﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 20th, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Presumably Mipham's description of dharmakaya/nature of mind/whatever in Gateway is Nyingma sutra level view?

Malcolm wrote:
Strictly so.

dzogchungpa said:
I believe you have said that in dzogchen, the thigle of elements in the heart is considered tathāgatagarbha. Is there a distinct Nyingma tantra level view of these things, i.e. something between sutra and dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
nyamssnanggong'phel said:
Thus we can consider him as the normative Indian position, especially since he was from Vikramshila.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't really believe there was a normative Indian position. There were normative Tibetan biases about what more modern Madhyamaka teachings they were going to seek because of Atisha, but this does not mean that Atisha position was even a majority position in India. Recall too, Atisha, while proclaiming Candrakirti's virtue, never had anything of his translated. Instead Atisha sponsored the translation of Pseudo-Bhavaviveka's Tarkajvala, etc.

Also keep in mind that "Candrakirti's" popularity most likely had more to do with the tantric Candrakirti's commentaries on the Pañcakrama than Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I think that Malcolm has a point that cultivating multiple relationships with teachers can give one context to prevent abuse and narrow sectarianism.

heart said:
I agree, I feel I sounded a bit to dogmatic in my respons to Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
I tend to provoke that response in people of late.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
narraboth said:
Sounds like some masters don't expect their students to act like adults.

Malcolm wrote:
I have met a few lamas who do not respect their (western) students as the adults that they are, and treat them like children, even going so far as to call them "children" to their faces. Of course, this is not a searing indictment of all Tibetan lamas. For the most part, most I have met treat their students with dignity and care.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Teachers really cannot discern your capacity unless they have known you for years.

M

AlexanderS said:
I thought an authentic teacher would people able to discern a students capacity immeditately through their supramundane knowledge or is that just fantasy?

Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of authentic teachers; some of them might have clairvoyance. Most however are just ordinary people like ourselves, trying to give us a hand up out of samsara while helping themselves as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
nyamssnanggong'phel said:
So to summarize the errors of those who promote Tathāgatagarbha Sutras.

1.  They don't understand all the normative ancient Indian professors like Atisha said Madhyamaka was the definitive sutra teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
Just to be fair: Longchenpa states very clearly in the sgrub mtha' mdzod that Prasanga is the definitive view, Tathāgatagrbha sutras are the definitive sutras.

Second, there was in India a broad group of masters who dissented from the position you ascribe. Recall, Atisha is very, very late on the scene and had virtually no influence on Indian Buddhism that is presently discernible, apart from being a younger contemporary of Naropa, Ratnakarashanti, Vageshvarakirit, and so on.

Also, Candrakirti seems to have left very little lasting impression on Indian Madhyamaka until Atisha's time, when his works began to be upheld with enthusiasm. This is evident by the controversy they eventually sparked, leading the composition of such texts as Ratnakarashanti's (Yogacara) Madhyamaka-alaṃkara.

nyamssnanggong'phel said:
2.  They don't understand there is a difference between tantric Buddha Nature of Mahamudra and sutric Buddha Nature of Tathāgatagarbha Sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this point is confusing for many people. It is made more confusing when scholars like Longchenpa regularly invoke the Uttaratantra in order to introduce concepts in Dzogchen causing people to conflate sugatagarbha teachings as they appear in Dzogchen and sūtra.


nyamssnanggong'phel said:
3.  They don't understand tantra is higher than sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, they can't be blamed for this since Sapan strongly argued against this position (indeed arguing against the position of his own guru, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen). Since then, virtually all schools but Nyingma have maintained that the view of sutra and tantra is the same, differing only in means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
[
If that is what it boils down to, doesn't that sort of put a downer on a lot of dzogchen material?

Malcolm wrote:
For some people it does, which is why they stick with causal and resultant paths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, I happen to be reading "Gateway to Knowledge" volume 4, and maybe we could discuss the passage beginning on p.33 in the "Nirvana Is Peace" section as follows: Even more than that, by having discarded all the passing stains from
the cognizant nature  of  mind, it becomes the identity  of  great natural
purity, the ultimate transformation  of  fully perfected abandonment
and realization, the dharmakaya, [the body  of  buddha qualities] This
has coundess qualities,  but  to summarize, these are transcendent pu-
rity,  bliss, permanence  and  identity.
I'm assuming you have access to it, and the Tibetan is facing it. The "transcendent identity" mentioned above is "bdag gi pha rol tu phyin pa" in the Tibetan for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, perfection of identity, described in the Uttaratantra as being beyond self and non-self:

Having purified the proliferation of self and non-self
Since [the proliferation] is completely pacified, it is the highest self.

But, you have to realize that reality has been described already in the Uttaratantra as free from all extremes of proliferation. The dharmakāya is defined as the wisdom of Jinas, which is course is why it cannot be seen even by tenth stage bodhisattvas since they still possess a thin veil of the knowledge obscuration.

Here, that which is being described as the nature of the mind, the mind essence, is what Mipham is describing.

As far as Buddha qualities go -- it is appalling funny to see grown men arguing over whether the Buddha's penis withdrawn into a pouch ultimately exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakāya (emptiness) can be a potential. The problem with you is that you can only see things one way.

Son of Buddha said:
so Dharmakaya is only the potential to become Enlightened (which was you exact position on Buddha nature)

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say only, I said "can", it really depends on what you are defining as Dharmakāya -- and there are many ways to look at the issue.

Madhyamakas have one approach; Yogacara's a different approach and so on.

Why don't you provide us with a definition for Dharmakāya and we can start from there?

How about the ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

"dharmakāya is the nirvana of the tathagatā".

Or ārya-trikāya-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

"dharmakāya means the absence of inherent existence like space"

Or the parinirvāṇasūtra:

"Without having exhausted afflictions, dharmakāya always exists"

These three statements for example can be seen as non-contradictory in the following way:

The Buddha realized nirvana; nirvana is the dharmakāya; dharmakāya is the absence of inherent existence, the absence of inherent existence, i.e. dharmakāya is a permanent fact of reality.

Here, we have an example of asserting the dharmakāya as permanent without asserting that it is something which exists, like the Hindu notion of self.

The problem as I see is that you take literally that which should be understood to be intentional or provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
the poor research comment was in reference to reading like chapter 5 and saying the Lanka only teaches that Buddha nature is skillfull means even when the passage he is quoting doesnt actually say that...... while not knowing that chapter 6 says Buddha nature IS Buddhahood and the highest teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
Really? Give me a citation and I will compare it with the Tibetan text -- then we will see.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
nether the less they were posted....and they were your work.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, which I stand by and which despite your persistent effort, you did not refute.

You merely demonstrated that you have a specific way of interpreting these texts. You did not succeed in showing that your approach is the "right one" (tm).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
you actually refuted yourself seeing as you started off with how the Buddha Nature is only a potential....then you started providing passges that stated Buddha Nature was the Dharmakaya,totally undermining your own position to begin with.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakāya (emptiness) can be a potential. The problem with you is that you can only see things one way.



Son of Buddha said:
Since the ultimate nonmenon that is beyond dependent arising is never non existent, when one realises this, one does not fall to an extreme of non existance and is realeased from the extreme of deprecation.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus, since you advocate a "never nonexistent ultimate", you fall into the extreme of eternalism, and since you advocate a never existent relative, you fall into the extreme of annihilationism.

In other words, you, like the Gelugpas, get on one side of the the horse only to fall off the other side -- the funny thing is that when you are falling off one side, the Gelugpas are falling off the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
...you do realise that Malcolm's comments are a jumbled mess, half of his quotes are not even realivent to the actual topic,and many of his passages he claims to support his position don't even have anything to do with his claims,also the vast majority of the work is poorly researched...

smcj said:
I don't think that's a fair assessment of Malcolm. He knows what he is talking about. He has worked hard and has some level of expertise. He has his take on things, which I often disagree with, but his ideas are always well thought out, and within the parameters of a well-established buddhist perspective. He doesn't easily allow for other well-established perspectives, but if he did this entire site would be much more boring.

I disagree with him a lot of the time. Then again sometimes I agree with him. And sometimes (OMG!) I even learn from him. But I never dismiss him.


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhaputra also forgets that I did not post those citations, LB did, from a post that I wrote on E-Sangha nearly ten years ago. So of course they are out of context. No one asked me if I thought they were relevant to the present discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Buddha Nature isn't a potential for Enlightenment,

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is exactly that; just as the potential for butter exists in milk, so too the potential for awakening exist in sentient beings. That potential is called "tathāgatagarbha". When that potential is "churned:" by practice, the result emerges just as butter emerges from milk. But if you examine milk before it has been churned you certainly will not find butter there. Likewise, if you examine sentient beings for buddha qualities you also will not find them, even though since they will arise through practice we can consider them naturally complete at the time of the cause.

Anyway, I am not sure why you are upset at being termed "eternalist" since that is exactly what your beliefs are, i.e., eternalist. You believe in the existence of something that is permanent as well as primeval.

Son of Buddha said:
The Buddha Nature/3rd turning Teachings are considered the definite teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently not by everyone, for example, me.

Secondly, you use outdated, inaccurate translations [Suzuki, etc.], and while Hodges translation of the Nirvana sutra is fine, even Hodge admits that that long Nirvana sutra flatly contradicts itself, a fact which he attributes to textual interpolation by the translator of the longest version.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Anders said:
A person of superior faculties could understand dzogchen fully with only a very few pith phrases, and thus a minimal of hermeneutical interpolation. I don't see how the absence of presence of historical errors of dzogchen hermeneutics might impact his understanding of dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen, (apart from being a realization) essentially became hermeneutic criticism after the Tibetans invented the scheme of the nine Yānas in order to explain Dzogchen's relationship to the other strands of Buddhist theory.

Frankly, I think very few people understand Dzogchen based on a few pithy phrases, lord knows I certainly didn't and don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism for King and Country?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
First of all, there was no Tibetan dark age. Langdarma was murdered in 841 in reaction to his taxation of the monasteries. This caused the Tibetan empire to fragment. Because of the ensuing dispute over succession.

But a dark age like Europe? Not at all. Buddhism was wide spread among aristocratic families like the Khon, the lCe, and so on. They preserved these teachings. Masters like Nubs Sang rgyas Ye shes were active and continued to translate and travel to India.

Then there was the western Tibetan Buddhist "revival", usually dated to the time of Rinchen Zangpo's return from Kashmir, in the late 10th century.

Sherlock said:
This sounds like how some people say there was no real dark age in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Christianity survived and prospered during the Dark Age there as well, but in "mundane" standards, there was quite a big difference. There was a huge decline in artistic works, in the economy and international trade, in overall order; temples, including Samye, fell into disrepair, I think that qualifies as a dark age.

Malcolm wrote:
You make it sound like Tibetan culture and civilization came to a grinding halt. I suppose, from the point of view that grants Tibet a culture and civilization only in relationship to a recently imported foreign religion, that might be true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism for King and Country?
Content:
Indrajala said:
But then maybe decentralized models of mostly lay practitioners and a minority sangha is a plausible course of action as well.

Sherlock said:
That's how Buddhism survived in Tibet during the Dark Ages.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, there was no Tibetan dark age. Langdarma was murdered in 841 in reaction to his taxation of the monasteries. This caused the Tibetan empire to fragment. Because of the ensuing dispute over succession.

But a dark age like Europe? Not at all. Buddhism was wide spread among aristocratic families like the Khon, the lCe, and so on. They preserved these teachings. Masters like Nubs Sang rgyas Ye shes were active and continued to translate and travel to India.

Then there was the western Tibetan Buddhist "revival", usually dated to the time of Rinchen Zangpo's return from Kashmir, in the late 10th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
So essentially Malcolm just accused the Buddha of being a realist, eternalist, and having some type of wrong view.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. I merely stated that there are those who understand such statements to affirm some kind of transcendent existent absolute, and that those who have such an interpretation have not understood the Buddha's teachings correctly.

The passage you cite merely states there is a state of bondage and a state of liberation. It does not state that liberation exists without the context of bondage. In fact, it predicates liberation on the fact of bondage.

It really does not say anything more than nirvana means freedom from rebirth.

The only reason you are using a Pali canon citation is that you know that Mahāyāna sūtras are not defensible as historical records of the Buddha.

Instead of giving citations, you should exercise your intellect, which is much better than becoming an expert in this or that species of dogmatics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism for King and Country?
Content:
Indrajala said:
Imperial China...

Malcolm wrote:
Warlords and petty kings, as I said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism for King and Country?
Content:
Indrajala said:
But then maybe decentralized models of mostly lay practitioners and a minority sangha is a plausible course of action as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you can always hope for serious social fragmentation that will inevitably result in warlords and petty kings again, and then you can once again have your state-supported and sanctioned "Buddhism" (and you can expel some "bonpos" for good measure).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
In fact what in my statement do you even disagree with?
"I assert that the True Self/Buddha Nature(which is Enlightenment) is not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, and is unconditioned."

Malcolm wrote:
If you think this ultimately exists, then your assertion is realist and eternalist.

smcj said:
Ok, then so what? If you're not doing practices where that  becomes an issue, then what's the harm? One can always change their mind later. Personally I'd rather say "ultimately valid" or "ultimately authentic", but that's just me playing with words.

Malcolm wrote:
That becomes an issue in all Buddhist practice, because it is an extreme view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Chenresig Jenang initiation by HHDL italy 2014
Content:


Karma Jinpa said:
For that matter, is the Dalai Lama considered Chenrezig because that's the so-called "patron deity of Tibet"?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is because in a political move, the regent of the great fifth, one of the all time great scholar scoundrals in Tibetan History, Desri Sangye Gyatso, decided to promote the great fifth as such, and the appellation has stuck every since.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
In fact what in my statement do you even disagree with?
"I assert that the True Self/Buddha Nature(which is Enlightenment) is not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, and is unconditioned."

Malcolm wrote:
If you think this ultimately exists, then your assertion is realist and eternalist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We should be careful not to do the same. Otherwise, we will never understand Dzogchen fully.

Anders said:
Shouldn't that more properly be something like 'Dzogchen hermeneutical development' than just plain 'Dzogchen'?

Malcolm wrote:
How can the two be differentiated?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Fa Dao said:
is there not another possibility besides those two..Dzogchen of Indian origin or Dzogchen as a Tibetan invention?  Didnt Dzogchen come from Garab Dorje originally and wasnt he said to be from Oddiyana?  And didnt Oddiyana have its own separate language, culture etc apart from India?

Malcolm wrote:
Oḍḍiyāna is not part of modern India, but was considered by Tibetans to be part of rgya gar. It's language was related to Sanskrit but was not Sanskrit, like Hindi, Gujarati, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Lindama said:
Malcolm: it is Dzogchen, because it really does express the religious genius of Tibetans in both its Bonpo and Buddhism forms. There is nothing like it at all in Indian Buddhism, or any other form of Buddhism.
Are you including zen in "any other form of Buddhism" (that is nothing like dzogchen).  I have nothing to defend, just wondering.

Malcolm wrote:
\

Absolutely. While comparisons made be made, Zen and Dzogchen are dissimilar despite repeated attempts by some to liken them to on another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing like it at all in Indian Buddhism, or any other form of Buddhism.

Sherab Dorje said:
Uuuuuummm... Mahamudra?

Malcolm wrote:
No, mahāmudra is its own thing. I have read a lot of Indian mahāmudra literature, and while certainly comparisons may be made, Atiyoga is just different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
... just because Malcolm says so doesn't make it so either I am afraid.

Malcolm wrote:
Why is it important to you that these texts are translations?

I mean, do you really care about the source of these texts?

If these texts are for the most part native Tibetan compositions, does that make them less profound and interesting?

The funny thing about both Tibetan Buddhism and Bon is the evident fetish for foreign teachings.

If anything has a right to call itself Tibetan Buddhism, it is Dzogchen, because it really does express the religious genius of a group of Tibetans in both its Bonpo and Buddhism forms. There is nothing like it at all in Indian Buddhism, or any other form of Buddhism. I also happen to think that Dzogchen is the most profound expression of Buddhist praxis so far. That is why I have spent most of my adult life focused on its teachings.

On the other hand I personally find that treating most (but not necessarily all) of these texts as native compositions solves many problems and answers many questions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Wang, Lung & Tri: the Trifecta
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
This dawned on me when I read the interviews in the first few pages of Judith Hanson's translation of The Torch of Certainty:
What role does the guru play in guiding an individual through practice of the Four Foundations before, during, and after completion of the practices?  What is the nature of the guru-disciple relationship?

TRUNGPA RINPOCHE:  (...) Commitment to your guru and his teachings is very necessary; it gives you some guidelines for your life.  Without that commitment you might begin to make up your own version of the Dharma, your own edition of the teachings, and sooner or later what you will get back is just your own ego version of the teachings.  So the idea of commitment here is total surrendering, complete surrendering.  You don't edit your own version of the Dharma anymore.


Thankfully I have found a guru whose instructions my egoic mind is willing to totally submit to, and the path has been made clear.  That said, perhaps this thread may provide some help or guidance, bringing benefit to others.  This was the intent.

supermaxv said:
Good points. I do find that far too many people on the internet are trying to "edit their own version of the Dharma" when it comes to vajrayana, but I deeply sympathize with those who wish to follow the path but don't have access to a guru and teachings.

I let my egoic mind get out of control earlier this year after receiving a deity initiation from a high Sakya lama (just the wang) that didn't have an associated practice text to go along with it (besides the short daily prayer sheet that was handed out), and I was intensely googling and bugging the lamas and monastery about if there was a more complete sadhana available for study / practice to no avail. It didn't make sense to me, why would there be an empowerment (and it wasn't an obscure one) without a practice sadhana?!? A few weeks ago I randomly found a copy at the monastery store and eagerly snatched it up before I realized that it was (a) really long, (b) really complex, (c) not a daily practice , and (d) a returned copy with some confused notes scribbled in the margins from someone who was probably in my exact state of mind a few weeks earlier.



I took a deep breath and realized I still have a lot of ego to cut through. Since then my motivation and daily practice has intensified almost exponentially.

Malcolm wrote:
IN Sakya, the lung for the practice is generally considered to be included with the empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism for King and Country?
Content:
Sherlock said:
The survival of Buddhist practices during the Tibetan Dark Ages and more recently during the Communist revolutions throughout Asia might offer lessons as to how Buddhism can survive without state support.

Malcolm wrote:
But it didn't survive without state the support. The support system for Tibetan Buddhism, the aristocracy, fled to India.

it's revival in China held Tibet was also supported by state apparatus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since Tibetans like JIgme Lingpa consider the whole of Dzogchen literature as a monolithic textual edifice imported from India rather than a gradual discourse among the developed in Tibet beginning in the early ninth century, they tend to assert dogmatically formulations which derive from man ngag sde and apply them rather indiscriminately. We should be careful not to do the same. Otherwise, we will never understand Dzogchen fully.

heart said:
First I think you have to able to prove your thesis about the Tibetan origin of the 17 tantras Malcolm, no? Just because you say so is no proof.

/magnus

Pero said:
Question I have is, where is the proof they are of Indian or other origin? Seems to me either way you go it will be hard to definitely prove anything, unless they find the original texts.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no proof that they are, which is the reason why they were excluded from the bKa' 'gyur. Even though the kun byed rgyal po is included, most scholars, even Tibetans, today accept it is a later compilation.

Anyway, why does it matter? I personally reject the view that they are translations from an Indic language because there are clear reasons to reject that view.

By and large, no one anymore believes Mahāyāna sutras were taught by the Buddha and there are many good reasons to reject that belief. Frankly, my point of view is that imagining Indic origins for the Dzogchen tantras inhibits our ability to understand them.

The problem is that people conflate the issue of origin with the issue of value. For me, the origin of these texts is not what grants them value; but the schemes people have elaborated to understand on the basis of their origin are no more effective than believing that scheme of the three turnings of the wheel grants us definitive insight in the meaning of Buddhist teachings.

What grants these texts value for me is the various ways they describe the process of delusion and how to wake up from that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since Tibetans like JIgme Lingpa consider the whole of Dzogchen literature as a monolithic textual edifice imported from India rather than a gradual discourse among the developed in Tibet beginning in the early ninth century, they tend to assert dogmatically formulations which derive from man ngag sde and apply them rather indiscriminately. We should be careful not to do the same. Otherwise, we will never understand Dzogchen fully.

heart said:
First I think you have to able to prove your thesis about the Tibetan origin of the 17 tantras Malcolm, no? Just because you say so is no proof.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
You are entitled to believe whatever you like. I will continue to analyze Dzogchen tantras as a product of gradual textual evolution since that is what makes the most sense to me based on my reading of the texts.

BTW, just because you say the Bible isn't the true word of GOD, doesn't make it so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since Tibetans like JIgme Lingpa consider the whole of Dzogchen literature as a monolithic textual edifice imported from India rather than a gradual discourse among the developed in Tibet beginning in the early ninth century, they tend to assert dogmatically formulations which derive from man ngag sde and apply them rather indiscriminately. We should be careful not to do the same. Otherwise, we will never understand Dzogchen fully.

Pero said:
Uhm why? Wouldn't that mean that Tibetans didn't understand Dzogchen fully?

Malcolm wrote:
That depends on what one means by "understand fully". What I mean is understanding the currents that are clearly obvious in Dzogchen tantras that have specific opponents in mind and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
"Those who, not understanding this, mistake the ālaya for the dharmakāya, are like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide. Because of their confusion about the vital points of the basis and result, they have come to a standstill on the path that accomplishes buddhahood in one lifetime."
- Jigme Lingpa


Malcolm wrote:
The only reason I brought up the distinction was because Dante made reference to the gzhi snang concept. Had he advanced the bodhicitta gambit, the discussion would have taken a different turn.

It is my opinion that the gzhi vs. kun gzhi distinction was elaborated by the early man nag sde school as a sort of a pull back from the earlier, and more radical use of bodhicitta as kun gzhi in the bodhicitta texts.

Since Tibetans like JIgme Lingpa consider the whole of Dzogchen literature as a monolithic textual edifice imported from India rather than a gradual discourse among the developed in Tibet beginning in the early ninth century, they tend to assert dogmatically formulations which derive from man ngag sde and apply them rather indiscriminately. We should be careful not to do the same. Otherwise, we will never understand Dzogchen fully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
hmmm somebody introduced a

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

how did we drive off a cliff and end up in the Great Vegetarian Debate thread???


Malcolm wrote:
All threads lead to the Great Vegetarian Debate. This the most gripping controversy in Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
haha now you're conflating threads. anyway, I said that various cognitions lead to different experiences: cognizing yourself killing a cow (or having someone do it for you) and eating it will lead to a cognition in a future life of you being killed and eaten by someone else. cognizing yourself eating a potato leads to rebirth in most excellent Buddha fields where young girls will tend to your every need.

Malcolm wrote:
The cognition of eating a potato actually leads to endless births as potato bugs being killed again and again by organic pesticides...

gad rgyangs said:
no because karmic intent to commit & satisfaction over killing only happens eating steak, not potatoes.

Malcolm wrote:
nonsense. you clearly ignore the consequences to life and the environment of your dietary choices. By doing so, since you approve of all the lethal choices farmers make in producing your food, ergo, you are also culpable, karmically as well as morally.

In samsara, there is no free lunch, whoever much you wish to rationalize one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
a nice story, until the concept of delusion intruded again as a value judgment.

Malcolm wrote:
You have a problem with your deluded preference for potatoes over steak being deluded? After all, they are both just the basis. Case closed, from a Dzogchen point of view, if we follow your reasoning, Veganism is bullshit.

gad rgyangs said:
haha now you're conflating threads. anyway, I said that various cognitions lead to different experiences: cognizing yourself killing a cow (or having someone do it for you) and eating it will lead to a cognition in a future life of you being killed and eaten by someone else. cognizing yourself eating a potato leads to rebirth in most excellent Buddha fields where young girls will tend to your every need.

Malcolm wrote:
The cognition of eating a potato actually leads to endless births as potato bugs being killed again and again by organic pesticides...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
In order to see the basis as it is, rather than the deluded superimposition (samaropa) we normally perceive, we have to uproot the all-basis, the so called ālaya.
this is causal as frak.

Malcolm wrote:
It is also Dzogchen theory. You don't have to accept it, but that is how it is explained in the Dzogchen tantras, sNying thig and so on.

gad rgyangs said:
a nice story, until the concept of delusion intruded again as a value judgment.

Malcolm wrote:
You have a problem with your deluded preference for potatoes over steak being deluded? After all, they are both just the basis. Case closed, from a Dzogchen point of view, if we follow your reasoning, Veganism is bullshit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Apology to women
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the things some guys will do to try and get laid

Nighthawk said:
Is it wrong to be male feminist?


Malcolm wrote:
Quite a number of feminists seem to think so. "Male feminism" can be seen as a patriarchal appropriation of a subaltern narrative.

It's probably better to consider yourself "anti-patriarchal", or a "pro-feminist" man then a "male feminist".

Actually, the apology to women (AKA Manifesto of Conscious Men) is one the most sexist things I have seen in a long time, which is why it was rightfully spoofed by Will Farrell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 18th, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
But this picture is fundamentally dualistic to begin with, because it starts with a separation of the consciousness that is or is not recognizing from that which is or is not recognized. If this separation is removed, then dualism vanishes of itself, and its called Dzogchen. This state is not created by recognition, is not lost by non-recognition: it is always already the case.

Malcolm wrote:
The interesting feature of Dzogchen is not the basis. The interesting feature of Dzogchen is its explanation of delusion.

You can keep claiming potatoes are the basis I(no need to even call them "appearances of the basis) until the cows come home. This does not help one to understand the process of delusion at all. Fundamentally, Dzogchen teachings serve to explain the process of delusion and how to unravel it.

I agree with you that the basis not improved by recognition or rendered defective by non-recognition. I also agree with you that delusion never stirs from the state of the basis itself. However, this does not mean that cognition of a potato is a cognition of the basis. It is a cognition of the all-basis.

The cognition of conventional things is produced by consciousnesses impregnated with traces of delusion without beginning. The intellectual apprehension that delusion never stirs from the basis is still just an intellectual apprehension that does nothing in terms of unraveling the fundamental delusion the produces deluded experience in the first place.

This is why for example, it is clearly stated in various places that gazing at rocks and trees for example will not lead one to experience the body of light because unlike the wisdom appearances of the four visions, the vision of rocks and trees are karmic visions supported on traces of affliction and action, i.e. the dualism of deluded vision itself.

In order to see the basis as it is, rather than the deluded superimposition (samaropa) we normally perceive, we have to uproot the all-basis, the so called ālaya.

Incidentally, in the account of the appearance of the basis it is pretty clearly stated that the appearance of the basis is perceived with sense organs that arise from the basis along with the neutral awareness that stirs from the potentiality [rtsal] of the basis.

That primordial dualism [the connate ignorance, lhan cig skye ma rig pa] collapses when that neutral awareness recognizes the appearance of the basis as its own state; but when it does not, the imputing ignorance takes the name of the all-basis, producing all of our conventional, and therefore, innately deluded experience.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
"false" is an arbitrary label. I'll save us some time:

"superimposed by who?"

"by you, me or anyone"

"and where did we come from? are we not also appearances of the basis, call them false or true?"

"or course, otherwise we and so-called "false" appearances would have a different basis than the basis of true appearances. And there are not multiple bases."

"so really, both so-called "false" or "marigpaed" appearances and so-called "true" or "rigpaed" appearances have one and the same basis, and are therefore both appearances of that basis?"

"or course, there is no other possibility."

Malcolm wrote:
Snake [false appearance of the all-basis], rope [appearance of the basis].

On the other hand without the appearance of the basis there is also no basis for deluded appearances, so I can see why you are confused. This is the principle reason why the man ngag sde school elaborated a gzhi and a kun gzhi to account for how it is that deluded appearances are not the appearance of the basis (which cannot itself give rise to deluded appearances), while demonstrating that deluded, i.e., conventional, (i.e. the false) appearances of everyday things are rooted in the nonrecognition of the basis.

In the bodhicitta texts no differentiation is made between gzhi and kun gzhi, since the concept of the appearance of the basis was not yet formulated.

If potatoes are the appearance of the basis, there is no need for the elaboration of the all-basis to account for deluded appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Veridical means seeing the actual nature of a given phenomena. Surely you are not eating an ultimate potato.

It is taken for granted in the Madhyamaka view that conventional cognitions are also deluded cognitions.Nevertheless, some deluded cognitions are efficient, hence Nāgārjuna's admonition to rely in the conventional in order to realize the ultimate.

gad rgyangs said:
since this thread is in Dzogchen,  I will say that the potato, as an expression of the gzhi snang (rigpa-ed or marigpa-ed) is as ultimate as anything. As you know, the emptiness of the potato cannot be separated from the potato (reified) so where else will one find an ultimate except the potato itself? The other choice, which I am equally at peace with, is there is no ultimate anything, since ultimate requires a contrasting non-ultimate, and what would that be, given gcig pu?

Malcolm wrote:
The potato is not an appearance of the basis, it a false appearance [snang lugs] superimposed on the appearance of the basis. And indeed, there is no ultimate to find apart from the real nature [gnas lugs]of the potato.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:


Aemilius said:
Madam Blavatsky, who has been mentioned here, concretely experienced how the social order Religion and the social order of Science behave when they encountered her paranormal powers and capacities.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, she did not take kindly to being found out as a fraudulent con artist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Ancient Buddhas
Content:
tatpurusa said:
Back on topic:

According to Bon tradition, the founder of Bon, Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche, was born about 18000 years ago, and had a lifespan of thousands of years.

Living Bonpo masters, like Yongdzin Tenzin Namdak, do interpret these numbers literally.

Malcolm wrote:
There is not simply one tradition about this. It is like the Nyingmapa traditions around Padmasambhava. Not every account (i.e. the earlier accounts) has him appearing in a lotus blossom. Some accounts even portray him as having a human father and mother.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
ok so you are defining "absolute truth" as a cognition or mental state of an ordinary being?

Malcolm wrote:
If your cognition is absolutely veridical, it is not longer ordinary, no?

gad rgyangs said:
depends on how you define "veridical": if I recognize the baked potato I am eating right now as a baked potato, that is veridical in a conventional sense. If I shift to rigpa for an instant, then that is veridical as long as it lasts, but then I am back with my potato. last night when I dreamt that my grandmother was a bus, that was veridical at the time too, and all of these plus $2.50 will get you on the subway.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but as you know that is not what veridical means. Veridical means seeing the actual nature of a given phenomena. Surely you are not eating an ultimate potato.

It is taken for granted in the Madhyamaka view that conventional cognitions are also deluded cognitions.Nevertheless, some deluded cognitions are efficient, hence Nāgārjuna's admonition to rely in the conventional in order to realize the ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
who's cognition?


Malcolm wrote:
Oh god, we are not going to play this silly little Zen game are we?

Your cognition of course, any given subjects cognition.

gad rgyangs said:
ok so you are defining "absolute truth" as a cognition or mental state of an ordinary being?

Malcolm wrote:
If your cognition is absolutely veridical, it is not longer ordinary, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Apology to women
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Totally creepy.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/55c51f0c23/dear-woman


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
By 'the mind which seeks to reject views' I meant a mind which deprecates the idea of views altogether and therefore would attempt to abstain from expressing views.

Malcolm wrote:
All that is required for this is the famed non-affirming negation.

A negation does not necessarily the negator holds a view of his or her own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
who's cognition?


Malcolm wrote:
Oh god, we are not going to play this silly little Zen game are we?

Your cognition of course, any given subjects cognition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Everything that is NOT Nirvana falls into the catagory of Anatta.
http://www.tbcm.org.my/mn-64-mahamalunkya-sutta-the-greater-discourse-to-malunkyaputta/


Malcolm wrote:
You do realize this statement is pure dualism through and through?

Son of Buddha said:
Well Malcolm I am quoting from the Pali Canon which is generally considered by both True Self and Not Self Thervadans to be Dualistic in material.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

Here is an essay by a (Not Self Thervadan) well known Ven Bodhi on what the Pali canon teaches about non duality.

I could look up a True Self Thervadans perspective on non duality if you like?
(Shouldnt be to hard to find the largest Buddhist sect in thailand is a True Self Thervadan sect)

But you would also consider their material "dualist" also

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, your view, the view of Theravada in general, etc. are all pretty much mired in trenchant dualisms of various kinds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth is a cognition

gad rgyangs said:
a cognition is a mental state. how could that ever be ultimate truth?

Malcolm wrote:
An ultimate truth is an absolutely veridical cognition. That is its definition. If you want to fight the definition, but then you are basically in humpty dumpty land.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Everything that is NOT Nirvana falls into the catagory of Anatta.
http://www.tbcm.org.my/mn-64-mahamalunkya-sutta-the-greater-discourse-to-malunkyaputta/


Malcolm wrote:
You do realize this statement is pure dualism through and through?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
24.10 simply acknowledges that common speech (vyavahāra) must be used to talk about the ultimate truth that there is no ultimate truth

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth is a cognition, not an external fact.

The purpose of 24.10 is to shown that the conventional must be relied upon in order to realize the ultimate. It is incorrect to say there is no ultimate truth. If you say there is no ultimate truth you are effectively saying that all minds are always deluded at all times, even the mind that apprehends the non-existence of ultimate truth which you suppose is the ultimate truth.

In other words, by disallowing veridical cognition, you are automatically consigning yourself to a state of permanent unalleviable delusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Garchen giving Refuge Vows webcast
Content:


KonchokZoepa said:
does refuge vow mean the 5 lay vow's?

heart said:
No, that is a separate ceremony.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Refuge indeed confers the five lay vows, but magnus is also correct in that there is a separate pratimoksha ordination which is classified as Hinayāna, usually given to those who plan on becoming monks or nuns. In general, when Tibetan lamas give refuge, they are doing so from a Mahāyāna system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Lotus_Bitch said:
Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama)  and materiality (rupa),  dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both.

dzogchungpa said:
I believe they would accept all of that with regards to citta.


Malcolm wrote:
But not cit. That was the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana views on dying and intermediate state
Content:
Luke said:
Just about everyone has heard about the Tibetan Book of the Dead by now, but what do standard Mahayana schools think happens during death and the intermediate state?

Are there any sutras which explain these things from the Mahayana point of view?

I would like to understand how the Tibetan beliefs differ from standard Mahayana ones.

Malcolm wrote:
One, there isn't a single Tibetan system regarding the antarabhāva, or intermediate state, there are several, most derived from Indian sources.

Second, there is not much difference, other than Mahāyāna provides no methods regarding how to practice in such a state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 16th, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Prayers for the victims of false flags
Content:
prayerwheel said:
Also there's a warning about South Flower and West Fifth Avenue in Los Angeles being the target of a false flag op, so avoid it for a while maybe?

Jikan said:
Got a source on this?

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y-0dHFvkV4


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Garchen giving Ratna Lingpa's Vajrakilaya
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
oh, thanks, but its not that short. its just as long as the ratna lingpa's version.

i was hoping more like max 20 pages with starting and finishing prayers. anyway, thanks for pointing the sadhana out.


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you include and exclude.

The main practice is 11-33, which is more or less exactly the length you said you wanted.

For daily practice you can skip lots of elaboration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Garchen giving Ratna Lingpa's Vajrakilaya
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
it would seem from the header of that scribd text that it is not the same sadhana as the one on theyre webstore...


Malcolm wrote:
This  is the one.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/149130531/Puja-Vajrakilaya-Sadhana-Ratna-Lingpa

It is actually Sangye Lingpa's sadhana, employed as a short practice for the Ratling tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The tetralemma is used in all kinds of ways by Nāgārjuna. But each use has a context.

gad rgyangs said:
didn't answer the question: name a context where the tetralemma would not apply.

Malcolm wrote:
Which tetralemma? N uses several.

gad rgyangs said:
let me restate why i am bringing this up in this thread: if, as N says in 27.30, Buddha "taught the true Dharma for the abandonment of all views", then, two questions:

1 why is it necessary to carefully distinguish the views of Buddhism and Vedanta, if they both must be abandoned anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
24.10

gad rgyangs said:
2 if the "true Dharma" is not a view, then what is it?

Malcolm wrote:
The intent of teaching dependent origination and emptiness is the elimination of views. Which views? Views of existence and non-existence, and that's all.

FYI, your query has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. The thread has actually gone off topic.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: FAQ: Dzogchen Community of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
Content:
lelopa said:
afaik the next one will be adzom drugpa


Malcolm wrote:
The Padmasambhava and Adzom transmissions are identical in every respect apart from the date.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
Shankhara's assesment of Nagarjuna for example is that he was basically correct in his analysis, except that he does not allow for an existent unconditioned element.

Malcolm wrote:
Cough, cough....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if you cant say "is", "is not", "both", or "neither", then what exactly can you say?

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of that passage actually is to eliminate things you can say about the tathāgata — context is everything.

gad rgyangs said:
are you claiming there are other topics not subject to the tetralemma?

Malcolm wrote:
The tetralemma is used in all kinds of ways by Nāgārjuna. But each use has a context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
all the Buddha's teachings are like the toys on the lawn to get the kids out of the burning house.

Jikan said:
This is, itself, a teaching of the Buddha.  Is it also provisional?

Not in the context in which it is put forward.  In the Lotus Sutra, where this analogy is developed, it describes the means by which the Buddha deploys provisional teachings as a means to get to the absolute teachings (the Buddha-vehicle).  Are the teachings that are characterized as "absolute" themselves merely provisional, merely upaya?  Is the concept of upaya itself provisional?

Malcolm wrote:
It's upaya all the way down.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if you cant say "is", "is not", "both", or "neither", then what exactly can you say?

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of that passage actually is to eliminate things you can say about the tathāgata — context is everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
ummm, 22.11:

"we do not assert 'empty'
nor do we assert 'nonempty'
we neither assert both nor neither.
they are asserted only for the purpose of designation"

Malcolm wrote:
see 24.17-19

Dependent origination is not the "provisional" teaching of the Buddha. Otherwise, Nāgārjuna would not have introduced MMK with the mangalam praising dependent origination, free from ceasing, arising and so on as the pacification of proliferation.

