayana, but first, I want to read some things which will give me more of the necessary background information which I lacked before.


Malcolm wrote:
Put concisely, empowerments arrange a dependent origination between the cause, one's five aggregates and so on, with the result, the five buddha families and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:


heart said:
English is not my first language but it seems quite obvious that we give up (renounce) ignorance when we abide in wisdom, even if it is effortless.  Also, so far I haven't met any vajrayana training that doesn't involve training the mind in renunciation, including Dzogchen. For example the first four lodjong's in the Vima Nyingtik.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say there was no preliminary sense of renunciation in Vajrayāna. What I said was is that Vajrayāna is not a PATH of renunciation.

This is the logic. We understand that samsara is a terrible place. We wish to be free of it. We look around, and we see that the path of renunciation is not effective in this day and age because our afflictions are too strong. This is why the tantra says things like the Vajrapañjara-tantra:
Created by passion, the worldly
shall be liberated by the same passion.
Or the Guhyasamaja:
The passionate desiring wisdom
always rely on the five desire objects
The method of doing this, of practicing a path of non-renunciation, is to practice creation stage and completion stages. Likewise, through the method is a little different in Dzogchen as the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva states:
This nectar of bodhicitta, one’s vidyā, 
for example, is like a divine precious jewel
that warms when left in a cold place,
cools when left in a hot place,
and gives light when left in a dark place.
In the same way, if one possesses the meaning of realizing
this self-originated vidyā,
afflictions become the companions of wisdom, 
even though afflictions arise 
they do not obscure when they are under the power of wisdom.
And:
If the king of secret mantra is practiced, afflictions turn into wisdom. For example, when a lamp is lifted in an empty house, darkness turns into light; likewise, when the lamp of wisdom is raised, ignorance transforms into vidyā. When the realization of reality has arisen in one’s continuum, all afflictions arise as the companions of wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: How can long-life prayers benefit lamas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is a kind of dedication of merit.

Luke said:
Ah.  So long-life prayers are only effective when they are recited after the completion of a main practice (mantra recitation, sadhana, puja, etc.)?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I would not say that, but generally that is when they are recited in practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
anjali said:
One way to look at renunciation is as giving up the causes of suffering. Sense enjoyments are not the cause of suffering per se.

Malcolm wrote:
For Hinayāna they are the cause of craving, which itself is the cause of samsara. Even in Mahāyāna sense objects are regarded  as poisonous, for example Candragomin writes:
Objects and poisons are alike, pleasing just when first tasted.
Objects and poisons are alike, their result is unpleasant and unbearable.
Objects and poisons are alike, causing one to be clouded by the darkness of ignorance.
Objects and poisons are alike, their power is hard to reverse, and deceptive...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
heart said:
In vajrayana renunciation is achieved by wisdom and you renounce the whole of samsara, not just some particular bad spot, all of it. So true renunciation is actually freedom from manipulating the world according to your desires and fears. So, in vajrayana renunciation is on an other level, or at least it should be.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Here, when we say that Vajrayāna is not a path of renunciation, we mean that, unlike Sūtrayāna, we can use all objects of the sense for our own enjoyment.

heart said:
We use the objects of the senses vividly aware of our true condition which is natural renunciation of ignorance. Rigpa is the renunciation of ignorance.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
We use the objects of the senses as offerings to ourselves as the deity.

Rigpa is not renunciation of anything. RIgpa is the antithesis of ma rigpa, just as a light, without renouncing darkness, dispels it utterly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: How can long-life prayers benefit lamas?
Content:
Luke said:
I like the idea of reciting long-life prayers for lamas, but can they actually benefit the lamas we pray for?   If so, how?


Malcolm wrote:
It is a kind of dedication of merit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Bob:

It is very straight forward — Rinpoche has stated countless times that if you are not actually participating during a webcast, you do not receive transmission and you do not receive the lung for whatever text he is teaching. The occasional lag time during the streaming is not an issue as long as you are actually participating in a webcast while it is happening, live.

Your anecdote regarding Jigme Lingpa is irrelevant.

Motova said:
What does participating while receiving a lung mean exactly?

Wanting the lung and paying attention?

Malcolm wrote:
It means you have to be listening to the teachings, not multitasking and surfing the internet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Simon E. said:
What is contained in the Sutras is only one part of what constitutes the Vajrayana.

dharmagoat said:
Has wrath ever been described as an enlightened quality elsewhere in the Vajrayāna literature?

Malcolm wrote:
Wrathful deities are wrathful out of their compassion for stubborn sentient beings who are addicted to samsara, much like a parent who yells at children who are playing in the road. Wrathful teachers are the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Bob:

It is very straight forward — Rinpoche has stated countless times that if you are not actually participating during a webcast, you do not receive transmission and you do not receive the lung for whatever text he is teaching. The occasional lag time during the streaming is not an issue as long as you are actually participating in a webcast while it is happening, live.

Your anecdote regarding Jigme Lingpa is irrelevant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What people need is the Dharma spoken by the Buddha, not hallmark affirmation cards.

dharmagoat said:
I agree.

People need the Dharma spoken by the Buddha, not by self-appointed dharmapālas.

Malcolm wrote:
The tongue, the Buddha said, is like a two—bladed axe, as likely to cut the speaker as the spoken to

Therefore, you should refrain from commenting, since no one appointed you to speak about the Dharma and you have no recognized qualifications to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Dan74 said:
"To do good, to refrain from evil, this is the teaching of 10000 Buddhas."

And as the story goes 'a child of 7 knows this, but a man of 70 doesn't know how to do it. That's what we need the Buddhadharma for - wise action is not easy.

Malcolm wrote:
Refrain from all evil,
perfect [all] virtues,
thoroughly tame one's mind:
this is the teaching of the Buddha.
One is supposed to avoid evil (pappa, sinful) actions because they lead to birth in lower realms. One is to engage in virtuous (kusala) actions because they lead to birth in higher realms. One is to tame one's mind, because this is the path to liberation.

But here there is no mention of being a "good person." The goal of Buddhadharma is not to become "a better person." The goal of the Dharma is to transcend our afflictive state so that it is no longer necessary to engage in positive actions to maintain a birth in higher realms and avoid negative actions which lead to rebirth in lower realms. As long as one is driven by the three poisons, it is not possible to be a truly "good person."

For example, even through we practice the six perfections in order to attain buddhahood with the motivation to become buddhas for the benefit of all sentient beings, as you note below, bodhisattva activity may not be considered the actions of a "good person" when viewed from outside.

Secondly the practice of the six perfections is actually for one's own benefit, not directly for the benefit of others. The four means of conversion on the other hand are directly for the benefit of others. One should understand this distinction well.

For example, the Buddha gave his horse and ornaments to his father, Śuddhodhana, when he self-ordained. The golden bowl given to him by Sujāta was left in the Nairañja rather than being given to some poor local villagers. Buddha's disposition of his wealth does not conform to either conservative notions of wealth preservation nor does it conform to liberal notions of social justice. He gave away his horse and gear to his father who did not need them, and left his golden bowl in a stream while there villagers just a stone's throw away who were suffering crushing poverty.

As Sakya Paṇḍita explains:

If wealth of the higher classes was given to the lower classes by the Bhagavan, although slight beneficial conditions for this life would occur, since it would become a cause of lower realms because of not requesting liberation, the Bodhisattva decided he would not give his wealth away.


Or there is the Jataka tale of how the Buddha in his past life as Viśvaṃtara gave away his wife and children to be brahmin’s servants when practicing the perfection of generosity —— such acts hardly conform to our modern liberal notions of the "good person."

So we really must not allow such tepid notions as "Buddhism is just about being a good person" to go unchallenged.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
You seem to be forgetting that sila is the foundation of samadhi and prajñā, and sila is, in essence, 'being a good person.'

Malcolm wrote:
Śīla does not make one a "good person" in the Kantian moral sense that permeates our understanding of what a "good person" is.

One practices śīla in order to pacify afflictions to create the basis for developing concentration.

Kim O'Hara said:
More importantly, you are ignoring the fact that everyone has to start somewhere and that (often) the starting point is "I like what I know of this path." Without this preliminary orientation - far earlier than going for refuge, which you claimed was the beginning - the individual will not get far enough along the path to even know what taking refuge means. It is unfair and counterproductive to be too rigorous about any over-simplified teaching in those very early stages. Newcomers needs accurate advice, sure, but most of all they need support and encouragement.

Malcolm wrote:
What people need is the Dharma spoken by the Buddha, not hallmark affirmation cards.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Paul said:
I am very interested in the Longsal Longde teachings that are being given soon, however I am in the middle of some other teachings going on at the same time. If I watch the retreat mainly via replay, will I still be able to practice what is being taught, or do I need to be there live for it all? Is there some part I HAVE to see live?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, replays are for being reminded, not for transmissions of lungs or even teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Jesse said:
The end result of wisdom, concentration and ethics does lead to being a good human being and also liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
The end result of Buddhadharma is to transcend distinctions like good and evil and so on. "Being a good person" has never been the point of Buddhadharma and never will be. If all you want is to be a "good person" it is better to follow Confucius or Jesus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
It might be so that Dzogchen is an integral part of Vajrayana and the 9th vehicle. My statement that it's moving to a generic mindfulness practice is not a reflection on the teachings in the scriptures but how it appears to me among some who follow the Great Perfection, both on- and offline. That is, when it is simplified to the point of "just stay in the natural state". I assume you have noticed this trend as well.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many people who may imagine they are "following Dzogchen teachings" who are doing nothing of the kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
heart said:
In vajrayana renunciation is achieved by wisdom and you renounce the whole of samsara, not just some particular bad spot, all of it. So true renunciation is actually freedom from manipulating the world according to your desires and fears. So, in vajrayana renunciation is on an other level, or at least it should be.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Here, when we say that Vajrayāna is not a path of renunciation, we mean that, unlike Sūtrayāna, we can use all objects of the sense for our own enjoyment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist MEME. My Favorite
Content:
Simon E. said:
No..actually it is nothing at all to do with Buddhadharma...neither in content nor intention.

Kim O'Hara said:
That's a bit harsh, Simon. The Buddhist path certainly is about "learning how to live [one's] life" and does discourage identification of oneself "as a Buddhist" and places more importance on being a good (wise, compassionate, etc) person than on "being a good Buddhist or knowing Buddhist doctrine".

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's path starts with refuge. For example, in the Kalmas sutra:
As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today."
The Buddhist path does not in any sense discourage one from thinking of oneself as a "buddhist".

The idea that the Buddha placed more importance on being a "good person" than on the three trainings of śīla, samadhi and prajñā, and the three prajñās of hearing, reflection and meditation is really a very strange and misleading idea. Being a good person will not free one from samsara, which after all is the point of the Buddha's teachings, i.e., to become from from samsara.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
Sherlock said:
You mean the  klong gsal nyi ma 'bar ma does actually say 100,000 times of each practice Malcolm? Or does it state things in terms of time?

How old is Sakya ngondro?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I mean that the recitations of refuge, bodhicitta, mandala offerings are present. The vajrasattva section explains that one should do 100,000 or more.

Other than Vajrasattva it does not specify a number.

The Sakya Ngondro is very modern, like 20th century modern.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Opinion on this matter
Content:
antiquebuddhas said:
Then what is the point of doing good Karma.

Malcolm wrote:
Attaining a precious human birth in future lives so one can attain liberation if you don't manage it in this one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:


Berry said:
Does this mean that you are knowledgeable about skilful means and the actual practice of tantric sex yourself, srivijaya ?

Malcolm wrote:
I know this is addressed to another, but I will answer — the answer is yes, I have had extensive instructions on this practice, both in assemblies and personally, and so I know what I am talking about.

The term "tantric sex" is a misnomer derived from New Age marketing and teachers. What happens in mudra practice is not recognizable as "sex" as it is normally thought of.

There are very many requirements, the age of the practitioners being among them, 16-26 for both parties, for example.

I already mentioned that both partners must be qualified anuttarayoga practitioners, stable creation stage meditation, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 8:48 PM
Title: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus commented in a now locked thread:
Vajrayana is just catching up with Dzogchen being removed from preliminaries and other rituals to turn into another form of mindfulness practice.
This represents a total misunderstanding of what Dzogchen is and what Vajrayāna is. Dzogchen is not separate from Vajrayāna in anyway shape of form. Dzogchen is a part of Vajrayāna Secret Mantra as even a cursory examination of the basic texts of the tradition will indicate.

Further, Dzogchen may not necessarily involve the four hundred thousands famous to us, in fact one of the earliest presentations of that sequence of practice is to be found in the klong gsal nyi ma 'bar ma tantra, which forms the foundation for most of the Nyinthig cycles from the Khandro Nyinthig onward. Moreover, there are a series of preliminary practices in Dzogchen that are indispensable such as the separation of samsara and nirvana, semzins, and so on.

