﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Kagyu believe in using two accumulations. Also in devotion being the best way to realization, as in the stanza from Tilopa about guru's blessing entering your heart. They are visualizing the guru as vajradhara when praying. Tilo also mentions followers of sutras and tantras can't realize Mahamudra.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Kagyus are Kadampa Gradualists. No problem with that.

Tilopa's stanza refers to i) doctrine from the Guhyasamaja, that a very effective way to cause the winds to enter the central channel is to focus on the anahata bindu ( mi shig thig le ) in the heart, visualized in the form of the guru. It actually has nothing to do with devotion, but everything to do with yogic praxis. ii) it refers to the fact that guru yoga is, for many people, a faster path than the two stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The pope doesn't run a 3 yr retreat. GR is a kagyu master with exceptional siddhis. If you pray to the pope nothing will happen. If you pray to GR you will receive profound lineage blessings.

monktastic said:
If you pray to a dog's tooth with enough devotion, you will "receive" blessings sufficient for realization. If you pray to the pope the full faith that he is a Buddha, methinks something will happen.

Crazywisdom said:
Hope

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that "blessings" come from supplicating gurus or from disciples offering supplications is both equally wrong. The dog tooth story is a perfect example of some of the hardcore silliness we can find in Tibetan Buddhism. It is a tale to silence inquisitive children.

Nevertheless, I will happily sing blessing supplications because I am grateful for the path that my gurus have shown me. But just as I don't really believe that gathering the two accumulations is necessary for buddhahood, likewise, I don't really believe in external blessings.

And the point of my example about the Pope is that he gives blessings a.k.a benedictions, for a living. It is his main job. This is the Christian approach to spirituality in general, i.e., appealing to a higher power. But the Buddha is not a "higher" power -- he is merely someone who understood his own nature and became free of the afflictions that bound him to samsara. A guru is also not a higher power, he or she is someone that shows us the path. Meeting the path of Dharma is the real blessing, besides which all other so-called "blessings" pale into insignificance.

In any case, it is interesting to note that in the bka' 'gyur, the term byin rlab, brlabs and rlob occur infrequently in the sūtra division. There are 4 instances in the perfection of wisdom section; 51 instances in the Avatamska; 7 instances in the Ratnakuta collection and 53 instances in the general sūtra division. This is out of millions of words.

In the tantra division of course, because it is concerned with ritual actions, primarily, there are 740 instances of this term.

By way of comparison, the term emptiness occurs 27 times in Vinaya, 1000+ times in the PP section; 27 times in the Avatamska, 420 in the Ratnakuta, 1000+ in the general sutra division; and 464 in the tantra division.

When we run a comparative analysis on the tantra division with guru and blessing combined, we find that the "blessing" relationship between guru and disciple is framed as a contractual obligation, as in this passage from the Vajrāmṛta Tantra:
After the disciple fully offers 
his wealth to the guru,
the blessings of the guru
should be granted to the sadhaka.
But apart from this passage, there are no others in the tantras themselves. In the commentarial literature, the use of the term "blessings of the guru" are generally restricted to empowerment contexts. But of course, there are rare statements such as Virupa's:
Siddhi is obtained in an instant,
based on the blessings of the guru.
Naturally, as we move down into the commentaries on lower tantra, yoga tantra on down, references to the blessings of the guru disappear.

Such references are only found in the anuttarayoga tantra commentaries because guru yoga is strictly an highest yoga tantra thing.

Finally, the term "guru endowed with the lineage of blessings" entirely refers, in Indian literature, to someone who is actually authorized to bestow this or that empowerment, i.e. someone who has the adhiṣṭhāna (n. standing by , being at hand , approach ; standing or resting upon ; a basis , base ; the standing-place of the warrior upon the car Sa1mavBr. ; a position , site , residence , abode , seat ; a settlement , town , standing over ; government , authority , power ; a precedent , rule ; a benediction Buddh.) of the lineage.

Now of course, things in Tibet are different, especially in the Kagyu school, and Tibetans overall have moved way beyond the limited notion of "blessings" found in the Indian canon, where we can see common Tibetans (the prayer wheel spinning types) placing fervent, often blind, devotion in tulkus, abbots, geshes, and so on., whether deserved or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
heart said:
Florin, I think you will be very surprised when you receive a full transmission of a Dzogchen cycle, in particular a Nyingtik cycle. You seem to be an idealist holding a banner for the ever evasive "pure Dzogchen". I am afraid that really don't exist in the way you think. Dzogchen is a lot more pragmatik than you think.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Florin, bless his heart, is a staunch Valbyista.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
florin said:
You are free to do dzogchen ngondro from a sutra perspective...
But in my opinion we should at least consider using them in their proper context.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahaha, you are a really funny guy. You think you know Dzogchen even better than Longchenpa. Hahahahahaha. Longchenpa is just echoing Vimalamitra in the commentary on the sgra thal 'gyur. But I forgot, if it is isn't Semde, for you it is not really Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
You said that [blessings] have no function at all.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I actually said that "blessing" means to place the mind on profound Dharma topics according to definition given by Alak Kenkar Rinpoche (the reincarnation of Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje) in his bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, or alternately, the activities that buddhas perform on our behalf; not the naive kind of "blessings" some people here believe in.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
If you pray to the pope nothing will happen. If you pray to GR you will receive profound lineage blessings.

Malcolm wrote:
How do you know. Did you try? After all, the Pope has millions of disciples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As far as Garchen Rinpoche goes. He is a very nice person who has benefitted many thousands of people. But then, so has the Pope, etc.

maybay said:
If this says anything its that function and substance are for the most part independent of one another.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? Who says that Garchen is not a bodhisattva, like the Pope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, I always find guru fundamentalism astonishing in people who likewise consider themselves to have rejected blind faith ala Christianity, etc.

maybay said:
I don't think its the same thing. Christian faith is founded on one giant mistake. What you're suggesting is we pack up and go home on Garchen Rinpoche because of one out of a million things he's said. Or because his Sangha doesn't debate anymore.

Malcolm wrote:
I was not talking about them, I was talking about the more credulous here among us.

As far as Garchen Rinpoche goes. He is a very nice person who has benefitted many thousands of people. But then, so has the Pope, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But the idea that we are actually removing someone else's negative karma is not the way things work, according to what I understand, and I have never seen a convincing explanation to the contrary.

maybay said:
Nevertheless, receiving blessings and creating a karmic connection with realized masters is a simple, powerful method that avoids the pitfalls of narrow thinking. Its like aiming for rebirth in Sukhavati. It may not be the final destination but its acceptable. If you have the capacity to do more then there's no problem here either.

Malcolm wrote:
We are not talking about avoiding the pitfalls of narrow thinking, rather we are avoiding the pitfalls of naive belied in things that have no function at all.

Honestly, I always find guru fundamentalism astonishing in people who likewise consider themselves to have rejected blind faith ala Christianity, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Abbott chops off finger as a devotional practice
Content:
Virgo said:
This kind of practice is very wrong.  Buddha does not require your finger/s.

Virgo


Malcolm wrote:
Yup. Torturing the aggregates is definitely not the Buddha's intent.


dzogchungpa said:
Veganism is right out then, I guess.

Malcolm wrote:
i think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
florin said:
Dzogchen ngondro if for developing capacity to discover and rest in the natural state.

Malcolm wrote:
The different rushans have different purposes, and purify different things. They have both relative and ultimate benefits.

For example, the rushan of the body, according to Longchenpa, has the following benefits:
From the two necessities in the preliminary of the body, the common purpose is attachment to the body is reversed, and obstacles are pacified. Common to both of those, misdeeds of the body are purified. 

The supreme purpose is that one will never enter into the city of the womb, be liberated as a nirmānakāya. Common to both of those, one will become non-dual with the vajra body of all the buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


florin said:
That all phenomena are the energy of self-originated wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the common view of all the higher tantras.

florin said:
Although the higher tantras have some understanding of the real condition they consider that the phenomena of the aggregates and their corresponding consciousnesses are samsaric manifestations which require purification...

Malcolm wrote:
So does Dzogchen. What do you think rushen is for? It is a kind of purification for eliminating rebirth in the six realms.

Don't confuse the basis with the path and result. As the Single Son of All the Buddhas Tantra states,
The mind series is for the intellectual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Abbott chops off finger as a devotional practice
Content:
Virgo said:
This kind of practice is very wrong.  Buddha does not require your finger/s.

Virgo


Malcolm wrote:
Yup. Torturing the aggregates is definitely not the Buddha's intent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


florin said:
Sure.
But from what i could see in dzogchen the aggregates receive a different treatment and meaning than in the rest of approaches.

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean?

florin said:
That all phenomena are the energy of self-originated wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the common view of all the higher tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
I am not going to throw in the towel just yet. When we practise Shitro with the intention of helping the deceased, we *are* actually purifying their karma, are we not? (Please see Teachings on Shitro and Yangti, pp. 86-87.)

Malcolm wrote:
What we are doing is creating a dependent origination for them to take rebirth in higher realms. But our practice is not going to overwhelm their karma. For example, if we do Shitro for Hitler, Stalin and Mao, people who hate the Dharma, do you really think there will be much effect?

\We have to be sensible. For example, Rinpoche has said many times that reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead for someone who has not received and practiced Shitro is useless (as is reading it in Tibetan for English speakers, for example).

Because beings in the bardo have seven times more clarity, through their clairvoyance, they know when we are doing Shitro for them, and this can create a cause for their eventual liberation through mantra, etc., especially if they are a practitioner. But the idea that we are actually removing someone else's negative karma is not the way things work, according to what I understand, and I have never seen a convincing explanation to the contrary.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Thanks, Malcolm. I very much appreciate your candour.

Malcolm wrote:
All of these Shitro rituals for guiding the dead come form the Sarvadurgati-parishodana tantra, originally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


florin said:
So are you  saying that the naked experience of sensation, which  is a direct perception, is still mind but a nonconcetpual mind ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. This is also stated quite clearly in Dzogchen tantras.

florin said:
Sure.
But from what i could see in dzogchen the aggregates receive a different treatment and meaning than in the rest of approaches.

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2016 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
What about doing Mandarava for the sake of another person, though?

Malcolm wrote:
In this case you are trying to strengthen their five elements. Enhancing another's health through mantra and visualization is one thing. But removing their two obscurations is quite another. The former is done easily, the latter cannot be done at all.

treehuggingoctopus said:
I am not going to throw in the towel just yet. When we practise Shitro with the intention of helping the deceased, we *are* actually purifying their karma, are we not? (Please see Teachings on Shitro and Yangti, pp. 86-87.)

Malcolm wrote:
What we are doing is creating a dependent origination for them to take rebirth in higher realms. But our practice is not going to overwhelm their karma. For example, if we do Shitro for Hitler, Stalin and Mao, people who hate the Dharma, do you really think there will be much effect?

\We have to be sensible. For example, Rinpoche has said many times that reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead for someone who has not received and practiced Shitro is useless (as is reading it in Tibetan for English speakers, for example).