Is there something more definitive in the Buddha's teaching than the pacification of proliferation? According to you it is all about relinquishing views. When there is no proliferation, how can there be a view?

gad rgyangs said:
all the Buddha's teachings are like the toys on the lawn to get the kids out of the burning house.

Malcolm wrote:
So you basically think all the Buddhas teachings then are "provisional". Ok. I don't agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
ummm, 22.11:

"we do not assert 'empty'
nor do we assert 'nonempty'
we neither assert both nor neither.
they are asserted only for the purpose of designation"

Malcolm wrote:
see 24.17-19

Dependent origination is not the "provisional" teaching of the Buddha. Otherwise, Nāgārjuna would not have introduced MMK with the mangalam praising dependent origination, free from ceasing, arising and so on as the pacification of proliferation.

Is there something more definitive in the Buddha's teaching than the pacification of proliferation? According to you it is all about relinquishing views. When there is no proliferation, how can there be a view?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Jikan said:
Is dependent origination a view, or is it adequate knowledge, first hand, of how samsara works?

gad rgyangs said:
how does "first hand" knowledge of dependent origination look different from causation, which is negated in MMK 1?

both "empty" and "dependent origination" (which are really the same thing) are provisional/arbitrary teachings of the Buddha (according to MMK)

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
doesn't it say somewhere something about "relinquishing all views"?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is the intellectual "giving up of views" and then there is realizing the nature of dependent origination which is free from views.

gad rgyangs said:
"dependent origination" is also a view.


Malcolm wrote:
You can make anything into an intellectual trip.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Garchen giving Ratna Lingpa's Vajrakilaya
Content:


heart said:
Ok thanks, you know of any translation?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, there is a translation used the Palyul folks. This is the main Kilaya tradition of Palyul.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
doesn't it say somewhere something about "relinquishing all views"?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is the intellectual "giving up of views" and then there is realizing the nature of dependent origination which is free from views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 15th, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't really buy into the integral models of world spirituality.

Anders said:
Practically or fundamentally? Practically speaking, I could be inclined to agree. But doesn't karma more or less dictate that spirituality is fundamentally integral?

Jikan said:
the word "integral" means many different things.  Would you mind explaining what you mean by the term for the purpose of this discussion?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I had in mind the the attempt by various modern perennialists to come up with models that allows absolute equivalencies to be made and hierarchies to be established among various spiritual traditions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The question here is whether or not the cessation of rebirth is effected by seeing dependent origination or by seeing an ontological totality. Take your pick and run with it. But you cannot pick both because they are mutually exclusive views.

Anders said:
I get that, but this still revolves around a 'view of the ultimate' model of liberation. If we take a 'shred of affliction' model as early Buddhism does (I think the former is really mostly useful for determining how practically useful a model is) for our measurement, it comes out to 'no-thing at all to hang a shred of clinging to' vs 'a few ontological shreds of clinging of a mostly purified mind'. Ie, cessation of rebirth is not so much effected by 'seeing dependent origination' as it is by 'ending clinging to views of self' and so forth (from which the perception of dependent origination is produced).

I am understating it here for dramatic effect and all and I do appreciate that the expected view of liberation seems to have a strong effect on the eventual outcome for its successful practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
Any shred of clinging is sufficient to sink your battleship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
Maybe a few (very) crude diagrams will illustrate the difference I am talking about:





Where 'catholicism' would fall under the umbrella of those who do good creating good karma to increase the odds of meeting with the dharma of liberation, etc.

More or less the difference I suppose between the Ekayana view of Arhats, who will continue towards buddhahood so long as they do not fall into the view of personal nirvana and the 'seed of bodhi' model, where the fruit of the Arhat is fundamentally and irreversibly distinct from the fruit of Buddhahood.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't really buy into the integral models of world spirituality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
"two distinct schools with two entirely distinct results."

Malcolm wrote:
They are two distinct schools with entirely distinct results because they have entirely different bases.

Anders said:
Do elaborate.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is predicated on dependent origination and emptiness, Advaita refutes both dependent origination and emptiness. The difference, as always, is view.

If you confine your notion of liberation to controlling afflictions, there there is no difference at all between all the various ethical systems which recommend self-control in conjunction with contemplative quietude.

The question here is whether or not the cessation of rebirth is effected by seeing dependent origination or by seeing an ontological totality. Take your pick and run with it. But you cannot pick both because they are mutually exclusive views.

One of the key points of the Dzogchen tradition is understanding all these different tīrthika [samsaric] and bauddha [nirvanic] tenet systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
"two distinct schools with two entirely distinct results."

Malcolm wrote:
They are two distinct schools with entirely distinct results because they have entirely different bases.

Dzogchen is predicated on dependent origination and emptiness, Advaita refutes both dependent origination and emptiness.

I am not making any truth claim here for either one. I am merely pointing out that the truth they claim is different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Garchen giving Ratna Lingpa's Vajrakilaya
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Do you know if what he gives now was perhaps in danger of going extinct, and thus Rinpoche began to propagate it?  Or do you think perhaps this is the safest Kilaya sadhana for the Western students of his to practice?

heart said:
I don't think this particular terma is in any danger of going extinct. I don't know what you mean with "safest", Vajrakilaya is not dangerous in any way, my guess is that there is a comfortable short sadhana that fit the mentallity of westeners in this cycle as well as a translation. I am sure there exist several sadhanas of various length in this cycle, there normally is.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Usually people use the short Kilaya sadhana of Sangye Lingpa in conjunction with this tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
Come now. It's a lot like Brahman, which is why they are so often compared.

Malcolm wrote:
No, brahman is sat, real, where as dharmakāya is the total realization of emptiness free from all extremes and its attendant twin omniscience.

In other words dharmakāya needs a realization to bring it about. Brahman does not.

Anders said:
Unless we talk of Samantabhadra who never fell into ignorance and so forth.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are making a huge mistake. Samantabhadra does experience ignorance, i.e., the ignorance identical with the cause, and the connate ignorance. What "he" never experiences is the imputing ignorance, thus Samantabhadra never experiences samsara.

Samantabhadra also experiences liberation; doing so without gathering virtue; just as sentient beings experience bondage without gathering nonvirtue.

Please study Dzogchen more carefully. Even rdzogs chen tantras themselves differentiate Dzogchen from Advaita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Anders said:
Come now. It's a lot like Brahman, which is why they are so often compared.

Malcolm wrote:
No, brahman is sat, real, where as dharmakāya is the total realization of emptiness free from all extremes and its attendant twin omniscience.

In other words dharmakāya needs a realization to bring it about. Brahman does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
Unknown said:
1) According to Malcolm, KTGR had to concede in a debate with him in the end that Shentong is no different from Advaita except its emphasis on Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
I simply pointed out to him that the structure of the gzhan stong presentation of the two truths could not be distinguished from the way Advaita formulates the two truths. He admitted this, but replied that Advaita did not have buddhahood and that was the difference between the two. In other words for him, the structural similarities in the formulations were of less consequence than differences in the notions of total liberation between the two systems.

But lets not extend the consequences of answer to far. He was not admitting for example, that there is only one universal cit, and so on, as in Advaita.

There is also the fact that idea of bodhicitta and so on is utterly lacking in tīrthika systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
im reading a book called Dzogchen Primer. and it takes the stance that even Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche taught the traditional path and method of dzogchen. that is to progress through the nine yanas.


Malcolm wrote:
That is not how TUR taught Dzogchen, at least not according to people I know who were personal long term disciples of his. TUR, as I understand it, taught Dzogchen based on the individual person. Some people were taught more gradually, other people less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 14th, 2013 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
Content:
elpz said:
Hi. Came across this quite by accident, and created an account just to reply to this.

As a student of his I can assure you that Rana Rinpoche is definitely not a Sakyapa. His first Vajrayana teacher was Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and while he has strong links to the Sakya tradition -- given that Chobgye Trichen, Sakya Trichen, and Karma Thinley Rinpoches have been his primary teachers since his entering retreat in 96 -- he is quite firm in stating that he is non-sectarian.

Here's our sanga's website for more info on him:

http://www.byomakusuma.org

Cheers.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is not his attitude towards schools, the point is who his main teachers are and what he mainly practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 12th, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: 13 books of khenpo shenga
Content:
lama tsewang said:
I want to find  translations of all the Thirteen Treatises of Khenpo Shenga together with his commentary, and the ones by Mipham Rinpoche , can any one help me please

Malcolm wrote:
They do not exist yet. The only one out there I know of is the translation of the Dharmadharmatā-vibhanga by the Dharmacakra Translation Committee.

There are only a few commentaries by Mipham out there as well. But all the main texts of the thirteen treatises, the indic originals, do exist in translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 11th, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
tobes said:
The former wants to preserve some universal truth that everything is one, the latter wants to preserve some particular truth that difference is meaningful and decisive.

Malcolm wrote:
They are both sectarian.

Adamantine said:
How so?


Malcolm wrote:
They both present partial views about reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Mo Lha, and the 5 foremost dieties
Content:
Adamantine said:
Can anyone elaborate on this and how it relates to Tibetan Medicine, and if there are specific pujas related to these 5? And perhaps the significance of paintings like this one


Malcolm wrote:
These five deities are the deities that live on a person's body and are with him or her from birth. If they leave the body, then there can be illnesses since they have protective role.

They are mentioned among the snang srid de brgyad in the sde brgyad ser skhyem.

Adamantine said:
Thanks Malcolm. Do you know if there is a physiological relationship with their placement in the body? For instance, the Mo Lha being at the left armpit?

How do you view these, as actual entities, or metaphors for something related to our individuality?

Are they generally communicated with during sang puja? There is a concise sang by Dudjom Rinpoche the second line of which reads 'GO WA'I LHA NGA DRA LHA NYEN PO NAM
(You five superior gods and the fiercely protective dralha)
Are these five deities in particular what he is referencing?

Thanks for your insight!

Malcolm wrote:
There is a section of the eight classes that are placed on the body. You can look at the serkhyem of the eight classes and see it quite easily.

And yes, DR is referring to those five gods.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
tobes said:
The former wants to preserve some universal truth that everything is one, the latter wants to preserve some particular truth that difference is meaningful and decisive.

Malcolm wrote:
They are both sectarian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Dechan Jueren and Hanmi Buddhism
Content:
BuddhasNoDieCancer said:
The problem is the discontinuity on the teachings from Dechan Jueren to the other disciples.


Malcolm wrote:
Another problem is that he is dead, passed away in 2011.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: Mo Lha, and the 5 foremost dieties
Content:
Adamantine said:
Can anyone elaborate on this and how it relates to Tibetan Medicine, and if there are specific pujas related to these 5? And perhaps the significance of paintings like this one


Malcolm wrote:
These five deities are the deities that live on a person's body and are with him or her from birth. If they leave the body, then there can be illnesses since they have protective role.

They are mentioned among the snang srid de brgyad in the sde brgyad ser skhyem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 10th, 2013 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Longchenpa & Dolpopa: Contemporaries
Content:
udawa said:
One connection between the two is Rangjung Dorje, the 3rd Karmapa.

I think I'm right in saying that Rangjung Dorje studied alongside Longchenpa and he met Dolpopa at some point.

D

Malcolm wrote:
Kumararaja 1266 - 1343
Rangjung Dorje 1284 -1339.
Longchenpa 1308 - 1364.

If they had met, I am sure it would have been with Longchenpa being a common monk going to meet a very high Lama. I seriously doubt whether they ever studied together, but they both studied with Kumararaja.

I believe Longchenpa only meets Kumararaja when he is 29, two years prior to the death of the third Karmapa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 9th, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
rory said:
Okay due to a recent question I do have something to add. I was interested in Amoghapasa Avalokitesvara's mantra and dharani and was answered but another thoughtful person mentioned that a tulku gave this sadhana. Now I'm rather interested but if the thing is in Tibetan then it's a confusing turn-off.

Malcolm wrote:
Amoghapasha's mantra and dharani is given in Sanskrit.

Tibetan texts give the Sanskrit in a much more accurate way than anything in Sino-Japanese Buddhism. This is simply a fact.

If a sadhana is listing things like faces, hands, etc., this should be translated in English and recited in English, irrespective of which tradition it comes from. The only exception would Shomyo chanting, etc., things like that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Daesung Sunim
Content:
greentara said:
Astus, It is unusual but not improbable. I gather the book is about self enquiry. Obviously the Zen monk Daesung Sunim, was taken by the clarity and perhaps the technique was easy to follow....hence the distribution to fellow monks.

Malcolm wrote:
I actually ran into this guy last summer in Santa Monica, while having a drink at the bar in Shutters by Beach. He really did not speak any English at all, but he was enthusiastic that we were Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: new subforum to lounge
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Rime just means Sakyas, Kagyus And Gelugpas who practice Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: Legalized Marijuana - will you smoke it?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Well, here's the thing.
The thing about marijuana is , um...
uh....okay, okay. You know , like, okay. like, you aren't high, and then you, like, you are high,
and there's like this thing, you know?
and, um...when you ummmmm....

....what were we talking about?
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Dude! Where's my mala?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Legalized Marijuana - will you smoke it?
Content:


padma norbu said:
All I can tell you is that my main teacher now is Namkhai Norbu and he may not tell all the secret teachings to everybody, but he is teaching pure dzogchen from what I understand, from ZhangZhung ...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no it is from Oddiyāna, for starters. Garab Dorje was from Oddiyāna.

Secondly, while ChNN definitely has criticized smoking herb because it is bad for one's meditation practice, he has also stated that anyone can try anything.

He has also said, as you remark, that you can drink, but you cannot become drunk. If you become drunk, this is a problem.

Your general pov is ok, but you should not spend so much energy conditioning other people.

padma norbu said:
That's true, especially since I really don't care. Initial post was a bit of a joke, subsequent discussion was evolved naturally by responding to accusations and questions. Thanks for your input. Do you have any knowledge about the psychotropics of ancient Vajrayana or whatever?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you are a really stubborn person, then hallucinogens can be administered in order to demonstrate to you that your mind is not a fixed thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
Konchog1 said:
How do we create a meritorious connection?

Malcolm wrote:
Through the four means of conversion, of course:
Generosity
Pleasant speech
Purposeful behavior
Consistency


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: Legalized Marijuana - will you smoke it?
Content:


padma norbu said:
All I can tell you is that my main teacher now is Namkhai Norbu and he may not tell all the secret teachings to everybody, but he is teaching pure dzogchen from what I understand, from ZhangZhung ...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no it is from Oddiyāna, for starters. Garab Dorje was from Oddiyāna.

Secondly, while ChNN definitely has criticized smoking herb because it is bad for one's meditation practice, he has also stated that anyone can try anything.

He has also said, as you remark, that you can drink, but you cannot become drunk. If you become drunk, this is a problem.

Your general pov is ok, but you should not spend so much energy conditioning other people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
Clarence said:
[
Also, giving to someone creates a karmic debt on the receiver end, so if someone truly has realization, they will fulfill that debt through their realization. Further, giving creates a connection.

Malcolm wrote:
When one is giving, providing one is a Mahāyānī, as I assume most of us here are, one is supposed to offer dana free from the three wheels, i.e., the idea of the gift, the giver, and the recipient. In this case there can be no question of creating a karmic debt, since none is created.

Konchog1 said:
Don't we want to create karmic connections with beings so they become our disciples when we manifest Enlightenment?

Malcolm wrote:
We want to create meritorious connections with beings, of course, but not debts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
why do you offer an entire universe filled with pure lands and buddhas only to your guru but not also to all sentient beings ?

Malcolm wrote:
The guru is the apex of the pure merit field who unites the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha in one.

Sentient beings are the impure merit field. What you offer sentient beings is the wish that they abide in the four immeasurables, i.e. "May all sentient beings always experience happiness, freedom from suffering, joy and equanimity".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
Clarence said:
[
Also, giving to someone creates a karmic debt on the receiver end, so if someone truly has realization, they will fulfill that debt through their realization. Further, giving creates a connection.

Malcolm wrote:
When one is giving, providing one is a Mahāyānī, as I assume most of us here are, one is supposed to offer dana free from the three wheels, i.e., the idea of the gift, the giver, and the recipient. In this case there can be no question of creating a karmic debt, since none is created.

Karmic debts are incurred only if the dana is not provided or received in such a manner. For example, Aryadeva gave his eye to a blind woman, but when she ate his proffered eye rather than using it to restore her sight, Aryadeva winced with regret at the gift. For this reason, it is said, his eye was not restored to him, as it would have been were he free from the three wheels.

Let us hope that however we exercise our generosity, we do so like wish fulfilling gems, effortlessly and without thought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
well if your only giving something to your guru in one scenario and in other you are giving to all sentient beings, you think about which is more beneficial.


Malcolm wrote:
Mandala offerings are given to one's guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
Clarence said:
You think Mandala offerings are better than giving directly to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche?

Malcolm wrote:
To whom do you think one is offering a mandala to other than one's root guru? How can a few dollars match the merit of offering infinite world systems and all their enjoyments?

The point I was making is that we upāsakās and upāsikās have other options to generate merit than just giving money to śramaṇeras. I was not saying that one should not do so-- merely that one ought not think that this is the best or only way to generate merit.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Legalized Marijuana - will you smoke it?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
For the pot people usually smoke these days, the fifth precept definitely applies lol. I remember when I was young you could smoke a joint and still be able to walk around and function, seems less and less common these days for anyone but real potheads with a tolerance.

There is no real pot equivalent of a glass of red wine anymore lol, it's all pretty ridiculous now. Basically what i'm saying is, unless you purposely go out of your way for it, there is no longer any way to smoke without getting exceptionally intoxicated, unless you have a heavy tolerance..which obviously is a related issue heh.

padma norbu said:
It also breaks samaya of the body as well as the fifth precept.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Meh I dunno, if just inhaling smoke constitutes that...I imagine there's a difference of opinion there, else lots of remedies would also break it.

Malcolm wrote:
Anything taken as medicine will not break the fifth vow. Even monks are allowed alcohol for medicinal reasons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
lama tsewang said:
how can the beings  make merit??
.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many much better ways to gather merit than making cash offerings to monks. For example, mandala offerings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Business enterprises are another option but of course when one mixes dharma with business it can often have disastrous results (I have heard many first-hand accounts), so I'm not sure that is the way to go, though of course it should be looked at.

Malcolm wrote:
But Buddhist monasteries have functioned as business virtually from the beginning...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
lama tsewang said:
are you saying that there are persons who would request that certain rituals etccetera , be done on their behalf , and would not think it appropriate to give an offering?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying they would never even think about hiring a monk to do such a thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
bryandavis said:
The Dorje Kasung are obviously not an army.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not how they see themselves. Oh yes, sure it is a practice. But I have know many Kasung over the years, including one of the guys who founded them [an ex Green Beret who did several tours in Vietnam], and they definitely conceive themselves as an army, and more importantly, they conceive of themselves as a private security force, which why they were formed in the beginning.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
Alfredo said:
Eventually, some Tibetan center is going to install pews, a pulpit, and an organ. (You know, like the BCA did.)

Or to take another route, maybe they'll hold hands during meditation, while a keyboardist plays soothing mood music, and the lama says things like, "With your feet flat on the floor, relax all the muscles in your body, and surround yourself with love and light..."


Malcolm wrote:
Well, in a lot places they already do the Quaker thing, they just sit silently in a room together...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 7th, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
conebeckham said:
Not the rancid butter...


Malcolm wrote:
It's not rancid, it's aged in airtight leather bags for one year...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
and i dont know what is this cultural aspect of tibetan buddhism? personally i havent labeled anything that i have encountered within the tibetan buddhist tradition as ''cultural''.


Malcolm wrote:
All kinds of things. Another thing I observed is that we in this culture, whether we were buddhists in pasts lives or not, have no tradition of punya-sambhara, merit accumulation, which is the rational which underlies 90 precedent of Buddhist ritual, irrespective of tradition. Because of this, we do not naturally reach for our wallets when we see monks and nuns. Instead, our model is a fee-for-service.

As I have noted elsewhere, I don't see anytime soon that there is going to be much sustainability in Buddhist organizations in the West.

For example, every school and every tradition and every sub-tradition wants it own space, etc. There is no sharing of space (because of course that requires also that people cooperate). One person shared with me their puzzlement at why one tulku wanted to place a center in a region where there was already a center that belonging to the same exact school and lineage. Or in Drikung, in Lincoln Vt., there are two Drikung Kagyu centers, and there used to be three (in a town of 1200 people). In Boston there were two. There is a huge impetus to build empires.

You have to understand that the model of governance in Buddhism culture is grounded on the model of the cakravartin, the wheel turning emperor whose golden wheel [there are four grades of wheels actually] conquers any land it rolls through peacefully. Well, every Tibetan school turns its leaders into just such emperors, at least on a symbolic level, and this leads to lots of unnecessary competition and a lot of unsustainable development. It also, in the past, has lead to internecine warfare in Tibet.

All of this is totally built into Tibetan culture at this point and as proof, we have the so-called "Kingdom of Shambhala" in Halifax, Nova Scotia, complete with a king and royal family, a court, an army and a grand narrative borrowed from the Kalacakra cycle. All of this, is deeply cultural. Of course we can make the observation that Karma Dorje does and assert that it is based on one's traces, and for us this is true. But it is not a sufficient explanation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.realnews24.com/gray-whale-dies-bringing-us-a-message-with-stomach-full-of-plastic-trash/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Do the cultural aspects of TB practice help or hinder us
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I am curious as to what you all think. Do you think that the rituals incorporated into so much of the regular expression of Tibetan Buddhism are an inspiration or an obstacle?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends. Recently I was chatting with a lama who was complaining that westerners never make offerings for prayers and so on, while the Chinese and so on do.

He generally feels that it is because of a lack of faith on the part of Westerners. I responded that no, it is not due to a lack of faith, I pointed out that here especially in US where we have a strong tradition of separation of Church and State as well as strong Protestant traditions, that people tended to regard organized religion with suspicion, not because they have no faith, but because they regard organized religion as being corrupted by power and money. Also we have no cultural tradition of hiring priests to come and recite rituals, unless you are Catholic. Basically, what I was pointing out to him that most of this discomfort is grounded in sociological and historical reasons. I suspect that in Tibet, much of the competition revolved around getting people to recite your prayers, not the other guy's.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: FAQ: Dzogchen Community of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
Content:
SuryaMitra said:
By saying they never took Refuge , I meant they did n`t  took the Refuge ceremony.
Thank you very much guys


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, right -- this is not necessary at all.

SuryaMitra said:
And this is something I don`t understand...Why it is not necessary ? I know that for Dzogchen teachings one doesn`t need formal refuge, but what about the tantric teachings and transmissions? Chod, Guru Dragpur, Simhamukha and many others secondary practices ?
I`m just trying to understand , I`m not criticizing here, but my teachers from Karma Kagyu, Sakya and Ningma traditions always taught me, that for any tantric practice, taking formal Refuge ceremony is indispensable. So, for instance, when they give initiation, they will always make sure that new people can take Refuge before initiation...So could you please explain that to me ?


Malcolm wrote:
Every initiation has a refuge ceremony, as well as a bodhisattva vow ceremony built right into it. So it is completely unnecessary to insist that people take refuge and bodhisattva vows according to their respective systems of conferring vows. It simply isn't necessary.

Their attitude come from the traditional Buddhist custom of "cutting the hair". For them, it marks one's serious commitment to the path -- this is why these kinds of traditional teachers are likely to insist that one has to have had a formal and separate refuge ceremony. Even so, it is not necessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Icelanders and their elves.
Content:


Indrajala said:
It is interesting to see the remnants of polytheism playing a role in environmentalism, small as it may be.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you kidding? Virtually all of the indigenous and traditional people around the world who are involved in environmental movements are doing so also out of concern for non-human beings which we would call spirits, etc. It definitely should be a key point in any Buddhist environmentalist platform.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Is spiritual progress worth it?
Content:
logank9 said:
I just want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt it is. Because it just doesn't make sense to me why everyone wouldn't follow it. If it is the end all be all to highest happiness why isn't everyone spiritually improving themselves all the time?


Malcolm wrote:
Some people are not spiritual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 5th, 2013 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
dharmagoat said:
And our junk will continue to make great homes for all those little critters.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously?

dharmagoat said:
On reflection, no. Not the plastic junk.

Malcolm wrote:
Phew...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:


dharmagoat said:
And our junk will continue to make great homes for all those little critters.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously?

"Besides the particles' danger to wildlife, on the microscopic level the floating debris can absorb organic pollutants from seawater, including PCBs, DDT, and PAHs.[32] Aside from toxic effects,[33] when ingested, some of these are mistaken by the endocrine system as estradiol, causing hormone disruption in the affected animal.[30] These toxin-containing plastic pieces are also eaten by jellyfish, which are then eaten by larger fish."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch#Effect_on_wildlife


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
montana said:
All the tantric lineages begin with the transmission from the deity to a guru.


Malcolm wrote:
No, they all begin with a transmission from the Sambhogakāya to a mahāsiddha, or in certain cases, like Virupa, from a Nirmanakāya to a mahāsiddha.

montana said:
How does a Buddha deity differ from Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya?


Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are our gurus. Not the methods they provide us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
montana said:
All the tantric lineages begin with the transmission from the deity to a guru.


Malcolm wrote:
No, they all begin with a transmission from the Sambhogakāya to a mahāsiddha, or in certain cases, like Virupa, from a Nirmanakāya to a mahāsiddha.

montana said:
How does a Buddha deity differ from Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya?


Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are our gurus. Not the methods they provide us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Namthar are certainly a source of generating devotion, if not the doctrine itself.  Many of the most eminent masters have said that reading namthar is critical to remaining inspired while traversing the path.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with this is when we discover that the Namthars we are supposed to rely on are merely pious fictions that deeply contradict the earliest accounts of this or that master -- Milarepa comes to mind here.


Karma Jinpa said:
Are they 100% historically accurate? Likely not. But they do represent how the lineage has come to see their forebears, and the lessons that can be learned from how they lived, having appeared (whether as ordinary or extraordinary beings).

Malcolm wrote:
Or they represent an author with an agenda which may not be so obvious on the surface.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Namthar are certainly a source of generating devotion, if not the doctrine itself.  Many of the most eminent masters have said that reading namthar is critical to remaining inspired while traversing the path.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with this is when we discover that the Namthars we are supposed to rely on are merely pious fictions that deeply contradict the earliest accounts of this or that master -- Milarepa comes to mind here.


Karma Jinpa said:
Are they 100% historically accurate? Likely not. But they do represent how the lineage has come to see their forebears, and the lessons that can be learned from how they lived, having appeared (whether as ordinary or extraordinary beings).

Malcolm wrote:
Or they represent an author with an agenda which may not be so obvious on the surface.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
montana said:
All the tantric lineages begin with the transmission from the deity to a guru.


Malcolm wrote:
No, they all begin with a transmission from the Sambhogakāya to a mahāsiddha, or in certain cases, like Virupa, from a Nirmanakāya to a mahāsiddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it
Content:
montana said:
All the tantric lineages begin with the transmission from the deity to a guru.


Malcolm wrote:
No, they all begin with a transmission from the Sambhogakāya to a mahāsiddha, or in certain cases, like Virupa, from a Nirmanakāya to a mahāsiddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 4th, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: FAQ: Dzogchen Community of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
Content:
SuryaMitra said:
By saying they never took Refuge , I meant they did n`t  took the Refuge ceremony.
Thank you very much guys


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, right -- this is not necessary at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 3rd, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that's it. They are garlic, chives, leeks, onions, and asafoetida. Whatever the heck "asafoetida" is I have no idea! [/quote]


Asafoetida is a spice also called Hing, used in Indian cooking and in Ayruveda and Tibetan medicine for controlling wind diseases. It is generally used by Brahmins as a substitute for Garlic. It is very pungent smelling.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 3rd, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 3rd, 2013 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: FAQ: Dzogchen Community of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
Content:
SuryaMitra said:
Hi, I received teachings from ChNN, but I know very little about DC, so thank for this post.
During the retreat I spoke with some people, and they told me they never take Refuge.

Malcolm wrote:
That means they do not understand ChNN's teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 2nd, 2013 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Ganapuja and the animal
Content:
max123 said:
how does practicing Ganapuja helps the dead animal that the meat belonged to if the animal has taken rebirth already?i do not know how long it takes for an animal to take rebirth but i'm wondering  if it has already before a lot of the meat is eaten(maybe i am wrong i haven't practiced Ganapuja yet and i truly don't know much about it(and how old the meat is etc)but if the animal has taken rebirth would it still benefit?


Malcolm wrote:
The answer lies in the term "rtsal" or "energy, power"; we are connected through this energy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 1st, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
Content:
philji said:
Does anyone know anything about this teacher?
He is  a nepali who  was formally practicing Hinduism and then  took to Buddhism. I believ his teachers include Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche. He speaks very stongly and clearly about the differences between hindu and buddhist dharma. i would just like to know if he is considered a legitamate teacher within the Nyingma tradition.


Malcolm wrote:
He is a Sakyapa actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 31st, 2013 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Simon E. said:
Of course. But the corporal form of those animals is all around you in the supermarket. It is too late to create a link by being involved in its living.

Sherab Dorje said:
So I say prayers for the liberation of the dead animals.  I don't have to eat them to form a connection with them.  Saying prayers for the liberation of their consciousness is making a connection with them in their next life (via their death in this life).

seeker242 said:
Yes, what is the reason for having to eat the flesh of a being in order to help it? Prayer isn't good enough? We don't eat the flesh of human beings in order to help those who have passed on, so why does it need to be done for animals?

Malcolm wrote:
You are misunderstanding a key point -- you have to consecrate all of your food because of all the sentient beings who died in its production, not merely meat, but every grain of rice you eat caused the death of something from field to table.

It is a global principle.

You can imagine you are "pure" because you are not eating meat, but you are not. You can imagine you are "compassionate" because you are not eating meat, but if you have no method to help all the beings who are connected to you through debt incurred through eating food, again, your compassion is "miserable", meaning lacking in depth.

Also "praying" for animals is fine, but a little useless since animals pass through the bardo very rapidly, you need another way to connect with them, another way of creating dependency.

Humans can understand humans when they are in the bardo, therefore, reciting prayers and texts like Bardo Thödral can be very effective. Even here however, this is really only useful a) for practitioners b) must be recited in language the deceased will understand. There are other prayers that are useful for non-practitioners.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: The shapes of the sense faculties
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the actual sense organs exist as patches of atoms on the back of the respective physical structure which have various shapes.

dzogchungpa said:
So, are you  saying that there is, e.g., a crescent moon shaped patch on the back of the tongue that serves as the actual organ of taste, at least according to abhidharma?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, precisely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I am not rationalizing their behaviour.  I am saying that when the examples you cite are on the level of HHDL or Tsongkhapa, the burden is on you to show that this applies to the average practitioner.

Malcolm wrote:
It applies to anyone who is literate and still has a pulse.

At least they are acquiring teachings, as opposed to building collections of stamps and so on. There is no downside.
Receiving teachings you are not able to practice out of acquisitiveness merely leaves an imprint of acquisitiveness and craving associated with Dharma teachings.
Better to have a craving for Dharma teachings than crack or tobacco.
Receiving teachings you are not ready for, can lead one to develop all sorts of wrong conceptuality about the teachings that could be avoided by relying on the care of a realized master and following his or her prescription.
Average practitioners cannot tell if their teachers are realized. The average teacher generally is only interested in promoting their own teaching lineage.

And what kinds of wrong conceptuality are we worried about here? Why the conservatism? Especially coming from someone who hardly fits a conventional definition of a Tibetan Buddhist since by your own admission you continue to practice Hinduism?

In any event, I think it is important for people to study and receive a lot of things, rather than get stuck in these Tibetan lineage politics. Even if they spend some time in a state of confusion, life is short, teachings are rare, and deciding not to go to a teaching because "it might be bad for me" is really false thinking. If you are interested in tummo, go find a tummo teacher. If you are interested in Dzogchen, go find a Dzogchen teacher.

Teachers really cannot discern your capacity unless they have known you for years.

Of course, once you have perceived the essence of all teachings, then going to teachers is a waste of time unless you have a very specific reason for wanting this or that teaching.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So do I.

Malcolm wrote:
Your story misses the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Both are cases of well-established advanced practitioners making an informed decision on how to best benefit others.

Malcolm wrote:
You can rationalize their behavior however you want. There are countless other examples of the same phenomena in Tibetan biographies. My point is that there is no genuine "standard" or "tradition" upon which your sentiments are based.

Karma Dorje said:
For the average practitioner the same approach can easily end up in students acquiring teachings as if they were a stamp collection, rather than taking it as a medicine to cure sickness.

Malcolm wrote:
At least they are acquiring teachings, as opposed to building collections of stamps and so on. There is no downside.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I tend to think the "creating a link" argument is rather weak, especially when you can consider that you can create a link by saving an animal too.


Malcolm wrote:
I try to do both i.e. create a link for the living and the dead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 29th, 2013 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
You suggested that if one approaches one's guru and he declines to give you a particular transmission that you should just ignore him and go get it from someone else. This only really applies if you do not have a close relationship with your teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not really the case.

And in fact we can see from history that for example, Tsongkhapa wanted to receive Kalackra, and his guru, Rendawa, discouraged him from receiving those teachings.

We also see this today with the present Dalai Lama, who was heavily discouraged by his gurus from making a connection with Nyingmapa teachings he was interested in the sixties.

What we observe is that people's manner of receiving teachings in Tibet does not fit a settled pattern.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 29th, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
This is your particular perspective and not at all normative for the tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
It was and is totally normative for those people in Tibet who were able to read and had wide access to books. It is a story often repeated, for example, Longchenpa sees and reads books from the Vima Nyinthig before he finds Kumaraja and asks him for the transmission. There are many other examples from Tibetan history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 29th, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: The shapes of the sense faculties
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I am reading "Gateway to Knowledge" by Mipham, volume 1, and on p.17 I came across the following: The [shape of the] eye faculty is similar to [the round and blue shape of] the umaka [sesame/cumin] flower; the ear faculty is similar to [the shape of] a twisted roll of birch bark; the nose faculty is similar to [the shape of] parallel copper needles; the tongue faculty is similar to [the shape of] a crescent moon disc; and the body faculty is [all-covering] similar to the skin of the smooth-to-the-touch bird.
I have to admit, this doesn't make much sense to me. Can anyone explain this to me?

Here's the Tibetan:

mig gi dbang po zar ma'i me tog lta bu/ rna ba'i dbang po gro ga'i 'jor bu gcus pa lta bu/ sna'i dbang po zangs kyi mo khab gshibs pa lta bu/ lce'i  dbang po zla ba bkas pa lta bu/ lus kyi dbang po bya reg na 'jam gyi pags pa lta bu'o


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the actual sense organs exist as patches of atoms on the back of the respective physical structure which have various shapes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 28th, 2013 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Insisting on receiving instructions damages samaya
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, you should read anything that interests you. If you want to practice, go get the transmission from a Lama you like. If he does not want to give it, then go ask someone else you like.

There is never any samaya damage from wanting to practice Dharma!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 27th, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


porpoise said:
Not even if there is a full range of non-meat alternatives available at the supermarket, and the person is making a clear choice to choose the meat product?

Malcolm wrote:
Not even if there is a full range of non-meat products in the market and the person is making a choice to buy meat. Since there is no sentience in a piece of meat, there is no ethical harm in eating meat that one has not killed or has had killed for oneself. In order for one to have the karma of killing on one's hands, one has to do the deed or order someone else to do it, etc. That is, unless one has Mahāyāna obligation to not eat meat, and that is a different issue altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am not responsible for the act of killing someone else performs unless I directly pay or ask them to do it.

porpoise said:
So what if somebody orders a Christmas / Thanksgiving turkey from their local turkey farm?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. In this case the action will bear a _karmic_ consequence.

porpoise said:
And what if another person buys their turkey from a selection at the local supermarket?  Would you argue that doesn't involve direct responsibility?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. I would argue that there is no _karmic_ consequence for the latter as opposed to the former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
Good points indeed! What a lot of people don't realize though is how inefficient modern day animal agriculture really is. For example, it takes 4,000-18,000 gallons of water to make ONE hamburger! Meanwhile a pound of corn takes 110 gallons.

Malcolm wrote:
This is true only of feedlot beef. Cows should not be fed corn, since they can't digest it.

seeker242 said:
I wonder what % of the worlds beef is grain fed and what % is true pasture only, grass eating animals?

Malcolm wrote:
Worldwide, 9 percent is grass fed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


porpoise said:
Yes, I do believe we culpable for these indirect actions.  If we decide to buy meat then there are consequences.  I can't see the relevance of the rest of your post.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if we decide to buy meat there are indeed consequences. If we decide not to buy meat there are also consequences.

However, these consequences are not karmic consequences. I am not responsible for the act of killing someone else performs unless I directly pay or ask them to do it.

"Karma is volition, and what proceeds from volition."

-- Buddha

I am however in a position to take some responsibility for the sources from which I obtain my food. The consequences of eating industrially produced agricultural products is something I don't like, so I avoid unsustainably produced food as much as I can. I personally try to grow food every year.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Thrasymachus said:
That still does not deal with the objection: why does the animal have to die?

Malcolm wrote:
It was their karma to die in such a horrible way.


Thrasymachus said:
Further:
If these Vajrayana people are so powerful...

Malcolm wrote:
It is not the people, it is the method.



Thrasymachus said:
If there is a source, why can't you quote it?

Malcolm wrote:
"Those with compassion eat meat."
-- Hevajra tantra.


This is once again another case of using the worse behavior of others to excuse exercising personal agency over what you can control. It is not impressive that you use the excuse of vegetarians not doing everything, so you can personally be more comfortable about doing nothing.
I am not using any excuse at all. I am simply observing facts. The fact is that people will never stop using animals for food. As long as they do so, there will always be a plentiful supply of meat to be consumed. It is really just that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
Good points indeed! What a lot of people don't realize though is how inefficient modern day animal agriculture really is. For example, it takes 4,000-18,000 gallons of water to make ONE hamburger! Meanwhile a pound of corn takes 110 gallons.