Empowerment is absolutely necessary in Vajrayāna. Dzogchen Atiyoga is merely one of three inner tantra divisions. It is not in any way separate from Vajrayāna at all. Not only, they are hardly "another form of mindfulness practice."

Stick to Zen, Astus, you are out of your depth when commenting on Tibetan Buddhism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
- Svatantrika view ("the object is real, but not independent"). They investigated only the dependency of the conditions of an object.


Malcolm wrote:
Bhavaviveka says:
If there is an autonomous argument, it is only necessary to establish that the given phenomena appear in common to the proponent and opponent because at that time the given phenomena has not been established in common appearance.”
On other words, all that is needed is an agreement that indeed a table appears before both parties. They needn't agree on anything else. Thus when Bhavaviveka rejects Buddhapalita's dialectical argument in favor of a procedural argument, he is not saying that we need to accept that there is a seed established by an intrinsic characteristic, he is merely saying that we admit only that we both perceive a seed which then can be analyzed, in this case, of whether it is reasonable that there is arising from self.

The reason why Candra rejects Bhavaviveka's insistence on a procedural argument rather than a dialectical argument stems from the following:
When the eye and so on is grasped as a given phenomena of the relative, it is not established for the proponent; and when the eye and so on is grasped as a given phenomena of the ultimate, it is not established for the opponent.
In this case, since there is a fundamental disagreement in terms of the basis where one is arguing from, Candra insists that the opponent merely needs to be overthrown with a dialectical argument. But one thing it is important to bear in mind, Candrakīrti does not go at great lengths to expand his views on this subject in the Prasannapāda. Moreover, Candra certainly accepts procedural or autonomous arguments when presenting the conventional.

Thus there is no difference in these Madhyamikas Madhyamaka, but there is a difference in how one should debate opponents, and that is all. Gorampa states in his Moonrays:

Therefore the essential point of the difference between Prāsaṇgika and Svatantrika is defined upon whether autonomous arguments are accepted or not accepted in the context of investigating reality, i.e. it is actually in the context of rejecting the arising of the four extremes that autonomous arguments validity or invalidity is negated or proven.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 5th, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
oldbob said:
I would obtain the list of the 25 and write to each of them to see how they respond.
Happy Easter / Passover!

ob

alpha said:
Who these people are is not public knowledge.
As far as i know none of them are instructors.

Malcolm wrote:
Jim, Elio, Adriano, Steve Landsberg, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 5th, 2015 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
Is this really so difficult? Any sexual situation that does not involve informed consent is abuse.

Any one asked to take part in karmamudra practices should think long and hard about what they are getting into. Lamas (or whoever) who are seeking karmamudra partners need to be 100% sure that their partner knows what it will entail and will suffer no negative psychological or other damage from engaging in the practice.

If those conditions can not be satisfied then the practice is of no benefit, surely, and is harmful.

TaTa said:
I think this nailed it

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such a thing as karmamudra practice without consent, since the mudra must be an experienced Vajrayāna practitioner who has empowerments, possesses samaya, and has stability in the creation stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 5th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
michaelb said:
I've seem that both Malcolm and TKF have visited this page since the last post but neither has chosen to advance the discussion, which is a bit disappointing...

Malcolm wrote:
The ball is in the other court.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 5th, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
tingdzin said:
If one thinks that real Vajrayana lamas (admittedly increasingly rare) are just ordinary beings, one has never really interacted with one. Further, one should not attempt to practice Vajrayana if one's ideas about such things are so fixed, and one values one's own socially-conditioned notions over the search for experiential truth.

The long threads that inevitably result from sexual topics on this forum show that for most people, even in the so-called liberated West, sex is still an uncomfortable topic; this is one reason these practices were traditionally kept secret. A certain amount of personal and spiritual maturity is required.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 4th, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
smcj said:
People should be aware that Tibetans scholarship always goes back to the roots and reinterprets the classics. So a Tibetan scholar may go back to an Indian source and say, "What he was really trying to say was…" That "new" interpretation may be at odds with contemporaneous commentary, hence your point. My point is that if the "new" interpretation(s) are made from a vibrant and alive tradition producing enlightened beings, then those interpretations are validated by the enlightened awareness of the modern 21st century masters that hold them. To me there is absolutely no need for a forensic study of Dharma. YMMV

Malcolm wrote:
My point is that there is actually no basis for the whole discussion based on Indian texts; it is very much like the false distinctions made between "svatantrika" and "prasangika" — these are later categories created by Tibetan scholars with no basis in the Indian texts at all. There were never any "svatantrikas" and "prasangikas" in India, only madhyamakas. I am not a follower of "Prasangika", I am just maintain that the Madhyamaka understanding of emptiness is the best. If there is a "great madhyamaka", then it the Madhyamaka of freedom from extremes, as defined by Atisha in his Bodhimārgapradīpapañjikā:
The suchness known by madhyamikas
is free from the four extremes:
not existent, not nonexistent,
not both and neither.
The suchness realized by madhyamikas
is free from the four alternatives:
permanence, annihilation, 
both and neither.
Beyond such extremes as existence and nonexistence,
free from permanence and annihilation, 
liberated from consciousness and objects of consciousness, 
this is a text of the Great Madhyamaka.
We all take it for granted that no one in Tibetan Buddhism attains awakening based on practicing sūtra — that is what tantra is for. But I think these later, and novel, Tibetan interpretations of sūtra doctrines are a distraction, especially when they are not actually found in the writings of Indian masters.

In fact, the whole three turnings trip really comes from a Korean Yogacara master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 4th, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Dema said:
Is there any truth to this?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is all more or less true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 4th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm not sure I understand. By "sūtras of the definitive meaning", do you mean sūtras that satisfy Vasubandhu's criteria?

Malcolm wrote:
By any criteria at all. I find this remarkable in light of the fact that there is whole industry in Tibetan Buddhism dedicated to proving that tathāgatagarbha sutras are sutras of definitive meaning. What is amazing is that they have no support at all for their contentions based on the very texts they are using.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 4th, 2015 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
smcj said:
But as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Indians hardly took notice of the three turnings, and never turned them into a major hermeneutical topic, nor a rhetorical topic, unlike Chinese and Tibetan scholars in certain quarters.
So the Chinese and Tibetan scholars are less-than the Indian scholars?

Malcolm wrote:
smcj retracted this response while I was writing a reply, so since I spent half an hour working on this I feel compelled to post it anyway

They are less authoritative than Indian scholars by definition.

And as I pointed out, among Chinese and Tibetan scholars, there is absolutely no agreement at all as to what sutras belong to the third turning and what sutras belong the second turning and no one in India, so far as we know (in Tibetan sources at least) ever compiled a list of them.

The clearest definition I have been able to find is from the widely cited commentary on the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa Sūtra, the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā by Vasubandhu where he says:
Any sūtras that are explained in order to cultivate the characteristics of the noble path or realize the characteristics of the noble path are called "sutras of provisional meaning" because they teach a path which leads to nirvana. Any sūtras called "an entry into the result" are any sūtras that are taught in order to realize the result that has not been accomplished, those are the sutras of the definitive meaning.

Any sūtras called "entry into karma and deeds" are sutras which teach that engaging in virtuous karma produces a pleasing experience and engaging in nonvirtuous karma produces displeasing experience. Those are the sūtras of the provisional meaning. Any sutras said "to be taught in order to exhaust karma and affliction," sutras, which in order to exhaust karma and to exhaust afflictions, teach many methods of exhausting those, are sutras of the definitive meaning... etc.
Vasubandhu gives four other criterias for provisional and definitive sūtras, such as the difference between whether phenomena are taught to be afflictive or pure; whether samsara is to be regard with revulsion or is to be regarded as nondual with nirvana; whether topics are taught in words, letters, and so on such as the jatakas, etc or whether it is a sutra that teaching the profound that is difficult to see and comprehend, the selflessness in phenomena and the imperceptibility of the nature of emptiness; and finally, whether there are many words and meanings with much discursiveness or whether there is very little discursiveness and emphasis on instructions on samadhi.

In Indian texts, in terms of whether given sutras are considered provisional or definitive little or no attention is paid to them in terms of when they were taught by the Buddha — instead all that counts is their content.

Related to this is the fact that there is not one single sūtra or Indian text that links the tathāgatagarbha doctrine to sūtras of the definitive meaning, not a single one! Not even the tathāgatagarbha sūtras themselves. Don't you find this to be amazing?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Alcohol has many listed health benefits, tobacco has none.

dzogchungpa said:
I think tobacco might help some people keep their weight down, not that I'm recommending it.
Also, nicotine might have some benefits:
e,g, http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix, although there are better ways than smoking or chewing tobacco to use it now.

Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of unhealthy things one can do for vanity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Jesse said:
So is tantric sex really a method of attaining enlightenment or is it a form of abuse?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/i-was-a-tantric-sex-slave-1069859.html

the above article makes it pretty clear to me.

Jeff said:
Not specifically responding to the article, but there is very definitely a male-female energy loop dynamic that can be created.  Kind of like natural polarities that create a "purification loop".  This natural loop technique is used in many traditions.  This issue/concern is that a tantric master can create such a purification loop without actually engaging in physical sex.

Best wishes.

Malcolm wrote:
Jeff, this has nothing to do with Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
smcj said:
This is what I somehow doubt. That it has any legitimate uses.
Malcolm is right about the issue of samaya with this subject. However I think a history lesson is not breaking samaya.

Lama Tsongkhapa's started the Gelug tradition as a reformation movement against what he saw as the corruption of the Vajrayana in his day, this practice

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, you have no sources for this assertion. It is not true. He never started a reformation. This is just a western myth.

smcj said:
So even the most conservative of the Vajra Masters see the practice as legitimate, but obviously the potential for misuse and misunderstanding is off the charts..

Malcolm wrote:
If someone wishes to learn about these practices, all they need to do is attend Lamdre, which is given every other year, on average.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: emptiness wisdom, conceptual understanding, stepping sto
Content:
smcj said:
Malcolm's position is, as best as I can tell, that the 2nd Turning is definitive...

Malcolm wrote:
Malcolm's position is that the third turning is a restatement of the second to eliminate doubts about the second and does not in fact refer to any specific sūtras per se identified by when they were taught by the Buddha during his career as some later scholars hold (since all these scholars have wildly different ideas about which sūtras these are and there is no list in any Indian source which indicates which sūtras are to be regarded as provisional and which ones as definitive).

The second turning and the third turning are doctrinally indentical.

smcj said:
The Bhagavan, beginning from the nonexistence of the inherent existence of all phenomena, beginning from their absence of arising, absence of ceasing, being peaceful from the beginning, being parinirvana by nature, turned a second very amazing wheel of Dharma with the form of the description of emptiness to those who had correctly entered into the Mahāyāna. This wheel of Dharma was surpassable, circumstantial, of provisional meaning and became a basis of dispute.
The Bhagavan, beginning from the nonexistence of the inherent existence of all phenomena, beginning from their absence of arising, absence of ceasing, being peaceful from the beginning, being parinirvana by nature, turned a third very amazing wheel of Dharma possessing fine distinctions to those who correctly entered into all vehicles. This wheel of Dharma is unsurpassable, not circumstantial, of definitive meaning and indisputable.

Malcolm wrote:
The sole difference between these two turnings is that in the former case, emptiness was taught, and in the latter case, fine distinctions were taught, but the doctrine of both turnings begin "from the nonexistence of the inherent existence of all phenomena, begin from their absence of arising, absence of ceasing, being peaceful from the beginning, being parinirvana by nature." One might also add, that the third turning was intended for everyone.

All phenomena refers to all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, FYI.

But as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Indians hardly took notice of the three turnings, and never turned them into a major hermeneutical topic, nor a rhetorical topic, unlike Chinese and Tibetan scholars in certain quarters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ucchedavāda, strictly speaking, means asserting that something once existent is destroyed. Since we never once asserted the existence of something, we cannot be accused of asserting that something becomes nonexistent, and therefore, we are free from the charge of being a "chad pa smra ba ", aka an ucchedavādin.

Tsongkhapafan said:
So now you are denying that table has any kind of valid existence at all? When you investigate it is true that you do not find a table within the parts of table. The table that we normally see is not one of the parts, not the collection of parts and is not separate from the parts, however there is an appearance of table to mind and that table exists. The table that exists is the one that is merely imputed, or the table that is mere name. The inherently existent table (the one that we normally see) does not exist but the one that is mere name and that is one nature with the emptiness of table does.

Denying the valid existence of table is nihilism. It is negating that which does exist.


Malcolm wrote:
Question: does there exist an appearance of a table or does there exist a table which appears?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Have you met ONE person...
Content:
abandon-all-belief said:
...that has actual knowledge on their previous lives?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, more than one in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is a topic which involves samaya, and those with samaya should refrain from its discussion.

Knotty Veneer said:
I hear what you are saying but I would be careful Malcolm. You could be accused of trying to shut down debate on this, and by extension, attempting to silence people who have been abused. Karmamudra practices can and have been used as excuses by perpetrators of sexual abuse against women. Samaya considerations should not stand in the way of justice for those abused.