Because beings in the bardo have seven times more clarity, through their clairvoyance, they know when we are doing Shitro for them, and this can create a cause for their eventual liberation through mantra, etc., especially if they are a practitioner. But the idea that we are actually removing someone else's negative karma is not the way things work, according to what I understand, and I have never seen a convincing explanation to the contrary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


florin said:
So are you  saying that the naked experience of sensation, which  is a direct perception, is still mind but a nonconcetpual mind ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. This is also stated quite clearly in Dzogchen tantras.

Sherab Dorje said:
In Theravada Abhidhamma too.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't care much about Abhidhamma, it is not relevant to my practice. Just saying...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


florin said:
So are you  saying that the naked experience of sensation, which  is a direct perception, is still mind but a nonconcetpual mind ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. This is also stated quite clearly in Dzogchen tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
conebeckham said:
Okay, so what, then, is this blessing that is "given" and "received?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Sensation does not require conceptualisation, but the experience of sensation (sweetness) does.

florin said:
And how is a sensation different from the experience of sensation ?
To me , when mind is engaged by saying "this is sweet"  and restricting the appearance of sensation to this frame of reference , is what i would call conceptualization . But i would not say that the naked experience of sensation , which is prior to mind being engaged , is the conceptualization itself.

Malcolm wrote:
A direct perception is not prior to the mind, per se. A direct perception is a nonconceptual mind. A nonconceptual mind does however exist prior to the arising of the mental faculty, manas, which interprets that nonconceptual mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
What about doing Mandarava for the sake of another person, though?

Malcolm wrote:
In this case you are trying to strengthen their five elements. Enhancing another's health through mantra and visualization is one thing. But removing their two obscurations is quite another. The former is done easily, the latter cannot be done at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
What is Viṣtadvaita [Krishnamācarya's view]?

Malcolm wrote:
Qualified nondualism, formulated by Ramanuja —— characteristic of Vaishnava philosophy in general.

monktastic said:
I think it's missing a syllable: viśiṣṭādvaita.


Malcolm wrote:
yup


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You are too dismissive of other people's understandings and experiences.

Malcolm wrote:
You are too credulous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Perhaps you'd be better off trying to understand the views of a great master rather than disparaging them? You might learn something.

Malcolm wrote:
So you accept what Garchen Rinpoche is here presented as saying? Good for you. I don't.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Have you really thought about how it might be true? It's no good just casually dismissing it. A great Master's word are worth considering because they don't say things for no reason, so why do you think he said this?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha cannot enter a samadhi which causes people to realize selflessness. Why would we think anyone else would be able to?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
What about this bit on the guru over deity? Is this the correct sense?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
You've lumped colloquial language and grammatical lapses together like they are both faults.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Kumārila did -- get some glasses.

maybay said:
Ok, but why make a point of them unless they were an issue. Being critical of grammatical lapses is not a wrong view.

Malcolm wrote:
Kumārila was someone who argued the Vedas were perfect because their language perfect, and therefore, the teachings contained in them was perfect because the Vedas are considered to self-existing. On the other hand, the texts of the Buddhists and Jains, his thinking ran, were imperfect and their doctrines were imperfect because they used colloquial language and had bad grammar.

Google it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
By the way, earlier in the thread I asked what you learnt from Krsnamacarya's student.

Malcolm wrote:
Yoga, Saṃkhya and Advaita [his own view], with a smattering of Viṣtadvaita [Krishnamācarya's view].

maybay said:
What is Viṣtadvaita [Krishnamācarya's view]?


Malcolm wrote:
Qualified nondualism, formulated by Ramanuja —— characteristic of Vaishnava philosophy in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just recall, Dzogchungpa, you brought it up, so the response to this is on your head.

dzogchungpa said:
Um, no, gzodzilpa did.

Malcolm wrote:
He indeed brought it up, and asked a question, you brought it up as a challenge to my response to his post, as you often do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If we, in a state of delusion, think we are in fact really removing the illnesses and misery of others through gtong len practice, for example, we have not understood one word of what gtong len teachings are in actuality— a method of developing the courage necessary to make the leap from aspirational bodhicitta to engaged bodhicitta.

treehuggingoctopus said:
And yet we did the Chang Chog Shitro today, deluded oafs that most of us are...

Malcolm wrote:
Chang chog is a kind of rite where the ghandarva of a deceased person is summoned, and given instructions, as well as put through some empowerment -like procedures (but they are not actual empowerments) so that their obscurations are purified. But is not passive, you are not doing it FOR them, you are GUIDING them through the rites in the same way a guru guides you through visualizations in an empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is one of the key advantages of Dzogchen tantras, in that they go through the 60 wrong views prevalent in India, step by step, identifying people such as the founder of Advaita, Shankarācarya, and other Hindu polemicists, such as Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, an exponent of Purvamimasa who studied directly with Dharmakīrti, who criticized Buddhists and Jains for using colloquial language and for grammatical lapses.

maybay said:
You've lumped colloquial language and grammatical lapses together like they are both faults.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Kumārila did -- get some glasses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
. I think what gets forgotten here is that what is being described might be beyond the understanding of ordinary people...

Malcolm wrote:
You mean the ordinary people who are supposedly freed from self-grasping because some yogi enters samadhi on mahāmudra? Just recall, Dzogchungpa, you brought it up, so the response to this is on your head. There is a reason why a master with students ceases to debate after a time. Your penchant for stirring controversy actually damages others.

maybay said:
Its ironic that you can speak from Dzogchungpa's experience, but deny Garchen Rinpoche that prerogative.

Malcolm wrote:
Not denying anyone anything. The way GR's statement is presented is as an actual objective fact "Do this, this happens." It was not presented as some kind of subjective path experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
It gets translated as following the guru for a long time.

Malcolm wrote:
Time means the third empowerment. Whatever translation you read, the translator did not understand the sense of the passage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, many students of Buddhadharma are insufficiently educated in non-Buddhist tenets, and thus do not observe wrong views that creep into their understanding.

maybay said:
By the way, earlier in the thread I asked what you learnt from Krsnamacarya's student.

Malcolm wrote:
Yoga, Saṃkhya and Advaita [his own view], with a smattering of Viṣtadvaita [Krishnamācarya's view].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
florin said:
But how can G R's remarks  be so heretical ?
Unless the people who are translating him dont understand his instructions...

treehuggingoctopus said:
They need not be heretical, you know. His saying that "the ground of our minds is the same" may be construed as perfectly orthodox (meaning there is just one nature of the mind, not that we are all a Brahman-like multientity) -- and the same applies to the instructions he has received from Khenpo Munsel (see here: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16164&p=226936 ).

Even this bit does not necessarily suggest that we are all Borg:

Garchen Rinpoche said:
[...]the essence of the suffering of the sentient beings of the three realms and the essence of our own suffering is the same. If you see them to be the same, if you see them as being non-dual, and then meditate on that suffering, in the mind's natural state, that suffering goes away. At that moment, you have been able to lessen the suffering of all sentient beings of the three realms, all at once.

treehuggingoctopus said:
I mean, if you can dedicate your practice for the benefit of others (and they do benefit from it somehow), why would you not be able to use tonglen like that? We are all connected, after all.


Malcolm wrote:
If we understand such instructions as being an experience on the path, with no real function outside of the practitioner's personal experience, there is no problem with such instructions. For example, it is well know that buddhas only see sentient beings as buddhas. But the fact that buddhas see us as buddhas does not diminish our own obscured experience, our own impure vision, one iota.

If we, in a state of delusion, think we are in fact really removing the illnesses and misery of others through gtong len practice, for example, we have not understood one word of what gtong len teachings are in actuality— a method of developing the courage necessary to make the leap from aspirational bodhicitta to engaged bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
. I think what gets forgotten here is that what is being described might be beyond the understanding of ordinary people...

Malcolm wrote:
You mean the ordinary people who are supposedly freed from self-grasping because some yogi enters samadhi on mahāmudra? Just recall, Dzogchungpa, you brought it up, so the response to this is on your head. There is a reason why a master with students ceases to debate after a time. Your penchant for stirring controversy actually damages others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Here's another thing about guru yoga. Sure Hevajra says blessing comes from making offerings to the guru and ones own merit. But I'd argue the effect or feeling you get from any guru yoga you can also get from visualization of one hand implement of a deity. So all these mandala offerings and beseeching prayers to transfer blessing are really doing something else: they are habituating you to want it so bad you won't quit. Dzogchen is doing GY like my hand implement. It's reasoning what is the essence of the guru and the lineage and boiling it down to a symbol. If a master can make all that clear,mother that's an amazing master. The others are running an outfit, with teaching policies and such, based only ancient attitudes, like Olympic repetitions.


Malcolm wrote:
Specifically, the Hevajra Tantra states:

Here there is no method and wisdom,
the appearance of true reality
can’t be described by another,
the connate cannot be found anywhere,
but one can understand it in dependence on the Guru, 
time and method, and from one’s merit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I agree. The texts are the only way to separate the teaching from the innovations that creep in to these little semi formal private interviews and intimate instructions.

maybay said:
"The texts" abound with controversy. The error is not in not fact checking teachings, its in drawing your own conclusions about their applicability based on your experience of them alone, a naïveté the Zen school is renowned for.

Astus said:
Isn't it the Dalai Lama who urges return to Nalanda style Buddhism when teachers were proficient in engaging with non-Buddhist thinkers? I think the error that seems to be in Garchen Rinpoche's teaching comes from being surrounded only by Buddhists. I see similar teachings in East Asian Buddhism as well that can be easily interpreted as a sort of substance/substratum doctrine. But again, I attribute the development of such terminology to the lack of an opposite party that teaches any type of eternal spirit theory, because without them there is no reason to be careful and strict in how one teaches the Dharma. Apparently in India they had to keep the sword of wisdom sharp to cut off all sorts of wrong views, and there was no place for anything that even resembles an atman.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, many students of Buddhadharma are insufficiently educated in non-Buddhist tenets, and thus do not observe wrong views that creep into their understanding. Combine this with the attitude that one's guru cannot possibly be incorrect with respect to any aspect of the Dharma, and one can see that there is a great possibility for many people to adopt many inferior views. This is one of the key advantages of Dzogchen tantras, in that they go through the 60 wrong views prevalent in India, step by step, identifying people such as the founder of Advaita, Shankarācarya, and other Hindu polemicists, such as Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, an exponent of Purvamimasa who studied directly with Dharmakīrti, who criticized Buddhists and Jains for using colloquial language and for grammatical lapses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Dzogchen?
Content:
JAC72 said:
Just curious what people think in terms of the practice and result. Do both Dzogchen and Mahamudra lead to the same kind of awakening?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But their paths are quite different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
GR said something similar to me in the past. I asked about guru yoga and why it works. He said bc the dharmakaya is all pervasive. I said that sounds like Hindu Brahman, which I knew something about. He said here we mean God is not a creator of that what Buddha means by God is cause and effect. They say he's realized. He definitely has special qualities.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha told us we must test any teachings the way a goldsmith tests gold. This does not pass my assay.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
gzodzilpa said:
In light of this discussion on the non-actual transference of things like "blessings", what does Garchen Rinpoche mean when he says:

"When you abide within a state of mahamudra without any grasping or thinking at all, within that nature the vows of the three levels of the path are one. And then there are sentient beings who have not realized that, so great compassion then arises for those sentient beings. And because our minds are connected and because you rest in the nature of the mind, if you pervade the mind of beings with bodhicitta then in each session of practice you can destroy the self-grasping of countless sentient beings. So developing the stages of practice will actually produce such a power, therefore I am very grateful for such a curriculum."