Malcolm wrote:
This is true only of feedlot beef. Cows should not be fed corn, since they can't digest it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

M

Jikan said:
And here there are consequences that anyone with compassion would do well to reflect on:  wasting food means wasting water, with consequences for wildlife and habitats; wasting food means accelerated erosion, fertilizer pollution, soil depletion, air pollution from harvest processing and transport, with consequences for wildlife; food production means the production of greenhouse gases, hence every wasted food item means a hotter planet to no purpose, with consequences for wildlife...

Adi said:
These seem to me excellent points, something everyone can participate in -- the "who is wasting what" and the consequences of all that waste. Instead of proscribing that everyone must eat one way or another, pay attention to what is wasted and to increased efficiencies by not wasting so much food. A middle way of sorts that leaves no one out.

On a personal note, I knew there was a lot of wasting of food in the US as I've worked in the past as a waiter and in catering. But 1.3 billion tons of food wasted in 2011? I had to go look that up. For those interested in the full report Global Food Loses and Food Waste (apologies if it was already posted in the preceding 130+ pages) by the UN group, it is here:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

Adi

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, most of the food produced in the world is grains and vegetables, which also represents vast majority of food wasted per annum. The amount of meat wasted is quite low by comparison (see chart on page four, chapter two).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 26th, 2013 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


ClearblueSky said:
Factory farming is still much, much crueler to animals. By a lot. And if you want to bring up the environment, there is no comparison. Factory farming of cows is the number one cause of global warming. 15% of global warming is due to it, that's more than all the cars on earth.

And I still don't get that logic. Just because it's happening anyway, doesn't mean we have to participate. Sorry to keep referencing my previous post, but I only see how that works if people apply the same to other industries:
There was a point in time where slavery was thought to be inevitable and worldwide. Do you think the people had no karmic consequences if they bought slaves that were already captured, not by their request?
What about with the recent revealing of Seaworld's cruelty. If someone knows what they do to those whales, but still pays seaworld money to go watch them, is that okay because they have the assumption it won't ever change?

If someone explains that those are the same as eating meat, then I would understand. It's really only the separation, people saying one is okay karmically and not the other that I still don't really understand.

Malcolm wrote:
Owning a person is different than eating a the flesh of a dead animal.

One can eat meat without participating in industrial agriculture.

There are two issues in your post:

1. Ethics of eating meat
2. The karmic consequences of eating meat.

The Buddhist ethical positions have been laid out already. The majority of people who are opposing the issue of eating meat are not doing so on the basis of a strictly Buddhist position.

As for karma, karma requires intention, an object, the deed, and satisfaction that the deed was done.

No Buddhist who eats meat will satisfy the criteria for creating a perfect karma of killing. No Buddhist is happy that animals are killed for food. We all regret it.

Even if we refuse to buy meat, still animals will be killed for food. The production of organic food on a national ands global scale requires the animal husbandry industry, especially for poultry litter, feather meal, bone meal, blood meal and other such organic fertilizers.

But this issue goes way beyond what Buddhists may or may not do,

A friend of mine whose father runs the largest organic produce farm in Bakersville, CA., was heard to remark that there is not enough chicken shit to produce organic food on a national scale.

Frankly, the real problem is the majority of people who live in cities who do not participate in the production of their own food, people who have no idea how their food is grown, where, and so on.

Our nation throws away an astonishing amount of food everyday, to the tune of 40%-50% of all the food we produce.

IN 2011, 1.3 bilion tons of food was discarded. This represents a third of global food production. The amount of food wasted per US citizen is 240 lbs per year.

Rather than worrying about who is eating what, we ought to turn our attention to who is wasting what.

And lets not get started on FOG (fats, oils and greases) that pollute our waterways.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
...cannibals...

dzogchungpa said:
So you, gad rgyangs, see no difference between humans and animals?

gad rgyangs said:
in terms of suffering, no


Malcolm wrote:
There is a huge difference -- animals suffer much more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But when you buy meat in a market, you are not engaging in that karma. There is no intention to kill, as you very well know.

porpoise said:
The intention is to eat meat.  The consequences are that you expect somebody else to kill on your behalf, and you expect somebody else to do a job that a Buddhist wouldn't do.


Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely wrong. For example, I know of no Buddhist who eats meat who would eat a lobster in a lobster house because they are killed on the spot for the client.

Granted, because of our economy, meat is cheaper and more available than it was a hundred years ago, when people tended to eat meat seasonally. Chicken and pork were more expensive because they depend on grain for feed (cows should not be fed corn for any reason because they cannot digest it properly).

But this has nothing to do with the basic point that in Vajrayāna there is very clearly a tradition, like it or not, of consuming meat, mostly bovine, and combining that with a method to assist the sentient being that was connected with that flesh at one point.

I am not stating you or anyone else has to follow that tradition. But it exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
yes, after you kill them (or, by paying money into the supply chain, having someone else kill them for you)

Malcolm wrote:
You can't really kill a sentient being. All you can do is sever the connection between its mind and body.

But when you buy meat in a market, you are not engaging in that karma. There is no intention to kill, as you very well know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Simon E. said:
In the context of a debate about meat eating which has developed to include the eating of meat in the context of a Vajrayana puja his being or not being a Buddhist is vital in assessing his lack of knowledge of same.
And incidentally your fatuous and nonsensical use of the term ' cannibals ' renders your willingness or ability to debate in an objective way doubtful.

gad rgyangs said:
if sentient beings are your brothers and sisters, and yet you happily kill and eat them......

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot eat a sentient being, you can only its parts of its body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
as if whether he is a Buddhist or not has any bearing on the veracity if his arguments. He has presented links to clear evidence that disproves a major plank in the cannibals' flimsy web of justification: the argument that, since you can't avoid killing entirely, you might as well not worry about it, and that being a vegetarian causes the death of more sentient beings through rice growing than does killing one cow to feed many.

Malcolm wrote:
He has not provided any evidence whatsoever that the majority of the world's nonbuddhists are going to adopt a vegetarian diet anytime soon. Also, his statistics do not show that the rice industry, for example, depends on chicken litter and feather meal. His statistics ignore the fact that animal inputs are required in any sort of sustainable agriculture, at minimum manure. They ignore the fact of the millions of creatures destroyed by standard organic agriculture, not to mention industrial agriculture.

gad rgyangs said:
I have stated before the simple solution to the ganapuja problem: get the meat for the ganapuja from dumpsters, not supermarkets. And don't discriminate between dumpsters behind restaurants and those behind morgues. Only then can you consider yourself a real tantrika.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is not to be a "real tantrika". The point is aiding sentient beings.

If you are a common Mahāyānist, you should not eat meat at all. If you are a Theravadin you can meat. If you are a Vajrayānist, you can eat meat.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Thrasymachus said:
This is just crazy and also speciesist.

Malcolm wrote:
Humans can practice. Animals cannot. We have other methods for creating a positive cause for the eventual liberation of humans who do not practice.

Thrasymachus said:
Is there an actual canonical Buddhist source text that supports this, because you only gave one that supports vegetarianism?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.

Thrasymachus said:
So who is really being benefited by killing animals due to an addiction to the taste of unhealthy animal products, an addiction and attachment to food, so strong that you are literally killing yourself via diet?

Malcolm wrote:
The production of meat and dairy is deeply embedded into our economy. It will never stop. If you think so you are kidding yourself. Therefore, in Vajrayāna, we have methods to help creatures that are killed as a result of food production.

You may deride them,  of course, as you have here. But that just exposes your own narrow-mindedness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Also the Buddha taught in Mahāyāna sutra that we mustn't eat meat.

padma norbu said:
But, did he really? It seems like people believe it was added later by Mahayana buddhists who did not appreciate the meat-eating of Theravadins. Seems pretty odd that by Theravadin texts, the Buddha specifically did not make a rule against it, then with Mahayana he did and then with Vajrayana meat is back again. No sir, I don't buy it.

Malcolm wrote:
Note: I said the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras.

Not asking anyone to buy anything. But it is beyond doubt that the Buddha did harshly criticize meat eating in Mahāyāna sūtras.

Whether you accept that Buddha actually taught these sūtras or not is an entirely different question.

Since I consider myself a Mahāyānist, I accept the general message of Mahāyāna.

Since I am a Vajrayānist, I practice according to my understanding of the texts, without being overly concerned about their supposed historical provenance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, sorry if you've talked about this before, but what is the take of Tibetan medicine on meat?


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan medicine as well as Ayurveda include meat for those with certain conditions that benefit from meat.

One's diet should be based on one's constitution. One should eat in healthy balanced manner, consistent with the one's health and the customs of the land you live in.

BTW, when Norbu Rinpoche says that being a vegetarian is "miserable" compassion, he is primarily referring to Vajrayāna Buddhists who advocate vegetarianism. Why? Because there are methods in Vajrayāna which assist the animals in question achieve liberation who are connected with the production of our food, whether they are destroyed through pesticides and cultivation or through slaughter. Thus, even if one is a vegetarian one may not justify one's choice not to eat meat through resort of arguments of compassion  since one is leaving behind animals who are slaughtered for meat.

He also makes it very clear that the writings on vegetarianism by Shabkar and so on are direct towards common people who are not real Vajrayāna practitioners. Since they have no method and no understanding it is much better that they not eat meat. Also the Buddha taught in Mahāyāna sutra that we mustn't eat meat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Jikan said:
Hence, taking his own advice, ChNN had become obese (with exercise he's looking better in recent years) in his efforts to empty samsara.


Malcolm wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche became obese primarily because he suffered from a serious illness in the late eighties, then leukemia [now in remission for many years] ion 1994. He had both his knees replaced in the late nineties, and was unable to properly exercise. In addition, he was poisoned in Dege, Tibet, which led to metabolic irregularities for his entire life since then. He was very skinny until his early fifties when he started having cascading healthy issues.

He lost 45 kilos in 2011 [through practicing Chulen and eating a restrictive diet that excluded meat] and has for the most part kept the weight off. He does not really eat that much meat, AFAIK.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 25th, 2013 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Thrasymachus said:
can largely be prevented or even reversed by avoiding the meat he advocates. .

Malcolm wrote:
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche does not recommend eating meat to everyone. Quite the opposite in fact. What he clearly states is that it is better for everyone who is not a practitioner [of Vajrayāna] to be vegetarian.

This means that he thinks it is better for almost all people in the world to be vegetarians.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 24th, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Just Deserts.
Content:
Simon E. said:
During a current discussion on Dhamma Wheel a Bhikkhu member states that the sentiment '  if a person is  murdered they are getting their just deserts ' in terms of vipaka, is " ubiquitous among Theosophically influenced Buddhists and common in the Vajrayana '.
Now I have little interest in what may or may not be ubiquitous among Theosophists , but what of his statement that it is a view commonly held in the Vajrayana..what do YOU think ?


Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking, in Tibetan Buddhism justice is an idea associated with karma, dating back to the idea of Yamarāja weighing people's negative karma while sorting out the dead.

If a person is murdered, it is assumed the causes and conditions for their being murdered were laid down in the past by their own actions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
smcj said:
One does not need to reject rebirth to reject the corrupt system of the recognition of reincarnations.
Do you object to the corruption, or to the recognition?

Malcolm wrote:
Both, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
smcj said:
The politics of the tulku system revolves around power first, and money second.
The 8 worldly dharmas are corrupting influences on dharma organizations and personalities, to be sure. However if one believes in reincarnation, and believes that advanced practitioners actually do return, then it seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water to dismiss the phenomena as simply corrupt or even invalid. Better perhaps to find a way to minimize the economic, political, and social benefits so that the level of b.s. is reduced as much as is possible.


Malcolm wrote:
One does not need to reject rebirth to reject the corrupt system of the recognition of reincarnations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
smcj said:
It means that people, westerners, who invest their time and energy into study and practice will be recognized as incarnations after they demonstrated results of practice.
There is currently in place a system for upgrading a lama's status to "rinpoche" that is, at least in theory, based on merit, without the designation of tulku being attached. The fact that there has been extreme inflationary pressure for various titles (how many "His Holinesses" are there now?), which cheapens the credibility of the entire system of titles, is a sad and seemingly unavoidable comment on our times.

In terms of tulkus there is the functional consideration of choosing which person to put on the fast-track of practice, including possible material support and access to teachers, so some choice should be made early on. Actual public recognition should wait until if and when the results of the practices are stabilized, probably no earlier than the candidate's mid-30s. That should cut down on the percentage of embarrassing train wrecks.

But that's not going to happen. Nobody is in charge to make those types of decisions. The situation will evolve however it will.

Malcolm wrote:
That system of titles comes from UN protocol for the Vatican. It should be abandoned.

The politics of the tulku system revolves around power first, and money second.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
smcj said:
But I would argue against the usefulness of an acting school that currently has actors in training deemed "future academy award winners", no matter how good their acting was in their previous life.
Both HHDL and HH Karmapa (Orgyen Thinley brand) were children taken from seemingly random nomad families in eastern Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
HHDL was the child of a wealthy land-owning family from Amdo (which had a Kumbum tulku in it already) about a days' horse ride from Kumbum Monastery. I have personally been to his birth home, seen it with my own eyes. His family was not nomadic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
Simon E. said:
As you say it has little impact on the vast majority of we westerners apart from any emotional investment we might have made. But if post -mortem recognition becomes the norm that carries implications for the education of such tulkus...doesn't it ?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that people, westerners, who invest their time and energy into study and practice will be recognized as incarnations after they demonstrated results of practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
Simon E. said:
What's your view Malcolm ?


Malcolm wrote:
My view on the subject is that the terma system and the tulku system both will continue to meet the needs of the client population for these phenomena, mainly Tibetans.

The terma system offers Nyingmapas the assurance that the blessings of their system of teachings never declines and the tulku system in general offers the Tibetan population as a whole, as well as some westerners, the assurance that they will always be guided by buddhas. These are powerful motivations propelling the furtherance of both traditions.

Whether they will be very relevant to us is another question.

We do not have a cultural identity wrapped up in a mythos of a golden imperial era with emanated bodhisattvas benevolently carrying out the duties of an enlightened monarch, working in concert with a foreign wizard and aiding the spread of the dharma, concealing teachings for such times when there are threats to the nation. In general, these are the terms under which termas are concealed and revealed in the Padmasambhava tradition. As a westerner, one has to be educated into these concepts, concepts which are the running background of Tibetan society in general.

As for the tulku system, the tulku system will continue, but I predict that in the West, most tulku recognitions of practitioners will be post-mortem, as it was before the Karmapas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Tulkus who have rejected their role
Content:
Jikan said:
I'd thought all tertons are by definition tulkus in the sense that they are emanations or re-embodiments (the precise term escapes me, apologies) of one of Guru Padmasambhava's 25 main disciples.  Am I mistaken?

Simon E. said:
Most Tulkus are not Tertons.
To be blunt, the Tulku system arose from a socio/political need. The world has changed.

Malcolm wrote:
The terton system also arises from socio/political needs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
Say, what sexual impropriety was Buddha accused of? I hadn't heard that before.

Malcolm wrote:
He was accused of impregnating a woman. She showed up with a trough under her skirt, accused him of getting her pregnant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
invisiblediamond said:
In Buddhism, good friendships are the meaning of life. Buddhism can be understood as the art of the beautiful relationship.


Malcolm wrote:
I never said there was no meaning to found in the universe. I said the universe was meaningless.

Two entirely different concepts.

For example, a tree can be meaningful for a carpenter, a mouse, a bird, a boring insect or a sculptor, all in different ways. None of the meaning these beings impute on that tree is inherent in that tree. The tree, so far as anyone knows, merely is born, ages, gets sick and dies. By itself, it has no meaning. By ourselves, we have no meaning. We can find meaning, if we want to, but we should not turn that meaning we have found into teleology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure. Even Buddha had prejudices and biases. It's very obvious when you read the Pali canon, for example.

Buddha was a human being, he had a human brain, human sense organs and all the limitations of a human body (birth, aging, sickness and death). He was accused of sexual improprieties and all kinds of other faults. He watched his entire clan be murdered and enslaved and did nothing about it (if that does not demonstrate to one that Buddha found life empty of meaning, nothing else will). Rahula was hugely disappointed in him until Rahula decided to follow the Dharma himself.

Poorbitch said:
one more scholars who falls in the darkness of materialism and false assumptions about the buddhas . So predictable

Malcolm wrote:
And your's are TRUE (tm)? Typical fundamentalist remark.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


Clarence said:
The question I find interesting is whether or not you believe someone can be realized without having abandoned his prejudices and biases?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure. Even Buddha had prejudices and biases. It's very obvious when you read the Pali canon, for example.

Buddha was a human being, he had a human brain, human sense organs and all the limitations of a human body (birth, aging, sickness and death). He was accused of sexual improprieties and all kinds of other faults. He watched his entire clan be murdered and enslaved and did nothing about it (if that does not demonstrate to one that Buddha found life empty of meaning, nothing else will). Rahula was hugely disappointed in him until Rahula decided to follow the Dharma himself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
heart said:
They were all Christians and they clearly disliked mahayana and despised vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Which century are you talking about? This is certainly not the case with writers like Davidson and so on.

The notion of the evolution of Mahāyāna Buddhism and then Vajrayāna is based on text critical research.

What is more amusing about your assertion is that classical Indian Buddhist historians of the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh century take great pains explain why there is a sudden appearance Vajrayāna in India concocting all kinds of wild schemes from Vajrasattva in an iron tower in South India (Amoghavajra and Co in China) to the account of King Dza (Nyingma, but based on Indian antecedents) to the Sakya accounts found in 12th century Presentation of the General Divisions of Tantra, not to mention the earlier and well known account of the recovery of Prajñāpāramita from the Nāgā kingdom under the ocean by Nāgārjuna.

You see, Indians themselves acknowledged from an early period in the common era that Mahāyāna also "suddenly appeared".

Text critical scholars like Davidson, etc., are trying to work out the evolution of these texts because they were pointed to in that direction by what the texts and classical commentaries themselves reveal about the origins of these later canons.

It is just too ungenerous to modern scholars like Gregory Schopen and so on to accuse them of some strange Christian biases.

BTW, the first victim of Christian text critical scholarship was the bible itself.

But text critical scholarship, while not the end all and be all of interpretation of what these texts mean, is very useful in understanding where these texts come from. But sadly, people conflate the two, assuming that if some scholar is correct about say, the Chinese origins of the Heart sutra (Nattier's theory), that therefore, somehow the Heart Sutra becomes less meaningful as a protective charm against non-humans.

The problem is that Western people of a fundamentalist bent shy away from taking text critical scholarship seriously precisely because of our cultural tendency to interpret texts teleologically (which is a Christian, indeed a very western trait inherited from Plato, etc.), a tendency we have deeply inherited from the generally Hegelian theory of history (into which Tibetan narratives predicated on the role of the Imperial period personalities like Padmasambhava and so on play nicely) that we follow.

So when we are confronted with early narratives like that in the 'Bum nag, the sBa bzhed, etc., where Padmasambhava has a human father and mother, we reject these in favor of wildly contradictory later accounts of Padmasamabhava's life story because our teachers don't like the idea that Padmasambhava had a human father and mother.

In the end, there are certain Buddhist trends and narratives, especially in Vajrayāna, that play very nicely into our very Western habit of fundamentalism in thought and deed.

This is ironic, because Mahāyāna teachings often completely deconstruct so called Hinayāna teachings, just as Vajrayāna deconstructs the Mahāyāna path and Dzogchen deconstructs Vajrayāna.

We have all these Buddhist teachings deconstructing each other, and yet we have all these Buddhists, both Asian and Western, hell-bent on keeping the whole thing bound together with spit, twine and duct tape. Honestly, it is pretty funny to me.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


heart said:
I am not really saying that, am I?

Malcolm wrote:
It seems so.

heart said:
I just think it makes sense that, no matter when they were written down, they reflect a teaching taught by the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, probably not in any literal, historical sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point I was making was that making the leap from "Western Buddhologists don't believe Buddha taught Mahāyāna (which is effectively what DKR is talking about) to "This is why I doubt the understanding of seasoned Western practitioners". He making a very specious cultural argument, when all is said and done.

heart said:
I am making exactly the same statement and last time I looked I was a westerner. Not because DKR or anyone else says so but because it makes sense to me.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I see, so you are asserting you can only understand the meaning of the concept of nonduality in Mahāyāna sutras if you adopt the dualistic standpoint that they were uttered by the historical Buddha sometime about 450-400 years BCE. Right?

If I didn't know you better, I would say that this was a very fundamentalist sentiment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


ReasonAndRhyme said:
Afaik he was also born in Bhutan and is he not also a Bhutanese citizen? But anyway, I just wanted to hint that we all generalize and sometimes overgeneralize.


Malcolm wrote:
The Drukpas  (Bhutanese) consider themselves ethnically different than Tibetans, despite sharing a very similar language. DKR's mother is Bhutanese, so I guess you could say he is half Tibetan, half Bhutanese.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
This whole thread has convinced me that DKR is right about the understanding of non-duality of even seasoned Western Buddhists.


Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, I have doubts that seasoned Tibetan practitioners, including tulkus, necessarily understand nonduality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think we should feel free to make generalized comments about Tibetan lamas too.

ReasonAndRhyme said:
Especially if they're not Tibetan but Bhutanese


Malcolm wrote:
DKR is Tibetan. He may have been raised in Bhutan, but he is from an ancient aristocratic Tibetan family.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 21st, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
smcj said:
Malcolm,

I respect you, and I respect your practice. The point here I am trying to make is that when a tibetan lama makes a generalized comment about westerners that there may be a basis for it. What I've just written is my articulation of what I think it is they see but cannot understand. So we can be annoyed by it all we want, but that does not make it go away.


Malcolm wrote:
I think we should feel free to make generalized comments about Tibetan lamas too. There might be a basis too. They might be annoyed, but it will not make it go away.

The point I was making was that making the leap from "Western Buddhologists don't believe Buddha taught Mahāyāna (which is effectively what DKR is talking about) to "This is why I doubt the understanding of seasoned Western practitioners". He making a very specious cultural argument, when all is said and done.

Frankly, I like Popper's idea about non-falsifiability. What DKR does not seem to understand is that non-falsifibility is a completely open-ended heuristic. It does not proclaim anything wrong. It merely addresses the limited range of what ordinary humans can see and creates a category of phenomena which are outside of the range of falsifiability.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Look what I found in Kathmandu...
Content:
Indrajala said:
People will drink their booze regardless of what Buddhism says.

Malcolm wrote:
I certainly shall continue to enjoy wine, regardless of what any Buddhists say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
smcj said:
If there is meaning to life, as I said above, it is only because that meaning is imputed upon it.
This is an existential/nihilistic perspective. The emotional complexities that result from it are what the lamas call "loong", and are a great impediment to the efficacy of our practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry my friend, but this is total nonsense. As doctor of Tibetan Medicine I can assure you that among the many causes of rlung disease, this is not one of them. It is also not an impediment to practice, at least, not to my practice.

smcj said:
Believing we live in a cold merciless meaningless universe where the only meaning is what we impute on it is a fundamentally frightened way to live.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a fearless way to live.

smcj said:
Trying to make things right "on our own terms" is asserting our will in such a way as to be an impediment to receiving blessings.

Malcolm wrote:
"Blessings" don't come from outside. They come from dependent origination and realization. That's about it.

smcj said:
In terms of Dharma practice that fundamental fear is not the problem. It is assumed by Dharma to be the initial operating spiritual principal in the individual. That is why the initial teachings traditionally are about the hell realms, etc. If people have fears, then direct those fears productively and bring them to Dharma. But at some point those fears need to connect to Dharma and need to begin to resolve, which is the stage of "Refuge". Our fears need to begin to be resolved into belief and trust, or as is said more traditionally faith and devotion. At the end of the path there are no more fears, and one of the epithets for buddhahood is "The Great Fearlessness". My late teacher was heard to say, "All fully revealed religions start with fear and end with love. Why? Because fear is the initial spiritual condition of all men, and love the ultimate spiritual condition of all men."

Malcolm wrote:
When we understand there is no meaning then we are at the end of fear. Fear comes from expectations about fulfilling meaning.

smcj said:
In the traditional tibetan culture people feel that they live in a universe where there is a divine justice, and there are loving divinities that are accessible on a functional basis. To them there is an '"Ultimate Truth" and people achieve it on a regular basis. This allows them the maximum opportunity to trust and believe, and not be afraid. On the other hand, existential nihilism, coupled with a society in flux, families in disarray, creates frightened people that cannot trust and have no faith. This is the disadvantage we have in our practices. This is what no lama can ever conceive of, since their worldview cannot allow for it. It is our blind spot that we insist not be disturbed because when our own religion collapsed we rejected all religion, not just our religion.

Malcolm wrote:
Ascertaining that the universe has no intrinsic meaning is not existential nihilism.

Personally, I have no use for religion. I do have a use for personal experience.

There has never been any time in history nor has there ever been a culture where societies were not in flux, where families were not in disarray.

The worldview of some lamas do not allow for many things. I am not confined by the worldview of anyone else. Whether I am confined by my own is something you cannot know, but you can certainly judge it if you like.

smcj said:
This is not to say that we have more defilements than a Tibetan. Their anger, greed and such are just as great as ours. It is more like we have a computer virus in our system software that does not allow us to connect properly to the Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
I do not suffer from any cultural viruses that cut me off from Dharma.

smcj said:
Protecting our hearts and minds from hurt by being closed makes sense in a merciless universe. Being open is terrifying, as it allows for the hurts to go even deeper. But if our spiritual practice is to be fruitful we need to allow our spirit out so it can grow. If you want to learn to swim you're going to have to get wet. And just about everyone here knows the pitfalls and failings of the modern Dharma scene.

Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the modern Dharma scene is no better and no worse than it was during the time of the Buddha, with one exception, the Buddha, or so we imagine.

smcj said:
But clearly the teachings guide us towards unconditional trust, faith and devotion.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, that is not where my path has lead me. It has lead me to unconditional confidence, knowledge and personal experience. I don't really respond well to the trust, faith and devotion thing.

The Buddha taught that we suffer from birth, aging, sickness and death. He taught us how to escape that condition. Later humans elaborated on the Buddha's message and taught the deeper meaning underlying it (i.e. emptiness of inherent existence). Still other humans later on decided that was too extreme and decided that the deeper meaning needed to be augmented by a somewhat more positive message about our condition, and taught tathāgatagarbha. None of this however renders the universe meaningful.

As I have said many times here and elsewhere. "Life has no meaning, but if you are a Dharma practitioner, then life is meaningful." But this is not a declaration of a teleological ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ) meaningfulness of the kind you are expressing here. It is also not a declaration of absolute meaningfulness. It is a strictly relative meaningfulness relevant only to humans who can think and judge. It is not a statement about the value of the universe or even the value of a spotted owl. Spotted owls are meaningful to me personally, but they are not ultimately meaningful in anyway.

The universe will perish. Generally speaking we are taught in the Dharma not to impute meaning on the impermanent, the afflicted and identityless. Since even nirvana is identityless, it is a little risky for Dharma practitioners to invest much meaning in it.

The absence of illness is health.
The absence of suffering is bliss.
The absence of meaning is freedom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Indrajala said:
but they are still the words of a buddha, i.e., the sambhogakāya.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not even necessary to say.

They are just words that a human being wrote down on a piece of paper reflecting their vision of the Buddha and that is all they are. Attributing them to the sambhogakāya is also a nice tradition, but it is outside the range of ordinary human perception.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Look what I found in Kathmandu...
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing unusual about a shopkeeper in Katmandhu having a picture of HHDL.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Look what I found in Kathmandu...
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
are you serious ? like guns or knives ? who would do that and why ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Guns, knives, swords, canons, grenades, anything really that is capable of harm.

Who would do? Why all Tibetans. Why would they do it? Because Dharmapālas, like any army, need weapons.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the Pali suttas.

heart said:
I find them rather boring, to tell you the truth. No wander that I get excited by the idea of some Mahayana sutras being just as ancient as the Pali suttas.
I practice Dzogchen and so for me the ultimate intention of the nine yanas are simply the realization of the natural state. That is also why they all have great benefit to practice. This point of view is of course ignoring the nine yanas own efforts to posit a ultimate goal and all the polemics that go with that as well as the constantly growing numbers of bodhisattva bumis and so on. In the natural state both samsara and nirvana self-liberate and so Shakyamuni's intention is fulfilled and anyone capable of that are inseparable from him like Garab Dorje, Guru Rinpoche and Vimalamitra. This is also why Shakyamuni is one of the Dzogchen Buddhas.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Pali suttas are rather dry. One of the reasons is that they are NOT literary compositions. They reflect the extemporaneous speech of the Buddha. The themes covered are limited, oft repeated and formulaic.

Let me give an example. You can listen to any DC webcast. I guarantee you that on the first day Norbu Rinpoche will say x, y and z. He often states these things in virtually identical phrases. The Pali canon is like that -- it is an oral record of what the historical Buddha actually said.

Mahāyāna sutras are often quite interesting, because they are literary compositions intended for audiences with specific religious goals in mind. They sometimes emulate repetition, but they are not mnemonically repetitive in same way that Pali suttas are.  Thus, they should not be confused with what the historical Buddha said.

The Mahāyāna Buddha is not a historical buddha by any accepted standard of historiography. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu writes on the birth date of sTon pa Shen rab: "...and since history must be studied in congruence with ordinary human perception, I prefer not to base myself on these traditions" (Drung, Deu and Bon, pg. 156). I suggest we should apply no less a rigorous standard to the study of all Buddhist texts and traditions than we do to the study of Bon and other religious traditions, and also judge them in concert with ordinary human perception.

Whatever the Buddha of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna may mean to us personally is not relevant to what we can know about Mahāyāna sūtras through careful text critical study and archaeological finds and it is better to keep the two separate. I understand that in some people this creates a cognitive dissonance, and they feel they have to choose one or the other. I don't have that problem -- who knows, maybe it is a result of practicing years of creation stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


smcj said:
What does Dzogchen say about the basis? Malcolm agreed with my teacher when he said, "Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love." Dharma practice isn't trying to find comfort in a cold heartless universe. It is walking the path of fulfilling the potential of the human spirit, which in turn is itself the essence of the universe.

The universe is not a cold mechanistic place, and life is full of meaning. And even an illiterate tibetan villager knows it.

Malcolm wrote:
The universe is a cold place. We seek comfort in our religions, politics, and so on, much like ants seek comfort in ant hills, more or less completely unaware of anything external to their world unless it threatens them.

If there is meaning to life, as I said above, it is only because that meaning is imputed upon it. Even attaining buddhahood is in reality meaningless. Even saving sentient beings is meaningless. If you want it to have meaning, that's ok. But in the end, when we are all dead and buried (within the next 20-60 years) most of us will not even be remembered. We will not remember our past life. We will not remember having decided to follow Buddhadharma. Some of us might no even be human beings anymore.

We are indeed free of teleological meaningfulness. I prefer to leave such concepts to Hegel and his lot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Look what I found in Kathmandu...
Content:
Nemo said:
At least it wasn't a gun store. Black Label you can offer to the Protectors.

Malcolm wrote:
You can offer weapons to protectors too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I must say that I am totally shocked to hear self-described Mahayanists saying that life (including the bodhisattva motivation) has no meaning, and that ceasing to exist entirely (not just within samsara) is the ultimate aim.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not cease to exist (ucchedavada); however with the absence of the cause for arising there is cessation.

Life does not need to have any meaning for a bodhisattva (who understands the meaninglessness of life) to wish to free sentient beings from pointless rounds of samsaric existence. In fact it entirely underpins their whole motivation. They have recognized that there is no meaning to life, and they wish to rescue others from the delusion that life has meaning.

The point of Buddhadharma is to cease having the experience of birth, aging, sickness and death.

As Maitreya Bodhisattva is supposed to have said, there is not even the a needle point of happiness to be found samsara. Birth only occurs because of afflictions. When afflictions are eradicated, birth also ceases.

However, the meaningless of life does not prevent me from enjoying life. I actually rather enjoy it more, since I know that my existence is free from the burden of teleological meaningfulness.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


heart said:
If you stay in the natural state samsara stops, that is the only cessation the Buddha ever taught.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
That's simple not true, Magnus, it is especially untrue with respect to Dzogchen.

heart said:
We will have to agree to disagree then.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the Pali suttas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
then you havent studied shantidevas bodhicharyavatara. or other mahayana text's that deal with motivation of life.

Malcolm wrote:
These texts deal with one's motivation for awakening, which is predicated on the fact that life has no intrinsic meaning. Being born, living, dying are all intrinsically meaningless from the perspective of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, completely. The entire teaching of Buddha Dharma is based on meaningless of samsara and ending the process of taking rebirth in it. Life = samsara. If samsara is meaningless, so is life. The ultimate desiderata is to bring the whole cycle to an end. Since sentient beings are endless, that will never happen. Nevertheless, the primary goal of Buddhadharma is to achieve a nirvana in which nothing is left behind.

M

heart said:
If you stay in the natural state samsara stops, that is the only cessation the Buddha ever taught.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
That's simple not true, Magnus, it is especially untrue with respect to Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
There's nothing abstract about genuine love.  It's immediate and obvious.  Biological self-perpetuation on the other hand, that's a huge ideological abstraction.

Malcolm wrote:
Love is not a purpose, and does not lend itself to imbuing meaning on a cosmic scale.

Life is only meaningful to those who find meaning in it. Buddha clearly didn't which is why he recommended cessation.

heart said:
? are you serious?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, completely. The entire teaching of Buddha Dharma is based on the meaningless of samsara and ending the process of taking rebirth in it. Life = samsara. If samsara is meaningless, so is life. The ultimate desiderata is to bring the whole cycle to an end. Since sentient beings are endless, that will never happen. Nevertheless, the primary goal of Buddhadharma is to achieve a nirvana in which nothing is left behind.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
There's nothing abstract about genuine love.  It's immediate and obvious.  Biological self-perpetuation on the other hand, that's a huge ideological abstraction.

Malcolm wrote:
Love is not a purpose, and does not lend itself to imbuing meaning on a cosmic scale.

Life is only meaningful to those who find meaning in it. Buddha clearly didn't which is why he recommended cessation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 20th, 2013 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no intrinsic meaning or purpose to life. That is the essence of understanding samsara. We have to make it enjoyable on our own terms, that is the essence of practicing and realizing the Dharma.

Karma Dorje said:
The intrinsic meaning and purpose of life is to yield ourselves to the service of others.

Malcolm wrote:
That also serves no purpose at all unless you subscribe to some abstract ideological which imputes such values.

But life has no purpose at all, unless you consider biological self-perpetuation a "purpose".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Sherab said:
I thought liberation is due to wisdom

Malcolm wrote:
No, liberation is due to the eradication of afflictions.

I am not sure what you mean by "wisdom". So you mean omniscience? Or do you mean prajñā?

If the former, omniscience is not required for liberation.

If the latter, the prajñā that eradicates the afflictions is exactly the same in an arhat and a buddha.

Sherab said:
Okay, let me try again and see if I can make my trend of thought a little clearer.

I was thinking along the line that the liberation of an arhat is liberation from the 12 links of dependent origination.  This is done when any link is cut.  That cutting is due to a certain wisdom realized.

Since the wisdom of a buddha is far greater than the wisdom of an arhat, there must be a difference in the realization of a buddha compared to an arhat.

This implies that the wisdom realized by a buddha goes further than just cutting the 12 links of dependent origination.  It is the difference in knowledge/wisdom of a buddha compared to an arhat that allows the buddha to perform greater 'miraculous' feats than an arhat.  So I thought that the difference would come from the buddha having knowledge of all dependencies and not just those of the 12 links of DO.  Via the buddha's knowledge/wisdom of all dependencies, the liberation of the buddha is liberation from all dependencies, in contrast to the liberation of an arhat which is only a liberation from the 12 links of DO.

Malcolm wrote:
Regarding liberation:

If you cut a rope, does it matter much whether the scissors you are using a six inches long or six feet long?

Regarding realization:

There is certainly a difference between a six inch flame and a six foot flame.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Sherab said:
I thought liberation is due to wisdom

Malcolm wrote:
No, liberation is due to the eradication of afflictions.

I am not sure what you mean by "wisdom". So you mean omniscience? Or do you mean prajñā?

If the former, omniscience is not required for liberation.

If the latter, the prajñā that eradicates the afflictions is exactly the same in an arhat and a buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between a Buddha and an arhat in terms of liberation, that is why all buddhas are also arhats; there is a vast difference between a buddha and arhat in terms of qualities.

Sherab said:
So there is no difference in the wisdom of an arhat and the wisdom of a buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is a difference between their qualities (wisdom being one of them), but not their liberation, i.e., freedom from rebirth in samsara, which after all is the definition of liberation by all Buddhist traditions, as well as a number of non-Buddhist ones.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:


Sherab said:
If liberation means

Malcolm wrote:
Liberation simply means being free from the operation of afflictions.

Sherab said:
I thought liberation defined as being free from the operation of affliction refers to being free from the 12 links of dependent origination, i.e. the liberation of an arhat or a pratekyabuddha.  In contrast to that, I thought that the liberation of a buddha would be freedom from all dependencies.  Otherwise, there would be no difference in realization between a buddha and an arhat.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between a Buddha and an arhat in terms of liberation, that is why all buddhas are also arhats; there is a vast difference between a buddha and arhat in terms of qualities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness and the two truths
Content:


Sherab said:
If liberation means

Malcolm wrote:
Liberation simply means being free from the operation of afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
heart said:
Feel free to point me to your sources Malcolm. After almost 30 years listening to Buddhist teachings I find it very probable the Buddha taught in different ways to different disciples. The fact that they find it difficult to find proof that Hinayana is older than Mahayana is an interesting indication of that.

Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing two different factors: Physical texts with age of a given tradition.

The early Canon was largely oral. We know that by the time of Ashoka texts were starting to be written down.

There is no record of an early reaction to Mahāyāna, as you would suppose there would be, since Ashoka purged the monastic sangha at the encouragement of the Vibhajyavadins. You see reactions towards proto Mahayāna ideas such as multiplicity of Buddhas and so on. But the first solid historical evidence we have of Mahāyāna texts is their translation into Chinese, and now a few fragments from Gandhara which support the idea that Mahāyāna was current in the Gandhara region during the first century.