I do know that people have also made false accusations against lamas. And this is reprehensible. But I think, in the end, it is the lesser of two evils. We cannot have a veil of holy silence drawn over this.

Malcolm wrote:
Two separate issues altogether: the issue I am addressing is what is unsuitable for people who hold samaya.

The issue of people promising spiritual rewards in exchange for sex is a completely separate one.

However, the article Jesse posted is full of misinformation and misconceptions. I am not talking about June Campbell's allegations, since I have no way of verifying her claims about her relations with Kalu Rinpoche as true or false. One point however is that Kalu Rinpoche was not a monk, and was under no obligation to be celibate.

I am talking about the information with which the article is framed:
The idea is to "drive the semen upwards, along the spine, and into the head". The more semen in a man's head, the stronger intellectually and spiritually he is thought to be.
This entirely silly and not true.

Knotty Veneer said:
More than that, he is said to gain additional strength from absorbing the woman's sexual fluids at the same time as withholding his own. This "reverse of ordinary sex", said June Campbell, "expresses the relative status of the male and female within the ritual, for it signals the power flowing from the woman to the man".

Malcolm wrote:
This is also false information.

Knotty Veneer said:
She then asked them how it relates to the fact that there are no female Buddha images, or to why in Tantric sex images the woman always has her back to the viewer,

Malcolm wrote:
This is also false on three points — Samantabhadri is an example of a female buddha, Tara is an example of a female buddha, as is Prajñāpāramita, as Vajrayogini, Yeshe Tsogyal, Mandarava, etc. There are many yidams where the male deity has its back to the observer, with the mother deity acting as the main deity. The third point is that images of father and mother deities are not "Tantric sex images."

In Vajrayāna there is no such thing as "tantric sex." There are some yogas that might resemble sex to people who do not have instructions or samaya. But we don't talk about them. If people want to learn, they can seek out a qualified teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
Adamantine said:
For some people, latent addictive tendencies within neurotic mind may attach to alcohol, and then this is a big obstacle for them if they are practicing Dharma, and should abstain. For some people, latent addictive tendencies within neurotic mind may attach to internet use, sex, idle chatter, etc. etc. It may really not be the same issue for any two people.

Although alcoholism is found in my family, I've never had an issue with it. I may drink casually with friends once or twice a month, but never to the point of drunkenness. I may take a small amount of some tantric "medicine" that involves whisky more regularly. I certainly take some alcohol at the times of tsok offerings. To impose a strict rule on myself never to drink any alcohol would be artificial and useless, maybe harmful. However, I have relatives that should never even have a drop, because it arouses inner demons, and they always get into trouble, or create it. These things are relative, and we need to know our own situation with clarity.


M.G. said:
This seems to be the view of most of my Buddhist teachers and friends. Though I've noticed they reject the idea of moderation and relative harm potential when the topic turns from alcohol to tobacco!

Malcolm wrote:
Alcohol has many listed health benefits, tobacco has none.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Lotus Sutra discussion
Content:


sherabzangpo said:
I didn't get to the colophon. That clears it up, since it's a collection. Thank you! He lived from 1235–1280.
Given Chogyel Phagpa's political status, it also makes me wonder whether the commentary was not a somewhat 'political' reaction to Chinese political and Buddhist influence in Tibet and Mongolia. The main question though is why he doesn't reference the Tengyur commentary. Perhaps he was even reacting against it (after all it was translated from Chinese at the least), if it had been translated by his time, which presumably it had been, if it was quoted just 10-20 years after his death by the 3rd Karmapa.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps he thought it was an inauthentic commentary or a forgery. Other than that, I have no idea.


sherabzangpo said:
Actually Malcolm, what's your take on the authorship?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not listed by Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen, but it is is listed by the Karmapa and Ngorchen. This probably means it was translated into Tibetan from Chinese during the Sakya period of rule in Tibet, and perhaps it was attributed an Indian author to establish it as authentic.


sherabzangpo said:
I suppose I could safely attribute it to 'Prithivibandhu/Kuiji' for the moment and refer to it as 'Sri Lankan/Chinese'.

Malcolm wrote:
You can always say "the commentary attributed to..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is a topic which involves samaya, and those with samaya should refrain from its discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Jesse said:
So is tantric sex really a method of attaining enlightenment or is it a form of abuse?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/i-was-a-tantric-sex-slave-1069859.html

the above article makes it pretty clear to me.

Malcolm wrote:
The article above is fraught with so much misinformation and misconceptions that it is useless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
His mistake is the same as TKfan's assuming that tables are designated on tables, rather than tables being designated on parts.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's a strawman. I never said that tables are designated on tables, you assumed this. Table is imputed on basis of imputation for table and the basis of imputation and the table are never the same, they can't be. Possessor and possessed are always different. Furthermore, saying that tables are empty of tables is a negation too far - you are denying the mere imputation table that actually exists and that's nihilism.

conebeckham said:
What, exactly, is this "basis of imputation for table" if it is not table?

Malcolm wrote:
What TKF stated was:
A table is not empty of being a table because it is conventionally a table - that is what appears to a valid cognizer apprehending a table that is merely imputed upon the basis of table.
He assumes that thing cannot be empty of themselves (intrinsically empty) because he believes this would destroy their conventional value. But this is not a proper Madhyamaka view as we can see from the citation of Candra above, where Candra clearly states that there are no possessors of parts, they are unreal, they are simply designations.

The profound point in all of this is that Candra maintain that rather than a consciousness taking rebirth, which is the position of Bhavaviveka, what takes rebirth is the mistaken habit of "I-making," which conventionally can act as an appropriator of the aggregates and also can engage in and experience the ripening of actions even though the 'I" does not exist and is not real — it can act and behave as it if were real, in much the same that we drive cars that we have designated upon parts whch however, are unreal when they are sought for.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
His mistake is the same as TKfan's assuming that tables are designated on tables, rather than tables being designated on parts.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's a strawman. I never said that tables are designated on tables, you assumed this. Table is imputed on basis of imputation for table and the basis of imputation and the table are never the same, they can't be. Possessor and possessed are always different. Furthermore, saying that tables are empty of tables is a negation too far - you are denying the mere imputation table that actually exists and that's nihilism.

WeiHan said:
That is not nihilism. Reasoning in that way does not deny dependent arising of appearance.

Malcolm wrote:
Ucchedavāda, strictly speaking, means asserting that something once existent is destroyed. Since we never once asserted the existence of something, we cannot be accused of asserting that something becomes nonexistent, and therefore, we are free from the charge of being a "chad pa smra ba ", aka an ucchedavādin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
His mistake is the same as TKfan's assuming that tables are designated on tables, rather than tables being designated on parts.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's a strawman. I never said that tables are designated on tables, you assumed this. Table is imputed on basis of imputation for table and the basis of imputation and the table are never the same, they can't be. Possessor and possessed are always different. Furthermore, saying that tables are empty of tables is a negation too far - you are denying the mere imputation table that actually exists and that's nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
I said it appeared that is what you are saying. You read your own language, and you will see.

We are not denying the existence of the imputation "table," that imputation is clearly being made. We are saying, like Candrakīrti, that no table can be found when the basis for imputing a table, it's parts, is examined. We are saying, like Candrakīrti, that there is no actual thing that possesses parts, for example a self. And if there is no possessor of parts, there are no parts that are possessed, correct? Thus a composite thing is empty of the designation it is being designation with. The designation does not come from its side, it comes from the side of the one making the imputation, right? How is a thing desiginated? It is designated on the basis of an appearance. An appearance of what? An appearance of parts. Does the thing exist in its parts? No. Does it exist separate from those parts? No. Does it exist in one of those parts? No. Therefore, the thing is just a designation and it is not real. When we say something is not real, this means it is empty. What is it empty of? Itself. There is no table, there is no car, and so on. There is no self that possesses the five aggregates, nevertheless, a self is imputed upon the five aggregates. When the five aggregates are examined a self is not found with the aggregates, separate from them or in any one of them. Hence we know that the self does not exist. It is a mere imputation on a collection of parts. All composite phenomena are the same.

Things like tables, cars and selves are empty of themselves because when their basis of designation is examined, they are not found in their respective bases of designation or separate from them. When something is not found, it is called "nonexistent." In this case, it is not the nonexistence of something which once existed and then became nonexistent, according to mundane convention; in this case the thing sought for was never there from beginning, it never even arose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


WeiHan said:
However, from TD, according to his argument, if table is empty of table and can still function as a table, then table which is empty of car can then function as a car too. He is kind of saying if there is no some essence of a table there, then anything can happen randomly base on mental designation.

Malcolm wrote:
A table does not possess the parts of the car, so it won't work as a car, even you try to drive it.

A table is still empty of a table, however, because when the parts of a table are examined, a table cannot be found.

There does not need to be any essence of a table for a collection of parts to be designated table. Whether the table or car is a conventionally valid table or car purely depends on whether that table or car works or not, whether it is functional [arthakriya, don byed].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
His mistake is the same as TKfan's assuming that tables are designated on tables, rather than tables being designated on parts.

WeiHan said:
Malcolm,
Is dependent origination the right explanation? Table is empty of car doesn't mean that the table will appear as a car and  exhibits the dependently originated appearance of functioning as a car. This is refutation of the fourth lemma of negating non-arising- that thing arises without a cause.


Malcolm wrote:
No, here we are just talking about how things are designated on their parts according to their conventional appearance to a non-deluded mind. For our friends TD and TKF, it appears, based on their statements, that tables appear to a conventional valid cognition automatically.

According to Candrakirti, things are designated upon parts they tentatively "possess". If the thing functions, it is conventionally valid; if not, it is conventionally invalid, for example, the attempt to fill a horse with gas instead of hay.

Knowing that things are not real, are intrinsically empty, while still acting in accordance with worldly convention is the path if a follower of the middle way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tenzin Dorje said:
If a table is empty of being a table, it follows that a table is as empty of being a table as a car is [empty of being a table]. It follows absurdly that one could validly impute anything on any basis of designation.

As a matter of fact, if you need a car to go to town, what don't you just impute a car on the table that's in the living room?

kirtu said:
Oh come on!  The imputation has to be on a valid basis - Gelug Presentation 101.

Kirt

conebeckham said:
I think he's trying to argue that, Kirt, isn't he?  A car and and a table are both valid bases--they are both conventionally-appearing phenomena, after all.  His mistake is in denying the worldly conventions of non-examined appearing phenomena.  If I could drive my table to work, I would--but alas, my table has no engine, wheels, gas tank, etc.  On the level of convention, I cannot register my table with the DMV.  I can, however, eat dinner on my car.  If I must!

Malcolm wrote:
His mistake is the same as TKfan's assuming that tables are designated on tables, rather than tables being designated on parts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Lotus Sutra discussion
Content:
sherabzangpo said:
It is actually by Chogyal Phagpa, it is found in volume 15 of the Sa skya bka' 'bum.
That's strange, I was pretty sure it was listed as Sachen Kunga Nyingpo.. I found it on TBRC. Perhaps there's two commentaries? Or mistaken attribution? I would give the TBRC references but internet here is slow...

The question in terms of how this Sakya commentary (or commentaries) relates to the Commentary in the Tengyur is about when it was translated. It has no date and no translator, so it's hard to determine (and also makes its 'Sri Lankan' authorship look more suspicious), but it does seem to have a dedication prayer which seems to be by a famous Chinese-sponsored (and/or favored) Tibetan king, Miwang Tobgyel something or other, who lived in the 1700s, which indicates that he had probably had something to do with the translation... It would seem likely that he of all people might have been a 'Chinese Buddhist', so it all makes for a curious Holmes-like story...

Malcolm wrote:
It is by Chogyal Phagpa, as the colophon to the text states. Sachen's works are confined to the first two volumes, of the SKB, Phagpa's works are the final three volumes.

The commentary on the Lotus in the Tengyur is very late. Dan Martin states, "Sa’i-rtsa-lag is the Tibetan form for the name of the Sinhalese commentator Pṛthivībandhu (active during the reign of King Gopāla; 685-720 ce)." It was translated from Chinese, as the title indicates —དམ་པའི་ཆོས་པུཎྜ་རཱི་ཀའི་འགྲེལ་པ་ རྒྱ་ལས་བསྒྱུར་བ. This text by Sa’i-rtsa-lag is mentioned by the Third Karmapa, so it was translated into Tibetan no later than the late 13th-early fourteenth century.

There is another text attributed to Sa’i-rtsa-lag, the Pañcaskandhabhāṣya, translated in the Imperial period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
And hence the charge that Gelugpas are crypto Svatantrikas, as well as being upside down gzhan stong pas.
Everybody should beware of charging ancient masters of anything. To say "I don't really understand it" would be better.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a charge leveled by ancient masters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which position still leaves you a realist, believing that there are inherently existing natural laws that govern physical phenomena. In other words, you accept that physical phenomena exist by virtue of intrinsic characteristics, a common tenet among Hināyāna schools.