Malcolm wrote:
If this really was true, then there would no longer be any reason for samsara now, would there? So when a guru says something, even a guru as revered as Garchen Rinpoche, for whom I have great respect, we have to subject it to reasoning and not merely be content with nice sounding platitudes that make us feel warm and fuzzy.

The alternative explanation is that so few people are capable of such an equipoise, Buddhas included, as to render it meaningless.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Perhaps you'd be better off trying to understand the views of a great master rather than disparaging them? You might learn something.

Malcolm wrote:
So you accept what Garchen Rinpoche is here presented as saying? Good for you. I don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Interest in Dharma doesn't exist from it's own side; even our interest develops from receiving Buddha's blessings.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a nonsense argument, a complete non sequitur.


Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm not saying that Buddhas liberate us with no effort on our part, that's your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.  it's a co-operative effort - the Buddhas provide teachings, blessings and emanations and we practise the path.

Malcolm wrote:
In other words, no matter what buddhas may do or not, it is of no use to us unless we practice the path they present.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: the reality beyond reality
Content:


Stewart said:
To be fair, this teaching would most likely have been given by Rinpoche in Tibetan, translated into English, then was definitely edited by someone for his first book

Malcolm wrote:
Fair enough.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
gzodzilpa said:
When our local khenpo gets back from Tibet I'll ask him, he has some ties to Garchen and might have a novel interpretation.


dzogchungpa said:
Can you also ask him about this explanation of tonglen:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16164&p=226936
and this statement: Ultimately, there is a single ground within which all beings are one. Because we are connected to all beings on the ultimate level, we can pervade them with love. They can actually receive our love.
while you're at it?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this doctrine is equally problematical for so many reasons, not least of which are the personal obscurations sentient beings possess which would prevent them from receiving this all-embracing universal love via the basis.

I am not sure what it was in Tibetan Garchen Rinpoche might have said. Thus, while I can comment on the doctrine of those statements presented to me, I cannot comment on Garchen Rinpoche's actual point of view since I have never seen in his own writing such dictums, nor have I heard them spoken, in person or by recording. Thus are the vicissitudes of not listening to gurus in languages we understand and depending on others to interpret their words for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
Yes, it is good that we have people like you to subject our teachers' statements to reasoning for us.

Malcolm wrote:
Someone has to, since, apparently, some of you won't.

But there are a great number of who prefer platitudes to liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
gzodzilpa said:
In light of this discussion on the non-actual transference of things like "blessings", what does Garchen Rinpoche mean when he says:

"When you abide within a state of mahamudra without any grasping or thinking at all, within that nature the vows of the three levels of the path are one. And then there are sentient beings who have not realized that, so great compassion then arises for those sentient beings. And because our minds are connected and because you rest in the nature of the mind, if you pervade the mind of beings with bodhicitta then in each session of practice you can destroy the self-grasping of countless sentient beings. So developing the stages of practice will actually produce such a power, therefore I am very grateful for such a curriculum."

Malcolm wrote:
If this really was true, then there would no longer be any reason for samsara now, would there? So when a guru says something, even a guru as revered as Garchen Rinpoche, for whom I have great respect, we have to subject it to reasoning and not merely be content with nice sounding platitudes that make us feel warm and fuzzy.

The alternative explanation is that so few people are capable of such an equipoise, Buddhas included, as to render it meaningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


conebeckham said:
Now we're getting somewhere!
The mind transformed from one state to another state---through the inspiration of holy beings....show me where something is transmitted from such holy beings to ourselves, to transform our minds.   Whose inspiration are you speaking of?  The inspiration we, as disciples, feel?  The inspiration of our gurus?  Think carefully about this.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Inspiration is itself a product of receiving blessings from enlightened beings. How can we receive inspiration from holy beings if there's no FROM? Of course there is a transmission. You are right though, there are many different levels of meaning that need to be understood.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, any blessings you receive from a buddha comes from your own interest in the Dharma. If you are not interested, there is no way a Buddha can force you to be interested. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Buddhas are not like momma cats that pick their kittens up by the neck and carry them to a safe place. Again, that is a Christian view, not a Buddhist one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, according to the sūtra abhisamaya presented by Maitreyanatha. But this is irrelevant to Vajrayāna and Dzogchen.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Completely mistaken. You will ever attain enlightenment without bodhichitta and without these levels. There is no enlightenment without bodhichitta, there are no Tantric realisations without it.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said we did not have to have bodhicitta. I said that the presentation of the paths and stage presented in the Abhisamayalaṃkara, including the 22 bodhicittas are irrelevant to Vajrayāna and Dzogchen. The Abhisamayalaṃkara is a presentation of the vehicle of the cause. It is not relevant the vehicle of transformation (general Vajrayāna) or the vehicle of self-liberation (Atiyoga).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Also, mere intellectual understanding of Dharma is never going to remove suffering and its causes from our minds. You can debate endlessly on this forum but it's never going to end samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
You can hope for all the blessings you want, but it will never end your samsara. Your view is fundamentally Christian, hoping for external blessings for your salvation. What a pity.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's your mistaken interpretation of what I've said. You don't understand what blessings are so how can you discuss my view?

Malcolm wrote:
I know what the masters of the past have said blessings are, and what they say and what you say do not correspond. You are relying on your own unenlightened experience as a proof of your tenet. I am relying on the definitions provided to us by realized Indian Panditas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Also, mere intellectual understanding of Dharma is never going to remove suffering and its causes from our minds. You can debate endlessly on this forum but it's never going to end samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
You can hope for all the blessings you want, but it will never end your samsara. Your view is fundamentally Christian, hoping for external blessings for your salvation. What a pity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
[
There is something new.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Buddha qualities are not something new, added to a sentient being. They are revealed through the process of stripping away the two obscurations that make a sentient being a sentient being.

Tsongkhapafan said:
There's nothing 'added' to a sentient being, but it is new. Sangye means 'purified and gathered'

Malcolm wrote:
Sangs means purified it is true, but rgyas in fact means "to expand" -- hence sangs rgyas means "Purification of afflictions, expansion of pristine consciousness."



Tsongkhapafan said:
There are 22 levels of bodhichitta which are developed through training, so it's not merely a matter of purifying the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, according to the sūtra abhisamaya presented by Maitreyanatha. But this is irrelevant to Vajrayāna and Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Wow, I'm completely amazed. You don't know what blessings are from your own experience but have to refer to dictionary definitions?


Malcolm wrote:
The works of the masters included in the bstan 'gyur serve to correct our (in this case your) mistaken interpretation of our experiences. I am surprised you a) do not know this b) do not accept this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
There's a nice discussion of this in chapter 6 of CTR's Profound Treasury volume 3, "Seven Aspects of Vajrayana: The Space before First Thought".
BTW, it appears that the entire chapter can be read here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=0QHEAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT137

florin said:
So basically, CTR is saying that the atmosphere of blessing is generated  by one's own mind  and comes about as a result of one's training.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. That is why we are nang pas, insiders, not phyi pas, outsiders.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Byin means, according to Kenkar, "The ability or power of being able to transform the thoughts or vision of others."

Rlob means similarly, "granting or transforming."

I am not sure why people waste their time with Duff when they could just read what Kenkar says about these words.

By the same token, mos pa means "mental confidence or mental yearning"; gus pa "mental bowing."

conebeckham said:
Duff is on my Phone.   I don't have Kenkar.
LOL

I should get Kenkar's work, I suppose, eh?

Malcolm wrote:
Basic problem with Duff is that he takes Das as reliable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Should emptiness be discussed online at all?
Content:


AlexMcLeod said:
Again, I'm only talking about the tendency to belittle the prerequisite practices and understandings by taking the stance that they don't matter because Emptiness.


Malcolm wrote:
I just don't see that here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
conebeckham said:
Interestingly, the Tibetan word byin.brlabs. is glossed as "Blessing" but Tony Duff glosses brlabs.pa/rlob.pa as "to be touched by something else from a distance and affected by it."

"Being affected by" is certainly a cornerstone of Dharma, interdependence, etc., but this does not mean something is transferred or transmitted from one entity to another.

My interpretation is that devotion is both cause and result.  It is the result of hearing, reflecting, and meditating, and it is a contributing cause of realization.

Devotion is mos.gus., by the way.  mos.pa meaning "longing" and gus.pa meaning "respect."


Malcolm wrote:
Byin means, according to Kenkar, "The ability or power of being able to transform the thoughts or vision of others."

Rlob means similarly, "granting or transforming."

I am not sure why people waste their time with Duff when they could just read what Kenkar says about these words.

By the same token, mos pa means "mental confidence or mental yearning"; gus pa "mental bowing."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


florin said:
Thanks.
And since  Buddhas activities are unceasing means that for as long as we stay connected to the teachings we are by implication connected to their activities(blessings).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. However, what is the highest and best activity of the buddhas? Giving teachings. So of course, we can regard the teachings of the Buddha as a blessing. But there is no force nor blessing that will allow us to realize the meaning of those teachings unless we ourselves put them into practice. So in reality, blessings still come from us, not from the buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
What are blessings? Some kind of vibration?

florin said:
I don't know.You tell me.
They are present in tantra and dzogchen alike and i've heard it numerous times that they are responsible for the state of realization.

heart said:
Blessing means that you have a direct experience of what your master teach you or taught you which greatly inspires you. Nothing gets transferred.

/magnus


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness: the reality beyond reality
Content:
Ngwang tenzin said:
What's the difference between emptiness and clarity?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is the absence of the four extremes in a mind stream. Clarity is the mind's capacity to illuminate objects. They are inseparable. Rocks don't have clarity, being inert, but they are empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


florin said:
I don't know.You tell me.
They are present in tantra and dzogchen alike and i've heard it numerous times that they are responsible for the state of realization.

heart said:
Blessing means that you have a direct experience of what your master teach you or taught you which greatly inspires you. Nothing gets transferred.

/magnus

florin said:
But what do they mean when they use  expressions like "blessings of the lineage" ?
Or the situation when people do GY and they say "all of a sudden i felt this or that , or this and that happen, which were none other than the blessings of my teacher " ?

Malcolm wrote:
Following my post above, it simple means that they practice a path through their own interest, and reaped some of the fruits that path offered, which in humility, they attribute to their teacher as the source of the teachings they practice. But there is no actual blessing "vibration" or "force," like the Hindus believe, for example, their shaktipat, etc. Nevertheless, people will continue to believe this silliness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


krodha said:
You seem to be arguing for no reason at this point.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a Greek thing.

Sherab Dorje said:
A Greek thing?  Really?

Malcolm wrote:
By your own admission, many times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2016 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


florin said:
But the blessings get transferred.
If there are no blessings how can one realize the state of the real teacher ?