We have Buddhist texts written on Ashoka pillars that can be pinpointed and have been. We know that the Pali canon was written down in Shri Lanka during at the beginning of the first century BCE. We know that there were muliple canons. We also know that in Mahāyāna sūtras books are mentioned a lot. In the Pali sūtras, books are never mentioned even once. Clearly, the primary difference between the Nikāyas and the Mahāyāna canon is the difference between collection of texts that were recalled orally for centuries prior to being committed to writing to a collection of texts that are a product of a self-concious literary process of authorship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation as path of Sutra: sources?
Content:
David Chapman said:
Chögyal Namhkai Norbu Rinpoche characterizes Sutra as the vehicle whose path is renunciation. This certainly seems accurate to me. However, I've had difficulty finding any other source that says the same. Renunciation is regarded as an aspect of the sutric paths, but nowhere else does it seems to be regarded as the essence or summary.

Are there other, earlier sources that regard renunciation as the essence of the Sutric path? Or is this characterization ChNNR's specific teaching?

Thanks very much for any leads.

David

Malcolm wrote:
The Sakyapas clearly make a distinction between Sūtrayāna, which is a path of giving up sense objects, and Vajrayāna, which is a path of not abandoning sense objects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


heart said:
The problem with that reasoning is that there is actually no archeological evidence for it. The idea of the evolution of Buddhist spiritual practices isn't based in anything solid, and in fact the Dzogchen teachings for example completely negate this idea. Anyway, we are far away from DKR and Tsongkapa, probably my fault.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is archeological evidence for it -- the evidence is in the texts themselves, all kinds of evidence -- from the naming of plants and trees, to locations, etc.

The idea of the evolution of Buddhist spiritual practice in Indian history is based on very solid evidence, inscriptions, statues, etc. There is lot of plastic evidence that tracks to evolution of Mahāyāna into Vajrayāna for example aside from texts.

Irrespective of its historical origins: Mahāyāna is valid on its own terms or it is not. I accept that it is. Bodhicitta is a unique contribution of Mahāyāna to world spiritual traditions. I fully identify as a practitioner of Mahāyāna Dharma. I understand the desire and wish to trace this sūtra or that sūtra back to Shakyamuni Buddha, but I think it is futile.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Many people with entrenched biases are not stupid.

dzogchungpa said:
Yes, and DJKR is not one of them.

Malcolm wrote:
We will agree to disagree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Simon E. said:
But quite a number of indications that the Theravada is a remnant of one ancient and partisan school.

heart said:
Well that is the often repeated mantra, still don't explain why there are Mahayana texts recovered among the oldest know Buddhist texts.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
The oldest known, physically surviving Buddhist texts exist on the Ashokan pillars.

The Gandhari texts do not shown an overwhelming concern with Mahāyāna -- they reveal a few fragments of Mahāyāna texts dating to the 1st century CE, but we already know that Mahāyāna was in existence at this time due to the presence of 2nd century translations into Chinese. In order for me to be convinced that Mahāyāna was taught by anyone, let alone the Buddha, prior to the first century BCE, I would need to see some hard physical facts. Luckily for me, my soteriology does not depend on archaeology. Also my estimation of the capacity of Tibetans (or anyone else) to understand nonduality as presented in Buddhist texts does not depend on whether Buddha actually taught "nonduality".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Does that article provide some evidence that Mahayana might have been taught by the Buddha? I looked through it and I didn't see anything like that.

heart said:
It says clearly that the oldest Buddhist texts we have are both Hinayana and Mahyana, as to what the Buddha actually taught is anybody's guess since its early history is hearsay.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It says nothing of their authorship. What the Buddha actually spoke is not really anybody guess, since there is sufficient evidence to prove that what is taught in the Pali canon/Agamas is more or less directly based on what the Buddha may have actually spoken.

While it is certain that parts of these early teachings have certainly been renovated into sections of Mahāyāna sūtras, the real question is "Did Buddha actually, physically, as a historical reality, teach Mahāyāna sūtras." The answer must be, no he didn't, except in someone's pure vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
smcj said:
How many people do you know that believe that there is no intrinsic purpose or meaning to life, and that we just have to make it enjoyable on our own terms? Or how about the opposite? How about the christian fundamentalist that sees the modern world as a threat and must be bullied into conforming to their beliefs?

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, it appears to me that many Tibetan exponents of Buddhism view the modern world as a threat, in much the same way they regard science as a threat.

There is no intrinsic meaning or purpose to life. That is the essence of understanding samsara. We have to make it enjoyable on our own terms, that is the essence of practicing and realizing the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
There's no yawning gulf between Tibetans and Westerners, as far as I can see.  Same afflictions, same institutional bugbears, same overweening conceits of intellectual prowess...

Malcolm wrote:
It would be nice of Tibetan exponents of Buddhism such as Dzongsar would cease advertising how much more afflicted and so on Westerners are supposed to be. So far as I know, no incarnated Lama has ever been murdered by their own Western students.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Have you been to any of his empowerments?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I have not, precisely because of the kinds of things he says.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I have. I think I am at least as western as you, and I did not get the impression that he does not understand us. Are we really that hard to understand? He's not stupid, you know.


Malcolm wrote:
Many people with entrenched biases are not stupid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
heart said:
But it seems to take some time to land.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Sorry Magnus, this does not rate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm not so sure about that. Have you been to any of his empowerments?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I have not, precisely because of the kinds of things he says.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
smcj said:
It's more that our culture creates chaotic and confused people.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I guess I just can't by into this way of thinking. Most of the people I know are neither chaotic or confused. In fact the most chaotic, the most confused people I have ever met, apart from rock and rollers, were Buddhists in Dharma centers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
heart said:
Actually, Mahayana might have been taught by the Buddha. The archeological proofs are becoming just as solid as for the Hinayana scriptures.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Really, what proof?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
smcj said:
My teacher said to me once, "Our minds look like a wiggling can of worms to them, so they give us the Dharma and hope we can make something out of it."

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, but I have met many Tibetans and even Tibetan lamas and teachers, for the most part their minds are just as infected with worms as ours appear to be.

I personally am rather tired of the cultural chauvinism exhibited by Tibetans. It is one thing to appreciative of one's culture. It is another thing to rest on the laurels of history (actually socio-geographical happenstance) and use this fact to tout the superiority of one's culture.

I don't like it when American politicians waffle on about American "exceptionalism" and I don't like it when Tibetan teachers waffle on about Tibetan exceptionalism. There is nothing particularly exceptional about human beings in general, apart from our capacity to think and reason -- and even that is very questionable when viewed from a cosmic perspective.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
DKR has a bad attitude about westerners. Its a pity really.

dzogchungpa said:
I kind of agree, but he has had a lot of experience with westerners, and seems to be quite appreciatve of western culture. Maybe he has a point?

Malcolm wrote:
A point about what? He does not understand us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:


Alfredo said:
Mandala, I see Tsongkhapa's presentation of Indian Buddhist philosophy (e.g. the division into four tenet systems) as a factual distortion, however fruitful it may have been for Tibetan scholasticism.

Malcolm wrote:
The four tenet system is Indian in origin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 19th, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa
Content:
Alfredo said:
Here's the quote I was thinking of:
[...] I've been talking with a lot of--a few, a few scholars in Oxford. They're very good, really good! Very good. There are many so-called Buddhist professors, or Buddhist experts, and they strongly oppose reincarnation. They don't believe that nonduality is taught by the Buddha, and stuff like that. Very good. It's a very educational for me. [smiles, audience laughs] I would just yesterday talked about--someone I had actually only heard the name, but never really learned anything about...him. Um, Karl...Karl Popper. Karl Popper? So... Also, in Oxford I was told that they're studying Buddhism "objectively." That's very interesting. [smiles, audience laughs] So this is all disorienting for me because [stammers] I had to switch my mind back to the Buddhist mind, so to speak, in order to talk about... this.

Anyway this is very important subject. [long pause] If we don't talk about nonduality, then I don't think we can really talk about Buddhism at all. And nonduality's not so easy. Recently I was talking to...Indians, just Indian intellectuals. And I was even kind of... worried...that how much we Tibetans actually manage to conceive the idea of nonduality thoroughly, as much as these Indians seems to have done. It's not that easy, this nonduality, to really conceive this.  Especially if are, you think like, I think, like Karl Popper's way. And if you really think that something can be observed and valued objectively, nonduality's difficult. [shifts on seat] About a year ago I met a professor in America--Berkeley University--and he told me something very interesting. He said actually, it's very important that the Tibetan lamas know the history of Buddhism, and especially the history of Buddhism in the West.  And he said especially in America because, he said, that the emergence of Buddhism in the West may be, may have...it started, you know, it started with a very Descartes-like Buddhism. So it's a very dualistic Buddhism, so to speak. I can understand him, because even the most seasoned dharma practitioner in the West sometimes I do have doubt, how much they are really understanding. Of course we are not talking about actual realization of nonduality, but we are talking about intellectual understanding of nonduality. Because the concept is just not proveable. Because every logic, language, method of measurement, is dualistic. So dualistic method cannot measure and value something nondualistic. Always! And anything that cannot be proved, or anything that does not have a "manufacturing date," so to speak, I think in the materialistic world, modern world, it's all not really...it's a [struggle?], it's like a [struggle?], it really doesn't have much value in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRyAnyFNsA&list=TLh_vF6bhVwVLQjV8bMUeJ-ExvzM9778se (start from 4 minutes in)

Malcolm wrote:
This quote presents a false argument, one that is is very superficial.

DKR goes from the premise that because Buddhologists in general do not accept the idea that Mahāyāna was historically taught by the Buddha (in other words, texts were composed that used the persona of the Buddha as a mouthpiece for various Mahāyāna doctrines) that they, indeed all Westerners, therefore are under suspicion of being incapable of understanding the nondual message taught in those texts.

His argument is at base a species of cultural chauvinism. This cultural chauvinism that DKR frequently expresses in his lectures is distressingly blind.

In sum, he starts with an issue of historiography and ends up leveling a charge of philosophical incompetence. DKR has a bad attitude about westerners. Its a pity really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 18th, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Aemilius said:
The Sarvastivada Abhidharma knew that when it is daytime in Jambudvipa it is night on the Kuru continent. They possessed knowledge that is still valid about the universe and the planet Earth.

Mount Kailash is not mentioned in the Abhidharmakosha, it is a later interpretation, and it is wrong for several reasons, for example: the Sun and the Moon do not revolve around Mount Kailash, but they do revolve around the South pole (or North pole), when you adopt a flat earth presentation of our planet.

Malcolm wrote:
However the Surya Siddhanta's presentation of the universe (which has Meru at the north pole) wildly conflicts with Sarvastivadin cosmology.

Honestly, it is amazing to find people in the 21st century who try to prove that Abhidharmakosha's cosmology corresponds with the known facts of the universe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
its simply a matter of intent: does one try to avoid participating in violence and killing as much as possible, or does one justify extra and unnecessary killing for the sake of one's gustatory pleasure?


Malcolm wrote:
There is no "extra" suffering in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:


heart said:
Well, I am talking about  rig pa'i rtsal bang in the mengakde. I think the purpose is quite singular or else you would be introducing something that was still mind.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
There are different kinds of rig pa'i rtsal dbangs even within man ngag sde.

heart said:
Of course they are different. There are for Trechö and Tögal and every tradition have there own style. But are they introducing the natural state or not?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Its just not that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
thats a non-sequitur as a response to the question of intent and karma.

Malcolm wrote:
I answered your question. The answer is no (I am not claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma -- no one would unless they knew nothing about Buddhadharma).

gad rgyangs said:
then you admit that there is a karmic difference between "intent to kill & eat" vs. "intent to try and minimize killing while eating"?

Malcolm wrote:
You left out the middle one:

"Eating without intent to kill."

Anyway, killing is not the problem, the taking of life is. The later requires intent. The former does not.

But eating anything that lives is a problem for something somewhere. All food involves the death of something else living.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:


heart said:
Well, I am talking about  rig pa'i rtsal bang in the mengakde. I think the purpose is quite singular or else you would be introducing something that was still mind.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
There are different kinds of rig pa'i rtsal dbangs even within man ngag sde.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The descent of the wisdom vajra empowerment procedure is detailed in in chapter 17 of the Jñānasiddhi of Indrabhuti.

It is not the same as a rig pa'i rtsal dbang.

M

heart said:
Which rigpai tsal wang are you talking about, there are many? But getting introduced directly to the nature of enlightenment is exactly what the  rigpai tsal wang is about.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It's just not that simple, Magnus. There are two systems of rig pa'i rtsal bang -- sems sde and man ngag sde. Even within man ngag sde there are different kinds of rig pa'i rtsal dbangs, not to mention different rig pa'i rtsal dbangs in anuyoga and mahayoga systems like the King's cycle of Avalokiteshvara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:
conebeckham said:
Well, thanks for the helpful info about Rigpa'i Tsel Wang.  Can we confirm Trekcho and Essence Mahamudra are not the same as a result?

Malcolm, I believe you're familiar with Drikung Kagyu transmissions--is this tranmission Paul speaks of the
"Vajra Pristine Awareness Empowerment" as discussed by Indrabhuti?


Malcolm wrote:
Vajra pristine awareness = ye shes rdo rje = jñānavajra.

It is very likely the same. The Eighth Situ also discusses this in his commentary on the Mahamudra Aspiration by the Third Karmapa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Pero said:
Yes well, I don't know when was the last time you went to a restaurant, caffeteria or a grocery etc. but these days (and as long as I've been alive) you don't come there and say "hey, I'd like some beef, go and kill some for me and I'll pay you". You come, there's meat, you buy or you don't.
It's just a silly argument.

gad rgyangs said:
the only thing this demonstrates is that you have no idea how an economy works or what "supply and demand" means.


Malcolm wrote:
And vegetarians, and especially vegans, have their head in the sand with respect to the necessity of animals being involved in the cycle of any viable sustainable, organic, local agricultural system.

for example, all that rice you eat is fertilized with feather meal and poultry litter which comes from exactly the same abattoirs you are condemning. We are all eating animal inputs all the time whenever we eat any organically produced vegetables.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so you're claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am observing that all living beings feed on other living beings. I will add that the distinction between sentient and non-sentient life is artificial and anachronistic.

M

gad rgyangs said:
thats a non-sequitur as a response to the question of intent and karma.

Malcolm wrote:
I answered your question. The answer is no (I am not claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma -- no one would unless they knew nothing about Buddhadharma).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
What if everyone were Buddhist? Who would man the slaughter-houses?

Malcolm wrote:
We have already performed this experiment in Tibet, Thailand, etc. The answer is that Buddhists would man the abattoirs and come up with rites of karmic expiation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
maybe it will at least keep the cannibals distracted for long enough that they eat a few less brother sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Life feeds on life, intentionally or not.

M

gad rgyangs said:
so you're claiming that intent is irrelevant when it comes to karma?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am observing that all living beings feed on other living beings. I will add that the distinction between sentient and non-sentient life is artificial and anachronistic.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 17th, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:
heart said:
You read empowerment and you think that means something grand, it is just THE pointing-out instruction. Since it is definitive it certainly appropriately could be called "the decent of the vajra wisdom". It by-pass all shamatha/viphassana and tsa-lung and is a non-gradual path.

But really, I hope you go and see Rinpoche and discuss this with him. As you know I myself practice Dzogchen even if my Guru teach both.

/magnus

conebeckham said:
You are equating the Vajra Pristine Awareness empowerment with "Ngotro," Pointing Out Instructions, etc.
The question is, is "Ngotro," Pointing Out Instruction, the Fourth Empowerment of Anuttarayogatantra, or even the Rigpa'i Tsel Wang the same as this empowerment spoken of by Kongtrul?   I cannot answer that question.   If you get an answer to that question from any qualified guru, I'd be interested to hear it.

Malcolm wrote:
The descent of the wisdom vajra empowerment procedure is detailed in in chapter 17 of the Jñānasiddhi of Indrabhuti.

It is not the same as a rig pa'i rtsal dbang.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
maybe it will at least keep the cannibals distracted for long enough that they eat a few less brother sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Life feeds on life, intentionally or not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: khyung chen mkha' lding of Sri Simha
Content:
mutsuk said:
JLA just told me some have been identified outside the Bima Nyingthik, like the khregs-chod bdun-pa (which was identified by Norbu Rinpoche).


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the khregs chod bdun pa.

Thanks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 16th, 2013 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: khyung chen mkha' lding of Sri Simha
Content:
mutsuk said:
It is Upadesha no. 44 from the collection of 119 Upadeshas (partially included in the Bima Nyinghtik).

Malcolm wrote:
Do you have a location for the rest?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:
Jikan said:
I have to confess:  as a somewhat badly informed outsider, I find the distinction between Sutra Mahamudra & Tantric Mahamudra somewhat baffling.  Would someone please clarify for me what these categories mean in practical terms?  eg, generally speaking, are these different approaches to practice, are they integrated into one trajectory of practice, or...?  by that I mean, are there practitioners solely of Sutra Mahamudra, or Tantric Mahamudra, or are these paths different aspects of the same phenomenon?

Many thanks


Malcolm wrote:
Read Kongtrul's encylopedia on practice lineages, he describes it perfectly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Why study Sanskrit?
Content:
yegyal said:
Actually, I've never met a Tibetan scholar-practitioner that didn't think studying Sanskrit was worthwhile.

Indrajala said:
I've seldom met anyone from the Himalayas who thought the study of Sanskrit was important and pursued it even at an elementary level. I've met a few, sure, but they're exceptions.


Malcolm wrote:
As Khedrup mentions, Lama Migmar reads Sanskrit with fluency; so does Lama Pema, another Sakya graduate of Varanasi. Students at Sakya College, on the other hand, do not study so much Sanskrit.

Those Tibetans seriously interested in Indian Buddhist texts make the effort. But your average Geshe, Lama, Khenpo, probably not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Why study Sanskrit?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
With the thousands of volumes of Buddhist texts available in Classical Tibetan and Chinese, for example, the monks have plenty to "do nothing but study with". While Sanskrit is wonderful to study, modern Chinese and Tibetan monks still can build a firm foundational of scriptural knowledge without it.


Malcolm wrote:
Without question, knowledge of Sanskrit is very important. It is one factor that has given the Sakyapas the edge in scholarship for centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Why study Sanskrit?
Content:
Indrajala said:
Earlier a Tibetan monk said to me, "Why bother studying Sanskrit? Everything is available in Tibetan."

I have my own reasons, both personal and scholarly, for studying Sanskrit, though his question is pertinent.


Malcolm wrote:
His question is ridiculous -- much of what was translated into Tibetan cannot be properly understood without some Sanskrit grammar.

If you are never going to read a sutra or saśtra from the bka' 'gyur or btan 'gyur, his point might have merit, otherwise? Not so smart.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: simple shrines
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, it could be worse, you could be into this:




Notice, Elvis' halo is just a little brighter than that of Jesus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Where is Mount Sumeru?
Content:
Zhen Li said:
This only lends further credence to the fact that our world taken as a whole is Jambudvipa.
.

Malcolm wrote:
The main thing which upsets this theory is that Ptolemy knew and mentions the Uttarakurus in his geography.

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

It is pretty clear Jambudvipa refers to India, before the Sarvastivadins got out of hand. They were competing with Jains and Hindus in the cosmology game.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: khyung chen mkha' lding of Sri Simha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, I do not think so. The Tibetan is quite difficult and obscure in places.

Jikan said:
Thanks, Malcolm.  You wouldn't know the text is so from the recent webcast on it, which has been absolutely lucid & accessible.


Malcolm wrote:
Rinpoche did not, and almost never does, literally translate the text. But of course he is lucid and accessible.

The text itself, however is not really not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: khyung chen mkha' lding of Sri Simha
Content:
Jikan said:
Has this text been translated publicly in English?

thanks


Malcolm wrote:
No, I do not think so. The Tibetan is quite difficult and obscure in places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: "Today I was enlightened"
Content:
Simon E. said:
And of course when and if he reads this it will confirm to him to his own satisfaction that he has transcended the outer form of Buddharma.


Malcolm wrote:
My guess is that he is an avid follower of Bud Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: "Today I was enlightened"
Content:
Adamantine said:
I just don't understand why he is compelled to use the term "enlightenment", which at this point when using English in a spiritual context is a term associated with Nirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really.

Anyway, followers of Buddhadharma [The Dharma of the fully awakened one] should use the term "awakening" [bodhi, byang chub] and full awakening, which is what "Buddha" [sangs ryas] actually means. I.e. being fully [rgyas] awakened [sangs] from the slumber of ignorance.

The term enlightened is too broad to be meaningful in the context of Buddhadharma. Further, there is actually no term in all of Buddhadharma which corresponds to the English words "enlightened" or "spiritually illuminated".

But there is a term which corresponds to "waking up", "awakening" i.e. Buddha, bodhisattva, bodhi, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Kunrig - uprooting samsara
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
can you use the sadhana in and of itself, is an ''independent'' practice to purify evil destinies, and do you need the lung and trid for it, or are these necessary?

Malcolm wrote:
You need the empowerment, the lung and the instruction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 14th, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Kunrig - uprooting samsara
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
Hi, i came across on vajrapublications this sadhana called

Kunrig - uprooting samsara.

does anyone know what its about and that if you need lung for it and is it practiced in other than the drikung lineage and what are the origins of this sadhana.

thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
It is a sadhana for Sarvadidya related to the yoga tantra sarvadurgatiparishodana i.e. total purification of all evil destinies.

Savavidya is what some Kagyus, and the Sakyas and Gelugpas use for guiding people through the bardo. In Nyingma, one normally uses a practice connected with the peaceful and wrathful deities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:
ClearblueSky said:
For example, smoking marijuana, though it doesn't have the negative chemicals of cigarettes, can still cause negative health consequences long term because you are inhaling burnt matter into your lungs.

Malcolm wrote:
For example? Which clinical studies are you citing? Oh, there aren't any since herb is illegal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
disjointed said:
Malcolm. I would have never involved myself with that cult if Sakya Trizen, or anyone I contacted, had responded to my inquiries.
Sakya Trizen knew, Lama Migmar knew, but they didn't want to get their hands dirty.

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously you never asked me. I have always been forthright in my opinion about that situation in Miami.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
disjointed said:
Because now I can ask you, as a human, what makes you more qualified than your teachers and what makes you a worthy receptacle of termas as opposed to the other people in this forum.


Malcolm wrote:
You clearly have a lot of anger. It is misplaced and poorly expressed.

Honestly who gives two shits about what Ivo Kalushev is doing in Mexico? Hopefully, he is eating some nice tortillas, beans and rice, drinking mescal occasionally, and enjoying the diving.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
disjointed said:
KD, there is a fair amount of online information on the cult I mentioned now. Though Sakya Trizen still has not done ANYTHING to discredit it.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because Sakya Trizen never endorsed it, nor had anything to do with starting LR's fantasy to begin with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
What group are you talking about?

Malcolm wrote:
He is talking about a guy in florida named Luis Riesgo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
disjointed said:
Meanwhile, Sakya Trizen, like yourself Malcolm, did nothing to warn people about this cult using his name to validate itself, nor did he respond to people trying to verify the cult leader's claims.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is frankly false, as far as I am concerned. I warned many people.

But it is true I never waged a campaign against this person. That is not my job.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Basically, let me lay it out for you: Was anyone raped? Was any money embezzled? Was anyone deprived of their civil rights?
If the answer to those questions is no, then it is none of our business what these people or any one else is doing.

michaelb said:
Allegations of people being raped, having money embezzled and being deprived of their civil rights have been levelled against the most well known controversial 'Buddhist' groups in the west; NKT and Rigpa, for example.

I understand the caution not to turn into a Dharma cop and but if I was about to get involved with one of these groups I'd like to know about it and I'd hope Dharma practitioners on forums like this would have enough compassion to let me know before I stumbled into such a group.

Malcolm wrote:
1:  formal religious veneration :  worship
2:  a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also :  its body of adherents
3:  a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also :  its body of adherents
4:  a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
disjointed said:
Malcolm.
Have you ever been the victim of a cult?


Malcolm wrote:
Have I ever been a victim of religion? No. I don't fit the profile. My egotism is much too strong.

Anyway, there are much worse things out there than tepid religious groups to get all concerned about.

Basically, let me lay it out for you: Was anyone raped? Was any money embezzled? Was anyone deprived of their civil rights?

If the answer to those questions is no, then it is none of our business what these people or any one else is doing.

Too many damn people feel like playing cop on the internet. It is a total waste of time.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 13th, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
disjointed said:
Simon and Karma Dorje I have lived long enough to see cults form from innocent Buddhist groups I was involved with more than once, and many more times I have seen them turn from a distance and listened to the accounts of what transpired from students after they fall out of favor with the cult personality.

Malcolm wrote:
Wow, judge, jury and executioner.

Listen, we are talking about _religion_. All religions are cults by definition.

Just live and let live. If Ivo is the next Jim Jones, well, it is too early to tell, isn't it?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 12th, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: "Today I was enlightened"
Content:
disjointed said:
Simon. I presume you assume this Dzogchen teacher was well taught and fluent in the teachings of Dzogchen. He was not.

Malcolm wrote:
This person then was not a Dzogchen teacher, so your definition is flawed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 12th, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Trees are sentient beings?
Content:
TheSpirit said:
I am not exactly sure what Buddhist consider sentient beings. However I am just curious if it is possible for trees to be consider a sentient beings in Buddhism?  Is it possible for them to have a spiritual essence like we do?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, most writing in Buddhadharma includes plants as part of container universe.

Plants are recognized to be alive, but not sentient. The general thinking runs that plants have no [observable] sense organs, so they cannot be sentient.

There are some trends in East Asian Buddhism, however, as well as in Tibetan Buddhism (Dzogchen) that run counter to this commonly accepted notion of the nonsentience of plants.

Personally, I think plants exhibit sentient properties of various kinds. And because they use prāṇa, exhibit digestion, preferences, communicate  Whatever sentience they have however is likely to be very different than the sentience we ascribe to creatures in the invertebrate/vertebrate phylums.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Why should we privilege 21st century narratives over any other?  Demons and menstrual blood speak to me in ways that ethnobotany never will.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a very sexist myth which perpetuates the theme of the uncleanliness of the menstrual discharge of women. Having studied many myths of plants, I cannot remember a single one where male demonic seed is cast as responsible for the growth of a plant considered pernicious.

Also, tobacco is the religious plant par excellence of Native Americans, occupying a place similar to juniper in Tibetan culture for rites of cleansing [bsangs] and the removal of pollution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
lol

nobody is answering my question here.

does anyone know if the ayurvedic herbal smokes close to crown chakra?, rendering phowa ineffective..

Malcolm wrote:
Should not be an issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, the idea that tobacco springs from the menstrual blood of an evil demoness is a little silly since tobacco never existed in the old world until it was brought back from the new world by Europeans.

That being said, tobacco is pernicious if only for the fact that it takes up polonium 210 from the soil, rendering its smoke toxically radioactive, which is why for example, tobacco causes cancer but weed does not.

Jikan said:
Is it possible to read the text with the understanding that tobacco sprang from the menstrual blood of an evil demoness... without reference to geography or ethnobotany?  That is, did the terton really need to specify that tobacco is a North American noxious weed for his text to have value?


Malcolm wrote:
In 19th century Tibet, no. In 21st century America, yes. Moreover, tobacco, like any plant, has medicinal as well as other uses. To characterize it as a weed is wrong. A plant is only a weed when it is not wanted or not understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, the idea that tobacco springs from the menstrual blood of an evil demoness is a little silly since tobacco never existed in the old world until it was brought back from the new world by Europeans.

That being said, tobacco is pernicious if only for the fact that it takes up polonium 210 from the soil, rendering its smoke toxically radioactive, which is why for example, tobacco causes cancer but weed does not.

Karma Dorje said:
Are you saying that evil demonesses do not live in the New World, or simply that they don't menstruate?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that the author of that terma clearly had no idea where tobacco came from originally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: does all smoking close the crown chakra
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
have you read about the termas that state that you will go to hell or lower realms because of smoking, are you afraid of this or do you think its something conquerable and not so solid fact?

Karma Dorje said:
I felt it definitely was negative for my health, and of course I was aware of Dudjom Rinpoche's statement on the effects of tobacco.


Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, the idea that tobacco springs from the menstrual blood of an evil demoness is a little silly since tobacco never existed in the old world until it was brought back from the new world by Europeans.

That being said, tobacco is pernicious if only for the fact that it takes up polonium 210 from the soil, rendering its smoke toxically radioactive, which is why for example, tobacco causes cancer but weed does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 10th, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Matylda said:
Yeah Zhang Zhung... it was the closest. By still it was not Tibet in the sense of history, though they could pick up so much from previous kingdoms. It is just natural, that close nation, ethnically and in terms of language have some mutual exchange and influence... But I meant Tibet proper, not by whom it was influenced.

Malcolm wrote:
Zhang Zhung people were Tibetan. Zhang Zhung language is a dialect of Tibetan, and it is still spoken today.

Sherlock said:
AFAIK, this isn't what either ChNN or modern scholars say. Both agree that Zhang Zhung was related to Tibet but not quite the same.

Malcolm wrote:
The Zhang Zhung people were one of six tribes of Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Matylda said:
Yeah Zhang Zhung... it was the closest. By still it was not Tibet in the sense of history, though they could pick up so much from previous kingdoms. It is just natural, that close nation, ethnically and in terms of language have some mutual exchange and influence... But I meant Tibet proper, not by whom it was influenced.

Malcolm wrote:
Zhang Zhung people were Tibetan. Zhang Zhung language is a dialect of Tibetan, and it is still spoken today.


Matylda said:
But GY? was it really spread widely and accepted in India? Even in AYT texts? You mentioned only Hevajra, what about other AYT lineages in India?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Yes. I mentioned two traditions, Hevajra and Vajrayogini. For example, there are three gurusadhanas translated by a Vibhuticandra into Tibetan. Another text entitled
gurumandalasamadana vidhi translated by one of three Dro Lotsawas ('bro lo ts'a ba) which describes a method of practicing the guru, he is invited in front, one makes offerings to him, praises, etc., exactly the way that guru yogas are done in the Tibetan tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just who says Tibetans were poorly educated?  They had writing, etc. prior to the 7th century.

Why? There were Chinese Monasteries in Lhasa. There were Indian monks, central Asian monks. Tibetans traded widely in India as well as China. And they were the bosses of Central Asia until the 840's and the Chinese economic crisis.

Matylda said:
Well, but how far the society was literati? Was it restricted to the court or some priviladged groups what could be rather limited representation? And as for the seal, is one seal enough to prove wide spread written language, or was it just fancy property of the court? I have no idea if there is enough evidence of written language used by majority of Tibetans. In case of China written language was predominent in all parts of China already for ages. Yes military Tibet was very strong and occupied western parts of China, and Chinese misssionaries were in Lhasa, however not only there, but in many countries outside of China. Including many monks who traveled to India since II century...

Tibet was in the VII and VIII century just entering the Buddhist way. In China it was predominent religion at that time with history of seven hundered years.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans had long term contact with India and Buddhists. They were surrounded by Buddhist countries for a thousand years. Buddhist yogis, as well as Hindu Yogis frequented the region around Kailash.

Zhang Zhung was a kingdom bordering India. Every evidence points to the fact that while Tibetans themselves may not have developed writing, their ethnic cousins, Zhangzhung people, had done so, and that Tibetans, in a sort of culural fealty to Zhang Zhung, adopted their writing, customs, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
smcj said:
Just who says Tibetans were poorly educated? They had writing, etc. prior to the 7th century.
They did? I thought written language was imported from India around then. You sure? Any existing texts (presumably Bonpo) from that period?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is what western scholars would like people to be believe. But this is based on an improper reading of what early Tibetan texts actually say about the issue. It is true that Thonmi Sambhota adapted Gupta script to the Tibetan language. But there is sufficient evidence that the court of Zhang Zhang was using writing during the reign of Srong btsan sgam po. We have for example Ligmincha's seal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:


Matylda said:
So when vajryana arrived in China, it had completely different background for development, also there were many more literati people to accomodate, study or practice compare to rather poorly educated Tibetan socjety at that time.

Malcolm wrote:
Just who says Tibetans were poorly educated?  They had writing, etc. prior to the 7th century.

[/quote]
Anyway to compare state of Buddhism in China and Tibet in the mid of the VIII century is rather risky. Background of both was totally different.[/quote]

Why? There were Chinese Monasteries in Lhasa. There were Indian monks, central Asian monks. Tibetans traded widely in India as well as China. And they were the bosses of Central Asia until the 840's and the Chinese economic crisis.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But this is not true, and I already presented two texts which negate this idea -- which somehow you seem to ignore.

Indrajala said:
I think the key point here is the guru yoga that we now know.

Malcolm wrote:
What Guru yogas do you have in mind? As I pointed out, the basic bones of the practice was well-established in India.

The practice of turning historical teachers like Padmasambhava into objects of Guru Yoga I agree is a Tibetan innovation, but in terms of the skeleton of Guru Yoga, it is like I said. And further, in traditions like Sakya, they adhere principally to the Indian style of Guru yoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Dunhuang records indicate no such thing.

Indrajala said:
They don't indicate a strongly Buddhist culture by any means. Let me cite an immediate example that comes to mind:


Malcolm wrote:
By your post, you must think I am referring to the 7th century Tibet. But I am not. I am referring to 8th century Tibet, namely to the reign of Khri srong lde' bstan. No one disputes that Buddhism was not a presence in Tibet prior to the reign of Srong btsan sgam po.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Indrajala said:
For one thing, the Dunhuang records indicate Tibet was hardly a Buddhist culture at the time, and the Chinese at the time didn't seem to know of that much Buddhism in Tibet throughout the Tang.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dunhuang records indicate no such thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:


Indrajala said:
In any case, guru yoga as it is found in Tibet does not seem to have ever existed in East Asia, even in the last period of Vajrayāna transmission into China, which is noteworthy and supports Mayer's idea:
Clearly then, the guru yoga that we now know developed in Tibet, not in India.

Malcolm wrote:
But this is not true, and I already presented two texts which negate this idea -- which somehow you seem to ignore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna was introduced to China primarily by a single master.

Indrajala said:
You are mistaken. The three eminent early masters include Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637-735), Vajrabodhi (671-741) 金剛智 and Amoghavajra (705-774) 不空.

Malcolm wrote:
Note, I said primarily. These other two masters did not have the lasting influence Amoghavajra did.


Indrajala said:
The Chinese court, clergy and economy were in a better position than Tibet to provide the necessary institutions, crafts and so forth to facilitate the transmission of Vajrayāna.

It isn't all about dates.

Malcolm wrote:
Samye is a pretty sizable place. The Tibetans were the dominant power in Asia during the 8th century.

The main point however is that the kind of Vajrayāna practiced in Tibet in the late eight century was basically identical that practiced in China during the same time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, Jeff, you consistently say that Vajrayāna in China was "earlier" than that in Tibet. But this is not really true.

Indrajala said:
Tantric Buddhism was more systematically introduced into China before it was into Tibet it seems.

It seems the Chinese tradition preserved earlier developments more than the Tibetans did. This is the opinion of some Japanese scholars which classify Shingon/Zhenyan as 'middle period' esoteric Buddhism, while Tibetan is generally more associated with a 'later period'.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna was introduced to China primarily by a single master.

Vajrayāna was introduced some thirty years (or earlier) later into Tibet by a large number of masters. After all, Samye was completed by 779 at the latest on a Vajrayāna plan. This means that Padmasambhava was present in Tibet not later than 775. This is a mere 34 years after Amoghavajra returned from his travels in 746.

When we examine these claims purely on the basis of historical dates, the claim that Vajrayāna in China is significantly "earlier" than Tibetan Imperial period Vajrayāna seems to be vastly overstated. Further, the unrestricted translation of so called anuttarayoga texts in Tibet was actually forbidden by royal edict and the main practices of the imperial period at Samye were grounded in Tattvasamgraha and the Vajrasikhara, just as in China and in Japan (from 804 onwards). Practices such as Vajrakilaya, which do date to that period, were very secret and not public at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The practice of making use of historical or quasi historical figures for Guru yoga is a Tibetan innovation. It seems in India, gurus were generally imagined in the form of one's devatā.

Konchog1 said:
So the Indians didn't visualize the lineage Gurus? Just their Guru?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, in many practices, the master of one's family meditated at the crown is one's guru, even in lower tantras.

BTW, Jeff, you consistently say that Vajrayāna in China was "earlier" than that in Tibet. But this is not really true.

Vajrayāna was brought to Tibet during the reign of khri srong lde'u btsan which lasted from 755 to 797 or 804 depending on whose account you follow. Amoghavajra only translated a portion of the Tattvasamgraha into Chinese in 754, thought he translated a number of other texts. Considering that it is very likely that the yoga tantra, etc., we see comes from South India by way of Java and so on, both by tradition and by textual evidence, and the so called annutaratyoga tantras such as Guhysamaja are sited in Oḍḍiyāna from the start, this accounts for the very different characters of Tibetan and Chinese Vajrayāna traditions, not "earlier" and "later" since Guhyasamaja and so on were certainly circulation by early 700's. Be that as it may, the main shrine in Samyas was devoted to the Vajradhātu Maṇḍala pointing to the presence of Tattvasamgraha by 790 at the latest in Tibet. sarvadurgatipariśodhanatejorājāyatathāgatasyārhatesamyaksambuddhasyakalpa-nāma, guhyasamaja, and so on are present in the ldan dkar catalogue pointing to its early presence in Tibet. Anyway, the Tattvasamgraha was never completely translated in Chinese until the 11th century, or perhaps the late tenth, around the same time it was translated into Tibetan.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Jeff, you have to keep in mind that a lot of ritual procedures written by Tibetans were held in the memories of Indians practitioners since they are a deep cultural part of India.