Astus said:
I only make a difference between various interpretations. If we say there is a shared physical world then there are certain rules. If we say that perception is the reality we have, then independent laws are nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are squirming, having boldly declared no such phenomena as siddhis or ṛddhi-patti can exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To make it more clear to you, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen (12th century) writes:
Further, the bodhicitta of Vairocana in the second chapter of the Guhyasamāja states:

Free from all phenomena;
skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas,
and subject and object abandoned;
because phenomena are equally without self, 
one’s mind, having never arisen from the beginning,
is naturally empty. 

In dependence upon which, Master Nāgārjuna wrote the Bodhicittavivarana.
Now, the late Indian and Tibetan tradition have long held that Nāgārjuna I and the siddha Nāgārjuna, the disciple of Saraha, are one and the same person. I personally do not subscribe to this belief, holding instead that there are at the very least two authentic Nāgārjuna's.

Be that as it may, it is a fact that the Bodhicittavivarana is a tantric work associated with Guhyasamaja, and specifically is a commentary on the above passage. I erred above when I stated it concerned the abhisambodhi of Akṣobhya. The Dohakośa of Saraha was written to comment upon that, being this following statement, Jetsun Rinopche writes:
In addition to that, the bodhicitta of Akśobhya in the second chapter of the Guhyasamāja states:

In the ultimate, phenomena
of the three realms are meditated as being unreal,
the existents meditated as unreal
are not meditated as objects of meditation;
therefore, the real and the unreal
are not objects of meditation.

In dependence upon which, Saraha wrote the Dohakośa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
But we can also see at a different angle. If how the external world sentient beings lived in depends on their karma, then there isn't any objective physical laws. It becomes unnecessary to differentiate that supernormal phenomena can only happened in mind realm but not in physical realm since afterall physical relam is a reflection of what is in the mind. In other words, you don't have to say that Buddha can only manifest supernormal abilities in some beings mind stream and not in the physical realm because there are fixed physical laws (this is your previous position), we just have to say "some beings have the karma to see Buddha manifesting supernormal abilities while others don't have the karma.

Astus said:
Yes, some beings perceive one thing, others perceive something else. The problem with supernatural occurrences within the physical realm was raised regarding the original topic of this thread. And there I also wrote that powers exist on the spiritual level. If we say that the world is what we perceive it to be, that it is formed and governed by our mind, then that is the spiritual realm.

Malcolm wrote:
Which position still leaves you a realist, believing that there are inherently existing natural laws that govern physical phenomena. In other words, you accept that physical phenomena exist by virtue of intrinsic characteristics, a common tenet among Hināyāna schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tenzin Dorje said:
If a table is empty of being a table, it follows that a table is as empty of being a table as a car is [empty of being a table]. It follows absurdly that one could validly impute anything on any basis of designation.

As a matter of fact, if you need a car to go to town, what don't you just impute a car on the table that's in the living room?

Malcolm wrote:
Your reason is specious. We don't need to speak of a car being empty of a table at all because we do not (in worldly convention) impute tables on the parts of a car, nor a car on the parts of table. Nevertheless, a table is empty of being a table since when its parts are examined no table can be found, likewise a car is found to be empty of a car since no car can be found when its parts are examined.

The emptiness of cars, tables and selves are alike inso far as the parts upon which cars, tables and selves are imputed are all equally found to be empty respectively of cars, tables and selves. In other words, no car can be found when its parts are examined, no table can be found when its parts are examined, no self can be found when its parts are examined, meaning that anything designated on parts is merely an empty designation with no underlying reality at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:
Aemilius said:
You can take this approach to other dharma texts too, I suppose, like Dharmapada/Dhammapada.
And say that  Dharmapada is actually a collection of oral instructions of Mahamudra precepts, or oral instructions on the six bardos/intermediate states, etc...
One day I actually found a verse in Dh. that is similar to the famous Six  Essential Words on Mahamudra by Tilopa.
Words are empty in themselves, Dharma teachings are empty of inherent nature.
Thus Dharmapada can become Tantra and vice versa.


Malcolm wrote:
No, in this case ther is a very clear tradition that associates this text with Guhyasamaja.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Lotus Sutra discussion
Content:
sherabzangpo said:
Also, it turns out there are some native Tibetan commentaries, but I've only found one, by Sachen Kunga Nyingpo...

Malcolm wrote:
It is actually by Chogyal Phagpa, it is found in volume 15 of the Sa skya bka' 'bum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
srivijaya said:
Interesting to read this thread and see what various teachings say is to be negated, or otherwise. In looking at all possible modes of existence/non-existence Buddha proffered no position at all. He never said one was right or the other wrong, or entered into any speculation. "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance;... ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html )
So a view which asserts two truths, one a non-existent "convention" and the other an existent "ultimate", is really saying "both exists and does not exist" - which was described by Buddha as not leading to "disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

I don't think that Buddha refused to engage with this or that view because he didn't like them or thought that they were not refined enough. The problem was in clinging to any kind of view.

Bakmoon said:
This is actually one of the differences between the Gelug understanding of Prasangika Madhyamaka and most non-Gelug understandings (e.g. Gorampa's view). For most non-Gelug Madhyamaka, it is understood that Prasangika Madhyamaka has no actual position of their own but use reductio ad absurdum arguments starting from the positions of others. Within Gelug, it is understood that one can have a position of one's own.

Malcolm wrote:
And hence the charge that Gelugpas are crypto Svatantrikas, as well as being upside down gzhan stong pas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
conebeckham said:
A table is most certainly empty of being a table.  The idea that we "graft an inherent existence of table" onto the table is just further conceptual elaboration, and needless.

Tsongkhapafan said:
A table is not empty of being a table because it is conventionally a table - that is what appears to a valid cognizer apprehending a table that is merely imputed upon the basis of table.

Malcolm wrote:
This statement presumes by it's language that tables exist from their own side to act as a basis for imputation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Table is the opposite of non-table.

Malcolm wrote:
This an incorrect use of apoha, or exclusion. A table is identified as a table because of all things that are not tables, such as pots and so on.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's senseless to refute the existence of table (which is what you are doing when you say that table is empty of table). What it is empty of is inherently existent table - that is the table that we normally see: a table that exists outside the mind and that can be found upon investigation.

Malcolm wrote:
A table existing outside the mind is a table that exists from its own side.


Tsongkhapafan said:
This does not exist but the conceptual designation 'table' does indeed exist and function.

Malcolm wrote:
If a table that exists outside of the mind does not exist, as you here admit, this means tables are empty of being tables.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The distinction between table and inherently existent table is an important one because otherwise you cannot distinguish between the table that is apprehended by self-grasping ignorance and that does not exist and the table that exists as mere imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
A table that exists as a mere imputation is table that is empty of a table since that table exists as a mere imputation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Of the cart, Chandrakirti says:

[VI.158] Indeed it is not established by the seven ways,
Either in thatness or for the worldly;
But from the point of view of the worldly without analysis
It is imputed here in dependence upon its parts.

[VI.159] It is a part­-possessor and a component­ possessor.
For living beings a cart is called an`agent',
And for beings it exists as a taker.
Do not destroy conventionalities known to the world.

Do not destroy conventionalities known to the world by saying that table is empty of table!

Malcolm wrote:
Candra says directly after the citation you produced:
How can that which does not exist through seven aspects, 
be said to exist? The existence of this will not be found by the yogin. 
Since he rests with ease in reality, 
here, the proposition of that [chariot, etc.] is also asserted. 
If the chariot is not real, at that time, 
nothing has parts, nor are there any parts. 
For example, just as when the chariot is burned there are no parts, 
the parts are [burned] when the possessor of parts is burned with the fire of intelligence.
So here, the reality is that tables, chariots, selves and so on are empty of themselves because they cannot withstand analysis, also their components cannot withstand analysis, and when subject to ultimate analysis they cannot be found. Nevertheless,

A table is precisely imputed on its parts which are empty of being "a table" — it is for this reason that tables are empty of being tables, since they are composed of parts upon which a table is imputed and in which a table will never be found.

When a convention is subject to analysis is it naturally destroyed in the process of analysis in just the same way that a hammer shatters a pot. If you interpret Candra the way you do, you disallow any ultimate analysis — but what Candra states is the following:
"Just a cart is designated in dependent on wheels and so on, wheels and so on are appropriated on that basis, but the chariot is not an appropriator, in the same way, because the self (a mundane convention that is not negated in relative truth), like a chariot, is asserted to be an appropriator."
Candra here makes an important point about all this — the chariot is not an actual appropriator, why? Because it is merely designated on some parts, a wheel and so on. Likewise the self is not a real appropriator because it is designation on some parts. Nevertheless, in terms of the mundane convention in the relative, we do not negate chariots, selves and so on, even though chariots, selves and so on are not real, being mere designations on the basis of some parts. But your mistake is to assume that a chariot is being designated a chariot on the basis of a chariot, and this is utterly wrong.

Candra continues:
The five aggregates, the six elements and the six sense bases are the appropriations of that self because a self is designated on the basis of the five aggregates and so on, just as the wheels and so are the appropriations of the chariot
The self is conventionally asserted to be an appropriator of karma, merit, aggregates and so on, because it is designated on the basis of the five aggregates. As we see above, however, there is actually no self that can act as an appropriator since such a self does not exist, being a mere imputation.

He then continues:
Just as this presentation of the appropriated and the appropriated is a presentation of mundane convention, likewise, it is explained "This action and agent is to be accepted like the chariot." The appropriated is the action, this also is the agent. The so-called "appropriated", the aggregates and so on are the action, and the self is presented as a so-called "agent." 

Because this is not real, this is not stable,
this is not unstable, this neither arises or perishes.
Here there is no permanence and so on, 
there is neither sameness nor difference. 

Though this self designated upon the aggregates is not stable, it is also not unstable. In that respect, if the self is unstable, at that time:
 
The appropriated are not the self,
those are produced and perish. 
How could the appropriated
turn into the appropriator? 

In the same way:

There is no production from the unproduced, 
for consequently there will be a fault here,
the self will either be a product
or will be produced without a cause. 

Thus, there is a contradiction with the śāstra. Because of that, if the aggregates are the self, if it comes to be possess arising and perishing, also it is not asserted as having arising or perishing. Therefore, the consequence that the aggregates "are not the self" will be valid. Because of that, the instability of this [self] is not valid, nor its stability.
Therefore, it is perfectly accurate to say that the self is empty of the self, chariots are empty of chariots, tables of empty of tables. What ever is designated on parts is empty of itself because it is mere designation that cannot be found upon analysis of the parts upon which it is designated. If it were only empty of inherent existence, then selves, chariots, tables and so on could be found in the basis of investigating their parts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Samaya and switching traditions.
Content:
Dragon said:
If you have received DI and consider yourself a Dzogchen practitioner, but go to see different teachers in different traditions, is that considered "switching?" I am going to see The 17th karmapa and the Sakya Trizin this weekend. Both are giving empowerments. I was hesitant attending because of the empowerments (I was looking just for being able to see them in person and listen to them teach, but these were the only ones I could afford to attend and that were close in terms of travel). So what do I do?  Is it bad to attend? Do I just not participate in the empowerments then and sit there quietly when the time comes? Or since my intention is to go to broaden my learning and listen to great masters teach as a dzogchen practitoner, it is not considered "switching" since AGY is my practice that unifies everything?  I see many dzogchen practitioners signing up to go to other empowerments like I am about to do, so I thought it was normal? Isn't it limiting to see all schools differently anyway and not "as one" when you are practicing dzogchen anyway? Buddha is Buddha is Buddha. What's the big deal?


Malcolm wrote:
Unify everything in Guru Yoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Samaya and switching traditions.
Content:
Lucjan said:
Nobody has yet posted here any understanding of what the Dzogchen samaya actually is.

Malcolm wrote:
I agree with your statement.

The point of the four Dzogchen samayas is they cannot be broken (which is why they are referred to as the four unbreakable samayas) since they refer to four aspects of one's basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Astus said:
The Lotus Sutra is quoted mainly because of how the dragon girl transformed to a buddha as an example of sudden enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
Which this does not show since she was already a high bodhisattva on the stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Thanks for your explanation Malcolm, much appreciated. I haven't read Gendun Chopel but I take it his view is Shengtong?

Malcolm wrote:
No, Gendun Chophel was a very brilliant Gelug Lama who questioned a number of Tsongkhap's views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Incidentally, while Nubchen does list ten reason's that the [ston mun] simultaneist path (Chan) is superior to the [tsen min] gradualist path (Madhyamaka), view is not among them. What are the ten? The difference in method, mode of entry, conduct, samadhi, addressing conceptuality, purifying obscurations, accomplishments, accumulations, realizing the two truths and benefitting others.

On the other hand, this is a moot point, because all Tibetan Buddhists are Vajrayāna practitioners. However also in Mahayoga and Anuyoga Nubchen identifies a gradual and sudden approach, with the latter coming from Padmasambhava's man ngag lta ba phreng ba.