Malcolm wrote:
What are blessings? Some kind of vibration?

florin said:
I don't know.You tell me.
They are present in tantra and dzogchen alike and i've heard it numerous times that they are responsible for the state of realization.

Malcolm wrote:
As ChNN says, if you want a blessing, go get a lama to pat you on the head. But "blessings" of this kind are not something serious.

First, we have to look at what the word really means. According to Alak Kenkar's dictionary, Bod rgya tshig mdzod, "A blessing ( byin brlabs, adhiṣṭhānam ) is the power of dwelling on a topic of the Dharma of the noble path." In other words, if you dwell on the topics of Dzogchen teachings, or any of the Buddha's teaching, that in itself is a "blessing."

Alak Kenkar adds another entry, "the four blessings" (byin rlabs bzhi), which are the blessing of truth, the blessing of generosity, the blessing of pacification, and the blessing of wisdom.

The "blessing of wisdom," according to the only source in the bstan 'gyur which defines it, Dharmakīrti's Jātakamālaṭīkā, simply means that among the six perfections, those inclined towards wisdom maintain the perfection of wisdom.

So according to these definitions, blessings refer to one's own interest in the path.

The commentary on the Ratnavali has another good definition of "blessings":
A "blessing" is any activity performed by the buddhas for bodhisattvas or done by them for the benefit of sentient beings."
So here, a blessing means some activity buddhas do on behalf of bodhisattvas or sentient beings. But it certainly does not mean that buddhas and bodhisattvas have the capacity to transfer their own realization to another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:


krodha said:
You seem to be arguing for no reason at this point.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a Greek thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Please present a statement from tantra where is says the Buddha can transfer his realization to another.

florin said:
But the blessings get transferred.
If there are no blessings how can one realize the state of the real teacher ?

Malcolm wrote:
What are blessings? Some kind of vibration?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness: the reality beyond reality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Stong pa translates śūnya. Nyid translates tā = śūnyatā. The first part means "empty," the tā suffix is equivalent to "ness" in English, hence the term "emptiness" is really the most accurate translation of that term into English.

Here, Mingyur Rinpoche is not carefully distinguishing two different things: 1) the experience of nonconceptuality, which is often termed "the experience of emptiness" in Tibetan texts, and 2) the emptiness which is the doctrine of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras and Madhyamaka. The latter cannot be experienced in conceptually in meditation. The former can.


Lucas Oliveira said:
Emptiness: the reality beyond reality

Mingyur Rinpoche explains emptiness, "one of the most misunderstood words" of Buddhist philosophy

“The sense of openness people experience when they simply rest their minds is known in Buddhism as emptiness, which is probably one of the most misunderstood words in Buddhist philosophy. It is hard enough for Buddhists to understand the term, but Western readers have an even more difficult time, because many of the early translations of Sanskrit and Tibetan texts interpreted emptiness as “the Void” or nothingness—mistakenly equating emptiness with the idea that nothing at all exists. Nothing could be further from the truth the Buddha sought to describe.

While the Buddha did teach that the nature of mind—in fact the nature of all phenomena—is emptiness, he didn’t mean that their nature was truly empty, like a vacuum. He said it was emptiness, which in the Tibetan language is made up of two words: tongpa-nyi. The word tongpa means “empty”, but only in the sense of something beyond our ability to perceive with our senses and our capacity to conceptualize. Maybe a better translation would be “inconceivable” or “unnamable.” The word nyi, meanwhile, doesn’t have any particular meaning in everyday Tibetan conversation. But when added to another word it conveys a sense of “possibility”—a sense that anything can arise, anything can happen. So when Buddhist talk about emptiness, we don’t mean nothingness, but rather an unlimited potential for anything to appear, change, or disappear.


Source English: http://inthefootstepsofthebuddha.com/an-exercise-in-emptiness/

Source in Portuguese: http://dharmalog.com/2016/07/27/mingyur-rinpoche-explica-vacuidade-filosofia-budista/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Should emptiness be discussed online at all?
Content:


AlexMcLeod said:
Bringing Emptiness into conversation about ethics, for instance, is inappropriate, and possibly purposefully misleading. That is all I've been saying.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. Aryadeva states, for example, when confronted with a choice to choose ethics or choose emptiness, his choice is emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
[
There is something new.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Buddha qualities are not something new, added to a sentient being. They are revealed through the process of stripping away the two obscurations that make a sentient being a sentient being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Please present a statement from tantra where is says the Buddha can transfer his realization to another.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's not explicitly mentioned...

Malcolm wrote:
Then it is not mentioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's not true that Buddha cannot bestow an awakened mind.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean you disagree with the Buddha's own statement?

"One cannot wash away misdeeds with water, nor remove suffering with one's hand. I cannot give you my realization, but I can teach you the path."

Tsongkhapafan said:
I don't disagree with it, but Buddha taught different things to different groups depending on their karma and in accordance with his skilful means. It is possible to receive realisations through the power of blessings and faith in Guru Yoga. It is a co-operative process, so Buddha is correct - he cannot bestow them unless the recipient is co-operating and has created all the causes. It's not something he talked about in Sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
Please present a statement from tantra where is says the Buddha can transfer his realization to another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
conebeckham said:
...grandiose egotism parading as Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Kim's grandiose egotism has definitely been on display...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
OK. I think I've said enough.

Malcolm wrote:
Too much, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
For those people here who are against me...


Malcolm wrote:
Against you? Not a chance. Pity you and especially your followers? Absolutely.

Kim said:
I have critisised a lot of lamas and teachers but never (as) stoopidly (as here) and without basis.

Malcolm wrote:
You have provided ample basis for understanding you are a sad, deluded man.



BTW, folks, here is what Kim's 9th bhumi looks like:

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]


Honestly, I am amazed at the kind of schtick people on the internet will fall for.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The dude is a crazy person. Best ignored.


Kim said:
I am not a buddhist teacher, nor are Open Heart teachings buddhist...I don't see the relevance of my work as a teacher and Open Heart on a buddhist forum


gzodzilpa said:
Seems a little misleading, since in 2015 you were explicitly claiming to be a Buddhist teacher. Furthermore, how is what you are doing not a gross instance of appropriation? You are explicitly and extensively using Buddhist jargon, from beginning to end, from the refuge to the practices to the "goal". You can't on one hand say you are teaching "Tibetan Heart Yoga", "guru yoga", "Machig Labdron guru mantra", and "ati yoga" and then on the other pretend that you aren't trying to teach Buddhism or at least give an impression to your students that you are teaching Buddhism. What makes your Heart Yoga "Tibetan"?

Gross appropriation especially seems to be the case when you are willfully redefining terms, like "bhumi" as it pertains to the stages of a bodhisattva, to suit this end. On one hand it helps one market as if there was some relationship with traditional Bhumis, while on the other hand allows one to shield yourself from criticism since you just appeal to them being redefined.  When you could of easily just used a completely different word altogether...It seems to me to be incredibly dishonest, this whole business of being "explicitly" non-Buddhist yet implicitly Buddhist.



Kim said:
For this reason I can teach what I have learned from my teachers, who have permitted me to do so.

gzodzilpa said:
Kim, at least some of the content you have gleaned from books and from having dialogue with Buddhist practitioners or hearing teachings from living Buddhist teachers. You ask questions under the guise of merely "verifying" what you "received" during meditation. More than one person has interacted with you and was left saddened by your insincerity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Some towns in France ban burkinis
Content:


Wayfarer said:
So tolerance of dissenting views may be basic to Western liberalism, but it is alien to Islamic culture, generally.

Malcolm wrote:
This proves how very little you know of Islam, its history or its diversity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Some towns in France ban burkinis
Content:
boda said:
For example, in the United States nudity is illegal

Malcolm wrote:
Not everywhere. For example, in the state of Vermont there is no anti-nudity law. In Brattleboro VT., one can be naked anywhere within city limits apart from two sidewalks on one block in the center of town, and near churches and schools.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/wtf-why-is-public-nudity-legal-in-vermont-but-public-disrobing-isnt/Content?oid=2804753


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
Come on guys didn't you ever think u might have been on the bhumis? Its the sign of his efforts in meditation exceeding his experience. For what its worth, I thought at one point I must have been an Arhat, and I've still not read anything since to conclusively disprove that.

Malcolm wrote:
You post here, and that is sufficient to disprove it.

maybay said:
Posting here proves nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
It proves you are not even a stream entrant, much less an arhat. However, I am sure if you sign up for our friend Kim's bhumi mapping, he will sort you out for a small donation.

http://www.en.openheart.fi/97

He says:
If you are familiar with the Open Heart Bhumi Model, you may wish to get your bhumi mapped, if you are not sure about it yourself. You are welcome to send your photo (face and eyes clearly seens as in a passport photo) to Kim for bhumi analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
maybay said:
Come on guys didn't you ever think u might have been on the bhumis? Its the sign of his efforts in meditation exceeding his experience. For what its worth, I thought at one point I must have been an Arhat, and I've still not read anything since to conclusively disprove that.

Malcolm wrote:
You post here, and that is sufficient to disprove it.

And, Maybay, once you hit the bhumis, then you don't leave them. The question is only, how long does it take you to reach the stage of irreversibility [eighth bhumi] and cease taking rebirth in the desire realm?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Malcolm, once again you hit the nail on the head. l wonder how no one here seems to question, investigate and critisise what this man says. Based on your many posts and private messages with you, it seems like you can say anything and get away with it, without nobody making questions. Honestly, I think that you subtly manipulate discussions and push what you want to say. Doesn't anyone question this man or are his credentials too great to do that?
Wow, you really haven't paid much attention here..people argue with Malcolm all the time, I've done so myself. Malcolm can be abrasive for sure, but I've rarely seen him pull the "shut up I'm a teacher" thing.

Malcolm wrote:
You've never seen me do that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
monktastic said:
Kim, on page one you say that a lecture by Alan Wallace (given Jun 2016) caused something to click for you re: recognizing rigpa. Doesn't that seem incommensurate with being a 9th bhumi bodhisattva?

Malcolm wrote:
Really, you are much too nice of a person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
Norwegian said:
It's pretty sad.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, we live in a day full of self-deluded people, reincarnations of samaya breakers, who, with an internet connection, a facebook account, a blog, and a website, can easily set themselves up as gurus and spread their delusion around without any impediment.

If anyone doubted why restrictions on Dzogchen teachings have been imposed by Vajradhara, episodes such as this one should prove instructive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
it's hard to know what to make of a character like that. On the one hand, its hard to believe anyone short of a schizophrenic could actually believe that they were a 9th bhumi bodhisattva who has received teachings from Padmasambhava and Garab Dorje. But the other alternative is that he's a con man who is perfectly aware of the scam he is trying to pull. or maybe those dharmapalas he pissed off really fuked him up more than he realizes.

Malcolm wrote:
Provocations, anyone?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2016 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha couldn't do that
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Kim said:
As I said I am just a student of buddhadharma, not a teacher of the tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
You are certainly acting like a teacher:

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]


And here:

http://www.en.openheart.fi/33

So I think your statement above is completely dishonest.

gad rgyangs said:
wow! at the bottom of his bio there is a link to a list of his teachers. under "teachers without a physical body" he claims hes received teachings ditectly from both Padmasambhava and Garab Dorje!