Indrajala said:
Sure, but then we need to ask why tantric traditions in China never seemed to have had comparable practices (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Malcolm wrote:
I explained that -- Guru yoga, as well as mandala offerings, are quite specific to the annutarayoga tantra phase in India. These tantras were not imported to China in any systematic way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Indian Vajrayana
Content:


Khechara said:
Hello there. Well, I don't know him personally but from what I do know about him, he is far from being an 'ordinary syncretic Hindu'. The Vajrayana tradition which he belongs to is an old Nath lineage. I came across one of his short books, ''In Search of Tantra: Vajrayana'' on Scribd. This was published for an academic session on the subject a few years ago. I'd like to know what you discussed with him.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51812667/tantra-book-format-small

Malcolm wrote:
This is basically a synthesis of Shaiva-agama with Mahāyāna Buddhism with a sprinkling of Vajrayāna thrown for good measure. A lot of talk of "god" and "self" there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:
smcj said:
Who's Lawapa?

Malcolm wrote:
Luipa, the first siddha to write down a Cakrasamvara sadhana.  Also there is the Vajrayogini sadhana penned by Naropa which has a very clearly indicated guru yoga section.

Jeff, you have to keep in mind that a lot of ritual procedures written by Tibetans were held in the memories of Indians practitioners since they are a deep cultural part of India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 7th, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Guru yoga not Indian?
Content:


Indrajala said:
I always thought it unusual how nothing comparable to Tibetan guru yoga seems to have existed in Chinese esoteric Buddhism (though correct me if I'm wrong), and attributed this perhaps to an earlier period of Indian tantra being transmitted into China. But if Mayer is correct, such guru yoga is a Tibetan innovation.

Malcolm wrote:
That entirely depends on what you mean by "innovation". Guru Yoga certainly exists in a few Indian sources. For example, a general outline of Guru Yoga as it is universally practiced today is provided in the Hevajrasya hastavyavagrāhakrama-nāma.

In general, Guru yoga is only an annutarayoga tantra practice.

The practice of making use of historical or quasi historical figures for Guru yoga is a Tibetan innovation. It seems in India, gurus were generally imagined in the form of one's devatā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 7th, 2013 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:
Indrajala said:
I think this movement towards socially engaged Buddhism around the world is actually a result of Buddhists not really believing in saṃsāra any longer.

Malcolm wrote:
I would hesitate to agree with this. Instead I think that "Engaged Buddhism" largely is an offshoot of three things, Gandhi's Satyagraha, the civil rights and antiwar movements in the late sixties and early seventies.

Indrajala said:
It used to be seen as worthwhile to provide institutions and so forth for people to work towards liberation from saṃsāra, but nowadays such goals are not really seen as worthwhile in many circles. Buddhism has to justify its existence by providing liberation from worldly stress and pastoral care..

Malcolm wrote:
You mention Tibet -- but you seem to fail to recognize that the success or failure of Tibetan monasteries was entirely dependent on the perceived efficacy of lamas in a monastery and providing medical services and pastoral, a.k.a, religious services to the laity. Those in retreat were always a minority. Lay people in Tibet for the most part never concerned much with liberation, doing the usual merit dance of lay Buddhists everywhere. In fact, there is an entire literature devoted to excoriating Tibetans lay and ordained alike for their "non-belief" samsara aka engagement in eight worldly dharmas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: blocking realization
Content:
duffster1 said:
I heard Chogyal Namkhai Noru Rinpoche say at the webcast today that everyone has the potential to realize rainbow body and then he said that one can block that potential and then one has no possibility of realizing it in this life?Is it possible to block one's possibility  of having realization for their entire life?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. It is called "having huge misconceptions about the teachings".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Alfredo said:
Trungpa


Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, you are flogging a dead horse. You aren't one of those one issue posters, are you? I hope to see more from you than "sexual misconduct", "Trungpa", "ethics", etc.

Otherwise, I am afraid I will find you quite boring.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Alfredo said:
The same could be said of Mme Blavatsky.

Malcolm wrote:
The influence of the Theosophical Society on the early history of Buddhism in the West is indisputable, despite her many misconceptions about Tibetan Buddhism in particular.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:


Alfredo said:
I readily admit that he is famous and influential. But in what way can he be said to have done "so much good"?

Malcolm wrote:
Hmmm, well, CTR's books have introduced literally millions of people to Buddhadharma for one...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:


Alfredo said:
Malcolm wrote: Alfredo seems to think that Ivo needs to be called out at as a fraud.
No--not yet, anyway. I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's insincere, though it is possible that he is deluded, and many aspects of his teachings (and the group dynamics underlying them) do raise ethical concerns. Again, I would honestly appreciate additional information. For example, the anecdotes of the several people who have interacted with him in the past, and posted above, I find revealing.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't have better ways to spend your time?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, most of us who have been around for any length of time have come to the conclusion that trying to out unethical teachers doesn't work. Their students just cling tighter, and circle the wagons. For example, Mary Finnegan has been waging a war on Sogyal Rinpoche for more than twenty years. Is he any less successful? No. He is more successful than ever.

dzogchungpa said:
Is Sogyal an unethical teacher in your opinion?


Malcolm wrote:
If the reports are true...but I do not know that they are...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 6th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Simon E. said:
As I said above others have the knowledge to read the nuances between the lines here than the degree of my knowledge allows..but we seem to have segued from general misgivings to association with well documented sexual predation ..is there evidence for that kind of abuse from 'Ivo ' ?
Have I missed something ?


Malcolm wrote:
Alfredo seems to think that Ivo needs to be called out at as a fraud. My own position is that whether Ivo is a fraud, deluded, or authentic does not matter to me in the slightest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 5th, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Those deities were there from the start. But you can see  Buddhist exclusivity rising in Indian Mahāyāna texts that define refuge, and so on.

Indrajala said:
Nevertheless, there is plenty of heterogenetic development to be discerned.

Malcolm wrote:
I see it as appropriation.

There are three modes of conversion in Buddhism:

Setting a good example (early Buddhism)
Charity (Middle Buddhism)
Subjugation through appropriation (Late Buddhism, esp. Vajrayāna).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 5th, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:


Indrajala said:
It wasn't that exclusive when you consider how many Vedic deities were embraced. Just look at the art record alone with all the Hindu epics being splashed around temples.

Malcolm wrote:
Those deities were there from the start. But you can see  Buddhist exclusivity rising in Indian Mahāyāna texts that define refuge, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 5th, 2013 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Christian Influences in Modern Buddhism
Content:


Indrajala said:
There's a few more aspects I'd like to discuss:

- The view that the Pali canon best represents an original Buddhism via a historical Buddha, and that this is worth adhering to as a pure or authentic Buddhism (getting to the "true teachings" of the Buddha, not unlike getting to the original teachings of Christ).

Malcolm wrote:
Mostly an issue for Theravadins.


-
Indrajala said:
The new exclusive nature of Buddhism, whereby self-identifying Buddhists are actively discouraged from participating in non-Buddhist religious activities.

Malcolm wrote:
False, Tibetan Buddhism has been very exclusionary from the beginning. It has to do with how refuge is defined in late Indian texts.

Indrajala said:
- In some modern Buddhist traditions a distaste for rituals, 'superfluous iconography' and archaic liturgy (Protestant influences).

Malcolm wrote:
Some truth in this.

-
Indrajala said:
In some traditions, centralized administrations with a key figurehead and his or her elites in charge of all major decisions and policies with underlings expected to show obedience (Catholic influences).

Malcolm wrote:
Represents a total misunderstanding of the nature of Tibetan Buddhism, both here and in Tibet.

Indrajala said:
I think the most pertinent influence from Christianity has quite possibly been the second on the list: the new Buddhist self-identity where exclusivity is now seen as important and worth emphasizing. Of course in the past "Buddhists" existed, but as we know even today were often readily able and willing to participate in all manner of other practices and ideologies, and even incorporate them. Christian-like exclusivity for Buddhists is probably a fairly new development in most cultures.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so. I imagine you can find the roots of Buddhist exclusivity in the post-Gupta environment, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 5th, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Alfredo said:
The notion that it is enough to focus on our own teachers, and ignore the wider ethical problems plaguing Tibetan Buddhism (or Buddhism in general), to me shows a lack of spiritual responsibility.

Malcolm wrote:
So what do you suggest? Frankly, most of us who have been around for any length of time have come to the conclusion that trying to out unethical teachers doesn't work. Their students just cling tighter, and circle the wagons. For example, Mary Finnegan has been waging a war on Sogyal Rinpoche for more than twenty years. Is he any less successful? No. He is more successful than ever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 5th, 2013 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Alfredo said:
But some of his practices can be practiced now, without going to Mexico.  Besides, where exactly do you think "here" is?

Lama Ivo has already told his side of the story in some detail on his website, so before asking him to comment, it might be better to read that first. I was actually hoping to learn what other people say about him, in the hopes that that would prove revealing.

So far my impression (from reading his website) has been mixed. On one hand, he seems serious, intense, and knowledgable. I can hardly fault him for being a Westerner, or an iconoclast. On the other, he has obviously groomed his followers to obey him with some intensity, even when he guides them in unexpected directions. This model of guru-dom is one which I wish could be reformed out of Vajrayana, not simply universalized to make it less Tibetan. But then, I am an unenlightened wretch, so what do I know?


Malcolm wrote:
I read it.

Who cares? Unless you are interested in being his student, of what concern is it to you?

After all this nonsense about Ngagpa Chogyam, Roach, etc., if I have learned anything at all, people are going to believe whatever the hell they want no matter what anyone else says.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 5th, 2013 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, who cares? No one here is going to run off to Mexico to become a student of Ivo's or practice these things. Best to let it alone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 3rd, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Lama Ivo Kalushev of Bulgaria
Content:
Alfredo said:
Is anybody familiar with Lama Ivo? He is a Bulgarian with a Nyingma background, who in some sense broke away from this tradition a few years ago when he received/created a cycle of treasure-texts. His center is located in Mexico:

michaelb said:
Ivo used to be on e-sangha under a few user names.

Malcolm wrote:
Who?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 1st, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
Yes, the knowing quality of the mind is fundamentally empty. As far as I know, no one is saying otherwise. However, this doesn't preclude the possibility self-reflexive knowing. This is why, in a reply to daverupa, I noted that we need to be clear on the distinction between self-reflexive knowing and self-grasping. Self-knowing is just that, knowing that knows itself. Nothing more. Relative to the trikaya model, it is only the ignorance of self-grasping that imputes a substantial (instead of empty), isolated (instead of unified with it's radiance) self-knowing.

Astus said:
We know that we are sentient beings simply because we sense things and we are aware of this process. This is self-awareness. Would you call this knowing that knows itself? If so, this is not a problematic idea at all. Only if you suppose some independent knowing that knows itself is there a problem.

Malcolm wrote:
what do you mean by independent knowing?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
WuMing said:
There is no afterlife, just one long bardo that begins with delusion and ends with awakening.
taken from https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=14140&view=unread&sid=85d265cd34a332ed0dc45b71dd878f6b#unread

gad rgyangs said:
I like that one too. I've never seen it put quite that way before.


Malcolm wrote:
Can't take credit for it, it comes from Nyi ma 'bum, 11th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Jetsun Taranatha
Content:
smcj said:
Well, that's certainly not mentioned in the Kagyu histories!

Malcolm wrote:
Not only that, but they exist in Sakya Lam 'bras as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Jetsun Taranatha
Content:
smcj said:
Taking this thread even farther afield: Marpa's son is an adept so he transfers.consciousness to another body.
This practice, which we still have the sadhana for, evidently caused a lot of problems. So it was decided to allow the practice to die out. No empowerment was given to the next generation, so the practice became inert, dead. You can get the text, and do the sadhana, but since there is no lineage empowerment available, you'd just be wasting your time. Nobody today can make it work anymore.

Malcolm wrote:
grong 'jug practices still exist in Nyingma with uninterrupted transmissions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
Presumably you mean a buddha's self-knowing is not self-reflexive, in that mind cannot take itself as its own object. Mind would have to take a 'step back' in order to see itself, thereby setting up an infinite regression. It must somehow know itself without taking itself as an object, correct?

Malcolm wrote:
The buddhas self-knowing is precisely self-reflexive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Music time
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: Monday, September 30th, 2013 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Longde Teachings
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Ok then..thanks Malcolm..so its the entire initiation that is required not just the lung. Got it. Interesting how these things work. Sometimes all you need is just to hear Rinpoche say a mantra etc and other times you need an entire initiation. Wish there was a guideline book out there for all of these things or even have it posted on the website what exactly is required for each thing that Rinpoche teaches...sure would be helpful...

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, a lung does not have direct introduction. And typically, Rinpoche is a stickler for transmitting things he received in the manner in which he received them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Longde Teachings
Content:
Fa Dao said:
ok then, so if it isnt the AOM/Ngondzog Gyalpo lung then I wonder what does exactly constitute transmission for Longde?

Malcolm wrote:
The Ngondzog Gyalpo initiation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
oushi said:
This is precisely how it is described in prajnaparamita for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, but no.

oushi said:
Your "arguments" are not convincing...

Perfection of wisdom in 8000 lines, chapter XII.

Malcolm wrote:
Abhisamaya alaṃkāra, the whole book, which explains the hidden meaning of the PP sūtras, including the scope and content of the two kinds of omniscience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Sherab said:
By definition, conditioned and unconditioned are mutually exclusive.


Malcolm wrote:
By definition they are mutually unintelligible without the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
oushi said:
This is precisely how it is described in prajnaparamita for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, but no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is irreversible, that is why your statement is trivial and untrue.

oushi said:
All-knowing is always available since it is present through unknowability of all dharmas. Because dharmas are imperceptible, omniscience is free from knowing.
Simply speaking, there is nothing that can be known.


Malcolm wrote:
Umm, that is really not how omniscience is described, you are entitled to whatever you like to think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
oushi said:
That which is know, can also be unknown, thus it is not ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
Trivial and untrue.

oushi said:
I thought you can do better than that. It is very simple, thus difficult to refute. Probably that's why you went straight to trivializing it. Knowing cannot be ultimate simply because it can be unknown.

Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is irreversible, that is why your statement is trivial and untrue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When you have relinquished all traces for rebirth, automatically the twelve āyatanas will cease at the break up of the body. This is classic "hināyāna" nirvana. Peter Harvey's books suggests that after the eradication of affliction there is a tiny shred of evidence in the Nikayas that Buddha suggests that there is a which vinnana/vijñāna survives in a now unconditioned state (i.e. a state unconditioned by affliction) and that this is nirvana intended by the Buddha. He nevertheless insists that this continuum is not to be referred to as a self, and that Buddha would find it inappropriate to do so.

Koji said:
There is also that odd ayantana:
There is, monks, that ayantana wherein there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air ... and so on. (Udana VIII, i).
And speaking of Peter and  the attâ:
"As will be shown below, though, the early sources used by the Theravâda are bereft of any such explicit denial. The idea that Buddhism, 'denies the self', though, has become a commonplace of Religious Studies” (Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind, p. 7).

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, but you have to read the last chapter, where he gives his conclusion. It all basically boils down to what Nāgārjuna says, sometimes Buddha said self, sometimes he said not self, and one needs to understand the context. When the self is used a prajñāpti, a designation, then this is acceptable. When trying to discern the nature of things, it is not acceptable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
oushi said:
That which is know, can also be unknown, thus it is not ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
Trivial and untrue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus said:
So, when you say that knowing knows itself, emptiness and radiance, that is actually the Huayan model. Although logically to say that knowing includes (knows) knowing is nothing but stating that knowing is knowing.

anjali said:
The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)? To hijack a zen phrase, is it possible to " turn the light and illuminate back?" From the perspective of self-reflexive knowing, this can be interpreted as taking the light of one's awareness and turning it back on itself. There are folks who say this can be done, and describe it as a singular experience.


Malcolm wrote:
The omniscience of the a buddha is self-knowing, as I mentioned before.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 29th, 2013 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
But religion can also be this: "All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature." ~ Schleiermacher

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, smoke and mirrors. Pablum to feed the confused and ignorant. As the Buddha pointed out, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas.

Koji said:
Correct, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas like another twelve āyatanas, or like another sabba beyond the first sabba. At SN 35:23 we learn that the sabba is the 12 ayatana. At SN 35:24 the Buddha teaches us the Dhamma for abandoning sabba ( sabbappahānāya ). At SN 35:28 we learn the sabba is burning. Seeing thus the Ariyasāvaka experiences a revulsion towards the 12 ayatana after which he is liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
When you have relinquished all traces for rebirth, automatically the twelve āyatanas will cease at the break up of the body. This is classic "hināyāna" nirvana. Peter Harvey's books suggests that after the eradication of affliction there is a tiny shred of evidence in the Nikayas that Buddha suggests that there is a which vinnana/vijñāna survives in a now unconditioned state (i.e. a state unconditioned by affliction) and that this is nirvana intended by the Buddha. He nevertheless insists that this continuum is not to be referred to as a self, and that Buddha would find it inappropriate to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Bodhidharma's Courtesan
Content:
Indrajala said:
It seems the real successor to Bodhidharma was someone other than what the official records tell us.



Any thoughts?



Malcolm wrote:
He's pretty short in the picture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
But religion can also be this: "All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature." ~ Schleiermacher

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, smoke and mirrors. Pablum to feed the confused and ignorant. As the Buddha pointed out, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The question is, why would anyone believe your testimony.

Koji said:
You need a NPOV on the matter.

Malcolm wrote:
This is religion, baby, it is all just smoke and mirrors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: I have some proof here that there's no afterlife
Content:
gandy said:
so how does buddhism reconcile with this?


Malcolm wrote:
There is no afterlife, just one long bardo that begins with delusion and ends with awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus said:
In the internalised trikaya model, as you said, the three are explained separately but they are not actually three different things. There are a number of ways to explain that. The simplest is the statement of the third "kaya" that emptiness and clarity are inseparable; here it is understood that clarity includes all appearances, it is dependent origination.

Malcolm wrote:
This is in line with Mahāmudra schools like Kagyu and Sakya's take on things. But rang bzhin gsal ba which is the sambhogakāya in Dzogchen teachings is definitely not all appearances and is not dependent origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


conebeckham said:
This leads to the question: for those who feel they have "had an experience" or "experienced" Wisdom or Buddhamind or whatnot, and have somehow consequently conceptualized that experience as a sort of "Self," is that "experience" really the experience of Wisdom that is talked about in Sutra, Tantra, and Upadesha?  Or is it a mistaken experience?

Koji said:
Let's say I had the experience of attaining nirvana whose self-nature (svabhâva) is that of being unconditioned and, moreover, my attainment is incapable of being conceptualized. How can I be refuted?  In fact, there is no way I can be refuted.

Malcolm wrote:
The question is, why would anyone believe your testimony.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus said:
When there is no "internal stimulus", it means there is no mental movement, no mental phenomena. And that means unconsciousness, mindlessness.

jeeprs said:
Why then is there significance given to dhyana states such as the 'immaterial dhyanas'? Do you think when yogis are in those states they are simply inert? Might they as well be asleep? The way I would understand it, this is what is implied by 'passing beyond duality', but it is not simply 'unconsciousness'. It is consciousness without the sense of there being an observer. "Contentless consciousness" is one description I have read.

Malcolm wrote:
Those yogis are governed by the concept that propells them into that formless āyatana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Sherab said:
But you did not comment on this:
And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well.  Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.

And that would be a problem.
The fact that you did not comment on the above is to me, a reflection of the difficulty of avoiding the extremes of unconditioned and conditioned, and by extension the extreme position of the other mutually exclusive pairs such as permanent and impermanent, existence and non-existence etc. by using those very words, ie. words such as conditioned and unconditioned etc.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: what is a melong?
Content:
Jikan said:
Thanks to all for the helpful responses.  quick follow-up on Dzogchen Community specific applications of the melong:

Have there been design changes in the DC-made melongs?  The new ones have the Longsal symbol on the back, while I think I remember seeing some with a different design on the back (with the six syllables around the edge if memory serves).  Is there a difference in function for each of these, or does the change in design reflect different considerations?  or am I completely mistaken?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are three versions. The oldest version that has a triangle with a bliss swirl in the center. The version which has been in service since early ninties that has the syllables of the six lokas as well as a the longsal symbol, and the smaller version that has only the longsal symbol.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The essence of the mind cannot be different than mind, otherwise it would not be the essence of the mind. It would be like suggesting that fire and the nature of fire [heat] were distinct.

dzogchungpa said:
This essence of the mind is the same as what they call the basis of the individual in Dzogchen?
bump

Malcolm wrote:
Not really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
I am just wondering, but how does one personally know "there is just experience"? Of course we all know that anyone can imagine such as state but what the imagination concocts doesn't mean it is either real or attainable.

Astus said:
If there is something that is not an experience you don't experience it, consequently you don't know anything about it. What is not an experience is nothing more than a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea.

Koji said:
When you said ealier: There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty, does this pertain to "a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea"?


Malcolm wrote:
The emptiness of things is even something you assent to, Ardent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
So this is not the views and tenet system you claimed to not have?

Malcolm wrote:
The essence of the mind is not something you need to analyze to discover. When you have discovered you do not need a theory to account for it, no more than you need a theory to account for the heat of a fire once you have been burned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I guess you think there is a Self too since you also think that Buddhahood is not an aggregate.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood is merely the realization of the nature of phenomena, that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Longde Teachings
Content:
oldbob said:
For me, it is is enough that people have a pointing out instruction on the nature of mind, and then remember that everything is included in the infinite potentiality of nature of mind.

Sönam said:
This is also what ChNN says ... integration.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Right, but the question is what is required to practice the methods of Long sde.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
conebeckham said:
Agreed....though we can discuss the differences between Thamal Gyi She Pa, so-called "Ordinary Mind," and discursive thinking, etc....these are terms of art, I think.  Ultimately, there is only one thing...but it ain't a Self.


Malcolm wrote:
According to Yangongpa, the term tha mal gyi shes pa is just a yogis term for wisdom (ye shes). He mentions this in his commentary on Sahaja Mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.

conebeckham said:
Agreed.  Mind is an aggregate, that should be obvious to anyone with a handful of Dharma study.  And it should also be obvious to all that Buddhahood should be sought "in one's mind."

But Buddhahood is not "mind."   It is related to Nature of Mind, which is different from Mind.   Put another way, we must use "mind" to identify Nature of Mind.....that is the first step.   But equating Nature of Mind with a "Great Self" is a slippery slope....expedient means, maybe, for some.

Malcolm wrote:
The essence of the mind cannot be different than mind, otherwise it would not be the essence of the mind. It would be like suggesting that fire and the nature of fire [heat] were distinct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Do you consider the Mind to be an Aggregate?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course it is an aggregate: manas, vijñāna and citta are all synonyms.

Son of Buddha said:
then as the sutras and suttas I quoted state Buddhahood is not an Aggregate
so do you take Buddhahood to be an Aggregate even though the suttas/sutras say it is not?

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that Buddhahood was an aggregate, I cited a sūtra that states quite unequivocally that buddhahood is to be sought in one's mind, and not elsewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
you represent the tenet system called Dzogchen.........hence why it has a label for which to label itself and its followers.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a tenet system.

Son of Buddha said:
sure it is
do you receive a teaching in Dzogchen from a teacher?
what is his teachings to you???

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is one's state which can be discovered. It is not something about which one needs to speculate and analyze.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Do you consider the Mind to be an Aggregate?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course it is an aggregate: manas, vijñāna and citta are all synonyms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 28th, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
you represent the tenet system called Dzogchen.........hence why it has a label for which to label itself and its followers.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a tenet system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
(P.S. when did I say Buddhahood lies outside the mind?)

Malcolm wrote:
When you said that your truly existent self lies outside of the aggregates, and that that is buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: 13 Precious Drikung Kagyu Empowerments
Content:
heart said:
I really think you have to watch this live if you really want the empowerment. Recordings are no good.

/magnus

Karma Dorje said:
Magnus is right, the dharmakaya only pervades everything during the empowerment. The rest of the time you are SOL.

Malcolm wrote:
If people have faith in this, then fine. I don't personally believe one can receive a valid empowerment though a recording. But that is just me following the advice of my guru. Your mileage might vary.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
I represent one view you represent another view...........hence a living example of your duality.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't represent a view or a tenet system. But when I examine what is stated in Buddhist texts, I do not see your view of them to be a very accurate picture.

For example, The Aryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra claims: The mind is realized; since it is wisdom one should meditate on the idea of not seeking buddhahood elsewhere.
The tenet system of you, Ardent, Vidyārāja, etc., is too seek a buddhahood that lies outside of the mind, the opposite of this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
as did all the Tantras and Sutras err in doing the same thing.


Malcolm wrote:
The sūtras and tantras do not make that error at all.

As Kamalaśila points out in his commentary on the Vajracchedika sūtra, "While the Tathāgata cannot be seen because by perfect marks, nevertheless, he can be seen through ultimate dharmatā."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
No-self is not a thing, it is a statement that something is without self, that is, a permanent identity. Self, on the other hand, is the concept that there is a permanent identity.


Malcolm wrote:
You're completely ensnared into a dualism vis a vie self and no self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
Actually I was trying to make the point that the conclusion is not that simple.


Malcolm wrote:
It's pretty simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
That would simply mean that there is no conditioned, no compounded, no born, no transcended.  And that would simply mean that all that is experienced is nothing but an illusion, a hallucination.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

Sherab said:
So the core of the compounded is uncompounded, the core of the born is unborn, the core of the transcended is untranscended?

Malcolm wrote:
I agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


conebeckham said:
It doesn't operate through the mental consciousness, either, if I recall, as that is transformed into a wisdom....??

Malcolm wrote:
Sense organs means all six.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you are a follower of Madhyamaka.

Astus said:
I don't see how an independent awareness could fit into... Yogacara either.

Malcolm wrote:
There exists a detailed defense of reflexive cognition in Ratnakarashanti's Madhyamakālaṃkara, not to mention the fact that epistemologists like Dharmakirti extensively advance the idea.

Further in secret mantra it is a stated that the wisdom of a tathāgata is a reflexive cognition, not only is it a reflexive cognition but it does not operate through sense organs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus said:
A knowing/awareness cannot be experienced - only assumed - existing in and of itself. There is always something known, there is always a content of awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you are a follower of Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
conebeckham said:
Indeed, Anjali, this is my understanding as well.  I try to be a good Kagyupa, myself....

Per 3rd Karmapa's Mahamudra prayer, Mind does not "exist." But Mind cannot be said to be "nonexistent."   This is Tantra, but let's forget that distinction for the moment.  I think you can find plenty of Sutra and Shastra sources regarding Mind, or perhaps Mere Awareness.  Consciousness at it's most basic level.   A "Knowing."

I think this is the sort of thing that some folks equate with the "Great Self," though my readings thus far have made it clear to me that using "self" is a bit of a misnomer, and leads to a variety of problems, many of which are outlined here on this thread.


Malcolm wrote:
This is because the term bdag nyid chen po has a different connotation that those people who merely blindly translate things literally.

The term is carefully explained by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe to mean that all phenomena are included in the state of Samantabhadra. This then is the meaning of mahātman, bdag nyid chen po, in Dzogchen teachings in general.

In general, the way the term is used in sutras and tantras is as a title, i.e., "great persons", mahātmas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: when and where ? Chöd wang and lung
Content:
akatararyo said:
It is my understanding that the Chod from the Dudjom Tersar does not require empowerment to practice since there is no self-generation and T'hroma is visualized above your head.

Malcolm wrote:
You are going to find a lot of disagreement about that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I was not saying that shes rig becomes in the sense of arising. Merely that it becomes conditioned when it becomes involved in object imputation. The notion that shes rig is momentary depends on the conventional status of mind moments. Now granted, Sakya Pandita argues that timeless moments are immune to Madhyamaka reasonings, which according to him only apply to moments with temporal phases. This becomes very similar to the idea that shes rig is unconditioned because timeless moments would themselves be unconditioned with no possibility of any intervals between their instantiation. Of course we are then left with the quandary of what do to with timeless times. Sometimes in the Dzogchen texts you see reference to a fourth time, which is a state beyond the three times, past, present and future.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, this brings up a subject I've wanted to ask about for a long time, namely the nature of time in Buddhism generally, and Dzogchen in particular. It seems to me that a lot of what underlies the kind of argument you see in this thread is that we don't really understand what time is. Does Dzogchen have something distinctive to say about time?


Malcolm wrote:
Not really, time is not established cf Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
Indrajala said:
In East Asia there was monasticism, sure, but it was quite different from the prescribed Indian model. Not quite "lay" but not really in line with the Vinaya either.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, a major difference too was that in Tibet there was already a strong ritualist class that took to the imported Indian rituals like ducks to water. These ritualists performed vital economic functions in the Tibetan economy such as warding off rain, hail, ensuring harvests and calves, etc., exorcising spirits connected with contagious illnesses, herbalism and so on. On the other hand, Monastics in Tibet had little to offer the lay population, since their main function was conducting state rites just like the kind of early Vajrayāna we see about the same time in Japan and China. When the monastic establishment failed in Central Tibet in the 840's, during the Asian economic downturn of the late Tang, the Buddhist ritualists in Tibet continued to provide valued services to the local populations. It was only after the monastic establishment began to integrate these local services and allied themselves with the aristocratic families like the Khon during the 11th century and so on that the populace really began to lend wholesale support to monastic establishment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words. shes rig is unconditioned and timeless because time and conditions are not established in any way, but the fact of knowing awareness is indisputable, becoming conditioned only when it becomes entangled in dualistic cognitions.

dzogchungpa said:
I find statements like these very confusing. "When" would something timeless "become" at all?

Malcolm wrote:
I was not saying that shes rig becomes in the sense of arising. Merely that it becomes conditioned when it becomes involved in object imputation. The notion that shes rig is momentary depends on the conventional status of mind moments. Now granted, Sakya Pandita argues that timeless moments are immune to Madhyamaka reasonings, which according to him only apply to moments with temporal phases. This becomes very similar to the idea that shes rig is unconditioned because timeless moments would themselves be unconditioned with no possibility of any intervals between their instantiation. Of course we are then left with the quandary of what do to with timeless times. Sometimes in the Dzogchen texts you see reference to a fourth time, which is a state beyond the three times, past, present and future.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
If no, then what is your definition of "unconditioned" and "conditioned"?

Malcolm wrote:
I just stated at the outset that the conditioned and the unconditioned are not mutually exclusive.

The unconditioned and the conditioned, as I have already stated, are neither the same nor different.

The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, etc., are all synonyms.

This is why Manjushri says "Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise."

The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus said:
“Nonabiding is without any fundamental [basis]. Mañjuśrī, all dharmas are established on the fundamental [basis] of nonabiding.”[/i]
(Vimalakirti Sutra, ch 7, p 126-127; tr. McRae)

Sherab said:
Understanding this is not as easy as it looks.


Malcolm wrote:
It just means that the "unconditioned and the conditioned" are in a nondual state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
If emptiness is equated with dependent origination, then if emptiness is unconditioned, dependent origination must also be unconditioned.  If dependent origination is unconditioned, then causality must also be unconditioned.  In other words, there is no cause for causality, which is a contradiction in terms.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is the nature of that which is dependently originated, that's all. What is the dependently originated empty of? All extremes. That emptiness is unconditioned. That emptiness is suchness. Suchness, by every definition is unconditioned. This being the case, as I said, the conditioned and the unconditioned are not mutually exclusive since the conditioned has an unconditioned nature.

The Samdhinirmocana has a nice explanation of how dharma and dharmatā are neither the same nor different.

M

conebeckham said:
But what about Bare Awareness? Im not speaking of "mind," as in consciousness, mindstream, but of the very awareness itself....it is taught, is it not, that this is unconditioned?  It is also taught that it is "empty."

Malcolm wrote:
There are two ways this can be sliced: the first way, the Sakya approach, is to assert that knowing awareness (shes rig) is relative and momentary, its emptiness is ultimate, and that the two are inseparable.

The second way to slice this is that time is predicated on objects (cf Vasubandhu) and that as objects are not established, time is not established (cf Nāgārjuna), leaving shes rig in an unconditioned state since it is not conditioned by objects (upon which imputations of time are dependent). In other words. shes rig is unconditioned and timeless because time and conditions are not established in any way, but the fact of knowing awareness is indisputable, becoming conditioned only when it becomes entangled in dualistic cognitions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Soreness in thighs.
Content:
philji said:
Any ideas or tips for dealing with pain and stiffness in thighs, especially after sitting. I have been doing more sitting of late but am noticing a real stiffness in my thigh muscles...hobbling around for a while like an old man...well I am quite old!!!!!!

Malcolm wrote:
light yoga, especially with postures held for several minutes like Paschimottasana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Sherab said:
The problem is that "vertical" dependence demands a starting point.  The question then is: Is this starting point conditioned or unconditioned?  If it is conditioned, then it cannot be the starting point.  If it is unconditioned, how can it be the cause of all the others that is above it?

Malcolm wrote:
You are just falling into the same trap as Ardent and Co.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Sherab said:
If emptiness is equated with dependent origination, then if emptiness is unconditioned, dependent origination must also be unconditioned.  If dependent origination is unconditioned, then causality must also be unconditioned.  In other words, there is no cause for causality, which is a contradiction in terms.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is the nature of that which is dependently originated, that's all. What is the dependently originated empty of? All extremes. That emptiness is unconditioned. That emptiness is suchness. Suchness, by every definition is unconditioned. This being the case, as I said, the conditioned and the unconditioned are not mutually exclusive since the conditioned has an unconditioned nature.

The Samdhinirmocana has a nice explanation of how dharma and dharmatā are neither the same nor different.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
mutsuk said:
But my point was that the monks consider the Bon western sangha as made of apes (dixit for males) and cows (dixit for females) just good enough to pay for "retreats" (which in my opinion are often only a series of "conferences"...).

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is just standard Xenophobia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
mutsuk said:
tibetan monks are very rarely willing to share that ritual training.

Malcolm wrote:
Which, honestly speaking, is not freaking rocket science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
You should say both Ardent and the Buddha romantically see the skandhas as a Mara. It would be more accurate Avuso.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, that is one view of the matter. Not the final word however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Sherab said:
This means that the real reality is that there is a relation between the ultimate and the relative, the transcendent and the mundane.   That is why it is so difficult to get one's head around it.

Malcolm wrote:
The prajñāpāramitā solution is that the unconditioned and the conditioned are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned, and that is what emptiness basically means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
Indrajala said:
In fact, I'd argue a lay priesthood is far more adaptable to changing circumstances than a monastic community is.

Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely the argument used in Tibetan history for the existence of sngags pas.When monks fled the chaos that ensued after Langdarma was assassinated for proposing to tax the monasteries, Buddhadharma primarily survived due to the interest of aristocratic Clans such as the Khon and so on in preserving Buddhist teachings within their families.

After China's economy stabilized in the late tenth century, and trade between Tibet and China was no longer so disrupted, then the monastic community who had survived the travails of that epoch returned to Central Tibet and reestablished monasteries, encouraged by royal support.

The other factor too is that in Tibet, sngags pas are not really considered "lay" in the sense understood here in the West. They have undergone a kind of ordination, They have vows that are distinct from monastic vows, they also have garb to wear, etc. They are educated, which sets them apart from the average person and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the problem as I see it is that line of reasoning employed by Ardent (Koji), VidyArAja, and so on is that unconditioned and conditioned phenomena are mutually exclusive.

For them the unconditioned is Self even if they cannot precisely say what that Self is (and they never seem to be able to).

Vidyārāja sees this self as the one who is aware (since he keeps asking who or what is aware of emptiness) -- this is very similar to the Samkhya based metaphysics of all the Hindu systems.

Ardent romantically sees the skandas as a mara (though how Ardent live with himself with such a negative view of his psychosomatic continuum is anyone's guess).

In other words, their view is very Manichaen, since they are addicted to an absolute dichotomy between the conditioned and unconditioned or Gnostic, in the sense that the material universe is evil and they are seekers of metanoia so they may return to the pleroma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Longde Teachings
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Does this mean that a person could get this and practice it?

Malcolm wrote:
It means they practice Nhondzog Gyalpo, not Longde.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: wallowing
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Luke, I am not sure how standalone Vajrasattva practice normally works in Sakya, there is the 100 syllable mantra in some sadhana, but I do not know anyone who does it as a standalone thing...

Malcolm wrote:
You do the refuge, bodhicitta and then Vajraheruka, then dedication. It is pretty straight forward. Dezhung Rinpoche's text has a dedication specifically for people who are only working on that section.

If you have received any major Sakya empowerment such as Hevajra, etc., you already have the empowerment.

I did the entire Sakya ngondro and a three year retreat in the Sakya system, FYI.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Dolpopa was very clear that the Buddhist Idea of True Self was not the same as the Forders....The problem he stated with the forders Idea of "Self" is that they considered impermanent things to be the Self....


Malcolm wrote:
Obviously, Dolbupa was completely ignorant of what non-Buddhists believed about "the self".

Son of Buddha said:
(I highlighted Blue on your very quote)they considered that which was not Noumena to be Noumena, and imputed what was impermanent to be that which is permenant ........in Dolpopas argument he states the the forders views did not actually contain the self of thusness,the pure self(ect)

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously Dolbupa erred in attributing truly existent characteristics to the signless.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Sat is what is veridical.  Look to the meaning of the underlying ideas. From Gaudapada's verses on the Mandukya Upanisad:

Malcolm wrote:
It it is also what is existent, for example, Samkhya is characterized as a satkaryavāda i.e. advocates (vāda) of production (karma) from an existent (sat).