Also an interesting tidbit is Nubs assertion that Vimalamitra demonstrates dying in Tibet, but in the future lives in India and not China. And another is that he identifies 12 reasons that Mantra is superior to Chan and Madhyamaka, including view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I know I am potentially opening a can of worms because of the seeming difference with our Vajrayana brothers and sisters, but I wanted to have a good look at this question in the light of classical and modern teachings of all traditions loosely referred to as  Zen (ie Chan, Seon, Rinzai and Soto). Of course personal experience at Zen centres are welcome, but lets not let it devolve into a tug-o-war of opinions.


Malcolm wrote:
It is useful to remember that most people practicing Chan/Son/Zen in the old days were people already well trained in Buddhadharma.

Ancient scholars often understood stories on multiple levels, without one contradicting the other in their minds, despite seeming contradictions in ours.

For example, Rahu is used as a metaphor in the Kalacakra tantra for certain practices that lead to the cessation of ordinary concepts, but the Kalacakra also contains elaborate calculations for calculating eclipses on the presumption that the outer world mirrors the anatomy of the human body and vice versa, with the added assumption that a powerful enough yogin could control external eclipses by controlling his body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Sherlock said:
But in any case, non-Nyingmapas have maligned Hashang for centuries without really studying his view, this should stop.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Would you care to clearly elucidate this view? If it involves abandoning conceptual minds because they are regarded as harmful then Hashang's view is wrong and even dangerous.

Malcolm wrote:
What Sherlock is saying is that in general, since the appearance of a history about the arrival of Śāntarakṣita and Padmasambhava to Tibet called the sba bzhed i.e., " The Narrative of Sba ",  sometime between the late 9th and early 12th century, many Tibetan scholars such as Sakya Pandita have held views about Chan Buddhism in general based on what is reported in that text.

Sherlock's point is that there is more than one report about the positions of Hashang Mahayana and in his opinion, those following the Narrative of Sba are giving consideration only to a very one sided point of view of Hashang's actual views, and that Hashang has become a strawman that Tibetan schools use to attack each other with.

In other words, what Sherlock is questioning is whether or not Sba gsal snang's reporting on Hashang's views are actually factual. Many modern scholars think the entire episode was entirely fabricated for political reasons.

Later Nyingmapa's have also expressed hostility at the Sba bzhed literature because it contradicts later terma biographies on many details, such as asserting that Padmasambhava was the actual son of the King of Oddiyāna and so on.

Of course the are some problems with Nubchen's account as well since he has Bodhidharma traveling to Tibet and arriving with one shoe in his hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know, I have the book. But he is mistaken. It is actually a commentary on a specific portion of the Guhyasamaja Tantra, the abhisambodhi of Akṣobhya.

Aemilius said:
I support Lindtner. In Bodhicittavivarana there is a clear argument against the cittamatra views, like those expressed in Lankavatara sutra.
Furthermore, there are some active persons who want to make Nagarjuna seem like a sravakayanist, and who with this hidden intention reject this important work,  because it is mainly or solely  about the Bodhicitta.

Malcolm wrote:
I am just sharing with you what the text is actually about. There are other texts by Nāgārjuna I on Mahāyāna, like the Ratnavali and Suhrlekha, which prove that Nāgārjuna I was a Mahāyānist.

But there are 300 works in the bstan 'gyur attributed to Nāgārjuna, and it is impossible they are all by him.

The tradition that the Bodicittavivarana is associated with the Guhyasamaja Tantra is well established, considering the term "bodhicitta" in that tantra is used as a term for ultimate reality. The author who wrote it was the siddha Nāgārjuna who was a disciple of Saraha I, there is really is no doubt about this. This text is a prominent text in the Arya tradition of Guhyasamaja.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
However, the Buddha's teaching held that whatever outer physical environment we experienced is also a result of our karma (which is somewhat a mind thing). ... If the Buddha can influence the mind of certain people so that he seem to witness a supernormal phenomena from his perspective in the outer world. It is almost the same as saying that the Buddha can influence change in the physical law since whatever physical laws that the world obeys depend on our mind and karma (as for the example of hell and heaven which I given).

Astus said:
And we arrive at the problem that if the Buddha can change others' karma then he can liberate them as well by the same power. Since nothing like that happened, and the whole point of the teaching is that everyone has to accomplish it on one's own, changing others' karma is not possible.

Malcolm wrote:
If the first were true, the second would not necessarily follow since liberation is freedom from afflictions, not freedom from karmavipaka.

In any case the Buddha has already instructed is that he cannot remove our suffering, nor can he hand us liberation, he can only instruct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Ayu said:
If you, michaelb, don't sense the existence to be inherent: congrats. All people are individually different.

michaelb said:
The point is more that 'inherent existence' is not the problem, or certainly not the whole problem. If you just negate inherent existence you are still left with the 'thing' you haven't negated. To use your examples the rose and the table (without their inherent existence) are still there for me to prick my finger on or bump into, and still there to be objects of my clinging.

Tenzin Dorje said:
Aaah! I think I finally understood your view. (yes, I try)

I say although a table is empty of inherent existence, or is empty of being an inherently existent table, it is not empty of being a table. A table is empty of being a horse, a car, a cup, but is not empty of being a table because a table is found by conventional valid cognition. But it is empty of being inherently existent [table] because it is not found by a mind of ultimate analysis.

You say a table is empty of being a table, do you not ?

Malcolm wrote:
Two problems here:

One, tables are empty of being tables. If tables were not empty being tables, conventional tables could withstand analysis, and so too could all things made of parts, such as persons. A table appears/exists, and a table is imputed on its parts, like persons, but it cannot be found to withstand ultimate analysis. In the process of analyzing a table, also the table ceases to be apprehended. This principle is well established even in lower tenet systems such as Abhidharma, where the cognition of a pot ceases the moment it is broken into shards, and so on.

Second, this perspective — that the appearance/existence of conventionally imputed tables can withstand ultimate analysis while their inherent existence cannot — makes it difficult to practice the creation stage, since our so called conventional valid cognition perceives impure appearances and not pure appearances of the mandala and so on. The latter requires training and purification.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Nichiren Buddhism Vs. Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
rory said:
For sure Tendai is closest to TB.
Rory


Malcolm wrote:
No, Shingon is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:


Aemilius said:
Nagarjuna, who lived two or three centuries before Asanga and Vasubandu, is at least in one place criticizing the Yogacara view, (found that in Christian  Lindtner's Master of Wisdom, Writings of Nagarjuna ).
.

Malcolm wrote:
You are referring to the Bodhicittavivarana, this late tantric text is associated with the Guhyasamaja Tantra — I have no idea why Lindtner imagines it is by Nāgārjuna I, there is no chance that it is.

Aemilius said:
His grounds sound reasonable for holding it a work of Nagarjuna. Lindtner explains his justifications for two pages in the above mentioned book.
In the earlier editions of Lindtner's Master of Wisdom there was also a translation of Akutobhya.  It is most unfortunate that he has decided to remove Akutobhya from his collection of translations of Arya Nagarjuna's works.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know, I have the book. But he is mistaken. It is actually a commentary on a specific portion of the Guhyasamaja Tantra, the abhisambodhi of Akṣobhya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Sherlock said:
Nubchen's works were lost to Tibetans until quite recently, the last 80 years or something, and even when they were rediscovered not many people read them.

Malcolm wrote:
Regarding this, actually, we know that Lochen Dharmashrī had a hand written manuscript of the bsam gtan mig sgron, as well as the Jonangpa Jetsun Kunga Nying po (Taranatha). So it seems that this text actually circulated among elite Tibetan scholars all along.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:


Dan74 said:
So only what is put forward by the enlightened can be of any benefit? Maybe we have different notions of 'benefit'.

Malcolm wrote:
Only what is put forth by awakened people is the Dharma. Of ordinary people like you and I start pretending that we can alter the Dharma to suit this or that purpose, this is called "Corrupting the Dharma."




Perhaps the tag 'Buddhist' is more likely to lead people to Buddhadharma? Why worry about the trademark?
It is not a question of being concerned with trademarks, it is a question of honesty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Ayu said:
Yes, but aren't you discussing about who is able to change the karma? Only the person who owns this certain karma can change it in longterm view, isn't it?
As far as I understood, a Buddha or a teacher with siddhis can give a little nudge to the better direction - which might be a great relief. But he cannot change the karma from outside.

Malcolm wrote:
No. I was just answering Astus' question. Karma is unerring, but it is no means something that must ripen in a certain way. For example, the heavy karma of bodhisattvas must ripen, it does not ripen as being reborn in lower realms, but instead, as the Karmavibhanga states:
The one endowed with this Dharma completely purifies in this life even the karma that results in birth in the three lowers realms through pain in the eye, ear, nose, tongue or a pain in the head, being afflicted by a pain in the limb or the heart, or being afflicted by a contagious disease, pain in the abdomen, or when traveling to other lands, being killed, bound, beaten, abused, struck, criticized or vision in a nightmare.
Thus karma is unerring, but not immutable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Kadampa Buddism
Content:
Dema said:
I have been going to a Kadampa temple that's in the area. I really like it and and the people and the temple are very nice. but you really need to be  a temple supporter to do anything there. or everything cost 5 bucks and for 3 months it like 110 bucks and i dont have that. So if anyone practices this schooling. maybe some books i can read that might help? i would like to get a bit more deeper in the the noble truths

thank you
Dema

Malcolm wrote:
You should check the TOS:
The discussion of or linking to material from groups and individuals that promote them, such as Geshe Kelsang Gyato's New Kadampa Tradition or Tsem Tulku Rinpoche's Kechara are not welcome and will be removed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:


Dan74 said:
I'd also beg to differ with JD that Buddhadharma becomes nonsensical if rebirth is thrown away.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it does. The Buddha's whole outline of the path of liberation automatically becomes gibberish without rebirth.


Dan74 said:
I know I don't share many members' distaste for Secular Buddhism. It is not my path, but I see much good on it that people can bring to their lives and lives of those around them.

Malcolm wrote:
Secular Buddhism is a contrivance of the ignorant, and being a product of ignorance, cannot benefit anyone at all.

Dan74 said:
Essentially Humanism with some of the Dharmic techniques thrown in makes the best framework an atheist can embrace and if it was truly embraced, the world would be a much better place and Buddhadharma would be the next natural step, I believe.

Malcolm wrote:
It would be much better if so called Secular Buddhists would leave the term "Buddhist" off their "faith" and replace it with something more honest and apropos, such as "Humanism".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: "white metal" mandala plate turning my wrist grey
Content:
Ayu said:
Hello summertime
I saw this phenomenon also when people rubbed their silver coloured mandala sets. It was silver-colour and I don't think it is good to have this on the skin regularly.
I heard, people fixed their sets with transparent varnish.
Also I saw beautifully painted mandala sets. The ornaments were painted with vivid colours. Maybe you'd like to paint it like that.

summertime said:
I'd be concerned about the varnish or paint coming off on my arm, too. Do you happen to know what kind of varnish it is that would be used for this?

Malcolm wrote:
Copper is considered a precious metal, but so called "white metal" is not. Get yourself a copper mandala plate. It will be non-toxic, and of superior material since you cannot afford silver or gold.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Could the Buddha's teachings of rebirth and karma be provisional?

Might it be a mistake to interpret them as absolute truths?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha himself defined wrong view as rejection of karma and rebirth in many places. They may be part of relative truth, but I would hardly characterize them as provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: "white metal" mandala plate turning my wrist grey
Content:
summertime said:
Hi, Just recently starting mandala offerings with one of those fancy looking "birthday cake" stacked plates with the auspicious symbols on the side. The vendor told me it was made of "white metal." I'm curious if anyone knows what that is, and why it might be making my wrist turn grey after a while when I rub the plate with it. Anyone else encounter this issue? My main concern is maybe there's lead in the plate. In case it is something in the plate reacting with something on my skin, I'm going to try to be more careful about washing not just my hands but my wrists also.


Malcolm wrote:
Get a copper mandala plate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, an idea that you subscribe to by insisting that there are immutable physical laws.

Astus said:
Isn't karma immutable?

Malcolm wrote:
Karma is unerring, but it is not immutable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
rtogs pa - avabodha This is usually the term rtogs renders in order to communicate "realize."

Tenzin Dorje said:
True. Why then go against what you yourself say is usual translation?

Malcolm wrote:
Because here I do not think rtogs is being used to translate, or has the same sense as 'avabodha". It is a clumsy way to translate the passage.



Tenzin Dorje said:
Plus, I've indicated a number of translations (such as ascertain, know, understand, and so forth) and since you know what rtogs pa is, we don't need to argue on the translation. It is exactly like the fact that there is no need to argue on the term of "compassion" when we know the Buddhist definition, function, divisions of it, on the pretext that its Latin etymology of it as to do with "to suffer with..."