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Kim said:
As I said I am just a student of buddhadharma, not a teacher of the tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
You are certainly acting like a teacher:

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]


And here:

http://www.en.openheart.fi/33

So I think your statement above is completely dishonest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
How will it harm anyone to speak openly about practical instructions and view for recognising rigpa?

malcolm said:
It will harm one's samaya and will create an obstacle for those people who have not entered the teachings in a proper way to enter the teachings at all.

Kim said:
Bullcrap. "Create an obstacle"? How religious one has to be to believe this stuff!? Seriously.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as this goes, I will remind you of your own words, on another forum:

The moment I got the book on secret dzogchen practices by Namkhai Norbu and started reading it, I was attacked by very aggressive and violent subtle entities. At first I couldn't figure out what was happening. I was under a very violent attack on three consecutive days, until I figured out that these entities were the dharma protectors (dharma palas) of this particular dzogchen tradition and rinpoche. These attacks were so violent that I couldn't see with my physical eyes properly and got bad headaches. My interpretation of what happened was that these beings, dharma palas went after me because they have been programmed to do so if anyone trespassed their territory. It was like being in the ring with a professional heavy weight boxer who is out to finish you and who doesn't stop until you're knocked out. It was very serious. When I figured what was going on I burned the book and instantly carried the ashes out. The attack stopped... which was great because I finally got to recuperate. It was like having to encage in mortal combat for three days, that serious. These "dharma protectors" had attacked me so hard that my vitality had gone very low.
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5854797#_com_liferay_message_boards_web_portlet_MBPortlet_message_5854241


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's not true that Buddha cannot bestow an awakened mind.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean you disagree with the Buddha's own statement?

"One cannot wash away misdeeds with water, nor remove suffering with one's hand. I cannot give you my realization, but I can teach you the path."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen teachings may only be openly shared and discussed with people who have received Dzogchen transmission in a proper way.

Kim said:
Fine. I disagree with all this secrecy.

Malcolm wrote:
It's your samaya, not mine. Personally, I find such an attitude disrespectful to the teachings themselves.

Kim said:
No, Guru Rinpoche never made such a prediction. What the Dzogchen tantras state is that Dzogchen was the first teaching at the beginning of this great eon, and will be the last to remain before this universe is destroyed.
You are wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
Wrong about the Guru Rinpoche quote? Maybe. I would want to see a reliably sourced citation.

Wrong about my statement, not a chance. It is clearly stated in the Single Son of the All the Buddhas tantra.

Kim said:
How will it harm anyone to speak openly about practical instructions and view for recognising rigpa?
It will harm one's samaya and will create an obstacle for those people who have not entered the teachings in a proper way to enter the teachings at all.
Bullcrap. "Create an obstacle"? How religious one has to be to believe this stuff!? Seriously.

Malcolm wrote:
Please make sure you tell any authentic teacher of Dzogchen from whom you are interested in receiving teachings that this is your attitude. There are guardians of the teachings who are responsible for punishing those who do not keep their samaya. Only a fool messes with this. As they say however, "Angels fear to tread..."

Kim said:
Rather, the discussion is on a superficial level.

Malcolm wrote:
Necessarily so. It is also good that this is so. But there are plenty of places on Facebook, for example, when people of rampant egotism boast about their paltry experience and blab about things of which they understand little. Perhaps you will find some like-minded people there.

Kim said:
I'm pretty sure that if I posted here instructions for doing this, it would not be allowed.
Rightly so, such instructions are meant to be used by a qualified master in a live situation with students who have expressed sincere interest and devotion to the Dzogchen teachings.
Interest and devotion. Our true nature (rigpa) requires none of this. It doesn't and cannot accept followers or servants. A true master will accept none of this.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the approach of Jax and others like him.

Understanding Dzogchen requires the five faculties, just like any other teaching of the Buddha. What are the five? Faith, diligence, mindfulness, samadhi and wisdom.

Kim said:
What I am telling you is that apart from some western, self-appointed "Dzogchen" masters who imagine they can give direct introduction through email, no Dzogchen master worth their salt on the face of the planet thinks that it is sufficient to read some techniques derived from Dzogchen teachings and try to apply them without having been introduced to Dzogchen in a proper way. Of course, people will still chase after charlatans and fools, but there is little one can do to prevent that, apart from communicating the authentic requirements for entering Dzogchen teachings in a pure, guileless way.
I do not disagree with the fact that probably no one can recognise rigpa without a long committed practices, of various kinds. I recall two of my friends who are/have been very committed orthodox dzogchen-practitioners of well known and respected lineages. The other of them, who trained with his rinpoche for over 15 years, and received the highest empowerments in the tradition among other close circle students, while acknowledging the efficacy of some of it, said what many people out there say, that mostly people are seduced with foreign terms of "dzogchen" or "rigpa" but what they taught are boring lectures of emptiness and compassion that do not really explain what is talked about. Lamas are setting the carrots of "dzogchen" on front of donkeys and they start running, someday somehow hoping to be granted "dzogchen" whatever they understand it to be. Nobody explains this stuff to them, except after 12 years of a lot of doing this and that, to a small group of chosen students. This happened to my friend. He felt he'd been conned, while saying that a small part of all that he was taught during 15 years was actually of practical use. And he got the highest teachings after catching direct introduction. I've heard many such stories, also from vajrayana. So tell me, who is a fool and a charlatan? There is no transparency in orthodox dzogchen. This allows a lot of unhealthiness.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, if you are interested in Dzogchen teachings, you need to meet an authentic master of Dzogchen. There have never been more than a few in any generation, and they are dwindling.

That said, your friend gathered the two accumulations for fifteen years. This is not insignificant, and is a necessary prerequisite to any teaching belonging to Secret Mantra. It is not like his store of merit took a nose dive.

For example, Vimalamitra notes in his commentary on the root tantra of Dzogchen, the Realms and Transformations of Sound:
Prior to those preliminaries, those sublime persons did various methods of gathering accumulations.
It is very important for any Dzogchen practitioners to engage constantly in the practice of purification and accumulation.

As to some unscrupulous teachers using the name Dzogchen to attract students in the manner of setting out beef but selling dog meat, these kinds of teachers will meet their own unsavory ends.

We just need to keep reminding people to search out and follow authentic masters of Dzogchen teachings, and not to settle for anything less. If you study with someone who advertises themselves as a teacher of Dzogchen, but they never teach Dzogchen, there is no chain binding you to that teacher.

It is not the case that there is a "traditional" way of presenting Dzogchen, as opposed to a modern way. There is only one way, and that is the way Dzogchen has been promulgated in this world since the time of Garab Dorje.



Kim said:
I don't have a problem holding the teachings in high regard. "But they are the property of the whole human kind.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact they are the property, if you want to put it that way, of the guardians of the teachings, to whom the teachings were entrusted for care and safekeeping on behalf of those of us in this degenerate era who have the karmic good fortune to meet them and be devoted to them.

Not all human beings are interested in Dzogchen just as not all human beings have a precious human birth.

Even if you explained every detail of Dzogchen teachings to them they would be like, "What the hell, I don't believe in rainbow bodies, reincarnation, etc." If you don't accept rebirth, as in every other teaching of the Buddha, you won't be able to attain liberation through Dzogchen teachings in this lifetime, the bardo or in the next life — although, as my teacher said about such people, "Maybe they can relax a little bit."

Most people are not Buddhists. Among Buddhists, very few are interested in Secret Mantra teachings, as is well illustrated by this board. Of those who are interested in Secret Mantra teachings, very few of them are interested in Dzogchen teachings. Of those people who are interested in Dzogchen teachings, very few are really that interested in practicing and studying them more than superficially. There are even fewer people, such as translators like myself, who spend the majority of their time studying and practicing these teachings.

Dzogchen teachings are rare, not because they are kept away under lock and key, Dzogchen teachings are rare because very few people have the karmic disposition and fortune to receive them. That said, anyone who is truly interested in Dzogchen teachings can go out and find a qualified teacher. One can even tune into a webcast and receive them from a qualified master for free, like right now, this week.

Kim said:
All that talk about samaya and creating obstacles. Gimme a break. That's the real tragedy.

Malcolm wrote:
Understanding that samaya must be followed and that obstacles arise from not following samaya is an integral part of Dzogchen teachings, as it is in all Secret Mantra. Its not optional — well it is, in the sense that if someone chooses not to follow samaya, no human being has the power to do anything about it. But the ḍākinīs swiftly punish those who think samaya is of no consequence at all, especially when it comes to Dzogchen teachings. Understanding the importance of samaya is foundational in Dzogchen. This is why many chapters are devoted to explaining what samayas are, both relatively and ultimately, and why it is necessary to observe them. It is not a hardship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: How to believe in rebirth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You have to ask yourself where your mind comes from. If you think it is a product of the brain, well, there is no way to really convince someone that this is not true.

boda said:
You don't think it's possible to understand the evolution of a human mind, with it's biological and environmental dependencies? Who do you hangout with?

Malcolm wrote:
That's one narrative. There are others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess we're all screwed.


Malcolm wrote:
Speak for yourself.



dzogchungpa said:
Jeez dude, lighten up.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell us your real name, then I will lighten up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Mañjuśrī Sādhana
Content:
pael said:
Can anyone recite Manjusrinamasamgiti? Does it need empowerment/transmission?


Malcolm wrote:
It requires a lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 28th, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A student to whom Dzogchen should not be taught, is as follows:
... engaged in pointless activities ...

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess we're all screwed.


Malcolm wrote:
Speak for yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Kim said:
Mystification. I feel it is mystification when things are not pragmatically explained open. I feel that the opinion that dzogchen-pointers for practice couldn't or shouldn't be talked about on internet boards is so 90's (and pre-90's). But hey, everyone is free to think whatever.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen teachings may only be openly shared and discussed with people who have received Dzogchen transmission in a proper way.

Kim said:
Guru Rinpoche made a prediction that goes something along the lines that at some point the lower vehicles of buddhism will lose their popularity and atiyoga (dzogchen) will gain popularity. I don't think it will ever happen with this pre-90's style of sharing, whether online or in person.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Guru Rinpoche never made such a prediction. What the Dzogchen tantras state is that Dzogchen was the first teaching at the beginning of this great eon, and will be the last to remain before this universe is destroyed.

Kim said:
How will it harm anyone to speak openly about practical instructions and view for recognising rigpa?

Malcolm wrote:
It will harm one's samaya and will create an obstacle for those people who have not entered the teachings in a proper way to enter the teachings at all.

Kim said:
Well. How much discussion and (lack of) practical pointers here have helped you (or others) in recognising rigpa?

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot recognize the basis without a qualified master to introduce it to one.

Kim said:
I'm pretty sure that if I posted here instructions for doing this, it would not be allowed.

Malcolm wrote:
Rightly so, such instructions are meant to be used by a qualified master in a live situation with students who have expressed sincere interest and devotion to the Dzogchen teachings.