There is a correspondence in Indian philosophy between what is veridical and what is existent. To deny this is to deny 3000 years of Indian thinking on the subject.

sat	mf(%{satI4})n. (pr. p. of 1. %{as}) being , existing , occurring , happening , being present (%{sato@me} , `" when I was present "' ; often connected with other participles or with an adverb e.g. %{nAmni@kRte@sati} , `" when the name has been given "' ; %{tathA@sati} , `" if it be so "' ; also ibc. , where sometimes = `" possessed of "' cf. %{sat-kalpavRkSa}) RV. &c. &c. ; abiding in (loc.) MBh. ; belonging to (gen.) S3Br. ; living Mun2d2Up. ; lasting , enduring Ka1v. RV. &c. &c. ; real , actual , as any one or anything ought to be , true , good , right (%{tan@na@sat} , `" that is not right "') , beautiful , wise , venerable , honest (often in comp. see below) RV. &c. &c. ; m. a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV. &c. ; a good or wise man , a sage MBh. R. ; good or honest or wise or respectable people Mn. MBh. &c. ; (%{I4}) f. see %{sati4} below ; (%{sat}) n. that which really is , entity or existence , essence , the true being or really existent (in the Veda7nta , `" the self-existent or Universal Spirit , Brahma "') RV. &c. &c. ; that which is good or real or true , good , advantage , reality , truth ib. ; water Naigh. i , 12 ; (in gram.) the terminations of the present participle Pa1n2. 3-2 , 127 &c. ; (%{sat}) ind. (cf. %{sat-kR} &c.) well , right , fitly. [Cf. Gk. $ for $ ; Lat. {sens} in &343162[1134 ,2] {absens} , {pra-sens} ; {sons} , `" guilty "' , orig. `" the real doer "' ; Lith. {sa1s} , {e4sas} ; Slav. {sy} , {sas8ta}.]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


anjali said:
Let's run with this. Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with Gaudapada and his teachings. How does he characterize sat in his system of thought? A specific quote would be very helpful, then we can take a look at how sat compares with emptiness.


Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty straighforward. In his Karikas he argues that if the ultimate is unreal, there cannot be any illusion of birth or actual birth using the example of a barren women.

"The unreal cannot be born either really or through Māya. For the son of a barren woman is born neither in reality nor in illusion."

In other words, Gaudapada's theory of dualistic appearances depends on the reality of nondual brahman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
Jikan said:
I don't speak business-ese and I'd like to give the good people at Tara Mandala the benefit of the doubt.  Can anyone clarify what is meant by "competitiveness" in this context?  Does it mean that the center is interested in ensuring that their rates & fees &c are priced at about the same level as other comparable centers?  Or...?



Malcolm wrote:
I think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So, I don't really agree that all these systems are trying to get the same point, or have the same path, etc. As far as I can tell, Advaitans are climbing up one mountain, Buddhists are climbing a different mountain altogether.

dzogchungpa said:
One man's mountain is another man's valley, I always say.
Seriously though, which mountain are Dzogchenpas climbing?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Receive the advaita upadesha yourself and compare.  Otherwise it is just so much comparing liquids based on the differences in the vessels which contain them.  Of course the paths are different.  After many years of practicing both, it's not so clear to me that there is much real difference in fruit.

Malcolm wrote:
Since the reduction of afflictions is the elementary point of both systems, I am perfectly content to grant that both systems provide the means the suppress afflictions.

I find the element of insight lacking in Hindu systems, as well as bodhicitta. There is no bodhicitta in Hindu systems of any sort whatsoever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
An aside, Nakamura in his important ground breaking work, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, has a lot to say about Buddhism and Vedanta. Buddhists should be cautious about asserting that some elements of Buddhism have been influenced by Vedanta. In the case of early Buddhism there was no Vedanta school. Also, Nakamura points out that "quite a few of the Vedanta lines have been greatly influenced by Buddhism, with Buddhist thought pervading them through and through"!


Malcolm wrote:
Oh lord, Ardent, you have not said one damn new thing in 18 years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
But sat does not mean existent.  Gaudapada was well acquainted with the tetralemma.

The reality of the matter is that ALL systems that posit a non-dual reality that is merely covered over by prapanca are just different philosophical franchises serving up the same tasty patties of ground beef and batons of deep-fried potato, whether on the one hand the cipher used is "emptiness" or on the other hand "Brahman".  Their various brands, trademarks, hermeneutical approaches and excuses for why they are right and the other guy is wrong speak only to the different habituations of those to be tamed.  One doesn't have to be a perennialist to see this.

Malcolm wrote:
What non-dual means in Buddhadharma is really quite different than what it means say to Sankara and even Gaudapada. Gaudapada may have been sympathetic towards Mahāyāna philosophy, and in the Agamasastra he indiscriminately cribbed yogacara and madhyamaka arguments to refute  Samkhya and Vaṣesika and so on.

What nisprapañca means is also different in these systems.

So, I don't really agree that all these systems are trying to get the same point, or have the same path, etc. As far as I can tell, Advaitans are climbing up one mountain, Buddhists are climbing a different mountain altogether.

Apart from a common agreement that kleṣas are what is responsible for transmigration, I don't see these systems as having much in common in terms of how they present the basis, the path and the result.

Also I really don't agree that brahman = śūnyatā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
anjali said:
What is the status of the Self's existence? Would you characterize the Self as existent, non-existent, both or neither? Would you characterize it as empty?

Lotus_Bitch said:
In non-dualist philosophies such as Kashmiri Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta respectively: Shiva and Brahman are beyond existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence and neither existence nor non-existence.


Malcolm wrote:
I think this is not really correct. Brahman is ajati because it is unconditioned. It is considered beyond existence and non-existence only in the sense of being conditioned. It is sat, meaning real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Nonetheless, I think what I quoted by Dolpopa on the previous page is quite clearly not the popular no-self notion.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you really understand the citation you cited. I think you lack sufficient education in the hermeneutics of the tantras upon which Dolbupa's entire position is predicated.

Basically, what you have admitted to is that you are merely incorporating some Buddhist masters [you poorly understand] into an over all perennialist agenda. You initiated this by attacking someone whose views you regarded as "heretical" barely even considering that the vast majority of Buddhists would consider your perspective equally outside the pale of Buddhadharma, which it is, by your own admission.

You are a perennialist eclectic, which is fine and dandy, but don't confuse your philosophical tastes with Buddhadharma, for they are not the same.

It would also be good if you learned some humility and stopped pretending you were an expert in teachings which you cannot read in a primary language.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Not who I am in the sense that it isn't my name-form-memories-thoughts or not who I am in the ultimate sense? The Atman isn't personal, but supra-personal, so there is no grasping to self in that sense. Nonetheless, it is the nondual ground of all there is and Tat Tvam Asi.

Malcolm wrote:
If there is a nondual ground of all there is in Mahāyāna, it is emptiness. Not some divine pleroma. In the Nikayas, Buddha explicitly denies the existence of any such ground.
As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"
"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then is everything a Oneness?"
"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then is everything a Manyness?"
"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html


Vidyaraja said:
Therefore, the ultimate [reality] in all profound sutras and tantras which finely present thusness, and so forth, is empty of other, never empty of self-nature.

Malcolm wrote:
Dolbupa would be horrified to think that you had so misunderstood his writing. He writes:
"Since the matrix-of-the-one gone-thus is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self of the forders, and because uncompounded noumena transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent."
Mountain Doctrine, ppg. 118-119.

But you, from the beginning of this discussion have asserted that the other emptiness asserted by Dolbupa is exactly the affirmation of the atman of the Vedantins and so on.

This is why I say you have no idea what Dolbupa's actual perspective is.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Is this clarity who I really am? Have you directly realized this clarity and therefore can say for certain that it is empty of Self, or are you going by the philosophy of others?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not who you are, since it is empty of all extremes. It is who you are since it is the basis of designating a person. We have an experience of clarity all the time. It is when we mistake the reflections in it for itself, that we reify outer objects as real. When we mistaken it for being a self, or a person, we engage atmagraha, grasping a self.

As it is said in many sutras and tantras, there is no buddhahood outside of the mind.

Vidyaraja said:
Seems that a large number of Buddhists (who incidentally buy into the no-self doctrine) are depressed, self-hating, and mentally unstable.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't really know any Buddhist like that. But I think that people who hang around religion groups in general usually have a lot of issues.


Vidyaraja said:
I think the vision of ultimate truth as expressed Dolpopa or various Hindu sages is a happy one.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I am very convinced by now that you haven't the slightest inkling of what Dolbupa really thinks or why he wrote what he did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Burning the seed of existence as applying to the empirical self which allows one to transcend the triple realm isn't the same burning away the ultimate Self.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically you erred in the same way all the great mystics outside Buddhadharma have erred. You have mistaken clarity for a self, without realizing that clarity too is empty.

Vidyaraja said:
You said previously that non-conceptual wisdom apprehends emptiness, but what is this non-conceptual wisdom and is it aware? What is the relation between us and this non-conceptual wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
Nonconceptual wisdom replaces consciousness when knowledge obscurations are total eradicated. If you want to understand how this works, read the Mahāyāna Saṃgraha by Asanga which clearly explains how the aggregates transform into the four wisdoms.

Some people assert Buddhas cognize normally [Gelug] others assert that Buddhas are free from all cognitions and that their acts are totally spontaneous.

Vidyaraja said:
According this line of thought, two options are available, the reality of some part of me (like awareness or transcendent Self) and suffering, or my negation and absence to be free from suffering?

Malcolm wrote:
You clearly do not understand the purpose of the two truths.

Vidyaraja said:
Yes, it is only my opinion, but as pointed out also the opinion of most of world's sages including Hindu yogis and Buddhist masters like Dolpopa, so I think I am in good company.

Malcolm wrote:
Misery loves company.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Those that do deny the Self I believe are primarily philosophers working with a system of thought, not realized yogis attempting to communicate their experiential realization of deathlessness.

Malcolm wrote:
In your opinion. Others vigorously disagree with your assertion, as do the vast majority of Mahāyāna sutras. How the tathāgatagarbha sutras (a very minor part of the Mahāyāna canon) are to be read is a bit of a contentious issue -- suffice it to say that the commentary on them reads like a standard Madhyamaka text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Now this is only relevant to me of course due to being intertwined with personal experience, but beyond that I think the universality and descriptive proximity of all the world's sages is more of an objective confirmation of the Self being Truth than the exclusive and minority position of the no-self Buddhists. To accept the latter also entails maintaining the falsity of the rest (or at least lower level, incomplete enlightenment) which isn't something I believe in either.

Malcolm wrote:
The falsity of the rest is something repeatedly stated in the Pali canon and throughout the history of Buddhist critiques of other systems.

In brief, since they never burn the seed of existence because of their extreme views of self, they never get out of the triple realm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What I said was that Buddha was aware, indeed, knowledgable in Samkhya since it was the system taught by Arāda.

Aśvaghoṣa clearly describes Arāda as being a follower of Kaplila, and gives an account of the basics of the Samkhya system in Canto 12...

dzogchungpa said:
Is that the main evidence that the Buddha was familiar with Samkhya?


Malcolm wrote:
It seems to be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Man, it is a real shame for Buddhist philosophy and soteriology if the no-Self doctrine is the actual doctrinal position as its supporters maintain for, if such is truly the case, then Buddhism is a false doctrine. Though at least it would prove that even false doctrines can produce realized sages under the right conditions (such as Dolpopa or those Thai figures who equate nibbana and atta.)


Malcolm wrote:
The teaching of the Buddha is just dependent origination, not self, not no-self.

Sariputra quotes the Buddha:
Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html

And the Buddha said:
He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.087x.wlsh.html

Emptiness of a self as well as the absence of intrinsic identity in phenomena, is merely a consequence of dependent origination.

It is very clear, for example, that the tathāgatagarbha doctrine was swiftly marginalized in mainstream Mahāyāna circles. We can see this by virtue of the fact that the Lankāvatara sūtra clearly describes the ālayavijñāna as being the tathāgatagarbha. There exists but two commentaries devoted to tathāgatgarbha doctrine in the bstan 'gyur.

In general, tathāgatagarbha doctrine becomes more prominent in Vajrayāna for various reasons beyond the scope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Please share your thoughts on this.

Indrajala said:
Tibetan Buddhism in the west could introduce democratic federations which manage common retreat centers for everyone to use. The democracy means, ideally, egalitarianism and neutrality when it comes to lineages and gurus.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, it is McDonald's vs. Burger King thinking. They are all selling burgers and fries, but they all want you to think their burgers and fries are the best.

Here is the breakdown.

McDonalds =- Gelugpas
Burger King = Kagyus
Wendy's = Sakya
KFC/Taco Bell = Nyingma

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Astus said:
The Buddha rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates, and some assumed this is somehow related to Samkhya ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#fn-8 ). Although I don't think it really matters whether Samkhya was known or not, as their views don't fit the Buddha's teachings anyway.

Koji said:
There is no passage in the nikayas that states, unambiguously, the Buddha "rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates." To assert such is also to assert there is nothing outside or beyond the five murderous aggregates (S.iii.114) which also happen to be Mara the killer (S.iii.189). Neither the Buddha nor his disciples identified their self with the aggregates anymore then they might identify their self with a burning pile of grass, twigs, branches and foliage.


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Ardent:

Isn't boring to rehash arguments we had on AOL?

Vasubandhu (cf. Poussin/Pruden) quotes several sources from the Agamas having stated his thesis at the outset:
"There is neither direct perception nor inference of a soul (atman) independent of the skandhas. We know then that a real soul does not exist."
He then cites his authorities such as the Bimbisāra sūtra:
"A stupid ignorant Pṛthagjana becomes attached to words, and he imagines there is a self; but there is no self nor things pertaining to a self, but only past, present and future painful dharmas".
He cites another, also cited in the Sūtrālaṃkara:
"Five calamities proceed from the belief in a soul(atman): one creates a theory of a soul, of a being, of a vital principle, one is not distinguished from heterodox teachers...: etc.
Even the tathāgatagarbha sūtras take great pains to differentiate their "atman" from the atman posited by Pudgalavadins and Hindus because the tatāgatagarbha is merely a gloss for dharmatā.

For example, Ārya-tathāgatagarbha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Whether or not that dharmatā of dharmas produces tathāgatas, these sentient beings always contain tathāgatagarbha.
Now, depending on what you understand dharmatā to mean, then you will understand this in that light. But since there can be no dharmatā without dharmas, it is ludicrous to say this if this tathagātagarbha is other than the aggregates it is also the nature of the aggregates.

Personally, my impression of the main message of the tathagatagarbha sutras is that people should not feel awakening is beyond their capacity. For example, is how this passage from the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra reads:
"Sons of a good family, in the same way all sentient beings are without protection, are tormented with the sufferings of samsara, abiding in a house without a protector, the place of birth in the world. Now, the family of tathagatas exists in all sentient beings, but those it exists in them, those sentient being do not comprehend this.

Suns of a good family, because the Tathāgata do not malign sentient being themselves, sons of good family, you yourselves must not be disheartened, and have firm diligence! There will come a time when the Tathāgata enters into you and you will enter into the ranks of the bodhisattvas and will not be called "sentient beings". Further, when you have entered the ranks of the buddhas, you will not be called "bodhisattvas".
And:
It was taught, "Sentient beings who do not understand dharmatā,
do not generate the thought of 'I am inferior'!"
You must set out with firm diligence,
your own body will become a victor without long delay.
Once one has obtained the heart of awakening,
one will be able to liberate 10,000,000,000 creatures.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
smcj said:
otherwise you get every Tom, Dick and Harry wearing robes and parroting something they have heard ...

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm and how is this different than the present state of Tibetan Buddhism, apart from that fact that their names are Tashi, Dondrup and Phuntsog?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
smcj said:
The massive resentment many, if not most of us, have towards institutional religion isn't even on their radar, for the most part.


Malcolm wrote:
It is, but they ridicule it, thinking our antipathy towards organized religion is about God, when instead our antipathy towards organized religion is really more about money and power.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
Pande concludes by saying,
"It appears that Sânkhya influence on Buddhism has been too lightly assumed" (p. 551).

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that Samkhya was a major influence of Buddhism, did I? No.

What I said was that Buddha was aware, indeed, knowledgable in Samkhya since it was the system taught by Arāda.

Aśvaghoṣa clearly describes Arāda as being a follower of Kaplila, and gives an account of the basics of the Samkhya system in Canto 12 (truly required reading for everyone participating in this discussion).

So, frankly, I think Aśvaghoṣa is a more reliable source than Pande, don't you, Ardent?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 25th, 2013 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
conebeckham said:
Well......is it the students, or the teachers, who foster this sort of thing?  That is the primary question you should ask yourself.

And when you've reached your conclusions, consider your alternatives.


Malcolm wrote:
In my experience, it is the teachers, mostly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Parochialism in the West
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I have been giving a lot of thought lately to how we as Tibetan Buddhists spend our limited resources in the West.  It seems that instead of cooperating with each other to share teaching and retreat facilities, we are repeating the same balkanized organizational structures as in Tibet and the Tibetan diaspora and actually approaching other groups as competition.  This to my mind is entirely counterproductive.  While there are bigger differences with other forms of Buddhism from other countries, one would think that the schools are close enough to cooperate more closely in the West than they have. Instead we see even lineages within the same school competing.

Please share your thoughts on this.

Malcolm wrote:
Turf war.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Tantric Tattoos
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Any idea if he got these pre- or post-Chinese invasion, before or after going into exile?  Not that it really matters, simply curious.

By the by, I've heard the eternal knot referred to as the Tibetan form of the swastika.  Does anyone know if that is accurate, or is it just a bunch of hokum?

Malcolm wrote:
In the fifties, I assume, when he was mainly in Derge studying with Jamyang Khentse Chokyi Lodo.

Hokum.

Swastikas are called gyung drung in Tibetan, as in gyung drung bon. Eternal knots are called dpal be'u. dPal be'u is a translation of śrivatsa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Westerner who really makes it work at Sera
Content:
JKhedrup said:
LOL Malcolm it wasn't my answer, it was the Rikchung's answer. I thought your point made sense, and so asked Geshe la out of curiosity, he replied with the original answer posted above, which I bolded again, making clear both were necessary in  his opinion from the beginning.
In Geshe la's answer he mentions both these imprints from the beginning, so your statement about any being born in the deva realm having sufficient causes for arousing bodhicitta  was a bit of a stretch. You cannot really reasonably draw that conclusion from what G. said, as he mentions both CA and BC in his answer. That's all I'm sayin'.

If the requirement of Shinay for the arising of Bodhicitta is something debatable, that would be something to explore. Perhaps there are different views across the traditions,


Malcolm wrote:
I meant in the form realms, actually. The mind of any being in the form realm is concentrated to a degree extraordinary to a human being.

In any event, I think there is a problem of infinite regress in this argument in general. That is why I brought up the Buddha in hell point. This is traditionally where it is considered that Buddha first aroused bodhicitta. But of course it is a myth, and as such subject to interpretations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
It depends on what one believes he wrote. In the Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra N appears to have affirmed the âtman.
"People who understand the meaning (artha) of the Buddhist doctrine and know the designation (prajñapti [Pali, paññatti]) say that the âtman exists. People who do not understand the meaning of the Buddhist doctrine and do not know the designation say that the âtman does not exist."

Malcolm wrote:
This simply means that "the self" exists simply as a designation, not that there is a real atman. A real atman would exist without a designation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
Right now a hot debate rages in Thailand among Theravadins, between those who assert nirvana is anatta and those who assert nirvana is atta. The atta side appears to be winning.

dzogchungpa said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115896892/Cholvijarn-Nibbana-As-Self-or-Not-Self-181


Malcolm wrote:
Regarding Phae Tissadevo's position:
The anattā doctrine is only founding in Buddhism because the Buddha realised attā that is different from conditioned dhammas.
It is pretty clear this Sangharāja never studied Samkhya since in fact that is exactly what the Samkhya/Yoga schools maintains, that self or purusha is completely other than consciousness, senses, sense objects and the material body i.e. the twenty four tattvas (prakṛti, buddhi, ahaṃkara, manas, the five organs, five organs of action, the five subtle elements [tanmatras] and the five gross elements).

If an atman is what one wants to find, then there is no better system of finding it than Samkhya/Yoga.

Of course, Buddha was quite familiar with Samkhya, but for some reason did not present it in his teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Tantric Tattoos
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
HH Dagchen Rinpoche used to have a Swastika tatooed on the back of his left hand above his thumb. When he arrived here in the US, people freaked out so he had it covered with a bird.

Karma Jinpa said:
Would this happen to be HH Jigdral Dagchen Rinpoche, the high lama in Sakya who consecrated the Tibet Tech prayer wheels?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. He still has an eternal knot on the same place on his right hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Indrajala said:
I don't deny internal policing existed before. I'm saying I feel it is increasing over time.


Malcolm wrote:
I think you would have found 1930's US pretty damn oppressive, especially if you were in a union.

The US has always reacted to perceived external threats with invasions of privacy. Modern technology just makes it easier to accomplish and more cost effective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:


Indrajala said:
That doesn't negate the possibility we're seeing increased policing in the west. I don't mean cops on the ground arresting burglars, but behind the scenes surveillance and suppression of dissenting voices.

Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Tantric Tattoos
Content:
ngodrup said:
My precious Root Lama, who was born, raised and completed
his training and practice in Old Tibet-- was also very traditional,
to say the least. This very old school Nyingma yogi had a very
small tattoo, clearly visible to anybody who looked close enough--
a swastika. So we cannot say that it was not done.


Malcolm wrote:
HH Dagchen Rinpoche used to have a Swastika tatooed on the back of his left hand above his thumb. When he arrived here in the US, people freaked out so he had it covered with a bird.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Tantric Tattoos
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Wondering what various people have heard or experienced regarding Vajrayana subject matter as body art.

I've had different responses depending on the lama I asked... Most Karma Kagyu I'm in contact with have seemed to be ok with the idea as long as my motivation is pure.  One Drikungpa said it was ok, but not necessary.  Another Drikungpa said it is never ok to purposely harm one's body, and that I should do 1 million Tara mantras instead.

A translator friend warned that getting such tattoos opens one up for harm by demons, specifically those very hostile to the Dharma.  Basically it puts a bullseye on ya.

What have you folks heard?


Malcolm wrote:
If you are a practitioner of completion stage practices, one Dzogchen manual  advises against receiving moxabustion or bloodletting treatments (including acupuncture needles). Tattoos are a form of bloodletting. So, if you are a serious completion stage practitioner, then I would say it is better not to get tattoos. If you are not a completion stage practitioner, then just make sure the tattoo artist is hygienic. It is better if they also are a Dharma person.

Further, do not get tattoos of Dharma themes below the waist, on one's left hand (since that is the one most people in Asia wipe with) and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
I've never studied Theosophy before


Malcolm wrote:
Which is why you don't recognize it in Rhys Davies, Grimm and Coomaraswamies, etc., writings.

Koji said:
This is the no-selfer theosophical ploy which is a kind of ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't mean Mrs. Rhys Davids, I.B. Horner, Pande, Frauwallner, and the rest are dead wrong. Right now a hot debate rages in Thailand among Theravadins, between those who assert nirvana is anatta and those who assert nirvana is atta. The atta side appears to be winning.


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma is not sports, though some people seem to treat it as such.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A mind or an awareness [shes pa] has a "choice" recognition or non-recognition. The recognizing mind is called vidyā or prajñā. The non-recognizing mind is called avidyā.

conebeckham said:
"A mind" or  "an awareness" --are these momentary awarenesses? Is it the case that there is a moment of vidyā, followed by a moment of avidyā?  Are preceding and subsequent moments of vidyā and avidyā related?

Malcolm wrote:
Not really momentary in the sense we normally think of term, however, yes, vidyā is by definition a moment of unfabricated awareness. Vidyā and avidyā are related since they can be based on the same continuum.

There are two kinds of Buddhahood in Dzogchen, abhisambodhi, which has a non-abiding nirvana; samyaksambodhi which enters nirvana without remainder.
I assume this to be the difference between temporary "abiding" in Rigpa, and the complete eradication of avidyā?
It is the difference between bringing one's practice of Dzogchen to a complete finish in this life or not.

Omniscience arises because the capacity for omniscience is present in the form of potential in the basis.
In order for "capacity" to be present in something, even as potential, doesn't that "something" have to "exist?"   In Mahamudra terms, we would say, I think, that it is precisely due to the empty nature of Dharmakaya that such omniscience is possible.  In other words, the empty nature of the basis is equivalent to it's "capacity" for anything whatsoever.
[/quote]

No, if that were the case, Dzogchen would be no different than Samkhya. A useful referent is the Sakya concept that lhun grub and gnas 'gyur, natural formation and transformation, are not mutually exclusive. Potentiality can be just as well explained through emptiness as it can existence, even more easily actually. In general, there is a discussion of the three kāyas of the basis i.e. emptiness, clarity and their inseparability. Because these are present as the basis, the three kāyas can manifest at the time of the result, since their base exists in the basis. But this does not mean that the three kāyas of the basis are identical with the three kāyas of the result. The basis is called the basis precisely because of nonrealization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Are you sure that you are presenting an assertion of Nāgārjuna's? Or a position that he is going to dismantle? Check carefully, you wouldn't want to make a mistake.

Koji said:
It seems that your are suggesting that Nagarjuna is likely to contradict himself in another verse saying, essentially, "Nirvana is of the created realm" or "Nirvana is abhava."


Malcolm wrote:
No, what I am suggesting is that Nāgārjuna's Mūla presents both an opponent's contention and his own refutation and you have to know which is which to properly read him. The reason why Kalupahana's translation is a disaster is that he chose to ignore this. So I am suggesting that you discover this then you will have answered your own question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
I've never studied Theosophy before


Malcolm wrote:
Which is why you don't recognize it in Rhys Davies, Grimm and Coomaraswamies, etc., writings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism by Peter Harvey. If you do not read this, it is really hard to take anything you say about this seriously. It will simply appear as if you are engaging in confirmation bias.

He systematically goes through all the claims your are fond of claiming are grounded in the Pali canon and dismembers them one by one.

Vidyaraja said:
How do you know you weren't engaged in confirmation bias while reading that book and finding it to be true? One can only be taken seriously if they've read this particular book and accepted the authors conclusions? I'll look into it though, thanks for the recommendation.

Malcolm wrote:
Because I am a pretty objective scholar who spends my time weeding away what is not present in the texts I am reading.



Vidyaraja said:
There is a difference between irrational and supra-rational. One can be logical or an accomplished logician but also maintain that truth can't be captured by logic or concepts and can only be directly intuited with our spiritual eye.

Malcolm wrote:
It is irrational to claim that with a map you cannot find a city. What you do not want to do is merely be content with possessing the map without making the journey, but an accurate map is essential to the success of any journey.
You are just mixing everything up into one big stew so you don't know if one minute you are chewing on Theosophy, the next minute Zen, the minute after that Vedanta, then slurping a bit of Dolbupa, etc.
I've never studied Theosophy before, but I don't see why a totalistic view of all Buddhism or all human spiritual endeavor and comparing and contrasting between various views should not prove a fruitful exercise. Either way, in general I agree with Frithjof Schuon about the variety of views:
You aren't comparing between different views -- you are merely changing the color of the light you want to look at.

Buddhadharma is radically different than other traditions. Our view at base is dependent origination. As the Buddha said "He who sees dependent origination, sees the Dharma". There is no room for an ultimate transcendent nirvana, self, etc., except as a provisional view for those afraid of emptiness, as stated in the Lanka-avatara sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Westerner who really makes it work at Sera
Content:
JKhedrup said:
No I don't think so, because the imprints of both the Shinay and bodhicitta must be present, this is clear from the answer. And the imprints for bodhicitta are more difficult to cultivate, many practitioners of different paths attain different levels of calm abiding, bodhicitta is far rarer.

I have heard mentioned by Geshe la and several other masters that BSM was able to arouse Bodhictta in the hell realm only because of extensive cultivation of love, compassion and so forth in previous lifetimes. The arousing of bodhictta in hell is extremely rare, most beings give rise to it in the human realm. I would think the imprints for Shinay are far more common, since many beings have at some point been born in the Devas realms that require its cultivation.

Since BSM arising of BC required both these imprints (compassion etc. as well as Shinay), I don't think you can draw that conclusion from what Geshe la said. Because in these deva realms most beings are not cultivating BC. It is clear that both are required, one isn't enough, as G. indicated in his answer:
Just as the imprints for bodhicitta were there, which allowed it to be arisen from hell from witnessing the suffering there, a level of calm abiding had been attained in a previous life.

Malcolm wrote:
Even Rakshasas love their children, so I find their answer a bit hard to accept. But that is not what I am objecting too. I am objecting to the idea that śamatha is a necessary precondition to the arousal of bodhicitta. Now you are answering that imprints for both must be present. So you are shifting your answer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is both, and the former will lead to the latter, which is why Āryadeva proclaimed "Realization proceeds from view." This is why there is such a huge emphasis on developing a correct view in sūtrayāna. Whereas in Vajrayāna in general, the view is taught only after empowerment, because the view cultivated in Vajrayāna should be cultivated on the basis of the experience produced during one of the empowerments (but the Gelugpas have a different perspective on this).

Vidyaraja said:
It isn't both, because I didn't ask if both were needed or useful. Rather I asked whether logic and concepts could ever capture truth, not whether they could lead to truth along with spiritual practice. What is a right view can only be truly confirmed through awakening and seeing things how they really are, not relying on the logical structures built by others, which are merely an aid or a single wing of a bird (the other being practice) in flight toward truth.

Malcolm wrote:
It is both, because in order to realize a thing, you need to be able to talk about.

This is very clearly explained by _all_ Indo-tibetan scholars including Dolbupa. He does not subscribe to your irrational mysticism at all. He is a very logical scholar, who goes step by step in presenting his logical, rational, carefully argued view because he wants people to use that as the basis of realizing the ultimate.

You are just mixing everything up into one big stew so you don't know if one minute you are chewing on Theosophy, the next minute Zen, the minute after that Vedanta, then slurping a bit of Dolbupa, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They are dreaming. Such a doctrine exists nowhere in the Nikayas.

Vidyaraja said:
That's your opinion and your view. The various scholars mentioned previously as well as various figures in Thai Buddhism for example hold a different view. While you certainly know your stuff, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take you as a superior authority to them.

Malcolm wrote:
You know, you really need to read this book -- it will set your ideas about the Pali canon to rest completely.

The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism by Peter Harvey. If you do not read this, it is really hard to take anything you say about this seriously. It will simply appear as if you are engaging in confirmation bias.

He systematically goes through all the claims your are fond of claiming are grounded in the Pali canon and dismembers them one by one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
In any case, is truth able to be captured by logic or concepts, or is it supra-rational and beyond concepts? Is it knowable through reasoning, or must one awakening to it through kensho and satori as the Zen tradition would have it?


Malcolm wrote:
It is both, and the former will lead to the latter, which is why Āryadeva proclaimed "Realization proceeds from view." This is why there is such a huge emphasis on developing a correct view in sūtrayāna. Whereas in Vajrayāna in general, the view is taught only after empowerment, because the view cultivated in Vajrayāna should be cultivated on the basis of the experience produced during one of the empowerments (but the Gelugpas have a different perspective on this).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
Malcolm, earlier you spoke about an "eternalist vision of nirvana" ( Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:31 am). I am just wondering what an eternalist vision of nirvana is, exactly. Would it be outside of the realm of existence and non-existence?


Malcolm wrote:
The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.

The non-eternalist view of nirvana (erroneously considered annihilationist in some quarters) is that nirvana is the permanent cessation of afflictions which lead to rebirth in samsara, leading to cessation of birth in samsara.

Koji said:
I read you as saying an unconditioned nirvana, like the Hindu brahman, is the eternalist vision of nirvana which, incidentally, is a view that you believe we must reject. But it is hard for me to wrap my mind around this let alone accept it when I have read from other sources like Nagarjuna's MMK, that nirvana is of the uncreated realm (XXV.13) which is different that the created realm of existence and non-existence.


Malcolm wrote:
Are you sure that you are presenting an assertion of Nāgārjuna's? Or a position that he is going to dismantle? Check carefully, you wouldn't want to make a mistake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What about it? First of all, we have to understand the basis is empty, not just empty, since it is also clear but that emptiness is profound. This is fundamental in Dzogchen. Rig pa is not some permanent transcendent awareness. There is a point in time in which rig pa has not arisen, prior to the realization producing buddhas and nonrealization producing sentient beings. But this is a little outside the scope. Basically vidyā is just the mind that knows the appearance of the display as it own appearances. Avidyā is the mind that does not know that. Simple as pie.

conebeckham said:
I'd like to know more about the point in time prior to Rigpa's arising..but agree that's outside the scope.

The statement about vidyā and Avidyā, though.....there is the same "mind" that knows or does not know?  Or are we speaking of momentary "minds"-and what of the Enlightened Ones, who abide permanently in vidyā? Or do they?

Malcolm wrote:
A mind or an awareness [shes pa] has a "choice" recognition or non-recognition. The recognizing mind is called vidyā or prajñā. The non-recognizing mind is called avidyā.

There are two kinds of Buddhahood in Dzogchen, abhisambodhi, which has a non-abiding nirvana; samyaksambodhi which enters nirvana without remainder.

Omniscience arises because the capacity for omniscience is present in the form of potential in the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
My understanding of Prasangika Mahdyamika (and someone please correct if i'm wrong) is not that it claims Nirvana is non-existence or something similar, it simply claims that inherent existence of anything is not findable, and it stops there, there is no underlying implication of inherent non-existence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is the Sautrantikas following tenets who assert that nirvana is a nonexistent.


Johnny Dangerous said:
I don't get it Malcolm, so it's correct that Prasangika does not make statements about ultimate reality, or it is incorrect?

Malcolm wrote:
They do not use syllogisms to prove emptiness. They use consequences. For example, "Production from self is meaningless and the series will be endless." This the classical example of prasanga argumentation, argument by means of demonstrating consequences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Yes, nirvana is supra-personal, but it is also awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
This is stated in no sūtra.


Vidyaraja said:
There was a thread on this forum called Mind vs. Self in which a few users argued quite successfully in my opinion, using citations from various scriptures including the Nikayas, for the transcendent Self. Many other intelligent scholars as well as Buddhist masters (like Dolpopa mentioned frequently in this thread) have also maintained this view. I don't think their conclusions were reached without long study or careful consideration and thus can't be said to be simply dreaming.

Malcolm wrote:
They are dreaming. Such a doctrine exists nowhere in the Nikayas.

Dolbupa was a Vajrayāna scholar first and foremost, and the majority of his views are derived from the way in which he read the three bodhisattva commentaries on Kalacakra, Hevajra, and Cakrasamvara respectively authored by Mañjuśri, Vajragarbha, and Avalokiteśvara according to tradition.

Vidyaraja said:
Though I wonder, why are you hardline in your position that any Self is wrong and all the trends In Buddhism which have maintained it are in error, but soft and accepting of Stephen Batchelor's materialistic secular Buddhism as part of the Dharma?

Malcolm wrote:
I think Batchelor is as wrong as you are. I accept his presence in Buddhism as I accept yours, both with views in need of correction since both you and he are porting views into Buddhadharma from external sources, in your case Vedanta/Neoplatonism; in his case, secular materialism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Westerner who really makes it work at Sera
Content:
JKhedrup said:
You are on the ball Malcolm... I think it is a very reasonable qualm so I asked Geshe SN what he thought of it while bringing his evening drink.

Geshe la said the Rikchung candidate was correct, in asserting calm abiding/shinay was necessary for the attainment of bodhicitta.

How then, does one explain Lord Shakyamuni's arousing of bodhicitta in the hell realms?

Geshe la certainly a new attainment of Shinay would not be possible in the hell realms, especially when one looks at the texts and the various conditions that are required for Shinay. However, the shinay had been achieved to some degree in a previous life. Just as the imprints for bodhicitta were there, which allowed it to be arisen from hell from witnessing the suffering there, a level of calm abiding had been attained in a previous life. This attainment does not necessarily carry over from rebirth to rebirth, but in this case it did.

So, Shakyamuni was able to bring forth the Shinay necessary to arise bodhicitta despite the difficult conditions of the hell realm.

Would love to explore this further but further input from Geshe la would have to wait until breakfast (European time).

Malcolm wrote:
I think your Geshes answer is speculative at best. It amounts to saying that anyone who had attained rebirth in a deva realm has the sufficient causes for arousing bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
My understanding of Prasangika Mahdyamika (and someone please correct if i'm wrong) is not that it claims Nirvana is non-existence or something similar, it simply claims that inherent existence of anything is not findable, and it stops there, there is no underlying implication of inherent non-existence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is the Sautrantikas following tenets who assert that nirvana is a nonexistent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No such supreme seer is discussed in the sūtras. Buddhas, possessors of non-abiding nirvana, are held to possess two kinds of omniscience. But this omniscience is held to arise from a cause. As Kamalashila points out, omniscience must have a cause, otherwise it would arise randomly at all times and in every place. Even Dolbupa does not deny the need for conventionally gathering the two accumulations.

conebeckham said:
I understand we're trying to talk about "Early Buddhism and Mahayana" here, but you yourself have brought Dzgkchen into the picture (It's perhaps "Mahayana" in some sense....maybe?) ---I understand the sutras don't discuss a "Supreme Seer," but what about Dzogchen and Rigpa?  What about the Natural State, and it's relation to omniscience, and it's relation to causation?

Malcolm wrote:
What about it? First of all, we have to understand the basis is empty, not just empty, since it is also clear but that emptiness is profound. This is fundamental in Dzogchen. Rig pa is not some permanent transcendent awareness. There is a point in time in which rig pa has not arisen, prior to the realization producing buddhas and nonrealization producing sentient beings. But this is a little outside the scope. Basically vidyā is just the mind that knows the appearance of the display as it own appearances. Avidyā is the mind that does not know that. Simple as pie.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
If Madhyamika were mere apophatic or via negative approach to reality in order to help us to awaken (which is what I feel it is or should be) that would be one thing, but it seems many people assert that the ultimate or nirvana is emptiness, anatta, and not eternal.

Malcolm wrote:
Nirvana is permanent (since cessations are by definition unconditioned), but it also lacks identity since there is no person in nirvana. There are no aggregates in nirvana.

Vidyaraja said:
so equally how can these Madhyamikist's statements about the ultimate be accepted merely through intellectual satisfaction or the result of logical analysis?

Malcolm wrote:
How can your irrational assertions about the nature of the ultimate be acceptable? What Madhyamakas produce is an analytical ultimate. There are reasons to criticize this from a Vajrayāna point of view, but not from a sutrayāna perspective. This is no more nor less than the analytical ultimate shown in Yogacara too, i.e., both ultimates are analytical and can be weighed on their merits in terms of argument. But the Buddhist path is not one of making dogmatic assertions about the ultimate. That is for other schools.