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the term rtogs renders any number of Sanskrit terms — in general in Tibetan "rtogs pa" actually means "understand" or "know" (shes pa). When it is used in the sense of "realize", it is being used in the sense of avabodha, but here it is not being used in that sense of avabodha.
A self-sufficient substantial entity would be an inherent existence, from our POV. But Tsongkhapa argues that is not the basis of negation, instead it is the inherent existence which is different than existence. From our point of view, existence is the coarse object of negation[...]
In fact, we say the basis is either phenomena or a person. The subtle object of negation is the same in both cases, though.
It doesn't matter, the subtle object of negation is not the actual object of negation in Madhyamaka, Candra only introduces it as a formality.
Still, I don't understand what you mean by 'existence is the coarse object of negation'.
No one perceives inherent existence, which is a philosophical abstraction. People do perceive existence, and that is what is negated through Madhyamaka analysis because that is what people perceive. But negating existence is not enough, one must also negate nonexistence, both and neither. When one is an ārya, however, one does not need to proceed through the four-fold negation.

The Sakyas maintain that the difference between Bhavaviveka and Candra is pedagogical only.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Basically, what it amounts to is the very Chinese Buddhist idea, later widely adopted by Kagyus and Nyingmas, that there were very clear sets of sutras that could be distinguished by the turning to which they belong.

Nubchen asserts that Hashang depended on these definitive sutras, and that Kamashila depended on provisional sutras.
But here, Nubchen is showing evidence of influence from Chinese Buddhism. It is really nothing more profound than this.

This is fine, but the reality of it is that the Indians never gave any importance to idea of three turnings at all. I don't either, which is why I find Nubchen's notion that Hashang's teachings are higher than Kamalashila's based on which turning of wheel to which they supposedly adhere to be a completely bogus proposition, DOA. Understandable, but DOA. Accepting Nubchen's POV on this means accepting the distinction between the three turnings as understood in Chinese Buddhism and I simply do not think that is a particularly valid way of understanding sūtras.

narraboth said:
As a Chinese who started from Chinese Buddhism study, I don't think the idea of 'three turning of wheel' was that popular in our tradition. We do say 'five periods' based on Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: 'Just like from the milk the yogurt is made, from yogurt the raw butter is made....'  However, it's not really about which period is superior in view. For example, the first period is âvataṃsaka period, the sutra is surely a Mahayana text, just Chinese suggested that it's direct and unrefined as fresh milk, not everyone can digest it.
We do have Sandhinirmocana Sūtra translated though, but I think it's more emphasized by Yogācāra school (in China) rather than Zen school. In Zen school, at least after Song dynasty, the most important sutra is Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. So I am not sure if Chinese give three turnings much importance at all. My feeling as a Chinese is that TIbetan emphasize it more than anyone.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not saying it is popular in the Chinese tradition, I am saying that its source is Chinese.

The idea of ranking sutras in terms of provisionality and definitiveness comes primarily from the Chinese commentary in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra. Chinese Buddhism indeed has a number of schemes where the Buddha's teachings are ranked according to when he is supposed to gave taught them, but the source of the idea of three turnings of the wheel elaborated in this way is this commentary that I mentioned by Won-ch'uk, the 'phags pa dgongs pa zab mo nges par 'grel pa'i mdo rgya cher 'grel pa in three volumes. Since this concept is virtually absent from Indian sources, it must be from Chinese sources.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I said influence, you said control, there is a world of difference between these two words.

Astus said:
What form of influence do you mean?

Mental influence was already discussed a bit in this thread http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=275349#p275349.

Malcolm wrote:
For example, the traces in the minds of sentient beings are sufficiently strong that they can influence the minds of others in terms of what appearances they see.

A classic example of this is the story of the lady who meditated upon herself as a tiger, causing the other villagers to see a tiger instead of her.

Then there is the famous example of the goddess of the Ganges who transformed herself in the form of Śariputra, and him into her form, much to his dismay.

There is the story of the nāga princess who changed her gender to male also, etc., etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Astus said:
...the idea that there is an independent realm of objects beyond/behind experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, an idea that you subscribe to by insisting that there are immutable physical laws.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You put too much faith in the delusion known as "relative truth," Astus.

Astus said:
Are you on the position that ultimate truth contradicts and/or negates the relative? That dependent origination is something else than emptiness?

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth is the object of a nondeluded cognition, relative truth is the object of a deluded cognition. Deluded and nondeluded cognitions are mutually exclusive.

Anything that dependently originates that is said to be empty, it is true.

But this does not mean that when someone has the ability control the element of air, etc., they cannot fly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so finally you admit it, your view is realist and materialist, as I have been maintaining for some time.

As far as your contention goes that minds cannot influence other minds, this is merely an assertion on your part, and not something you have proven.

Astus said:
As WeiHan pointed out, I don't reject supernatural powers. But I reject being a materialist.

If one mind can control another, how come buddhas cannot make everyone enlightened? Then one person could make another think (and feel, and do) whatever that one wants, rendering the other a mere puppet.

Malcolm wrote:
I said influence, you said control, there is a world of difference between these two words.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Wait, mass and energy are real? They impose hard, factual limitations? How you can escape the charge of substantialism by making this assertion?

Astus said:
Causality is still accepted as the way phenomena function, isn't it? It's not just anything goes and things appear out of nothing.


Malcolm wrote:
Candrakirtī was walking through the halls of Nalanda, reading a book. He accidentally bumped into a pillar. A clever student spied this as said "Ha, that pillar is not very empty is it!"

Candra stopped, and without a word passed his hand right through the pillar, much to the students astonishment, and then continued on his way..

You put too much faith in the delusion known as "relative truth," Astus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:


Astus said:
That is, within the realist/materialist view there is no place for magic. Only in the realm of subjective experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so finally you admit it, your view is realist and materialist, as I have been maintaining for some time.

As far as your contention goes that minds cannot influence other minds, this is merely an assertion on your part, and not something you have proven.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
None of which really explain from a scientific point of view how this mysterious interaction between mind and body works.

Astus said:
Scientifically there are no non-physical objects to investigate or establish a connection with. Otherwise the duality of mind and body in Buddhism is only a conventional term as all phenomena are within the experiential realm and distinguished as form and names as a way to talk about categories of experiences. If we begin to analyse such conventions in Buddhism then we gradually end up with mind-only and emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
But you asserted as a hard fact that these phenomena [iddhi-pattis, siddhis, etc.] could never be real in a physical sense, which means you must be harboring some residual realism.



Astus said:
The four elements are clearly properties of material entities.
They are called material entities because they exhibit such properties and are experienced with the first five consciousnesses. Supposing a noumenal substance, independent object, beyond the phenomenal level is either a conventional approach or a substantialist philosophy.

Malcolm wrote:
It's odd that you take refuge in tenet systems, and yet harbor residual realism.


Astus said:
Yes, supernormal phenomena are not part of our everyday physical reality, not part of what is commonly called physical - the area of study of physics - and cannot be explained with physical laws.

Malcolm wrote:
But according to you, that does not matter because such laws are merely conventions and are not real in any substantial sense.


Astus said:
They can happen only if conceived within a subjective experiential realm where one doesn't have to account for the conservation of mass and energy (small becomes big, one becomes many, etc.). In other words, the mechanism of supernormal powers cannot be logically described within the confines of the general laws of this physical reality.

Malcolm wrote:
Wait, mass and energy are real? They impose hard, factual limitations? How you can escape the charge of substantialism by making this assertion?


Astus said:
But if you say that buddhas and ordinary beings as well can perform such abilities in the common physical world, then - as referred to before - there are a number of questions not yet answered, beginning with the first post of this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
The common physical world is either substantially real or it is not. If it is not, then there should be no problem accepting such things as iddhi-patis even if they do not normally conform to conventional expectations of 20th century humans. There are certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence of yogis who leave their footprints and handprints in rocks and so on in the HImalayas and certainly plenty of people, even westerners who have observed such events. It is rank substantialism to claim that such events are impossible because some imputed "general laws of this physical reality."


Astus said:
But despite all these things, you have no provided any reason at all that suggests that your acceptance of rebirth is rational and your rejection of iddhi-patis and so on is also rational. Your acceptance of former is actually irrational because you reject the latter.
I do not reject supernormal powers. What I find problematic is the idea that they exist within the physical context.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, and you have this problem because you have realist tendencies, not unlike Sarvastivadins. The abhijñas are one thing, of course these are mental abilities, the iddhi-pattis/siddhis are something else again, they are not just mental abilities, though they come from having developed powers over the mind, having done so, they lend the ability to have power over matter, which according what you state above, is either a convention or mind-only.

Astus said:
But instead of answering for the questions and problems pertaining to the view that they manifest as ordinary physical phenomena, there are only evasive responses and irrelevant comments.

Malcolm wrote:
And you have continually engaged in self-contradictions and demonstrated that you are at base a realist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:


Challenge23 said:
The impression I've gotten from reading people who use the term is that "Buddhadharma" is based upon a highly specific form of Buddhism that is literal and traditional.  For example, a "Buddhist" might hear the story about Milarepa flying from point A to point B and think that it was a metaphor, an exaggeration, or any of the myriad interpretations that would end with, "Milarepa didn't really fly from point A to point B".  However, someone who believes in "Buddhadharma" would believe that Milarepa did, in fact, fly from point A to point B and anyone who disagrees with them are ignorant.

It reminds me a great deal of the difference in Christianity between Christians and Born Again Christians.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. What is the case is that when someone explicitly claims that rebirth, karma and so on are interpretable, when for the Buddha they were clearly ideas he took literally, that person has fallen into wrong view. They may even erect a whole "Buddhism" around this idea, but it will never be Buddhadharma.

Challenge23 said:
Other than exchanging "Milarepa flying from point A to point B" with "rebirth" or "karma" and "ignorant" with "wrong view", I'm not sure where we part ways here.  Do you disagree because of the analogy between Buddhadharma and Born Again Christianity?  Having grown up with non-denominational and Pentecostal Christians I can tell you it is quite accurate.  Both groups believe that their respective sources are the ultimate and final authority, both groups believe that what is in those sources is literally true, and both groups believe that one should reorganize their lives based upon what is in their respective sources upon pain of horrible consequences(really the only difference between Avici Hell and the Christian Hell is that Avici is almost eternal but the Christian Hell is eternal).  With that said, I do freely admit that BA Christianity is evangelical(meaning there is a drive to convert others), while Buddhadharma is most definitely not.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the point:
However, someone who believes in "Buddhadharma" would believe that Milarepa did, in fact, fly from point A to point B and anyone who disagrees with them are ignorant.
This is the point:
However, someone who believes in "Buddhadharma" accepts rebirth, karma, etc., and anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant [about the real nature of Buddha's teachings.]
It is not fundamentalist thing — it is about accurately understanding what the Buddha taught and then deciding whether or not one can accept what he taught. If you can't, than please do not try to twist the Buddha's teachings into something that corresponds with your prejudices.

Further, "Buddhisms" tend to focus on one aspect of Buddha's teachings, they can never encompass the whole of it. I am a Tibetan Buddhist because I follow that path and system, but there is more to Buddhadharma than Tibetan Buddhism, there is Chan, Pure Land, etc. Sometimes "Buddhisms" are distortions of the Buddha's teachings, like Secular Buddhism and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Sherlock said:
Khenpo Zhenga reemphasized Indic studies and freedom from extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe to Nyingmapas. Gorampa's view is the official view of the Sakya school, and Shenga studied with Sakya khenpos.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


narraboth said:
"The works of some other Sakya lamas which criticized Tsongkhapa or seemed at odds with those views were banned from publication entirely within Tibet and were only preserved secretly and re-published openly from Bhutan after 1959."

Malcolm wrote:
Primarily the works of Shakya Chogden.

narraboth said:
Not sure what those 'works' are and how he defines 'Tibet'. I recently read some letters that Papongka Dechen Nyingpo sent to some Chinese, one of them is chairman Liu, the head of Kham province at that time (during ROC's ruling 1912-1949, Tibet and Kham are two different provinces). He suggested Liu to support monastery but be careful about textbooks that contained wrong views, and he said that some people printed and published those wrong view books including Gorampa's commentaris in Dege, which is very bad for Buddha dharma etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a Sakyapa named Jamyang Lama at Derge gathered all the extant manuscripts of Gorampa's works and had them carved into block prints.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
tingdzin said:
Well, Guenther discussed this in short pieces a long time ago, and the OP might find what he had to say useful. I don't want to stick my head into the (useless) argument besides that.


Malcolm wrote:
Basically, what it amounts to is the very Chinese Buddhist idea, later widely adopted by Kagyus and Nyingmas, that there were very clear sets of sutras that could be distinguished by the turning to which they belong.

Nubchen asserts that Hashang depended on these definitive sutras, and that Kamashila depended on provisional sutras.

But here, Nubchen is showing evidence of influence from Chinese Buddhism. It is really nothing more profound than this.