Kim said:
I'm just riffing here, being honest. I am not saying that I am a "dzogchen teacher". I am not but I simply don't think instructions, using different types of techniques, couldn't be shared here for the benefit of many.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a technique.

Kim said:
"Recognising rigpa" was an intended choice of words I made. I didn't meant anything malicious or negative with this but I admit I did use these words to see if you'd get caught in them. I am sorry if this hurts anyones feelings here but I did this just to point out Malcolm's way of communication. It's just negation, "It's not like that". Then I'd be in a situation with a authorised dzogchen lama to ask, "How it is then? Could you clarify?", to which he'd say a difficult phrase in Tibetan or "These things are not discussed online" or "Find a lama and ask him".

Malcolm wrote:
What I am telling you is that apart from some western, self-appointed "Dzogchen" masters who imagine they can give direct introduction through email, no Dzogchen master worth their salt on the face of the planet thinks that it is sufficient to read some techniques derived from Dzogchen teachings and try to apply them without having been introduced to Dzogchen in a proper way. Of course, people will still chase after charlatans and fools, but there is little one can do to prevent that, apart from communicating the authentic requirements for entering Dzogchen teachings in a pure, guileless way.

Kim said:
I certainly am not saying that how things are said in Tibetan are worthless. Of course not. It's just that clearly discussion here is getting caught on things that are practically not that important.

Malcolm wrote:
Receiving Dzogchen teachings in the proper way, i.e., through receiving empowerments, reading transmissions and guidance on those from a qualified master is the most important point of all, one that I share over and over again, and will continue to share for as long as breath does not leave my body. It is the most helpful observation one can make. Why? Because I have received the three series of Dzogchen teachings from four notable masters, one whom is still with us [ChNN], and I think they are the most precious and valuable possession of knowledge that humans beings possess and will ever possess. Therefore, I regard it as a tragic pity when people are impatient and do not take the time and effort to seek out the guidance of an authentic master, or worse, think that the tried and true method of promulgating Dzogchen teachings is, in your words, "medieval thinking."

The consequences of not entering Dzogchen teachings in the proper way are described in Dzogchen tantras as follows. The Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:
The faults of not obtaining the empowerment are as follows: in the bardo one is alarmed, panicked, exhausted, impeded, and one can also lose consciousness. 

While one has not yet left the body of traces, migrating beings will not see one as worthy of respect. One’s merit will be small, one’s life short, one’s enjoyments of living will be few, one will be powerless, and many obstacles will occur. Nothing will be accomplished. Those are the faults of not obtaining the empowerment for the conduct of Secret Mantra. A yogin of Secret Mantra conduct must first obtain empowerment. If empowerment is not obtained, not even the Buddha will be able to turn the wheel on the stage of a tathāgata. If the wheel cannot be turned, then the nirmanakāya will not be able to benefit migrating beings with compassion. Therefore the empowerment of the conduct of Secret Mantra must be obtained.
It continues by warning of the faults of not maintaining samaya, which is at the root of this discussion:
These are the warning signs of broken samaya:
various misfortunes arise,
diseases are rampant and harmful, 
various contagious diseases occur, 
and there are also provocations and misguiders. 
If one is killed, one becomes a hell being. 
One’s eyes cannot see form. 
One cannot hear and one’s work cannot be done.
Leprosy and blistering diseases arise. 
Thieves and royal punishments occur. 
One contracts contagious diseases others do not get. 
One’s sons and daughters die. 
The whole country arises as one’s enemy.
One’s activities become completely pointless.
Thus, this is why we should not be discussing Dzogchen teachings in any specific way online, apart from encouraging people to find qualified Dzogchen masters under which they may study and practice.

On the fault of not receiving empowerment, the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva Tantra states:
The demonstration of the fault of not obtaining the supreme empowerment is that the yogin, for example, will be like a boatman without an oar, unable to deliver [his passengers] to the other side. If the supreme empowerment is obtained, the secret mantra that is not accomplished will be accomplished. How will secret mantra be accomplished without relying on empowerment?
It continues by describing the unqualified master:
If the master is not authentic, his scriptures are like a monkey’s.  One will enter a false path, and one will practice corrupted Secret Mantra. Since he is a misguider, he should be avoided.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: how do things end?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
"Reality" is such a singularly strange abstract noun...

Malcolm wrote:
In fact it means the "the state of being [ity] pertaining to [al] things [res]."

treehuggingoctopus said:
Saying "the state of being pertaining to things" is just as singularly strange

What the hell is "being"?
(And what are "things"?)


Malcolm wrote:
And what is "pertaining to."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: First meeting with guru
Content:
makewhisper said:
Any advice for how to best approach that first meeting? Is it appropriate to ask  about receiving specific practices, like a ngondro or a set of prayers or a meditation practice?

In gratitude,

Eric


Malcolm wrote:
Until you have received a major empowerment, you do not have a guru. So relax, check out many teachers, then finally decide which one works for you and work with that person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen for beginners
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
If you could describe Dzogchen, from your perspective, and/or from others', in one forum post, how would you? (To someone who knows nothing about Dzogchen or Vajrayana/Tantrayana).

What links would you link said learner to? What resources would you suggest for them, in what way would you advocate, for them, the path that is described, in contemporary tongue, as "Dzogchen"?

Malcolm wrote:
You as well try to describe sight to the blind.

Find a proper Dzogchen master, then follow their instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Kim said:
I think this is misleading. What you are saying is that some westerners or non-Tibetan knowing people can practoce dzogchen, i.e. their recognition of rigpa is comprehensive enough and yet if they don't know Tibetan language they really can't teach it. This doesn't make any sense. Obviously knowing the original language is part of the equation but to go as far to say that one couldn't get people recognise rigpa, it is not reasonable statement.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no term in Tibetan, "recognize rigpa." Putting it in these terms is a huge fail. This misunderstanding exists because many people, translators included, think rig pa = awareness. Let me assure you, it does not.

Kim said:
As a general remark, I'm starting to feel that dzogchen is a bit mystified here at DW. On the other hand it seems that discussion on this forum isn't aimed at clarifying things, such as rigpa-practice, in a way that would help the participants and readers in their own practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not mystified on this forum, at all.

Much of the discussion of Dzogchen on this forum concerns the elimination of errors of interpretation such as the one I refer to above. Honestly, Dzogchen, Lamdre, Mahāmudra, etc., should not be discussed on forums such as these at all. To the extent that Dzogchen is the least understood, but the most "popular" and "fashionable" teaching right now, because people have this mistaken notion that it is easy to understand, to that extent I discuss some issues and that is all. But practitioners of these teachings should not really be looking to internet boards for help. It is fine, as happens often enough, people are isolated and need references to information for this or that thing. But this is not a place for giving teachings or helping people with their "Dzogchen" practice. That is what a guru and vajra siblings are for.

So, if someone should want help with their practice, find a proper teacher of Dzogchen, follow the latter's instructions, and stop whinging about Tibetan culture, etc.


A proper student has the following qualities:
With strong faith and great diligence, 
great intelligence and without attachments, 
highly respectful, engaging in Secret Mantra conduct, 
without concepts, without mental distractions,
possessing samaya, diligent in practice, 
mindful and constant, diligent in practice,
engaging in meditation which is clear and vivid,
doing whatever the master says,
not permitting indifference towards samaya,
engaging in conduct that accords with others,
steadfastly respectful,
following a single phrase when indicated,
moreover, engaged in his own benefit,
capable of keeping secrets,
never leaving the meaning of the vajra,
giving explanations to those of great learning,
never going beyond his personal benefit, [19/a] 
without harsh words, soft-spoken,
in accord with the minds of others, 
regarding the master and the tathāgatas
as being identical —
those are the qualities of a disciple. 
Such a disciple
is said to be the proper vessel of the Great Perfection. 
The meaning of the Great Perfection’s intimate instructions
cannot be poured into a common, inferior vessel.
If the faithful pour a little of that juice
into an inferior vessel, 
the juice is lost and both are ruined. 
Therefore it must be kept secret from those who are not suitable vessels.
A student to whom Dzogchen should not be taught, is as follows:
Not making offerings or paying respect, 
practicing Secret Mantra incorrectly,
without a good family, insincere,
unintelligent, 
ignoring kindness, 
boasting of his own family,
wearing ornaments on his body,
and engaged in pointless activities —
the unexamined disciple is the enemy of the master. 
Do not explain the meaning of the Great Perfection
to those who will not practice it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Yeah, I get this. Practicing a thing well and teaching it well are two very separate things. To teach something you have to know enough of the underlying architecture of the teaching to do that, which is completely different than just explaining your own practice.

Truthfully, there is a lot of Western Buddhist 'teaching' in the second category - someone just explaining their own experiences and opinions, it has it's value, but whether it constitutes actual Dharma teaching or something else is kind of debatable.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, when we are teaching we have to take into consideration the capacity of the student. We have to know how to address their needs, what they need to be taught. Frankly, understanding Dzogchen is not this simple idea of "Recognize the nature of the mind, then you're a buddha." This latter idea is very stupid and dangerous. Dzogchen teachings are subtle and not so easy to understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yes, because it is not clear if you are saying that it is necessary to know Tibetan to be even remotely qualified to transmit Dzogchen teachings at this time, or if there just does not happen to be, at this time, as far as you know, any people who don't know Tibetan and yet are so qualified.

Malcolm wrote:
At this particular juncture in time, it is necessary to be conversant in Tibetan in order to transmit Dzogchen teachings properly. However, you don't need to know much Tibetan, if any, to practice Dzogchen, etc. I have met a few westerners, illiterate in Tibetan, who I think have a very good understanding of Dzogchen. But I don't think they can teach it because to be a teacher has a different set of requirements, beyond merely having a good understanding for one's own practice. All of the people I am talking about agree. YMMV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Um, I was just asking if you knew if Lama Drimed or Yeshi Namkhai know Tibetan. Do you? I don't and I would like to know.


Malcolm wrote:
I think you should ask them yourself.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, I guess you're working on your vajra coyness.

Anyway, just to clarify your earlier statement, if I ask a teacher if he or she knows Tibetan and the answer is no then, according to you, I can safely conclude that they are not even remotely qualified to transmit Dzogchen teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
Was there something unclear about what I said?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
bump


Malcolm wrote:
There was something ambiguous about my statement? That said, I am not going to led into commenting on specific persons.

dzogchungpa said:
Um, I was just asking if you knew if Lama Drimed or Yeshi Namkhai know Tibetan. Do you? I don't and I would like to know.


Malcolm wrote:
I think you should ask them yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Rig Pai Ye shes
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek DW members,

Rig-pa'i ye-shes - the knowledge which is immediate Awareness.

The above Dzogchen term is difficult to understand. Namely, the relation between knowledge and Awareness.
Mutsug Marro
KY.

Kim said:
Any term when they are not described from a living experience are difficult or impossible to understand.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what a master is for, to explain these terms from their experience of the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
bump


Malcolm wrote:
There was something ambiguous about my statement? That said, I am not going to led into commenting on specific persons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: how do things end?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
"Reality" is such a singularly strange abstract noun...