Further, Nāgārjuna clearly states:
Dependent on the relative, the ultimate is understood;
realizing the ultimate, nirvana is attained.
So we are to realize the non-categorized ultimate on the basis of our analysis of things -- not by mystical dogmatic assertions about transcendent nondual awarenesses.

Vidyaraja said:
The reason Buddha refrained from making assertions was to avoid metaphysical speculation or getting trapped in concepts about the ultimate rather than waking up and directly knowing it with our Dharma-eye.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha made all kinds of metaphysical assertions apart from the fourteen famous positions he considered incorrect questions.

Vidyaraja said:
Buddha also never made the statement, "There is no self, nothing beyond the skandhas" but he did use anatta consistently as an adjective.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddha? The Buddha in Nikayas, Buddha in Prajñāpāramita, etc? You can't just go an cherry pick citations from this canon, that canon, and then assemble your ideal Buddha that corresponds to your biases. You need to carefully study everything. Buddha clearly states in the following passage there is no inherently existing self, while clarifying that we can agree to a conventional self:
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

Vidyaraja said:
Why go through all the trouble saying what specifically is anatta rather than just proclaiming anatta as the ultimate to avoid all confusion? Could it be that he took it for granted that those he addressed his sermons to were well aware of the Great Self being part of the Indic spiritual culture from which they all derived?

Malcolm wrote:
No, absolutely not. Even in the tathāgatagarbha literature, the so called "self" that is being described is described in the Uttaratantra (as well as the commentary attributed to Asanga) on the basis of reality that is free from all extremes, that is to say the profound emptiness taught in Mahāyāna.

If you propose that there is some other self outside the all, Buddha would reply:
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

There is clearly no intention by the Buddha to teach some transcendent ultimate non-dual awareness in the NIkayas/Agamas. People who assert the opposite are simply dreaming.

So that's it, thats all there is.

In case you are worried that all those fabulous buddhaqualities would not be possible if emptiness is the real nature of everything, Nāgārjuna quips:
"For one whom emptiness is possible, for that one everything is possible;
for one whom emptiness is not possible, for that one everything is impossible."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
I used attainment as a figure of speech, obviously one cannot attain what one already is and there is not, as you say, a person to know it, but I'd contend that the Supreme Seer "is" it and knows itself as it really is, which is not the aggregates, but rather transcendent pristine nondual Awareness. In any case, what happens when the impermanent aggregates dissolve or reenter the flux of becoming according to your view? If they cease to be in a state of becoming due to the removal of afflictions which cause rebirth, what is left?

Malcolm wrote:
No such supreme seer is discussed in the sūtras. Buddhas, possessors of non-abiding nirvana, are held to possess two kinds of omniscience. But this omniscience is held to arise from a cause. As Kamalashila points out, omniscience must have a cause, otherwise it would arise randomly at all times and in every place. Even Dolbupa does not deny the need for conventionally gathering the two accumulations.


Vidyaraja said:
I understand emptiness as applying to the phenomenal world of becoming or samsara. Once we see it as empty and anatta, we are released from it and attain awakening, which is a state free from becoming, impermanence, dukkha, and death. It is eternal, transcendent, blissful, indestructible, permanent, changeless, and Self.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't need to capitalize self.

Vidyaraja said:
Personally I don't understand how the views you and others describe, which have been accused of nihilism in the past and present and which, even if actually not nihilism, at least sounds close enough to it to have those charges brought up against it, could possibly be an attractive view of spirituality, the nature of ourselves, and our liberation. But as they say, 84,000 gates and various skillful means to account for the diversity of human needs and inclinations. I suppose the only way to know thing as they really are is to awaken.

Malcolm wrote:
We have no latent traces of attachment to divinity or any kind of supreme principle. We understand that samsara and nirvana are only possible because of the emptiness of both. We understand that both are nominal designations. As Nāgārjuna stated:
These two, samsara and nirvana do not exist.
Instead, thorough knowledge of samsara is nirvana.
And as Āryadeva stated, those who argue against emptiness, must argue for each and everything they argue is not empty, whereas Madhyamakas only need prove emptiness but once. So if your non-empty Buddhaqualities are infinite, you are left with the infinite task of proving each and everyone separately. I am sure there must be a hell for that...oh right, I forgot, it is called gzhan stong hell.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
PorkChop said:
I thought it was the 3rd Noble Truth...

Malcolm wrote:
Cessation is the third truth of āryas.

PorkChop said:
Cessation of Dukkha right?
Dukkha is characterized by that which is "born, become, made, and conditioned" right?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, cessations are unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned.

They exist conventionally as nominal designations, not ultimately as ontological absolutes.

But many people today interpret this passage as if the Buddha was affirming an ontological absolute. They can if they like but I don't think the Buddha had the intention they seem to think he did. In the end it all boils down to opinion.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Westerner who really makes it work at Sera
Content:
Unknown said:
My partner began by asking whether calm abiding was necessary for the attainment of bodhichitta, to which I responded it was.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not correct, because if it was, Shakyamuni could not have first aroused bodhicitta in the hell realms.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
PorkChop said:
I thought it was the 3rd Noble Truth...


Malcolm wrote:
Cessation is the third truth of āryas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.

Vidyaraja said:
So how do we relate this to what the Buddha said here:

Malcolm wrote:
It's a pep talk, not to be taken literally as ontological commitment, IMO.

The non-eternalist view of nirvana (erroneously considered annihilationist in some quarters) is that nirvana is the permanent cessation of afflictions which lead to rebirth in samsara, leading to cessation of birth in samsara.
What is the difference between attaining the unconditioned state of nirvana and cessation of birth in samsara?
Cessations are not praptis, obtainments.

No one attains an unconditioned state of nirvana. There are no aggregates in nirvana and therefore, no person can be designated upon those aggregates. Nirvana is simply the cessation of the series of aggregates. Mind you, not the immediate cessation of aggregates, but rather the cessation of the afflictions that cause action which lead to rebirth. Another way to put it is that prajñā burns the afflictions. Once the afflictions are burnt, have no more effect, there is also no need for that prajñā so it too ceases.
If we deny the former, what is left or what are we led to in the latter? Who or what has ceased being born in samsara and what is the resultant state from such a cessation? In what way is it not eternal? If annica is impermanence and related to dukkha, how is the conquest of samsara not eternal or permanent? If it is not eternal or permanent, why bother?
Nirvana is a permanent state of cessation of birth in samsara. It is an extreme. That is why Mahāyāna conceived of the idea of so called non-abiding nirvana (in contrast with the Nikāya "abiding" nirvana), i.e., being in samsara but not of samsara. In general, the nirvana aspired to in Mahāyāna is the non-abiding nirvana.

Basically, if the word emptiness raises the hair on your neck, it is sign that in the past you were a Mahāyāna practitioner. As for me, as soon as I heard the word "emptiness" I knew I was home, and have been a adherent of the Prajñāpāramitā ever since.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: The Meaning of Rebirth
Content:
undefineable said:
then there might be a 'Chance of the Gaps' among more reflective scientists

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma excludes chance as a form of causation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Ngondro
Content:
zimpickens said:
Hi,

I noticed above that deepbluehum posted that the number counting (in ngondro, I'm guessing) started in the 13th C. I'm curious about the history of this number counting and I wasn't sure that people were doing ngondro in the 13 C. so if there are any leads about this I would appreciate hearing about it.

So if deepbluehum or anyone else knows about these topics please let me know.

Thank you!


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Zim:

People did Ngondro, but the overall systematization of Ngondro seems to be a rather nineteenth century phenomena that spread from Kagyu to the other two schools i.e. Nyingma and Sakya. For example, the massive 350 folio commentary on the Lam 'bras preliminaries authored by Zimog Tulku in the nineteenth century was explicitly influenced by Kun bzang bla ma'i zhal lung. Before this text, there was no separate Sakya Ngondro commentary. And the first independent Ngondro text in Sakya was written by Dezhung Rinpoche.

However, there was ngondro from an ancient period of time. For example, the klong gsal nyi ma 'bar ma rgyud [which probably dates to the 13th century and is the root tantra for the mkha' 'gro snying thig] has a fully elaborated ngondro from chapters 63-75. For example, the refuge chapter, 67, does not give a number. Chapter 73 specifies doing Vajrasattva for 21 days, for example.

In general, I think the idea of doing 100,000 thousand comes from the idea of reciting mantras 100,000 times in the gsar ma tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: what is a melong?
Content:
Jikan said:
this may or may not be a DC-specific question.

what is a melong, and why would someone want one?  by that I mean, what is its function?

thanks


Malcolm wrote:
Me long literally means "to arouse fire" suggesting its original use.

In general, the mirror is a symbol of rig pa. In the DC, it is worn for the purpose of Guru Yoga, primarily.

The mirrors sold by SS store are made from five metals, and all contain a bit of the original mirror given to ChNN by his guru. For DC people, other mirrors are fine, but in general it is better to use one made by Giorgio since they are made according to Rinpoche's precise specifications.

Other melongs you may see are one's crafted for long life mirrors, which function to summon all the essence of the elements reflected in that mirror. Other mirrors are worn as good luck charms. These mirrors typically are stamped with the srid pa'i ho mandala on the back and worn on one's belt. These are usually made of bell metal.

Prisms are also called "me longs."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: The Meaning of Rebirth
Content:
Seishin said:
Not only that, but it is woven into the fabric of Buddhadharma.


Malcolm wrote:
Of course, the entire point of practicing Buddhadharma, like practicing Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Jainism, Bon and so on is to put an end to rebirth in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: The Meaning of Rebirth
Content:


jeeprs said:
So I think understanding 'freedom from rebirth' is not actually a matter of whether you believe in reincarnation. It has a deeper meaning than that. It is about whether you are of this world, part of the whole cycle of birth-and-death, change-and-decay, rising-and-falling, that everything in nature is subject to. Nowadays we seem to think that 'natural' is good and wholesome, yet it is the case that everything in nature is subject to decay and death, even if it is temporarily beautiful, young and vital. Whatever is young becomes old, whatever is born will one day die. That is an inevitable fact for every born being.

So is there is something that is beyond change and decay, that is not subject to the constant cycle of birth and death, something that is always new, never perishing? I think that is what the Buddha found and points to. Living in the light of that, realizing what that is and making oneself available to it, is the meaning of 'liberation from the cycle of birth and death'. And I think that is the real 'meaning of rebirth' - not the exotic idea of 'I will be reborn for many lifetimes'.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a soft theory of rebirth. But it is not what was intended by the Buddha by the term punarbhāva, rebecoming. It is pretty clear [except to some confused westerners] that Buddha advocated a hard theory of rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Self hatred
Content:
Konchog1 said:
It's part of my refuge name, Konchog Namdag (rare and precious Triple Gem)


Malcolm wrote:
mchog means supreme. Look it up in any dictionary. Your name means Totally Pure Supreme Gem, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:


Indrajala said:
We have less freedom now than what our grandparents enjoyed.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are being a bit romantic. I am old enough to be your father, and have a pretty good recollection about how "free" speech was in the sixties and seventies. It was not very free. The thing is, that technology was not very advanced, it was a lot harder to track people and collect data on them. So it was easier to go under the radar. But then as now, there were the same pressures against freedom of expression. And in the generation before I was born there were the Red scares, Joe MCarthy and his gang, and so on in this country. Canada has always had more strict censorship policies than the US, following the lead of England.

Indrajala said:
Real political freedoms and freedom of speech are actively curtailed, meanwhile people are led to believe "progressive hiring policies", open-door immigration, acceptance of gay marriage and gender equality are what really count as indicators of freedom and rights.

Malcolm wrote:
Affirmative action was an important step in the US (and I guess in Canada) for moving minorities into the middle class out of step and fetch jobs. We don't have an open door immigration policy, so we don't have that issue. Gay Marriage and Gender equality are simply civil rights issues, that's all. Once the Civil Rights movment in the 1960's was more or less successful in eliminating Jim Crow laws and so on, all similar laws discriminating against people on the basis of religion, gender or gender preference were bound to fail, as they should fail.

Indrajala said:
Canada, like much of the rest of the west, is suffering a great deal of internal stress given increasing energy costs in the face of decadent levels of energy consumption. The natural reaction is to invest resources in increased policing and legitimization (like "we are the custodians of human rights").

Malcolm wrote:
I have been in a lot of places where laws were weak and persons were powerful. These places, like India, China, Mexico, and so on are more perilous places to live than the US and Canada.

I don't know about other people's experience but in the town where I live (in New England) there is so little crime that we really do not have a police force in any real sense.

I am sure than the experience of black communities in LA is quite different than mine, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
Malcolm, earlier you spoke about an "eternalist vision of nirvana" ( Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:31 am). I am just wondering what an eternalist vision of nirvana is, exactly. Would it be outside of the realm of existence and non-existence?


Malcolm wrote:
The eternalist vision of nirvana that nirvana is as an unconditioned state to be realized, like brahman.

The non-eternalist view of nirvana (erroneously considered annihilationist in some quarters) is that nirvana is the permanent cessation of afflictions which lead to rebirth in samsara, leading to cessation of birth in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Jetsun Taranatha
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Recently read that not only was Taranatha one of the closest disciples of the 9th Karmapa, Wangchuk Dorje, but that he also wrote about the histories of several tantras.  I know some of what he penned about the Tara tantras wound up in Martin Willson's In Praise of Tara: Songs to the Saviouress, but does anyone know where his history of the Yamantaka tantras can be found?

For that matter, does anyone know what lineage(s) of Yamantaka were held by Jetsun Taranatha, and which are in Jonang?  He practiced Kamtsang, Shangpa, and Jonang, so I'm all ears.



Malcolm wrote:
As a Jonangpa, he probably practiced Varjabhairava on the Rwa Lotsawa tradition, generally avoided by Kagyus because Rwa Lotsawa claimed he had ritually murdered Marpa's son.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Self hatred
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
it actually means '' rare and precious ''


Malcolm wrote:
Actually it means "supremely rare"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, 'basis' here means 'basis of an individual'?


Malcolm wrote:
Both.

dzogchungpa said:
What is the other one?


Malcolm wrote:
There are two bases, the original general basis and the basis of the person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, 'basis' here means 'basis of an individual'?


Malcolm wrote:
Both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
"Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings.

smcj said:
Wow. I thought that one wasn't going to find acceptance. He didn't say it to me, so I can't say this is an exact quote, but he continued, something along the lines of,

"Even hate is love; derailed by fear and ignorance, and then perverted by self-cherishing, but it is still love in its genesis."

I always assumed that was more of a Vajrayana-esque "pure view" perspective rather than a Dzogchen perspective, but he did practice Dzogchen too. Pearls before swine, I have not a clue.

Malcolm wrote:
Real "pure" view means seeing universe and beings arising as the basis. The "pure" view in Vajrayāna is merely a conceptual construction which itself needs to be remedied with the completion stage. Dzogchen skips the two stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
"Not an atom in the universe vibrates that isn't powered by love."

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, the aspect of the basis called compassion is the energy of the display of the universe and all its beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Karma Chagme & Neydo Kagyu
Content:
philji said:
I believe the Dentok Chikma , Machig guru yoga/Chod, originated with Karma Chagme


Malcolm wrote:
No, he just wrote a version based on earlier texts. Dentok Chigma is a term, not a title.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think these have been translated.


Son of Buddha said:
To Malcolm
could you link me to english translations of these Sutras if they even exist(your the only person I know who might be able to find one of these Translations)
Thank you for your time sorry to be now


Arya-dharanish-vararaja Sutra [also known as the Tathagata-maha-karuna-nidesha Sutra]

Anguli-malya Sutra

Jnana-loka-lamkara Sutra

Anuna-trapur-natva-nirdesha-parivarta Sutra

Mahab-jeri Sutra

Avi-kalpa-prave-sha-dharani Sutra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:
cloudburst said:
In clear words, Chandrakirti speaks of the difference in the views of ucchedavadins and Madhyamakas:
Clear Words said:
Qualm: Even so, their views are similar in one way, becasue nihilists consider the absence of an essence in things to be non-existence.
Reply: This is not so. They are not similar because Madhyamikas assert that things without essence exist conventionally; these nihilists do not assert them at all.

cloudburst said:
You may reflect on how this quotation also neatly puts paid to your assertions that 1) madhaymikas do not make assertions, and 2) the Gelug view is that ultimate truth is a non-existent, as Je Tsongkhapa follows Chadrakirti precisely on this point and Chadrakirti here rejects that explicit assertion.

Malcolm wrote:
The rendering you are using is a somewhat inaccurate gloss.

The text says:
saṁvṛtyā mādhyamikairastitvenābhyupagamānna tulyatā
དབུ་མ་པ་དག་གིས་ནི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཏུ་ཡོད་པར་ཁས་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར

"Because Mādhyamikas agree to existence in the relative..."

The text does not say they "assert" ['dod pa], or established [sgrub pa], etc. It says ābhyupagamā, which means assent, agree, etc.

The Tibetan recension contains an extra passage: དེ་དག་གིས་ཁས་མ་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་མི་མཚུངས་པ་ཉིད་དོ།

"and because they [atheists] do not agree [to existence in the relative], [mādhyamikas and atheists] are not the same.

However, this passage is a clarification about what exists relatively, not ultimately. The set up for your citation is:
Here, someone contends "Mādhyamikas are no different than atheists [nāstikas, literally "deniers"]. For what reason? They claim virtuous and non-virtuous actions, agents, results and all worlds are empty of inherent existence., and also atheists also claim those things do not exist. Therefore, mādhyamikas are no different than atheists."

That is not so. Mādhyamikas are proponents of dependent origination. Because of production in connection with conditions this world and all other worlds beyond are proposed to be empty of inherent existence because they are produced in connection with conditions.  Other worlds and so on are not conceived as non-existent through emptiness of inherent existence because of production in connection with conditions.

Now then, if it is asked why, they [atheists] reject other things similar to the things perceived in this world based upon the inherent perception of things of this world, having not perceived coming into this world from another world and going into another world from this world. [a complex way of saying atheists only believe what they can see]

If it is said, "In that case, because they conceive the absence of existence in the intrinsic nature of things as non-existence there is a similarity through this view." It is not so. Because Mādhyamikas agree to existence in the relative and because they [atheists] do not agree [to existence in the relative], [mādhyamikas and atheists] are not the same.
The context of the language goes back to the idea that those who deny the Vedas are "nastikas", deniers or atheists [better word than nihilist, in my opinion]. Buddhists are considered nastikas by Hindus. Here Candra is rejecting the claim by pointing out cleverly that since Madhyamakas agree to [rather than assert or establish] such thing as karma, agents, results, this world, future worlds, etc., relatively speaking, even though they do not agree to essences, they agree to the moral structure of Indian religious discourse which in general is based on the idea of future lives, karma, etc.

But I don't think we can consider these so called atheists necessarily Carvakas or Lokayatis, etc., people who for example assert existence by virtue of svābhava. The classic example representing the Carvaka view is that things exist through their nature just like the colors in a peacocks feather. No one created it, it just happens that way. Unfortunately, we do not have any actual Carvaka texts, just parodies of their views here and there in Buddhist and Hindu texts and plays. These so called atheists may very well be just those who do not subscribe to a siddhaṇta, whether buddhist nor non-buddhist.

Finally, this passage does not defend your assertion that Tsongkhapa does not himself assert the ultimate is a non-existence, since we have already seen that you admit he does assert a non-existence as ultimate i.e. the non-existence of inherent existence in the ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
Since that which perceives or misperceives the basis is mind, you do not skip any intermediate step, and you end up as "substance dualistic," or not, as everyone else.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not exactly. But if you are interested in Dzogchen teachings [which I doubt], basically the point being underscored is that matter and intelligence are non-dual. For example, it is a special tenet of Dzogchen that even the formless realms are material, i.e., that basically, wherever there is matter, there is consciousness, wherever there is consciousness, there is matter. You can either say that matter is intrinsically conscious or that consciousness is intrinsically embodied.  Either way it amounts to the same thing. "Sentient" and "non-sentient" are merely conventional designations based on appearances generated by ignorance.

cloudburst said:
And this light? What is that, precisely, photons? The truth of it is that you will engage in verbal gymnastics to avoid the use of the term "mind," but you can never stick the landing.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not photons, not physical light in the western scientific sense of the term. Precisely, the basis is ye shes. Empty luminous energetic ye shes which appears to a neutral awareness (which itself rises out of the basis when a vāyu in the basis stirs).

cloudburst said:
Mind and it's objects are the same nature, or substance.
Which substance is that?

Malcolm wrote:
They are the nature of empty appearances to awareness.
This certainly only means dependently originated appearances of material and immaterial objects.
Just wondering, since Sautrantikas like Vasubandhu clearly explain that mind and matter are different substances.
Sautrantikas say alot of things. There is a time and a place for that to be very helpful to some.
[/quote]

Generally, we understand that Gelugpas follow Sautrantika presentations of conventional truth. You know, that course outer madhyamaka that the gzhan stong pas keep yammering on about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:
cloudburst said:
such as the existence of other worlds.

Malcolm wrote:
This just means a next life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Vāyu means movement, and that is about it.

dzogchungpa said:
So how are the other elements defined in this context?


Malcolm wrote:
Read Germano's Tshig don mdzod


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:


cloudburst said:
why do you say that, please?


Malcolm wrote:
Because they are advocates of "cutting off". You are conflating the ucchedavāda view with the Carvaka and Lokayati schools. They are not really the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is that in Dzogchen teachings mind and matter are not treated as different substances as they are in other Buddhist systems. They are equally treated as produces of the five elements. The way in which Dzogchen avoids the charge of being "physicalist" is that the five elements themselves arise from misperception of the nature of the basis [more or less emptiness endowed with light], without needing the intermediate step of proposing everything is an appearance of mind and so on. And of course the awareness that misperceives the basis arises out of a vāyu that stirs in the basis, and so on. It gets a little complex.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, this is where I get confused. What do you mean by the five elements then? Isn't vāyu one of them? It seems circular. Also, I don't mind if it gets complex, I would really like to hear the complete explanation.


Malcolm wrote:
Vāyu means movement, and that is about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


cloudburst said:
Simply dogmatically asserting your point will not convince anyone but your disciples.

Malcolm wrote:
You just admitted it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


cloudburst said:
but your claim that dzogchen explains that mind is the operation of vayu in the body is a equally a form of physicalism.

Malcolm wrote:
One, it is it not a claim, it is textual fact.

Second, it would be if that were all there was to it.

The point is that in Dzogchen teachings mind and matter are not treated as different substances as they are in other Buddhist systems. They are equally treated as produces of the five elements. The way in which Dzogchen avoids the charge of being "physicalist" is that the five elements themselves arise from misperception of the nature of the basis [more or less emptiness endowed with light], without needing the intermediate step of proposing everything is an appearance of mind and so on. And of course the awareness that misperceives the basis arises out of a vāyu that stirs in the basis, and so on. It gets a little complex.

cloudburst said:
Mind and it's objects are the same nature, or substance.

Malcolm wrote:
Which substance is that? Just wondering, since Sautrantikas like Vasubandhu clearly explain that mind and matter are different substances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Should Buddhists give money to Hare Krishnas?
Content:
Konchog1 said:
If the money promotes HIndu practices, then it breaks your refuge vows.

Malcolm wrote:
This is merely your opinion.

Your opinion is not supportable by scripture, it is not supportable by reason.

Ashoka, according to you,  broke his vows of refuge by impartially donating money to Buddhist Sangha as well as non-Buddhist ascetics. Even the Buddha broke his vows of refuge, according to you, because he encouraged the Vajjians, the subjects of King Pasenadi, to continue to make offerings to and support non-Buddhist ascetics when they visited for offerings.

When people worry about Buddhists following the world wide trend of fundamentalism, such anti-liberal attitudes as this one you display is as far as they need to look to have their fears confirmed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
[
Your information on Gelugpa is off, unfortunately. Gelugpa do not assert the ultimate to be a non-existent. Not at all.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure they do-- Tsongkhapa asserts the non-existence of inherent existence is the ultimate. Now you might argue that non-existence exists, as I am sure you will; but nevertheless, the Gelug view is that ultimate truth is a non-existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:


cloudburst said:
This is only one aspect of the Ucchedavada view. They also believe many things to be non-existent, such as past and future lives, that they never conceived of as existent, as per Clear Words.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the primary sense of the term.

[/quote]
Nagarjuna only demolishes being in an ultimate sense, he and hs disciples continuously assert being, or existence, on the conventional level, albeit as mere imputation as you eloquently established elsewhere in this thread.[/quote]

Well, they don't assert it, they accept it for the purposes of common discourse about appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: mala care
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
geishhin well where do you keep it if not in a bag when not on use. i dont like holding it on my hand or wrist all the time.


Malcolm wrote:
Usually coiled on my practice texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: mala care
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
how do you wash your mala, and do you wash your mala?


Malcolm wrote:
Some people like to wash a new mala in pure water scented with pure sandalwood oil. This is actually a traditional procedure. I never bothered much with this personally. It might be nice to have a new mala blessed by some Lama, but the best blessing is your own mantra recitation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
What I mean is this: Malcolm said earlier in this thread that incorrect views are not really dispelled through reasoning, but through realization, and I agree with that. I also have a lot of faith in the realization of Dudjom R and Dilgo K. If the orthodox Nyingma position, or at least the position of masters like Rongzom and Longchenpa, is not shentong, then they (DR and DKR) must have had good reason to go against that, I would think. So, there seems to be some issue here. Let me also say that I don't know enough about this stuff to have a position one way or the other, although intuitively based on what little I do know, I doubt that I would be a shentongpa.


Malcolm wrote:
As I have written elsewhere; gzhan stong principally arises from the hermeneutical urge to reconcile the treatises of Maitreya and Nāgārjuna with one another. Because Tibetan scholars typically assume that Maitreyanatha is identical to the future Bodhisattva Maitreya, they often feel they cannot privilege Nāgārjuna's views over those of Maitreya.

My feeling about Maitreyanatha is rather different. I feel he was just a normal human person, who lived at a time when there were three major trends of Mahāyāna sutras, i.e., prajñāpāramita, yogacara, and tathāgagarbha. He wrote five treatises: Sūtrālaṃkara which presents a systematic account of Mahāyāna synthesizing all three trends primarily from a Yogacara perspective
Abhisamayālaṃkara which presents the implicit paths and stages concealed within the prajñāpāramita sutras
Uttaratantra which synthesizes the thought of the ten tathāgatagarbha sūtras
Madhyantavibhaga and the Dharmadharmatāvibhaga which analyzes specific issues in Yogacara thought.
I do not feel that it is necessary to try and reconcile these various trends. What is important is to understand the ideas presented in these three trends and then observe how they are used by later schools and scholars.

For example, the way tathāgatagarbha is used in Secret Mantra and Dzogchen is quite different than the way it is presented in the Uttaratantra. The way Dolbupa uses the three nature theory is very different than the way it is used in the Yogacara of Maitreya and Asanga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
Based upon what Malcolm wrote, that emptiness is svabhava, which I assume is saying all entities lack svabhava which means entities are empty, does this create a split between those Buddhist traditions that don't see any svabhava at all, and those that follow tathagatagarbha and all beings have the Buddha-nature? Right now I am getting the message that one tradition says that you have no essence, you are nothing, while the other says you have a Buddha nature. It sounds like one is nihilistic and the other is not.

Malcolm wrote:
What you say does not make any sense. Even those traditions that accept tathāgatagarbha as something like a self still maintain that entities such as matter, etc., and so on are empty of svābhāva. Their argument is that sentient beings have an essence, in other words that minds or consciousness has an essence. They are not arguing, actually, that all things have an essence.

Therefore, if you are going to attach to the label "nihilist" to those traditions that assert the absence of essence in insentient things, you would have to label all Mahāyāna traditions "nihilist", including the tathāgatagarbha schools.

If this is how you feel, you are better off following one of the non-Mahāyāna schools that assert that things exist by virtue of intrinsic characteristics.

Koji said:
I have no feelings in this matter. Nagarjuna is just confusing at times. Would you say that Nagarjuna's position that all entities are empty of svābhāva just a restatement of all entities or things are not the self (sabbe dhammâ anattâ, Dh 279)?

Malcolm wrote:
I would say his position is that there is no self which is the part of the aggregates or separate from them; and then when Buddha spoke self and not-self, there is a context that needs to be considered for each statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 22nd, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, that just means that the current Karma Kagyu othodoxy is slightly eternalistic

dzogchungpa said:
It seems like the current Nyingma orthodoxy is too. Why do all these great masters succumb to the eternalist temptation?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know why people keep on insisting this -- it isn't true. The orthodox Nyingma view represented by Rongzom, Longchenpa, and more lately Mipham and Khenpo Zhenga.

While it is true that Dilgo Khyentse and Dudjom Rinpoche followed the gzhan stong school in terms of sutrayāna, there are many masters such as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, and so on who do not follow the gzhan stong school.

The primary reason why we think that Nyingma = gzhan stong is because the influence of Trungpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
All I know is that in contemporary times Khenpo Tsultrim is the definitive voice on this subject for the Karma Kagyu sect. That means the quote I gave is safely said to be current Karma Kagyu orthodoxy.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, that just means that the current Karma Kagyu othodoxy is slightly eternalistic, just as the current Gelugpa othodoxy is slightly nihilistic, since the former assert the ultimate be an existent while the latter assert the ultimate to be a non-existent.

As for me, I will just stick with the great madhyamaka enunciated by Kawa Paltseg:
Freedom of two extremes in the ultimate
is asserted as the great madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
Based upon what Malcolm wrote, that emptiness is svabhava, which I assume is saying all entities lack svabhava which means entities are empty, does this create a split between those Buddhist traditions that don't see any svabhava at all, and those that follow tathagatagarbha and all beings have the Buddha-nature? Right now I am getting the message that one tradition says that you have no essence, you are nothing, while the other says you have a Buddha nature. It sounds like one is nihilistic and the other is not.

Malcolm wrote:
What you say does not make any sense. Even those traditions that accept tathāgatagarbha as something like a self still maintain that entities such as matter, etc., and so on are empty of svābhāva. Their argument is that sentient beings have an essence, in other words that minds or consciousness has an essence. They are not arguing, actually, that all things have an essence.

Therefore, if you are going to attach to the label "nihilist" to those traditions that assert the absence of essence in insentient things, you would have to label all Mahāyāna traditions "nihilist", including the tathāgatagarbha schools.

If this is how you feel, you are better off following one of the non-Mahāyāna schools that assert that things exist by virtue of intrinsic characteristics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
The odd thing is is that Asanga was not fond of the tathāgatagarbha school.
Huh? That's kinka like saying Thomas Jefferson wasn't for independence from England!


Malcolm wrote:
You would think that if tathāgatagarba were important to Asanga it would be mentioned in the Yogacarabhumi, but the word de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po, tathāgatagarba, does not appear even once in the entire collection, and this is his Magnum Opus.

Now, it is true that there is a commentary on the Uttaratantra attributed to Asanga, and some scholars believe it is authored by him as well; but if so, this merely reinforces my elsewhere mentioned thesis that the Yogacara school and the Tathāgatagarbha were regarded as separate streams in Indian Mahāyāna and not mixed up with each other.

Of course, this statement in the Āryalaṅkāvatāra-nāma-mahāyānasūtravṛttitathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra is very nice:
"The dharmatā of the mind liberated from the four extremes constitutes the sugatagarbha."
Here is another nice definition by Municandra in Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya:
"As such, since suchness exists in sentient beings, because of that, all sentient beings are tathāgatagarbhins."
This means that sentient beings enclose or hold (garbhin) the garbha of the tathātagatas, i.e., suchness.

Of course the Tarkajvala by Bhavya maintains:
The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone".
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Finding One's Yidam
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
A weird realization I just had is that there are a handful of peaceful deities in Kriya tantra that call out to me, but as far as [semi-]wrathful deities go, only 2 are of any interest in HYT.  And there's nothing in between.  Curious...

heart said:
The same deity often exist in various levels of Tantras so I might be a mistake to assign a deity to a certain level of Tantra, this is specially true in the Nyingma.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It is especially true universally in all four schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Finding One's Yidam
Content:


Karma Jinpa said:
That said, all yidams are ultimately of the same nature and have completely realized the union of wisdom & compassion, so perhaps I'm fixating on something arbitrary due my mind wanting me to fit in a nice little slot that doesn't exist.  From my academic work in Religion, including Vajrayana, I know deep down that there aren't really any solid categories and it's all more complex & fluid.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Yidams such as Jambhala and so on, other action deities (acton the sense of karma, not kriya) will not produce supreme siddhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Finding One's Yidam
Content:
Luke said:
Sometimes the deity which is chosen for you at random is one you have a special connection with (according to Tibetan beliefs, at least).


Malcolm wrote:
This is a myth. I have been in Tibetan Buddhism for many, many years. Not once has any teacher every picked out a yidam for me to practice. Yes, it does happen sometimes, but it is not common.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
So, is there anything which is ultimately real, which does possess 'own-being'?
My favorite thing to quote is from Khenpo Tsultrim's "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness". In the chapter on Shentong he writes:

"This non-conceptual Wisdom Mind is not the object of the conceptualizing process and so is not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it can be said to be the only thing that has absolute and true existence."

He goes on to explain that the non-conceptual Wisdom Mind is not self-empty like Nagarjuna's 4 points or the Prajnaparamita Sutras describe. They are "empty-of-other", that is empty of anything other than its own pure essence that is replete with the qualities of Buddhahood.

(btw Malcolm does not subscribe to this idea.)

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and this is why gzhan stong does not really go beyond the false aspectarian yogacara of Ratnakaraśanti. The main difference between the two is that the former avoids the error of the latter, who assert that the non-existence of the imagined nature in the dependent nature is the perfected nature, thus setting up an internal contradiction that the dependent nature becomes unconditioned. Charitably, we can say that gzhan stong is an intermediate view between Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

The main error of the gzhan stong pas however, as I have written elsewhere, is the attempt to map the two truths onto the three natures, where they consider the perfected nature the ultimate and the imagined and the dependent natures relative. In doing, so, they basically do violence to the Yogacara school's own formulation of these three natures. The reason they do this is that there has been a compelling exegetical need of Tibetan scholars to rectify the treatises of Maitreya as a whole with the six texts of reasoning by Nāgārjuna. In the end, both systems lose since neither is accurately represented. Basically, gzhan stong represents an attempt to reconcile all the main lines of Indian Mahāyāna thought as I have noted elsewhere.

Further, by mixing the tathātagarbha doctrine into the mix, they also ruin that. The odd thing is is that Asanga was not fond of the tathāgatagarbha school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, when we say something is dravyasat (Tib. rdzas yod), we mean it "substantially exists".

dzogchungpa said:
What are the other kinds of sat or yod?


Malcolm wrote:
Conventional existence, ultimate existence, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:


jeeprs said:
But I don't think that can be then taken to mean that 'nothing is real', which is the error of nihilism.


Malcolm wrote:
The error of ucchedavada is that things which exist then perish, i.e., become non-existent. But Nāgārjuna tradition also demolishes being as well. Since neither being nor nonbeing are tenable, well, you don't have much left over to describe as real, or unreal, for that matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: A Note on "Substance"
Content:


jeeprs said:
Buddhism denies that there is any real essence or substance in individual things.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends entirely on which school of Buddhism you are talking about. The word we are using in Buddhism to describe something as a substance is dravya. For example, when we say something is dravyasat (Tib. rdzas yod), we mean it "substantially exists".

Many people act as if Madhyamaka and Madhyamaka influenced scholars present the truth (tm) in Buddhism. But it is not true. Madhyamakas continued to be criticized by both other Mahāyānists as well as by Nikāya schools until Buddhadharma perished in India.

It is primarily because Vajrayāna Buddhism enshrined Madhyamaka as the supreme tenet of sūtra that today we observe Madhyamaka is the something like the King of Buddhist philosophy to which everyone must pay homage, even  scholars like Dolbupa.

That being said, I am myself, of course, of the conviction that Nāgārjuna got it right. Frankly, to borrow a phrase from Whithead, "The safest general characterization of the Buddhist philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Nāgārjuna."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Substance dualism as far as I know is usually a Christian platonic term..that asserts that mind is a fundamentally different substance from matter.

I'm interested also to hear about the  nuances of it from Malcolm.


Malcolm wrote:
Substance dualism is a description of Descartes viewpoint. It holds that mind is  non-physical substance. So does Buddhism in general. For example, Vasubandhu defines mind as a dravya, which in general can be understood as "substance". In general, in Buddhism nama and rūpa are held to be different in kind and substance though mutually conditioning.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Got it, how does Dzogchen differ here? Beyond the obvious I mean... i have an inkling but i'm not sure.

Malcolm wrote:
While there are of course Dzogchen texts that describe mind and body as separate, in general, the innermost secret cycle holds that the perception that there is a difference between the animate and inanimate is a mistaken one. In the sate of ultimate liberation, the distinction between animate and inanimate disappears because it is not true. Further, like other Vajrayāna traditions, Dzogchen provides a physical account for the process of rebirthm for example in the Vajramala Tantra it is proposed that the alayavijñāna inseparable with the mahāprāṇavāyu is responsible for transmigration, for the appropriation of a new series of aggregates. But Dzogchen goes a step further and explicitly identifies consciousness as the operation of a vāyu in the body. Vāyus of course are the function of the refined element of air inside the human body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
But what defintion of emptiness are you using? I am only aware of the definition found in the nikayas and agamas.


Malcolm wrote:
The definition found in Mahāyāna i.e. emptiness means empty of svābhava.

For example, in the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā:
"The descriptions from the element of self (atmadhātu) up to the element of all phenomena (sarvadharmadhātu) are the nature of one taste in the ultimate dharmadhātu, emptiness. Since individual characteristics do not exist, all phenomena said to be "equivalent" since they are undifferentiated."

Koji said:
Sorry for asking another question. Is nirvana also empty of svābhava?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, since it is a dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Substance dualism as far as I know is usually a Christian platonic term..that asserts that mind is a fundamentally different substance from matter.

I'm interested also to hear about the  nuances of it from Malcolm.