This is fine, but the reality of it is that the Indians never gave any importance to idea of three turnings at all. I don't either, which is why I find Nubchen's notion that Hashang's teachings are higher than Kamalashila's based on which turning of wheel to which they supposedly adhere to be a completely bogus proposition, DOA. Understandable, but DOA. Accepting Nubchen's POV on this means accepting the distinction between the three turnings as understood in Chinese Buddhism and I simply do not think that is a particularly valid way of understanding sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Since these appearances are inseparable from emptiness and are ultimate truths, and they have a non-conceptual realisation of ultimate truth, they also have a non-conceptual realisation of appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
Changing appearances are ultimate truths? Since when?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Conventional truths are manifestations of the self-grasping mind. In truth, all phenomena are mere name or mere appearance, and this mere name is one nature with the ultimate truth of phenomena, not its conventional nature. For a Buddha, forms are ultimate truths because there is no contradiction between how they appears and how they exist.

Malcolm wrote:
You still have not explained how impermanent things are ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It follows then that since rebirth is manifests in the material realm, you therefore must also come up with an explanation for it according to natural science. ... The mind clearly interacts with matter every time rebirth occurs. How is this possible? How can a nonmaterial entity interact with a material one?
The material realm is what is within the experience of the five senses. Can the mind be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched? Does it have a form, a colour, a spatial or temporal existence? It does not. How could then we say it manifests as a physical object?
No said it manifested as a physical object, merely that it appropriates physical objects, namely a body, in a material realm, in our case, the kamadhātu.

On the connection between mind and matter, there are the 18 dhatus, abhidharma literature and yogacara works.
None of which really explain from a scientific point of view how this mysterious interaction between mind and body works.
That is, the four elements are solidity/extension, cohesion/fluidity, heat and motion, so they are what is experienced by consciousness and not a separate realm.
The four elements are clearly properties of material entities.
Nevertheless, various experiences are categorised differently, thus the distinction between name and form, feeling and concept, etc. In other words, instead of choosing either that body and mind are one or two, the Buddha taught the five aggregates.
Four aggregates are strictly mental, one of them is strictly material (the rūpa skandha, the material aggregate), comprised of the four elements, out of which the five sense organs are made. Of the four mental aggregates, three of them are mental factors, caittas; while one is the mind, citta/vijñāna/manas.

The Buddha also regularly uses the older Indian term for mind and body, i.e. namarūpa, which in particular refers to the period of time of development in the womb after conception and before the sense organs develop.
That's why regarding superpowers I take the position presented in the Vimalakirti Sutra, that it depends on one's perception, and there is no such power that could be demonstrated for everyone, thus my distinction between physical and spiritual powers.
You have not addressed my objection in the slightest, you have not explained to us how it is that consciousness, which is a non-material entity, functions through the sense organs via patches of atoms located on the various physical structures in their respective locations such as the eye, and so on.

Moreover, in the citations you provided, no one doubts that the five abhijñās are mental experiences, but so is the taste of my coffee. Your contention however was that such things as levitation, manomayakāyas, and so on were simply subjective experiences of adepts, were not part of physical reality, and solely the domain of fantasy — even though of course Buddha, and other mahasiddhas displayed these miraculous events to others present.

But despite all these things, you have no provided any reason at all that suggests that your acceptance of rebirth is rational and your rejection of iddhi-patis and so on is also rational. Your acceptance of former is actually irrational because you reject the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:
Simon E. said:
It wouldn't be arrogant at all to see that the Buddha was addressing not merely those who were not his followers, but followers of another teacher whose authority unlike his own, was based on tradition, particular interpretations of scriptures, specious reasoning etc. It would simply be a statement of fact.

dharmagoat said:
And now that the Buddha's teaching is based on tradition, particular interpretations of scriptures, etc., his advice no longer applies?

Malcolm wrote:
People always forget that at the end of this sutta, it is said:
"Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today."
And having gone for refuge, they now are taking it on conviction in someone else that there is a path, and a result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:
dharmagoat said:
These two terms are used interchangeably by some, yet are given distinct meanings by others.

These days the term "Buddhadharma" seems to be reserved for the more historical interpretations of the Buddha's teaching, whereas the modern term "Buddhism" is applied to all interpretations, except perhaps the more unconventional ones.

To be a "Buddhist" means to be an adherent  of "Buddhism". What exactly is "Buddhism", and how is it different from "Buddhadharma"?

In a changing world, how does "Buddhadharma" earn its special status?

Challenge23 said:
The impression I've gotten from reading people who use the term is that "Buddhadharma" is based upon a highly specific form of Buddhism that is literal and traditional.  For example, a "Buddhist" might hear the story about Milarepa flying from point A to point B and think that it was a metaphor, an exaggeration, or any of the myriad interpretations that would end with, "Milarepa didn't really fly from point A to point B".  However, someone who believes in "Buddhadharma" would believe that Milarepa did, in fact, fly from point A to point B and anyone who disagrees with them are ignorant.

It reminds me a great deal of the difference in Christianity between Christians and Born Again Christians.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. What is the case is that when someone explicitly claims that rebirth, karma and so on are interpretable, when for the Buddha they were clearly ideas he took literally, that person has fallen into wrong view. They may even erect a whole "Buddhism" around this idea, but it will never be Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:
Simon E. said:
But the heart of Buddhadharma remains experiential, as it has has been. Under the guidance of one who has walked that experiential  path further than have we.

dharmagoat said:
We are actually in agreement... I think.

The thrust of my argument all along has been that the spirit of Buddhism (the Buddhadharma?) is by nature experiential, and not theoretical.

That the theory can be a source of obstacles.

Malcolm wrote:
No, theory is not an obstacle, the wrong theory is an obstacle. The eight fold path begins with correct view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: "Buddhism" vs. "Buddhadharma"
Content:
dharmagoat said:
While it is true that this discourse was addressed to the non-Buddhist Kalamas, it would be arrogant to assume that it doesn't apply to Buddhists too.

Malcolm wrote:
The Pubbakotthaka Sutta:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Shariputra: "Shariputra, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation?"

"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation."

"Excellent, Shariputra. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I'm no scholar, so I don't understand the importance of whether they will be considered as Mulasarvastivada Bhikṣunis by other schools. What is the significance of this? Why does it matter?

Are we likely to see ordination of nuns in this format taken up by the other schools?

Malcolm wrote:
As to the first point, as far as I know, these mixed Sangha ordinations are in themselves somewhat controversial to begin with.

As to your second question, I honestly don't know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
In any case.... how much of a deal is it to the Tibetan schools whether or not they would be considered to have their vows coming from the Dharmaguptaka line or the Mulasarvastivadin line?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the school.

tellyontellyon said:
Do people here think their status as fully ordained nuns would be respected? From the article I quoted above, the Karmapa seems to be saying that as the vows come mainly from the monks, even in the dual ordination, so they should be considered nuns in the Mulasarvastivadin line.

Malcolm wrote:
I think their vows will be respected, but I am not really sure they can be considered Mulasarvastivada Bhikṣunis. But, the Karmapa can do as he sees fit.

I think it nevertheless will be considered controversial. But controversy never prevented anyone from doing anything in Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
His Holiness points out that there have been nuns given ordination in Tibet, even though these isolated ordinations didn't end up with a bhikshuni sangha being formed, so this a historical precedent for nuns being ordained by monks alone even in Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
It is considered a broken ordination, even when it was performed, and was highly controversial. Such ordainees cannot themselves ordain novices in turn.

tellyontellyon said:
...so I don't think we just just rely on what has been done in the past.

Malcolm wrote:
The consensus has come down this: in order for there to be an order of nuns in Tibetan Buddhism, they must receive a living lineage from other nuns. Luckily, this still exists in Chinese Buddhism, in the Dharmaguptaka order. The main difficulty here is that these nuns are not and never will be Mulasarvastivadin nuns. But on the face of it, that is not what these women care about (i.e. which order into which they are ordained), they want to be bhikṣunis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Understanding a Passage from Chandrakirti
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I have a question about how Madhyamakavatara 6.36 is understood. It reads:
Reasonings prove that arising from self and other
Are illogical in suchness.
Since they also prove that arising is illogical conventionally,
On what basis do you speak of “arising”?
But if arising is refuted conventionally as well as ultimately, how should this be understood to avoid refuting dependent arisings on the level of appearances? I am particularly interested as to how this passage is understood outside of Gelug, especially according to the understanding of Gorampa.

I would like to note here before anything else that I'm not asking this as a polemic and I certainly don't want this to turn into a debate thread about whether Gorampa or anyone else is right or wrong. I'm just trying to grow in understanding here.

To me it seems that the text requires some kind of qualification, but I can't see how the text can really be qualified without doing serious violence to the plain meaning of the text.

Malcolm wrote:
According to Candra's own commentary on this passage, what is being refuted is arising through intrinsic characteristics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are a couple of minor deities included in the Yogini cycle for common siddhis.

WeiHan said:
You mean like for example those in the 13 Golden Dharmas, like Kurukulle from Hevajra etc...?

Malcolm wrote:
Similar.

WeiHan said:
Do you know if one has to be vegetarian if one practices Tara-Kurukulle (one of the 13 Golden Dharmas) since it is not a anutarayoga practice?

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is actually an anuttara practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
However, my doubt is that if even mundane siddhis can be easily attained thru this practice, then why does the Sakya need the other Golden Dharmas which bundled together with this practice in the well known "13 Golden Dharmas"? For example, since VY is effective gaining wealth, then do you still need a Red Jambala?
Yogini is a practice for excellent siddhi, the other deities in the 13 are mostly for common siddhis.

WeiHan said:
I saw this quote in your blog
Loppon Rinpoche said:

This alone is the extracted essence of all my Dharma cycles. Since that great Guru did not propagate this intimate instruction, he did not allow me to. It is very important that you emphasize this, practice it secretly, and you will obtain the supreme siddhi of mahāmudrā in this life, and also there is no doubt that whatever ordinary things you wish can be accomplished with the intimate instructions.

Doesn't it also brings "whatever ordinary things you wish" as the Gelug's teaching taught?

Malcolm wrote:
There are a couple of minor deities included in the Yogini cycle for common siddhis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Tenzin Dorje said:
rtogs

Malcolm wrote:
rtogs pa -  pratividdhā
rtogs pa -  prativedha
rtogs pa -  pratyavagama
rtogs pa -  avagamana
rtogs pa -  avabodha
rtogs pa -  vijñāta
rtogs pa -  viditvā
rtogs pa -  upaparīkṣaṇā
rtogs pa -  upaparīkṣā
rtogs pa -  upalakṣyatva

rtogs pa -  avabodha This is usually the term rtogs renders in order to communicate "realize."

Otherwise, comprehend is better here compare for example:

Sautrantikas present realizing consciousnesses and non-realizing consciousnesses. A wrong consciousness, such as the consciousness apprehending a blue snow mountain, would be a non-realizing consciousness. According to Tsongkhapa, all consciousnesses realize their appearing object. The reason is that we can remember an appearing object of a wrong consciousness, and if there was no realization in the 1st place, one wouldn't be able to remember having seen such and such.

against

Sautrantikas present comprehending consciousnesses and non-comprehending consciousnesses. A wrong consciousness, such as the consciousness apprehending a blue snow mountain, would be a non-comprehendingg consciousness. According to Tsongkhapa, all consciousnesses comprehend their appearing object. The reason is that we can remember an appearing object of a wrong consciousness, and if there was no comprehension in the 1st place, one wouldn't be able to remember having seen such and such.


Tenzin Dorje said:
Or I simply didn't get why you meant by 'existence'. Please, explain, because geluk usually posit the quality of being 'self sufficient substantially existent' as the coarse object of negation.

Malcolm wrote:
A self-sufficient substantial entity would be an inherent existence, from our POV. But Tsongkhapa argues that is not the basis of negation, instead it is the inherent existence which is different than existence. From our point of view, existence is the coarse object of negation, and that is what is negated in Madhyamaka analysis generally, it, non-existence, both and neither in that order, unless one is an ārya, then one can dispense with the turn by turn negation of the four extremes. The purpose of negating the third extreme is not made irrelevant because it is double negation, as Tsongkhapa argues, but simply because there are those such as Jains and so on who maintain that there are things that are both existence and non-existent.

Tenzin Dorje said:
Do you assert that a Buddha doesn't know all objects of knowledge ?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

While there are significant differences in the way the question of a Buddha's omniscience is handled in Sakya and Gelug. I am not qualified to discuss it, having never studied it in any detail.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
Sherlock said:
Vajrayogini was not one of Tsongkhapa's core practices.

Why do Gelugpas prefer it to his heart practices?


Malcolm wrote:
More to the point, Tsongkhap rejected the whole exegetical foundation around which Yogini practice is elaborated, the ultimate secret category of mother tantras, called gsang mtha', based on the oral tradition of commenting on the intention of the Cakrasamvara Tantra that comes from Naropa exclusively through the Guru Abhayakīrti (the elder Phaimthing) and through Mal Lotsawa and Sachen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition Of Mahamudra
Content:
shazan said:
...is there something that I am missing?