Malcolm wrote:
In fact it means the "the state of being [ity] pertaining to [al] things [res]."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I don't know what Tenzin Palmo was intending when she made her statement but it's utterly ridiculous to say that Buddha cannot liberate living beings from suffering because that's the whole point of attaining enlightenment. Buddha showed many times during his life that he possessed all the skilful means to liberate others.

Malcolm wrote:
What she was referring to is the Buddha's statement that misdeeds cannot be washed away with water, suffering cannit be removed with the hand, that he cannot bestow liberation, but that he can teach a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Kim said:
No, she wasn't.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually that is exactly what she was saying. She was point out that it is our responsibility to follow a path. There is no collective method of waking up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Sitting next to a buddha and not knowing it
Content:
Kim said:
If a high lama or a living buddha was clad in normal clothes, sitting in a bus among other people, would anyone notice that there is buddha onboard?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
You said above that "Dzogchen... are a very precise method of communicating a very specific kind of knowledge (rig pa)". What is it that makes this so amazingly and unique? What is so special?

Malcolm wrote:
If you understand Dzogchen teachings properly, you will never take rebirth in samsara again, guaranteed.

Kim said:
Right. So you were referring to trekcho, attainment of buddhahood. Or does this option become erased earlier on on the path of dzogchen? At some bodhisattva stage perhaps?

krodha said:
Kim, perhaps try splitting your responses up into multiple posts.

Kim said:
I would but it's not possible to edit one's posts here...

Malcolm wrote:
No, I was not referring Trekcho specifically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
You said above that "Dzogchen... are a very precise method of communicating a very specific kind of knowledge (rig pa)". What is it that makes this so amazingly and unique? What is so special?

Malcolm wrote:
If you understand Dzogchen teachings properly, you will never take rebirth in samsara again, guaranteed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Does Samkhya yoga actually have channels, cakras in addition to asanas? I thought it was Shaivite thing?

Malcolm wrote:
Saṃkhya is one thing, Yoga another. Saṃkhya itself is pretty much intellectual. Yoga shares its view, but emphasizes the development of samadhi, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't omniscience is a particular issues for Saṃkhya/yoga, since everything apart from puruśa is just transformations of prakriti.

Losal Samten said:
What about in Saiva Trika?

Malcolm wrote:
No clue. Look in Lakshmani Joo's books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so, since Saṃkhya adherents consider the Advaita view incorrect.

Losal Samten said:
In Advaita, omniscience is reserved for Isvara alone and not the yogin; is the same true in Trika?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't omniscience is a particular issues for Saṃkhya/yoga, since everything apart from puruśa is just transformations of prakriti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Then of course there is the guardians of the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Soma999 said:
I don't know Keith Downman, but trying to say "he is not a lama, who authorised him and so forth" can be a convenient way not to listen to him by saying he has no autorisation to speak and teach, even though we have not the slightest idea of his realisation and his inner life and integrity (it's not written on a diploma). This may be a strategy for avoiding to listen to a point of view which may make feel you unconfortable - even thought he may bring something of value : his own experience (which may not be adapted to everyone, of course).

Everyone is different, what works for someone may not work for another. I feel it's good to listen to people who do not necesseraly share the same point of view, it helps to grow.

If we just want to stay with people who thinks exactly the same, it's confortable, but maybe not very enlightening.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen teachings are something very precise and specific. When someone is sufficiently educated in these teachings, then they can understand very well who is and who isn't a qualified person to give teachings on them. That said, this is neither a condemnation of Dowman nor an endorsement. I do not know him personally, and I am neutral as far as this goes. I will just reinforce the point that it is very important how one chooses from whom to learn Dzogchen teachings. It is  much more critical, than for example, from whom one learns Lam Rim, Mind Training, etc., or even from whom one might receive pratimokśa or bodhisattva vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
I have met and talked with many people who got fed up with the highly religious system of Tibetan buddhism taught by respected lamas. They expected to receive understandable instructions to illuminate their minds but this didn't happen. What they got were religious rituals and forms glad in Tibetan attire. "Do this for 500 k and you'll know", they were told. A pig in a poke.

Malcolm wrote:
People are lazy, and expect instant results.

People do not want to commit.

People expect liberation in a pill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:


Kim said:
Dzogchen view-wise I haven't spotted any mistakes there. What he seems to do in his teaching session is to avoid any Tibetan or Sanskrit terms. That's wonderful.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you quite sure you understand the meaning of Dzogchen? For example, do you understand clearly the distinction between the basis and the all-basis?

Kim said:
That can happen without any thangkas, Tibetan language or any of that external pomp.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen tantras and teachings are a very precise method of communicating a very specific kind of knowledge ( rig pa ). The transmission of Dzogchen is in its infancy at this point. There isn't single person who is not conversant with Tibetan language that I would consider even remotely qualified to transmit Dzogchen teachings. Further, Dzogchen is very much bound up with Vajrayāna in general. People who do not understand Vajrayāna at all have no hope of really understanding the point of Dzogchen.

I don't know about the realization of any Westerner, or for that matter, any Tibetan teacher under 60, all tulkus included. But I do know about the realization of my guru, ChNN; my late guru, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa; as well as the realization of the late Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, another of my gurus; and the realization of the late HH Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche, yet another of my gurus. All four of these people are realized Dzogchen masters.

If you are going to study Dzogchen, it is better to find a person whom you feel has realized the meaning of those teachings. Such a person's qualifications are stated in the Dzogchen tantras as follows:
The master of the intimate instructions that possesses the vajra meaning
has a positive attitude, is skillful in teaching, 
has obtained the empowerments, applies the meaning of Secret Mantra, 
understands all the inner and outer activities, 
is inseparable from the meditation deity, 
remains undistracted in samadhi,
is knowledgable in the secret tantras of Secret Mantra,
possesses the meaning of the intimate instructions of the Great Perfection,
engages in all outer and inner sadhanas, [18b]
never leaves the meaning of the view, 
gives up outer, inner, and secret activities,
is endowed with qualities like a precious jewel,
and enjoys an inexhaustible treasury.
With the cord of compassion unsevered
and the stream of affection uninterrupted,
the master and disciple are thus connected.
Such a master of the intimate instructions
should be served with one’s body, precious substances,
and very rare items.
A master to avoid is described as follows:
A master lacking a connection with a lineage of scholars, 
who is self-important, 
stupid, literal-minded, 
who does not understand the meaning of Secret Mantra, 
has harsh words for others, is boastful, 
has entered false paths, has not seen the mandala of the empowerment, disregards samaya, [18/a]
is unable to answer questions,
has little learning, and great pride —
such an unexamined master is a māra for the disciple.
He is not a master who can teach Secret Mantra
and is unable to teach the Great Perfection, Ati. 
Do not associate with such a person.
As always, with any teacher, caveat emptor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Even the Buddha could't do that
Content:
Kim said:
He [Dowman] says that he is among those who have "gone through that whole circuit of oriental culture and Tibetan buddhism". So I suppose he has a solid vajrayana history. And yet he is of the opinion that all that is not needed.

Malcolm wrote:
It really depends on the student.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
boda said:
I simply don't require this sort of religious narrative.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, bully for you!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ramaswami taught on the Yoga Sūtras, and differentiated it's view from Advaita very clearly

Losal Samten said:
Do you know what the Yogis' take on Advaita is in general? Whilst different in terms of universal purusha, illusory prakriti etc., do they think Advaitans still attain liberation, or do they see them as thieving piss-takers?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so, since Saṃkhya adherents consider the Advaita view incorrect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
In the Yoga Sūtras, Iśvara is a special type of puruśa, a being who never experienced the tattvas. But Iśvara is not a godhead nor is it creative, per se. While it is indeed said that through devotion to Iśvara one can obtain mukti, mukti still means turning away from prakriti. Not only this, but in the Saṃkhya/Yoga view there are infinite puruśas, of which  Iśvara is but one. Thus did my teacher of Yoga, Ṥrivasta Ramaswami, teach.

DGA said:
If so, then it seems to me that some contemporary / modern yogic writers, such as Aurobindo Ghose, take a different tack from the yoga sutras.  So it goes.

Malcolm wrote:
There is also an Advaita spin, based on Shankara's commentary. But the original Yoga Sūtras are fully Saṃkhya in nature and do not go beyond that view. During our yoga course, six weeks, Ramaswami taught on the Yoga Sūtras, and differentiated it's view from Advaita very clearly. Ramaswami is one of the last remaining direct pupil of Krishnamācarya, and the only person to whom the latter taught his entire system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
maybay said:
Realization  may  also  come if  one is  oriented  toward  the ideal of  pure awareness,  Isvara.
Isvara  is  a distinct, incorruptible form  of  pure awareness, utterly  independent of  cause and  effect, and lacking  any  store of  latent impressions.
Its  independence makes  this  awareness  an  incomparable source of  omniscience.
Existing  beyond  time,  Isvara  was  also  the ideal of  the ancients.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishvara


Malcolm wrote:
In the Yoga Sūtras, Iśvara is a special type of puruśa, a being who never experienced the tattvas. But Iśvara is not a godhead nor is it creative, per se. While it is indeed said that through devotion to Iśvara one can obtain mukti, mukti still means turning away from prakriti. Not only this, but in the Saṃkhya/Yoga view there are infinite puruśas, of which  Iśvara is but one. Thus did my teacher of Yoga, Ṥrivasta Ramaswami, teach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
boda said:
So you're talking about emptiness. Why didn't you just say so? Anyway, emptiness is only one aspect of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I use the word emptiness anywhere?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar khyentse... monk?
Content:



Sonam Wangchug said:
Older lama's refer to Khyentse rinpoche as "Yangsi rinpoche" Such as Orgyen tobgyal rinpoche.


Malcolm wrote:
Right, for people who do not know, " yang srid " ( punarbhāva ) literally means "reincarnation" or "rebirth." In this case, the reincarnation of Dzongsar Khyentse II, Chökyi Lödo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
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]


dzogchungpa said:
Now you're being ridiculous.

Malcolm wrote:
What? You mean you don't think this is a wry comment on the subject matters of tulkus?

Perhaps the lyrics will refresh you:
Fame, makes a man take things over
Fame, lets him loose, hard to swallow
Fame, puts you there where things are hollow
Fame
Fame, it's not your brain, it's just the flame
That burns your change to keep you insane
Fame
Fame, what you like is in the limo
Fame, what you get is no tomorrow
Fame, what you need you have to borrow
Fame
Fame, "Nein! It's mine!" is just his line
To bind your time, it drives you to, crime
Fame
Could it be the best, could it be?
Really be, really, babe?
Could it be, my babe, could it, babe?
Really, really?
Is it any wonder I reject you first?
Fame, fame, fame, fame
Is it any wonder you are too cool to fool


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
DGA said:
What makes yoga as a knowledge unique is its objective, union with one or another terms for Absolute Godhead.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on the yoga tradition. This is certainly not the goal of the Yoga Sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Yuren said:
I'm really surprised to see there are so many Trump supporters on a forum like this!