Malcolm wrote:
Substance dualism is a description of Descartes viewpoint. It holds that mind is  non-physical substance. So does Buddhism in general. For example, Vasubandhu defines mind as a dravya, which in general can be understood as "substance". In general, in Buddhism nama and rūpa are held to be different in kind and substance though mutually conditioning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:


Indrajala said:
And you think our present systems in the west are reflective of people investing their leadership with power? No, positions of major power are acquired by the merchant class through money. If they don't directly hold the seat of office, they are still the power behind the scenes calling the shots.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on which leaders you mean? When it comes to major posts like "president" and the senate, yes, this is clearly a money game. In the US, the House is not so much a money game -- this is why we have such a diversity of wingnuts in the house. People actually do manage to vote people in who they feel represent their interests.

Even when the business class is "calling the shots", they will do so only so long as a) they are tolerated or b) are willing to resort to repressive measures. History shows that b) never works out in the end of for the oppressors. Oppression is a short term game with high costs for the players. So even the so-called "shot callers" are only able to call shots based in whether they are allowed to.

Indrajala said:
This is why Polybius praised the Roman model: it incorporated elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
As does the US system -- maybe this is why it is such a strong form of government. We have the Executive branch i.e. monarchy with a smattering of oligarchy; the judicial branch, clearly an oligarchy; and the house and the senate, democratic, with the latter tending towards oligarchic stasis. Sounds like your ideal place.

Indrajala said:
And in our present model the descendents of exploitative capitalists are increasingly corrupt and running "democratic" governments from Wall Street and other financial centers.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not increasingly corrupt, they are just as corrupt as they ever where and are ever going to get. They are just corrupt.

Indrajala said:
That's probably more to do with the wealth accumulation. Middle class people with an education are less likely to resort to petty crime. They got too much to lose (like property, a career and family).

Malcolm wrote:
It has a lot do with the fact that it is a lot harder to get away with crime than it used to be in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


cloudburst said:
really, honestly and sincerely not true.

Malcolm wrote:
The manner in which the other schools resolved this is through recourse to a species of mentalism i.e. the subtle inner madhyamaka, if you will.

cloudburst said:
This is a definitional move, and a weak argument in my book.


Malcolm wrote:
No, seriously -- for example, Khyentse Wangchuk declares that there is no difference between mind and matter because everything is established as mind. This is perfectly acceptable thing to say in a Lamdre context. I have seen the same statement [everything is established as mind] coming from Gelugpas when they explain how one is to practice Vajrayāna, as opposed to how the Gelug sutra view is formed and asserted. This is also how the Kagyus phrase things.

This is not how Dzogchen deals with the issue at all. Please bear in mind that not everything said by Nyingmapas necessarily reflects the view of Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Indrajala said:
Giving too many people access to political power is unwise, though such ideas are contrary to contemporary democratic ideals.

Malcolm wrote:
So you have basically become a monarchist, for all intents and purposes. Good luck with that.

Indrajala said:
I personally would rather have a ruling class that has power by virtue of inherited title

Malcolm wrote:
As if this has ever actually worked at any time in history in any civilization. Āryadeva points out the foolishness of this kind of thinking in 400 Verses. He clearly advises kings that kings (and leaders in general) rule because of the power the people invest in them and not otherwise.

Indrajala said:
It is in the interests of a landed aristocracy to look to the well-being of their populace because their power base depends on them, not business activities. I'd rather have real kings than kingmakers, so to speak.

Malcolm wrote:
Pure romanticism. The landed aristocracy in western England, for example, left their people starving and in rags. In France it was worse. Russia, even worse. There have been very few "enlightened" kings in history capable of ruling with a fair hand and with the benefit of their people as their chief priority. Mostly they are the descendants of plundering mercenaries and invaders, for example, like the Normans. Further, history shows that in general, generations of landed aristocracy become increasingly more corrupt and exploitative. It is just a form of primitive capital accumulation, that's all.

Indrajala said:
In any case, our present models in the west are rapidly unwinding. We have a lot less freedom now than our grandparents did, which should be alarming, but for many it isn't.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but that is a social consequence of technology and economics. We also have a great deal less crime in the West than we did fifty years ago. The reason US prisons are so full is because of our ridiculous and ineffective drug laws.

Indrajala said:
As time goes on democracy will fail, tyranny will solve the problems of the day (probably at the cost of many lives) and then people will probably look back with disgust at the models of society and government we so often cherish today. Such is how political cycles operate in western civilization.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I don't believe that in our lifetime there will be much change in the world political balance status quo unless it is driven by a major energy crisis, or because of escalating climate instability. Even so, here in the US, I don't foresee much true political instability. Our system is actually fairly distributed and decentralized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


cloudburst said:
really, honestly and sincerely not true.

Malcolm wrote:
The manner in which the other schools resolved this is through recourse to a species of mentalism i.e. the subtle inner madhyamaka, if you will.

Anyway, I think you can agree a separate thread is required.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 21st, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Koji said:
But what defintion of emptiness are you using? I am only aware of the definition found in the nikayas and agamas.


Malcolm wrote:
The definition found in Mahāyāna i.e. emptiness means empty of svābhava.

For example, in the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā:
"The descriptions from the element of self (atmadhātu) up to the element of all phenomena (sarvadharmadhātu) are the nature of one taste in the ultimate dharmadhātu, emptiness. Since individual characteristics do not exist, all phenomena said to be "equivalent" since they are undifferentiated."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Direct rebirth as a bug
Content:
lobster said:
It should be regarded as particular to forms of a buddhism that are perpetuated by those without a comprehensive education.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a pretty snotty and arrogant statement, as well as being factually untrue. There are all kinds of people far more educated than you, fully conversant in the latest on neuroscience, physics, and so forth, who nevertheless continue to adhere to a belief in transmigration or rebirth or reincarnation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:


Indrajala said:
As Plato and Polybius described long ago, democracy naturally leads to the most brutal of dictatorships.

Malcolm wrote:
Winston Churchill quipped “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”"


Indrajala said:
The expansion of competing political groups leads to political deadlock, which means major problems remain unresolved while the commonly accept standard of living declines. The masses are quick to allow for tyranny if it is in their interests regardless of the ethical implications.

Malcolm wrote:
So what do you suggest, Monarchy?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: "Sung-due" collection of sutras
Content:
Sherlock said:
Can anyone tell me more about this collection of sutras by Tsongkhapa called the "Sung-due". I found some information that might be relevant here:

http://www.lamayeshe.com/?sect=article&id=310

I got advice from Lama Dawa regarding this collection.


Malcolm wrote:
The gzung 'dus is a mainly a compendium of dharanis [gzungs]. But I don't think it was assembled by Tsongkhapa. I could be wrong, but I think it is older than him. Anyway, it contains many extracts of the dharani portions of sutras, small sutras, for healing, repelling obstacles, it has aspiration prayers, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


smcj said:
Everyone agrees the absolute is ineffable, therefore all teachings are provisional.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Gelugpas assert it is effable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
Emptiness - the essence of all there is
Regrettably, that is a big no-no in Buddhist philosophy. Emptiness is exactly the absence of essence. In fact the one thing that everything has in common is absence of essence.

Malcolm wrote:
Candrakirti clearly says in the Prasannapāda, essencelessness is the essence of everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
“O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
the tathāgatagarbha.
The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.

And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the question becomes what buddha-dharmas means in this context.

But all of this is really wide of the mark of the main conversation I was having with Vidyārāja, the essence of which "what constitutes a criteria for calling someone Buddhist or non-Buddhist", spurred by my remark that so called "Early Buddhism" is a pedantic reconstruction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
we can seperate the 2 terms but I will just quote further proof to connect them back together.

Malcolm wrote:
it's not necessary. The fact is that the term dharmadhātu has a limited usage in these sutras. The term dharmadhātu is synonymous with emptiness, which is what you asked me to show. I have shown that. Nothing you can cite will can show the opposite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
So the modern rejection of the idea of 'eternal round' on the basis that it is not really a part of the original meaning of the teaching, completely changes its context. Without the prospect of being bound to the wheel of samsara for life after life, 'nirvana' then becomes simply a state of being 'stress free' and Buddhism more like a psycho-therapeutic discipline than a sadhana.

Malcolm wrote:
It all really depends on how interested you are in forcing people to follow a "religion".

jeeprs said:
Not in the least. I have no power to coerce anyone nor any interest in doing so. It is simply a matter of respect for the teaching. Secular interpretations may be fine, but they are derivative, not definitive, which is what many people are trying to make them.


Malcolm wrote:
As we have seen throughout this thread, one's persons definitive is another person's provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which emptiness? Which tradition? Whose interpretation?

Vidyaraja said:
How about your interpretation? Who or what is aware of emptiness in your view?

Malcolm wrote:
The non-categorizable emptiness has no characteristics so it cannot be a direct object of a conventional mind. As Shantideva states, "the ultimate is not within the experiential range of the mind".

Obviuously, categorizable emptiness can be conceived by a conventional mind since that kind of emptiness is also a convention, designated on the discovery of a non-existence such as this seed is empty of inherent existence because it is a product. Whatever inherently exists cannot be a product.

Conventionally speaking however, a non-conceptual wisdom "apprehends" emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
your search engine is off.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not use a search engine, I performed a manual search of the digital file of the two volume version present in the bka' 'gyur.


Son of Buddha said:
with that said I respectfully disagree.....But at the same time to refute you I would have to literally reread and note every single time the phrase Dharmakaya

Malcolm wrote:
We are not discussing the term dharmakāya, rather we are discussing the term dharmadhātu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
All four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, when correctly understood, reject substance dualism. The Gelugpas, at least, also present the teachings in such a way as to allow someone prone to substance dualism to benefit from it a provisional stance. I suspect the other traditions do as well. Each tradition is very rich.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is true that because the five schools [we must include Bon] are tantric, they have a better shot at it. But really, honestly, only in Dzogchen teachings is the substance dualism that is a prime feature of Buddhist thought from abhidharma right up the the lower tantras truly overcome in an explicit fashion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
So the modern rejection of the idea of 'eternal round' on the basis that it is not really a part of the original meaning of the teaching, completely changes its context. Without the prospect of being bound to the wheel of samsara for life after life, 'nirvana' then becomes simply a state of being 'stress free' and Buddhism more like a psycho-therapeutic discipline than a sadhana.

Malcolm wrote:
It all really depends on how interested you are in forcing people to follow a "religion".

Frankly, all many people want from meditation and yoga is a lack of stress in this life. Buddha also provided for this kind of person, as it made perfectly clear in the Kalamas sutra. If we classify the kind of teaching that Batchelor and people like him, the so called Secular Buddhists, seem to advocate, they are teaching what is termed by the Buddha as "the vehicles of devas and humans". But that is a Buddhist vehicle, and we have to respect it as such, even if we imagine we want more, something like total liberation.

Again, it boils down to the patches on Buddha's robes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
LastLegend said:
There is a Deathless state. Why wouldn't there? "It" is not going anywhere.


Malcolm wrote:
When you have eradicated all afflictions which cause rebirth, this is all the deathlessness you need. No more birth, BAM! no more death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Why is it too broad? Who or what is aware of emptiness?

Malcolm wrote:
Which emptiness? Which tradition? Whose interpretation?




Vidyaraja said:
And what do we make of the following by Padmasambhava:

Malcolm wrote:
He is talking about vidyā. If you understand the context of the Dzogchen tradition from which this is derived, you will understand that non-buddhists are thought to misidentify vidyā and make incorrect imputations upon it.

Otherwise, you will observe that the list is in ascending order, from non-Buddhists to common Dzogchen terms:

vehicles of non-Buddhists = atman

sravakas = anatman

Mahāyāna denominations:
mind
perfection of wisdom
tathāgatagarbha

Vajrayāna
mahamudra
thig le gnyag gcig
dharmadhātu
ālaya
tha mal gyis shes pa

So I guess this means that you are happy to consider tathāgatagarbha equivalent to mind-only, correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
so this means you don't know first hand how many times Dharma Dhatu is actually mentioned in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras,your information is based upon the search engine you are using and is only as good as the search engine that is being used.......with that said your search results are flawed.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tathāgatagarbha sūtra does not use the word dharmadhātu even once. It simply is not used in that sūtra as it is present in the bka' gyur

Yup, you are correct, in terms of the Nirvana sūtra, the search engine I used was flawed it will not return searches in texts that span two volumes.

So, I checked via other means and In the Tibetan recension of the two volumes of the Nirvana sutra the term "chos kyi dbyings" i.e. dharmadhātu occurs exactly total of sixteen times.  It does not suffer this problem for shorter sutras that do not span volumes. Since the other tathāgatagarbha sūtras are quite short, I have no fear that my search was flawed. Here it is, BTW:

http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/kanjur/xml3/xml/

Here is another interesting quote from the Nirvana sutra:
Son of a good family, all phenomena are false, where they cease, that is called "true", "a true perception", "dharmadhātu", "wisdom of perfection", "ultimate" and "ultimate emptiness".

Son of Buddha said:
this is actually explained in the sutra,you see when the Dharmakaya is obscured by defilements it is refered to as the Tathagatagarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know.

Son of Buddha said:
Now Malcolm the Teachings of Emptiness is of the Tathagatagarbha/Dharamakaya is actually taught in the Buddha Nature Sutras in extreme detail.the Emptiness that is taught is "other Emptiness" i.e Shentong

Malcolm wrote:
This is highly debatable.


Son of Buddha said:
it wasn't neglected......you just couldn't find the info in your search engine.

Malcolm wrote:
It's neglected, since a proper and thorough examination of the term dharmadhātu revealed that it occurs exactly 16 times in the Nirvana sūtra's Tibetan recension. There is no Sanskrit original, so you would have to consult the Chinese in order to cross check this. I listed the other mentions. My point still stands the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha identifies them explicitly. Vipassi, Sikhin, etc.

Vidyaraja said:
So what about the part about the ancient way that leads to Brahma?

Malcolm wrote:
You mean this?

Vidyaraja said:
7 S.IV.117: te brāhmaṇā purāṇaṃ saranti . . . so maggo brahmapattiyā. In Itiv., 28, 29 those who follow this (ancient) Way taught by the Buddhas are called Mahātmās. [Mais, Sn.284–315, maintenant que es Brāhmaṇs ont négligé depuis longtemps leur Loi ancienne, le Bouddha la prêche à nouveau.]

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure you can find someone on Dhammawheel who can explain those passages to you correctly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
genius of Dolpopa's Mountain Doctrine to support my affirmation of the Self in the context of Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
If you really want to understand this work, you need to study with Jonangpas, and practice Kalacakra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Also, what is the relationship between emptiness and awareness? Who or what is aware of emptiness?

Malcolm wrote:
Your question is too broad.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Just because it isn't explicitly expressed doesn't mean it isn't implicit. There is duality between nirvana and samsara, but in my opinion the deathless Nirvana which Buddha speaks of is without differentiation.

Malcolm wrote:
Purusha is also undifferentiated, as well as uncreated, deathless, permanent, etc. Purusha satisfies all your criteria for a self. And if you don't like Samkhya plurality of purushas, you always have the Advaita interpretation of Purusha as one without a second.


Vidyaraja said:
Who were the formerly Awakened Ones he speaks of.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha identifies them explicitly. Vipassi, Sikhin, etc.

Vidyaraja said:
So you are an enlightened Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it just means I am certain about what Buddhadharma means to me, and which parts of it are definitive and which parts are provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, I don't know. In ordinary life I seem to able to use the word well enough. What do you mean by it?


Malcolm wrote:
Well I have already explained that Dzogchen maintains that everything including buddhahood is completely equivalent with an illusion.

dzogchungpa said:
I know, I'm sorry for being so obtuse. So, the purpose of Dzogchen is to know precisely what? A delusion?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, I don't know. In ordinary life I seem to able to use the word well enough. What do you mean by it?


Malcolm wrote:
Well I have already explained that Dzogchen maintains that everything including buddhahood is completely equivalent with an illusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
RIght, this is why I don't follow this point of view. Dzogchen has exactly the opposite point of view. The purpose of Dzogchen is to know precisely your own state.

dzogchungpa said:
Is that state real?


Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by real?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
You're practically a Gelugpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
M: The body is made of food, as the mind is made of thoughts.
See them as they are. Non-identification, when natural and
spontaneous, is liberation. You need not know what you are.
Enough to know what you are not. What you are you will never
know, for every discovery reveals new dimensions to conquer.
The unknown has no limits.
Q: Does it imply ignorance for ever?
M: It means that ignorance never was.
Don't get mad.

Malcolm wrote:
RIght, this is why I don't follow this point of view. Dzogchen has exactly the opposite point of view. The purpose of Dzogchen is to know precisely your own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Samkhya is dualistic, Buddhism is nondual.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Buddhism? Certainly not the Buddhism of the Pali Canon. Bhikkhu Bodhi for example has argued for a hard dualism of nirvana and samsara. Samkhya merely proposes a different account of unconditioned and conditioned. Purusha is the unconditioned, Prakṛiti is the conditioned. Purusha is the self, prakṛiti is the not self.

Basically, all you atmanvadins are doing is merely imposing Samkhya onto Buddhism.


Vidyaraja said:
Just because the Buddha had a unique conceptual system for expressing the inexpressible and leading his followers to the one Truth doesn't mean he denied the Self. Aside from that, ask Ananda Coomraswamy points out in his book "Hinduism and Buddhism", the Buddha didn't think his way was utterly novel:

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, you will be happier as a devotee of Advaita. You will always be miserable in Buddhadharma because you have to work so hard to find places where you think your views are expressed. But in Advaita, or Trika, it is fully present.


Vidyaraja said:
“I have seen,” the Buddha says, “the ancient Way, the Old Road that was taken by the formerly All-Awakened, and that is the path I follow”; and since he elsewhere praises the Brāhmaṇs of old who remembered the Ancient Way that leads to Brahma, there can be no doubt that the Buddha is alluding to “the ancient narrow path that stretches far away, whereby the contemplatives, knowers of Brahma, ascend, set free” (vimuktāḥ), mentioned in verses that were already old when Yajñavalkya cites them in the earliest Upaniṣad.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha used a lot of metaphors with an intellectual history. This does not prove he is a Vedantic sage, or was a proponent of Vedanta. There is absolutely no evidence of this.


Their views are important as part of the history of ideas; however, no serious expert in the field of Buddhist studies really holds their theosophically informed opinions in any regard.
These individuals weren't theosophers, some were Theravadin Sangharajas and some just Pali scholars. Coomaraswamy was a genius who was an expert in religious studies, metaphysics, and I believe could speak some 30 langues. I am sure there are also contemporary experts in Buddhist studies who maintain the view of the Great Self, like Susan K. Hookam of Oxford University for example.
The four westerners (Coomaraswamy was western educated) you mentioned are all deeply influenced by Theosophy. Coomaraswamy may have been a genius, but his understanding of Buddhism is sorely deficient as far as I am concerned.

I doubt Shenphen Hookham as the same idea about this that you do. gzhan stong is complicated, has many schools, and Kongtrul's (about which she wrote) is basically a modified version of Sakya Chogden's gzhan stong, which is markedly different than Dolbupa's version.
You are a perennialist. This is fine, but you do realize that your views are a severely minority opinion in Buddhadharma.
Seems to prop up more frequently the more I read of older Buddhist masters. For example, I've been reading on Korean Buddhism as of late, and both Chinul and later Gihwa wrote on how they believed Taoism and Neo-Confucianism (at least in the case of Gihwa who was writing during the Joseon) were valid paths.
That does not mean these scholars mistook Taoism and Ne-Confuscism as leading to the same result Buddhadharma purports.
Good luck to you in your search for truth.
I am not searching, but thanks. I am pretty clear about what I think is the real meaning of Buddha's teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
but they qualify those statements to make it clear that the self does exist as mere imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Which I made clear at the outset. The self exists as an imputation, it does not exist where it is imputed, that is the meaning of "non-existent". The habit of grasping is responsible for that imputation, hence we have the term "the habit of grasping a non-existent self". This habit itself functions as an agent of karma and an object upon which karma ripens, without the self it imputes existing where it is imputed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, could you say more about the truth and freedom you do aspire to?

Malcolm wrote:
Perfect dharmatā is nonarising,
alternately, self-liberated without grasping.
Why? The cause of self-liberation
is unceasing nonattachment.
It is free from a mind of grasping attachment.
Recognize this again and again.
If one familiarizes oneself repeatedly,
one is a person who has seen the truth.
The Self-Risen Vidyā Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
And yet I do not think that accepting Batchelor as a Buddhist and yet publically showing the internal contradictions, fallacies, prejudices and so forth inherent in his positions is a waste of time.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we all make choices.

cloudburst said:
I started out as a materialist and was greatly helped by strong refutations of this materialist view found in my early studies, mostly of Nyingma teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is, Dzogchen texts reject the substance dualism prevalent in virtually the entire Buddhist tradition.

cloudburst said:
It is painful to try and hold a view that cannot be defended, so people move.

Malcolm wrote:
Most people just suck up the party line. It is often difficult enough just to understand that, without understanding why it might be defective or problematical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Koji said:
Just curious, are there differing standards of what Buddhadharma is or just one standard? If just one standard in which tradition or texts can we find it? I think beginners would like to know so we could say something like, "That isn't Buddhism."

Malcolm wrote:
In my opinion basic standards which would indicate a person or a school is Buddhist in orientation are:

A dharma theory based on skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas.

A theory of suffering based on of affliction and dependent origination.

A path theory based on śamatha and vipaśyāna.

Acceptance of the four seals.

A concept of refuge.

I think that this basic framework provides a wide latitude for differences of opinion, including for example eternalist interpretations of the tathāgatagarbha sutras or the austere doctrine of emptiness taught in Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā. It even has room for "heretics" like Batchelor and Zenmar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Was Dudjom Rinpoche a gzhan stong pa?


Malcolm wrote:
He was a gzhan stong pa, yes. But not really in the same way that Dolbupa was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
I wouldn't say it is clear cut that this view is an import into Buddhadharma. Many have argued and continue to do so that the Buddha didn't deny the Self but rather used anatta as a via negativa approach to deny reality to the empirical self consisting of the impermanent aggregates. See my post in this thread for some quotes on this:

Malcolm wrote:
What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE  because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage.



Vidyaraja said:
Now, you are free to disagree, but if this line of thought (which is shared by other scholars like George Grimm, CAF Rhys Davids, Perez-Remon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, the Thais of the Dhammakaya movement, other Theravadins, etc.) is correct, then the no-self doctrine as applied to Nirvana is an import into Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Their views are important as part of the history of ideas; however, no serious expert in the field of Buddhist studies really holds their theosophically informed opinions in any regard.

Vidyaraja said:
As to saying that this view doesn't bring about realization, I think numerous Hindu sages from the time of the Vedic rishis up to modern figures like Nisargadatta Maharaj, the Christian mystics like Pseudo-Dionysius or Meister Eckhart, the Sufi sheikhs such as Ibn Arabi and Rumi, Neoplatonist mystics like Plotinus and Iamblichus, Taoists like Lao Tzu, Jains like Mahavira, the Sikhs, Kabbalists, various occult figures, and various Amerindians who speak of the Great Spirit, as well as the Buddhist masters like Dolpopa, and various Zen figures like Huang Po would disagree. Now of course, all intellectual views must be transcended to reach the wordless, intuitive, direct realization of Truth, but nonetheless. My point is, while many of these sages aren't Buddhists, the Madhyamika figures who deny the transcendent Absolute and the Great Self are the minority in the spiritual history of mankind.

Malcolm wrote:
But they are clearly defined majority in the annals of Buddhadharma, which is our subject of discussion.

Vidyaraja said:
You are free to believe that they are an elite who have had the highest realization and everyone else has been deluded or of inferior realization, but for one I refuse to believe that is the case, not only because of the unity across time, culture, religion, etc. of those figures who maintained this view, but because of my own experience tells me otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
You are a perennialist. This is fine, but you do realize that your views are a severely minority opinion in Buddhadharma.

It is not a question of higher or lower realization. The fact is that the liberation to which you aspire is not one I share. It does not mean I am going to deny you the right to call yourself a Buddhist because you happen to hold views that I consider to be out of step with the primary trends of the evolution of Buddhist teachings. The fact is that the liberation to which Batchelor aspires is not one I share. The fact is that the liberation to which the Pure Land people aspire is not one I share. The fact is that the liberation to which the Theravadins aspire is not one I share. The fact is that the liberation to which Zen practitioners aspire is not one I share. But they are all Buddhists and the all aspire to freedom.

Beyond that, the fact is that the liberation to which Samkhya, Vedanta, Yoga, Vaiśeṣika, Nyaya and Mimamsa aspire is not one I share. But they are also seeking freedom, so I consider them Dharma, albeit, not Buddhadharma. The same goes with all other spiritual paths.

We are all alike in that we are seeking truth and freedom that truth brings. But I do not think for an instant that we all seeking the same truth or the same freedom.

The strength of Buddha's patched robe is that it is able to accommodate such disagreement and so many different point of view of about what Buddha himself meant when he discoursed about truth and freedom.

When it comes to tenets, I think Madhyamaka is the most definitive teaching, when it comes to sūtras, think the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras are the most definitive, and I when it comes to vajrayāna, I think Dzogchen is the most definitive teaching. But that is just my perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
This is an english text, so there is no possibility of correcting a translation from a tibetan text.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, you're quoting from the translator's introduction, I understand. Do you take them as authorities though?

smcj said:
If the translators can't get that right, then nothing else in the book is reliable. It is put as something fundamental to be understood before proceeding. Plus this is Dudjom R.'s position repeatedly stated in many contexts. A Google search will demonstrate this.


Malcolm wrote:
The translators did a fine job on that book. The person who didn't get it right was Dudjom Rinpoche. He just repeated a gloss that is found in many earlier books, and he apparently never looked up the original citation to check it. Tibetan scholarship in general is not known for originality, and it is also not known for detailed citation checking. Mostly people just repeat what they hear from their teachers. Great Lamas are no different in this respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
OK, here's a quote from Dudjom R.'s "The Nyingma School Of Tibetan Buddhism" (a.k.a. "The Red Book") p. 26:

" The Great Madhyamaka (dbu-ma chen-po) is aloof from the reasoning of the Outer Madhyamaka which is based upon dialectics, and instead must be experientially cultivated in meditation. "


Malcolm wrote:
In Bhavya's text, the difference between the so called coarse outer madhyamaka and the inner subtle madhyamaka merely has to do with how relative truth is treated. I reproduce the entire passage below. You will notice an absence of the terms Prasanga, Svatantra. When one, as a Madhyamaka, treats relative truth from the perspective of the śravakas, this is considered coarse outer madhyamaka. When relative truth is treated from the cittamatra point of view, then this becomes the subtle inner madhyamaka:

When phenomenal entities are categorized, in this way there are two kind: material and immaterial. In this way, material entities appearing as portions of subtle atoms do not exist and also subtle atoms appearing as limited by different directions do not exist. They are immaterial mind. Meanwhile, mind and mental factors are engaged for a moment.Since appearing because of the very subtle aspect through the differentiation of past, present and future does not exist, minds and mental factors are not established, becoming the nature of the dharmadhātu, in which one should abide. The Mother states: "That mind is not mind, because the primal nature [prakṛiti] of the mind is luminosity" and "whever the mind does not exist, that is inconceivable". 

Further, all phenomena can be gathered into the mind, mind gathered into the body, after the body is gathered into the dharmadhātu, it dissolves. The meaning of this is also spoken of by the Ācarya Nāgārjuna in the Madhyamaka Bhāvasaṃkranta:
The world comes from concepts; concepts come from the mind;
the mind is supported on the body, for that reason investigate the body.
One should dwell in such a meaning. Do not do not dwell on any kind of occasion or consciousness. Do not conceive anything, do not think about anything, do not dwell all extremes. The essence of any consciousness has not arisen, one should meditate on nothing at all. Further, that prajñā of through analysis does not appear. For example, since fire is produced by rubbing to sticks together vigorously, if the wood is burnt, also the that fire is understood to naturally pacified, because it also has become non-existent. The meaning of this can be understood in the Ārya-kāśyapaparivarta sūtra. Further, in the Ārya-ghanavyūha sūtra:
Just the fire which is the burning agent does not exist 
since the burnt object does not exist,
likewise if one burns the view to be incinerated, 
also the fire of emptiness will cease. 
At the time of the cessation of views, 
the fire of wisdom will not be produced, 
all afflictions having been incinerated. 
If the afflictions are incinerated, the aspect is beautiful.
Mahāsukha (aka Padmavajra) says:
Having burned the bundle of firewood of views
with the fire of emptiness, 
this is abiding in peace, 
in which the fire of suchness has also ceased.
As such, having taught the coarse yoga, now the subtle yoga will be taught. This is subtle i.e. all dharmas there can be arise as the appearances of one's mere illusory mind itself. In this way, the mere illusory mind is beyond the three times. Without color or shape, luminous through its primal nature. Since it does not appear, all phenomena are to be understood as being the illusory mind itself. There are also citations. The Ārya Lankāvatara states:
In dependance on mind-only, 
do not analyze outer objects; 
in dependence upon suchness
one must transcend mind-only. 
If one transcends mind-only, 
one will abide in non-appearances. 
The yogi abiding in non-appearances, 
he sees the Mahāyāna.
Ārya Nāgārjuna, Ācarya Āryadeva, Ācarya Candrakīrti speak it in these words. In this way, speaking about the relative truth in the manner of the śravakas is the coarse outer madhyamaka. That [relative] existing as one's mind only is the so called  "inner madhyamaka" which is subtle.

There are three things to include here: one, this author, Bhavya, is very late -- he is not the same author as Bhavaviveka. This is proven by two things: one, he mentions Candrakirti. Second, he cites Mahasukha aka Padmavajra and directly cites Padmavajra's text Sakalatantrasambhavasaṃcodanī-śrīguhyasiddhi-nama. Padmavajra may be the same person as Padmasambhava.

At any rate, this text itself is no later than the tenth century but no earlier than the eighth.  This places Bhavya subsequent to Padmavajra, that and Atisha brought the text to Tibet in the 11th.

Third, Bhavya mentions a great madhyamaka three times in this text. But first person we know of to use the term in any surviving text was the Tibetan Kawa Paltseg. He uses the term great madhyamaka as a sobriquet for freedom from extremes.

So frankly, when gzhan stong pas use this passage from Bhavya to support their notion that great madhyamaka is a non-analytical meditation, their reasoning is pretty flimsy when the citation they use to distinguish an outer and an inner madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 20th, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately, this citation does not actually exist in the text it is supposed to exist in. I have mentioned this before and I am pretty sure I presented the original passage out of which this oft cited distortion is from.

dzogchungpa said:
That's disturbing. How did find it's way into that book then?


Malcolm wrote:
It is an interpretive gloss of a passage treated as a citation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
If you want my humble opinion, that is largely what much of Madhyamika, concepts like emptiness as often understood, no ultimate ground of being, anatta understood as applying to the Absolute rather than as a via negativa applied to the aggregates, and so forth are: the intellectual ideas of philosophers...
No, it is the opposite actually, in my opinion, those people within Buddhadharma who assert a transcendent absolute, a mahātman, etc. are the intellectuals since they are the ones who have to spin the most elaborate hermeneutics to justify their opinions, for example Dolbuba.
Here's a cut and paste from something Dudjom R. wrote. He starts by quoting somebody else:

Concerning the subtle, inner Great Madhyamaka of definitive meaning, it is stated in the Jewel Lamp of the Madhyamaka by the master Bhavya (skal-ldan):

The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with [extremist] Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara-Madhyamaka.

Elsewhere I've seen him say that Prasangika Madhyamaka is for intellectual approach to emptiness and Great Madyamaka (Shentong) is for discussing it from a meditational standpoint without quoting anybody else, but this is what I found with a quick search.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately, this citation does not actually exist in the text it is supposed to exist in. I have mentioned this before and I am pretty sure I presented the original passage out of which this oft cited distortion is from.

I will shortly present it again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
can you source this in the Sutras for us all??

(I could of swore the texts that teach Buddha Nature say it is Not-Empty)

Malcolm wrote:
It is more complicated than that. I spent a few minutes this morning running a word search on the bka' 'gyur and I found that only five of the ten tathagatagarbhasūtras say anything at all about the dharmadhātu, and only four of them say anything meaningful.

The Angulimāla sutra says:
The dhātu of all sentient beings (sarvasattvadhātu) is the dharmadhātu,
since flesh is consumed of the same dhātu, the buddhas do not consume meat.
It is presented in the context of eating meat. Basically, cannibalism is a taboo in general, and by making the observation that the dharmdhātu is the sattvadhātu, in this sutra the Buddha is making an argument we ought not meat since we are all of the same kind.

The Nirvana Sūtra only contains two explicit mentions of the dharmadhātu:
Empty peace is the dharmadhātu...
Son of a good family, if one of average prajñā truly courses in the dharmadhātu, wisdom of perfection, ultimate truth and ultimate emptiness, that one will attain the śravakas awakening; the one of medium prajñā, the pratyekabuddha awakening, and one is best prajñā, unsurpassed awakening.
There is another sūtra, Ārya-maladevīsiṃhanāda sūtra, that states:
"Bhagavan, this tathāgatagarbha is the sublime dharmadhātu. It is the dharmakāyagarbha, it is the garbha of transcendent phenomena [lokkotaradharmas], it is the garbha of the naturally pure dharmakāya. Bhagavan, since temporary secondary afflictions are naturally pure as the tathāgatagarbha, these secondary afflictions are the site of the tathāgatas."
This sutra pretty clearly states that afflicted phenomena cannot be excluded from the tathāgatagarbha, more or less repeating the thinking of the Angulimala sūtra above.

Ok, therefore, we can see that that tathagatagarbha sūtras are of no help in defining dharmadhātu.

The Ārya-gaganagañjaparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra is the likely locus classicus for the explicit notion that the dharmadhātu is a source. Let me preface this by saying that in Tibetan, the term "dhātu" is glossed as a 'byung gnas, a locus of production, not as a basis or a foundation [gzhi/rtsa ba]. The nature of meaning of the term dhātu is translated into is "dbyings", which has a native meaning as a dimension [klong] or a element [khams]. When it is defined by Vasubandhu he defines the term dhātu as being similar to a mine. Now, the sūtra states:
Phenomena do not come and do not go, they dwell in the dharmadhātu;
all that appears as form, it all comes from space;
all that appears as phenomena[dharmas], those come from the dharmadhātu.
Still we are no closer to a conclusive definition of dharmadhātu.

The Lankāvatara helps us: Suchnness, emptiness, nirvana and the dharmadhātu,
the non-arising phenomena, are nature of the ultimate.
So here in this text we have a clear demonstration that suchnness, emptiness, nirvana and the dharmadhātu are all to be treated as synonymous.

The Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā states: Further, because the dharmadhātu does not exist, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the past; because the dharmadhātu is emptiness, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the past; because the dharmadhātu is isolated it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the past; because the dharmadhātu lacks an intrinsic nature, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the past. Further, because the dharmadhātu does not exist, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the future; because the dharmadhātu is emptiness, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the future; because the dharmadhātu is isolated it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the future; because the dharmadhātu lacks an intrinsic nature, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the extreme of the future. Further, because the dharmadhātu does not exist, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the middle; because the dharmadhātu is emptiness, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the middle; because the dharmadhātu is isolated it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the middle; because the dharmadhātu lacks an intrinsic nature, it is not perceived by the bodhisattvas in the middle.

So in reality, we see that in the Tathagatagarbha sūtra cycle, the notion of dharmadhātu is rather neglected doctrinally; I would suggest, precisely because of its association with emptiness as presented in the PP sūtras, which in no way permits a reading of a positive ground which serves as the basis for the arising of phenomena. And as we have seen above, the Nirvana sūtra explicitly defines dharmadhātu as emptiness.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
So for me, transcendence and a timeless, unborn Absolute reality that is the source of everything

Malcolm wrote:
Conditioned phenomena dependently originate; unconditioned phenomena do not arise at all. Other than that, there is no source. This is why dependent origination is called "profound". The logic of dependent origination precludes a "source" for conditioned phenomena, transcendent or otherwise.

Your view is just one among many imports into Buddhadharma, just like Batchelor's views. In my opinion you are both mistaken -- but that does not really matter, because intellectual views like yours and Batchelors, in the end, are not what bring about realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
oushi said:
That would be true only if you give a special meaning to "nature".

Malcolm wrote:
The word here is svabhāva i.e. nature, inherent existence, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 2:12 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But people have a hard time with the kind of intellectual discipline the study of the Buddhist history of ideas demands.

Vidyaraja said:
If you want my humble opinion, that is largely what much of Madhyamika, concepts like emptiness as often understood, no ultimate ground of being, anatta understood as applying to the Absolute rather than as a via negativa applied to the aggregates, and so forth are: the intellectual ideas of philosophers...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is the opposite actually, in my opinion, those people within Buddhadharma who assert a transcendent absolute, a mahātman, etc. are the intellectuals since they are the ones who have to spin the most elaborate hermeneutics to justify their opinions, for example Dolbuba.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
Since everything is empty, it is often said that everything arises from the dharmadhātu and dissolves into the dharmadhātu. It is an ocean/wave metaphor.
Sounds more like "there's an ultimate ground of being" metaphor.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really.

But people have a hard time with the kind of intellectual discipline the study of the Buddhist history of ideas demands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no fundamental ground of existence which gives rise to everything.

dzogchungpa said:
Isn't dharmadhatu something like this?


Malcolm wrote:
In Mahāyāna, the dharmadhātu in merely synonym for the general state of emptiness that pervades all things. Since everything is empty, it is often said that everything arises from the dharmadhātu and dissolves into the dharmadhātu. It is an ocean/wave metaphor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
Where is an 'unconditioned phenomena'? Show me one 'unconditioned phenomena'. This is something I say you cannot do - there is no such thing anywhere.
If you believe Asanga, you own Buddha Nature is unconditioned phenomena. It is your own nature, yet cannot be taken as an object of consciousness, yours or anybody else's for that matter. It is an example of something unborn having functionality--the functionality being you!

Malcolm wrote:
If you believe the Buddha as he is presented in the Lankāvatara sutra, tathāgatagarbha is merely an intermediate doctrine for those who are frightened of emptiness.
̄