Malcolm wrote:
Direct introduction?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
If it's better than gradual common Mahayana as recognised masters have acclaimed and 3 kalpas is the upper limit for the very best practitioner then what's left is that it's either easier and/or it takes a non-highest capacity practitioner less time to achieve the result but still adhering to the three kalpas time-frame. If someone is going to take 25 kalpas to reach buddhahood via the gradual method then non-gradual may take them 20 instead etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite honestly, until a complete and adequate translation of the relevant chapters are produced by someone, Nubchen's actual line of reasoning will remain opaque.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Sherlock said:
ChNN agrees with Nubchen that ningradual Mahayana is superior.

Malcolm wrote:
Superior exactly how? In what way is it superior? If the view is the same, and the path is the same, what precisely is the superiority of Hashang's perspective to Kamalashila's perspective?

You can't just toss these things out there with no reasons to back them up, otherwise, I will have to suspect you of being a sock puppet of Link and Zelda, and that just does not seem possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Sherlock said:
Claiming Chan is a wrong view is something later Tibetans came up with.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. The account of the defeat of Hashang comes from the Ba bshed, which is contemporary with Nubchen.

Even so, Nubchen argues that Mahāyoga is superior to Chan.

Also, their view was the same. They both had Madhyamaka views as far as I know.

Sherlock said:
Well, is it in the Ba shed fragment from Dunhuang? Ba shed was revised to make the account of Shantaraksita being detained seem less offensive from the version in Dunhuang, probably other things too.

Mahayoga is of course superior to sutra but Chan (at least 9th century Chan) is actually a superior mode of practice to Kamalashila's way even if their view of the ultimate was the same.

The gradual Mahayana path's meditation is pretty similar to Hinayana with the addition of bodhicitta motivation?

But in any case, non-Nyingmapas have maligned Hashang for centuries without really studying his view, this should stop.

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot really say that Hashang's method of practice is superior. Does Hashang's method mean that the three incalculable eons for practicing the bodhisattva path are not necessary or bypassed? If your answer is no, then how is it superior since the path in general is still gathering the gradual accumulations of merit and wisdom through the six perfections? It turns out to be a mere rhetorical superiority. If your answer is yes, than what is the use of Vajrayāna?

Gradual Mahāyāna is nothing like Hinayāna — why would you say such a thing? Have you never studied the Sutrālamkāra, Ratnavali, etc.?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Tenzin Dorje said:
Still, to come back to our topic, Je Tsongkhapa asserts that a wrong consciousness realizes its own appearing object. For instance, ignorance realizes not inherent existence (because it is a non-existent and a non-existent can not be realized) but the appearance of inherent. The appearance of inherent existence is the appearing object of ignorance (a wrong consciousness and a conceptual consciousness). As to whether ignorance has a conceived object, it is not clear, but if it has so, it is a terminological division of 'conceived object' because it is non-existent.

According to Tsongkhapa, and that's where it becomes interesting, others schools (including Svatantrika-Madhyamikas) can not properly answer the question "what does ignorance realize ?" because it can not realize a non-existent such as inherent existence, where he answers "it realizes its own appearing object, the appearance of inherent existence". It is indeed Tsongkhapa's understanding that a unique tenet of Prasangika is that 'a wrong consciousness realizes its own appearing object, and is valid in regard to it'.

Malcolm wrote:
Not sure what Tibetan term you mean by "realize", so your point is rather obscure to me because of it.

Tenzin Dorje said:
In this way also, the omniscient mind of a Buddha directly realizes the appearance of inherent existence that is in the continuum of sentient beings. This shows it directly realizes mental images that are the appearing objects of conceptual consciousnesses in the continuum of sentient beings. Now, as you pointed out, I don't know whether Prasangika appart from Tsongkhapa would hold this. I leave that up to you, and it'll make the 'debate' interesting

Malcolm wrote:
In general, the response is that sentient beings do not differentiate between existence and inherent existence. Because this is so, while it is true that Candrakīrit indeed identifies a subtle object of negation, inherent existence, the actual object of negation is the course object of negation, existence, because that is what sentient beings actually perceive and are actually deluded by.

Also, the problem with Tsongkhapa's hermeneutics here involve the fact that he is basically stating that while buddhas have no conceptual apprehension of their own, they apprehend the conceptual apprehensions of sentient beings, and that seems like a very strange position. The general position of Candrakirti seems to be:
The peaceful kāya manifests like a wishfulfilling tree, 
is nonconceptual like a wishfulfilling gem, 
always existing for the benefit of the world until migrating beings are liberated, 
this [kāya] appears free of proliferation
Meaning it is not necessary for buddhas to apprehend the concepts of sentient beings since they act effortlessly without concepts on the behalf of sentient beings like wishfulfilling gems and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The term parabhāva = dependent existence. The term pratītyasamutpāda = dependent origination.
Candra's definition of dependent origination, "...production through the meeting such and such an assembly of causes and conditions is what is called "dependent origination."

Sherab said:
I was expecting more than just definitions as a response to my request for you to elaborate on your objection.

My argument is really quite straightforward.

Assume in the simpliest of case that B arise from A.  The process of B arising from A is dependent origination.  Because of B arising from A, the existence of B is a dependent existence.

What I am arguing here is that dependent existence is inextricably linked to dependent origination.  Dependent existence has no meaning without dependent origination in the context of the discussion of my objection to infinitely regressive causal chain.

Continuing with the simple example of B arising from A:
(1) dependent existence per Nagarjuna -  Inherent existent S -> T -> U -> V -> W -> X -> Y -> Z -> A -> B   (simple causal chain with an inherently existing S as the beginning)
(2) infinitely regressive dependent existence -               <no beginning> ............. -> X ->Y -> Z -> A -> B  (simple causal chain without beginning)

Note that in causal chain (2) there is no inherent existence anywhere in the chain.  That is why it is different from causal chain (1) which starts off with an inherent existence, or in your own words, an unconditioned cause.

As a reminder, I have no problem with dependent existence per Nagarjuna.  I have problem with infinitely regressive dependent existence.

Unless existence in the tetralemma is defined to cover inherent existence, dependent existence per Nagarjuna AND dependent existence from a beginningless causal chain, there is no true freedom from extremes.

Nagarjuna's definition of existence excludes dependent existence from a beginningless causal chain and since you follow Nagarjuna's definition of existence, the extreme of dependent existence from a beginningless causal chain is not negated.

Did the Buddha negate the extreme of dependent existence from a beginningless causal chain?  Yes.  But you cannot do this with the tetralemma if the definition of existence excludes dependent existence from a beginningless causal chain.

Malcolm wrote:
You apparently choose to ignore Nāhārjuna's statement, "Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence (another species of inherent existence)."

The process of b arising from a is not dependent origination. There are no single causes in the chain of dependent origination, which is why dependent existence is rejected by Nāgārjuna as species of inherent existence. Dependent origination means arising from a combination of causes and conditions. For example, a sprout arises not merely from a seed, but from soil, moisture, warmth and so on.

The point is that Nāgārjuna is rejecting dependent existence in favor of dependent origination. I really do not see why it is so hard for you to understand this. Since we are just going around in circles, I am going to stop this here. I won't respond to this thread anymore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
WeiHan said:
For example, In the Sakya's teaching, disciple was chided for blaming the efficacy of the mantra while it is their own fault for not concentrating well during the mantra recitation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is must be the case.


WeiHan said:
On the contrary, in the Gelug teachings, it promises that even reciting the mantra with weak concentration will bring results and it is the only mantra that has this advantage in this degenerate age.

Malcolm wrote:
The root tantra states that reciting the mantra of the Vajra Queen has certain efficacies, but no where does it say that one may do so with distraction.


WeiHan said:
The Gelug teaching also make comparison with other tantra and practices so as to illustrate the supremacy of this practice while the Sakya teaching do not...

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this is not true.


WeiHan said:
However, my doubt is that if even mundane siddhis can be easily attained thru this practice, then why does the Sakya need the other Golden Dharmas which bundled together with this practice in the well known "13 Golden Dharmas"? For example, since VY is effective gaining wealth, then do you still need a Red Jambala?

Malcolm wrote:
Yogini is a practice for excellent siddhi, the other deities in the 13 are mostly for common siddhis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


Tenzin Dorje said:
(Again, what I say is exclusively Prasangika, it's a unique tenet of the Middle Way Consequence school)

Malcolm wrote:
Correction, it is a unique tenet of Tsonkhapa's interpretation of Prasangika.

Since Goramapa lists more than 150 points of contention with Tsongkhapa's presentation of Prasangika Madhyamaka, it is really much better if you qualify your presentation with Tsonkhapa's interpretation since many of his unique interpretations are unknown to Indians as well as Tibetans. I understand that devotees of Tsongkhapa consider this to be a feature, whereas detractors of Tsongkhapa consider these innovations to be bugs in his view.

I myself am not expert enough in Tsongkhapa's writings to say much about them with certainty, but in general, I have personally found Goramapa's criticisms of Tsongkhapa's views regarding sūtra and tantra well founded. On the other hand, I generally accept Tsongkhapa's criticisms of Jonang view as having merit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, it just does not work like that. The Mukasarvastivada bhikshuni ordination is dead and cannot be revived.

Indrajala said:
Their loss then. They have access to scriptures which are supposed to be buddhavacana and would resolve the issue at hand immediately, but then maybe that's too easy a solution for a debate stretching back centuries, as it would make the parties concerned look bad.

Malcolm wrote:
In genral, tibetan vinayadharas are quite resistant to mixing amd matching vinayas. Tnere simply is no precedent for such a revival in the Mulasarvastivada literature. This is why the Karmapa is having nuns ordained according to the Dharmaguptaka lineage. Fortunately the Karmapa is satisfied it is intact and valid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 12:21 PM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no such text in the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. If there were,  the question of ordaining bhikshunis would not be an issue and the Tibetans would have restored the bhikshuni ordination six hundred years ago or more.

Indrajala said:
In today's world where Tibetans have access to Indian literature not included in the Tibetan canon, perhaps they can refer to such texts in their discussions and easily resolve their dilemma.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, it just does not work like that. The Mukasarvastivada bhikshuni ordination is dead and cannot be revived.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No. Otherwise Tibetans would have done this long ago.

Indrajala said:
I don't know if the following scripture is available in Tibetan, but it does state the following:
《大愛道比丘尼經》:「阿難復問佛言：『便當令比丘作[比丘尼]師耶？』佛言：『不也。當令大比丘尼作師。若無比丘尼者，比丘僧可。』」

Mahāprajāpatī Bhikṣuni Sūtra: "Ānanda further asked the Buddha, 'Is it then permissible for a bhikṣu to act as a master [to a bhikṣuṇī]?' The Buddha said, 'No. It should be that a great bhikṣuṇī acts as master. If there are no bhikṣuṇīs, then the bhikṣu sangha is permitted [to carry out the ordination].'”
Elsewhere in the Chinese canon the following convention is established:
《沙彌尼離戒文》:「佛告諸弟子：汝慎莫妄度沙彌離，女人姿態難保悅，在須臾以復更生惡意，……自非菩薩、阿羅漢，不可度尼。」

Sūtra on Śrāmaṇerī Precepts (沙彌尼離戒文):“The Buddha spoke to the disciples, 'You must be careful not to carelessly ordain śrāmaṇerī -s. It is difficult to guard against delighting in a woman's charming presence. In a moment one will further produce unwholesome thoughts. … If one is not a bodhisattva or arhat, ordination of nuns may not be carried out.'”
Thus it is understood in the absence of any living lineage of bhikṣuṇīs, a bhikṣu has the right to ordain new bhikṣuṇīs, but the presiding preceptor should be a bodhisattva or arhat.

I believe a similar understanding exists in Theravada, which legitimized Ajahn Brahm's decision to ordain bhikkunis despite protests from the Thai sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such text in the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. If there were,  the question of ordaining bhikshunis would not be an issue and the Tibetans would have restored the bhikshuni ordination six hundred years ago or more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
yan kong said:
Nuns lineage? Did they not revive the Theravadin nuns ordination in Sri Lanka?

Indrajala said:
In the absence of any living lineage of bhikṣuṇīs, a bhikṣu has the right to ordain new bhikṣuṇīs.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Otherwise Tibetans would have done this long ago. This issue has been under discussion since at least the 15th century among Tibetans, and the general consensus has been there is no way to revive the Mulasarvastivada bhikshuni vows.

For example Gorampa Sonam Senge adresses this issue in his sdom gsum kha skong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Since these appearances are inseparable from emptiness and are ultimate truths, and they have a non-conceptual realisation of ultimate truth, they also have a non-conceptual realisation of appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
Changing appearances are ultimate truths? Since when?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:


Sherlock said:
Still, it seems some memory of his claim that Hashang Mahayana's view was fine seemed to have survived among Nyingmapas. Even Jigme Lingpa doesn't say that Hashang's view is wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
Much of Nubchen's texts was incorporated into the Kathang De nga.