Malcolm wrote:
Some people have no common sense at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2016 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:


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

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: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: What are the requirements to be "lineage holders"?
Content:


Adamantine said:
Any thoughts on what terms may be translated as lineage-holder? And why there may be varying interpretations? (I.e. are different Tibetan terms being translated as the same term in English?)

In gTerma traditions, there is usually someone prophesied as carrying on and maintaining the gTerma lineage after the terton has passed on. Is there a specific term for that?

Malcolm wrote:
lineage holder = brgyud 'dzin
holder of the teachings = bstan 'dzin
lord/owner of the treasure = gter bdag

Adamantine said:
Thank you. Can you please define each of these in English the best that you can?  Do brgyud 'dzin and bstan 'dzin have significantly different meanings for example?

When you stated in this thread http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=5037&start=20#top that
Malcolm wrote:
Shenphen Rinpoche, who is one of my important masters, is indeed the primary lineage holder of Dudjom Tersar, and the keeper of Dudjom Rinpoche's seat in North America where Dudjom Rinpoche concealed many precious teachings.

Adamantine said:
what did you mean by "primary lineage holder"? Brgyud 'dzin,  bstan 'dzin, or gter bdag? What is the Tibetan term translated as "regent"? One of these?

Sorry just would like to know what misunderstandings may have arisen from translation issues.

Malcolm wrote:
regent is rgyal tshab.

Here, I mean gdung sras, literally, "heir ( sras ) of the family lineage ( gdung )." I guess he can be considered the interregnum gter bdag, but since there are two incarnations, I will let them hash it out between them. Since he is the keeper of Dudjom Rinpoche's seat ( gdan sa ) in NA, he could also be called a " bdag chen."

bstan 'dzin ( sasanadhara ) is usually reserved for monks. It means someone who holds the tripitika, in general.

brgyud 'dzin means someone who holds this or that lineage ( brgyud, paraṃparā ).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: What are the requirements to be "lineage holders"?
Content:


Adamantine said:
Any thoughts on what terms may be translated as lineage-holder? And why there may be varying interpretations? (I.e. are different Tibetan terms being translated as the same term in English?)

In gTerma traditions, there is usually someone prophesied as carrying on and maintaining the gTerma lineage after the terton has passed on. Is there a specific term for that?

Malcolm wrote:
lineage holder = brgyud 'dzin
holder of the teachings = bstan 'dzin
lord/owner of the treasure = gter bdag


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
My bad, should be quote marks.

dzogchungpa said:
We agree on something, at last.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't worry, I will find a way out of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: What are the requirements to be "lineage holders"?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Hmmmmnnn.... I haven't interpreted the term "lineage holder" as meaning anyone who happens to have permission to teach, or even anyone with the title "Lama", and so on. I have interpreted it to mean a great master, usually someone people refer to as "precious one" / Rinpoche, who has been given a mandate by the previous lineage holder, or terton, to oversee and work towards the preservation, continuation, maintenance and expansion of the lineage without any errors, misconduct, or degeneration of the purity of the essential transmissions. Foremost concern would be the pure samaya of the lineage holder, so that all transmissions are authentic and complete. Sometimes the lineage holder would have been given permission to alter or adjust aspects of the practices or revelations according to their own wisdom mind, responding to circumstances or need. Sometimes more than one can function as a lineage holder of the same tradition. . . Anyway, that's been my interpretation of the term. I can see that someone with permission and/or the realization and ability to give proper abisheka/wang/Vajrayana empowerment could be interpreted as functioning as a lineage holder, but I don't usually see the term commonly used that broader way. I don't know what the original Tibetan term would be that is sometimes translated as lineage holder—correctly or incorrectly—or if there are multiple terms that are translated this way—correctly or incorrectly. And I don't know if my interpretation (based on what I've gleaned from others' interpretation) is in fact correct. So I am happy to hear from anyone with more knowledge and who is familiar with Tibetan.

Malcolm wrote:
According to ChNN, everyone who has received the teachings is a "lineage holder." This does not mean they can teach, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The period should go inside of closing paranthesis, like this: "The tulku system and the people in it are currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change.'"

You should also lose the commas, as above, otherwise, it should be like this "The tulku system is currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change,' as well as the people in it.'"

smcj said:
Thanks Malcolm. I like the second rewrite better.

dzogchungpa said:
Those aren't parentheses, are they? Whatever they are, I don't think they are necessary.
My version: The tulku system is currently demonstrating the suffering of change, as are its constituents.

Malcolm wrote:
My bad, should be quote marks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
We agree on something, at last.

Adamantine said:
Yet another example of impermanence.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, since it will not last long, probably not the hour.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
maybay said:
The tulku system is sick. The tulku system is degenerate / degenerating.

Malcolm wrote:
We agree on something, at last.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
maybay said:
What you seem to want to say is that everything about the tulku system, from the ABC to the xyz, is a lesson in the 'suffering of change'.

smcj said:
I thought it awkward to say that a system was suffering rather than saying people were suffering. But yes, that was my point.

Malcolm wrote:
We can also say systems are suffering.

In fact, your favorite book, the Uttaratantra, states quite clearly that the Dharma is not a true refuge, and neither is the Sangha, because they are impermanent and compounded entities. Only the dharmakāya of the Buddha is a true refuge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the plural or singular tense. Enclosing all punctuation inside of the closing parenthesis is hard to get used to, but it is indeed the standard approach now in academic and professional writing. I hate the editing process, and as a translator publishing books, dealing with different editors and different style sheets can be a hassle. The 84000 project has a very solid style sheet. It is worth looking at.

Losal Samten said:
Do you mean in academic and professional American writing? Using punctuation inside of the parentheses is standard GB grammar.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I mean after all, we are Rome. You Brits had your chance...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
smcj said:
Rinpoche could have simply and easily said, "The tulku system, and the people in it, are currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change'."

The rest is just describing the specifics of the karma that is ripening.

-----------

Any educated people out there? Did I punctuate that first sentence correctly?

Malcolm wrote:
The period should go inside of closing paranthesis, like this: "The tulku system and the people in it are currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change.'"

You should also lose the commas, as above, otherwise, it should be like this "The tulku system is currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change,' as well as the people in it.'"

smcj said:
Thanks Malcolm. I like the second rewrite better.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the plural or singular tense. Enclosing all punctuation inside of the closing parenthesis is hard to get used to, but it is indeed the standard approach now in academic and professional writing. I hate the editing process, and as a translator publishing books, dealing with different editors and different style sheets can be a hassle. The 84000 project has a very solid style sheet. It is worth looking at.

Naturally, the demands on writing things here is rather less substantial, and any review of my posts will find a rich assortment of typos and misspellings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Consequences of Rejoicing
Content:
Boomerang said:
When you rejoice in another's deeds, do you create the same karmic seed as the actor? By rejoicing in another's generosity do you create the same karma for yourself? What if you rejoice in a soldier killing their enemies?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Reality is shown only in a nonconceptual direct perception accompanied by wisdom.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Is that the same as Primordial Awareness ?
And is this what is happening when ChNN gives a Direct Pointing out to the nature of your mind ?
And is this something understood intuitively ?

Malcolm wrote:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Intuitive in the philosophical sense of the term, "intuition," which means to know directly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
smcj said:
Rinpoche could have simply and easily said, "The tulku system, and the people in it, are currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change'."

The rest is just describing the specifics of the karma that is ripening.

-----------

Any educated people out there? Did I punctuate that first sentence correctly?

Malcolm wrote:
The period should go inside of closing paranthesis, like this: "The tulku system and the people in it are currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change.'"

You should also lose the commas, as above, otherwise, it should be like this "The tulku system is currently demonstrating the 'suffering of change,' as well as the people in it.'"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:


Sonam Wangchug said:
He has already expressed his purpose for wearing robes, and I do not particularly think it makes him Sravaka because he is wearing maroon robes.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely no one said Dzongsar was a śrāvaka because he wears some kind of robes. What he himself has said in the past that he wears robes because for him, we now live in the era of the mere sign of the teachings. Adamantine asked me whether I agreed that we were in this era, and I replied, yes, at least as far as Śrāvakayāna teachings are concerned. Please read more carefully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not what I am saying.

boda said:
Indeed you're not saying.

You've stated that reality is not capable of showing itself in more than one way. So what is this one way?

Malcolm wrote:
Reality is shown only in a nonconceptual direct perception accompanied by wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 10:40 AM
Title: Re: how do things end?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
apart from a cup that has broken and a cup that has not broken, there is no breaking cup (at present).

vinegar said:
At the time of the cup there is no broken cup..

But only a thing can be broken.  Unmade things can't be broken.. there is no such thing.  Meaning it's not correct to say "there is no breaking cup (at present)", don't you think?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read Nāgārjuna's analysis of motion...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
Our choices are a buffoon and an utterly immoral scoundrel. Four years of bad hair and bad reality TV, or four years of impeachment hearings.

The Cicada said:
What was it Tarantino said about Clark Kent being Superman's critique of humanity? Trump's buffoonery is as much an act as Hillary's nice-white-lady act. Trump is a lion who loves glory and I think the real Donald Trump would actually be more than a little scary to most people—which could be bad in ways, but could also be good for the presidency and for America.

Malcolm wrote:
He is a puffed up idiot with bad hair and a small dick, for which he over compensates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Rime
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Just wondering why Rime is not listed here, along with all the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism....

http://rimebuddhism.com/khentrul-rinpoche/rime-philosophy/

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a school, it is an attitude.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
maybay said:
You learn so much its like you float around in a cloud. You see people and they might see you, but there's no contact.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is so much better to be as illiterate as those around one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
perceived by whom? by us of course. and what are we? displays of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we are displays of birth, aging, sickness, and death.

boda said:
So you're essentially saying that reality only displays impermanence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not what I am saying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:


Adamantine said:
Hmmmnn.. but he is not a śravakayāna teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Robes are the sign of the śravakayāna.

maybay said:
Robes are a sign of nobility, not exclusive to sravakas.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. They are supposed to be a sign of renunciation, but since that did not work out so well, Buddha had to constantly make new rules for misbehaving bhikṣus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Should emptiness be discussed online at all?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not up to us to say who is ripe and who is not. We do not have that prescience.

AlexMcLeod said:
No, it is not. Even the Buddha deemed that most of his direct disciples were not ripe for it. Think you'resmarter than him?

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? Don't be silly. The Buddha taught the three gates of liberation right from the beginning.

Anyway, I have a really good idea: we will talk about emptiness as much as we like, and you can ignore it, or just maintain silence. Trying to condition others is really annoying. Cut it out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Should emptiness be discussed online at all?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's the first taste I received, and as it says in the PP sūtra, when I first heard it, I was elated and delighted.

M

AlexMcLeod said:
But your mind was ripe for it. And most Sutra are far better teachers than any of us here. Exactly the opposite condition from that being caused by an open forum discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not up to us to say who is ripe and who is not. We do not have that prescience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Monism, Eternalism, etc
Content:
krodha said:
As for a Buddha being a "person", technically, a Buddha is not what we would call a "sentient being." From the standpoint of our afflicted, karmic perception we see Buddha's as a person (just as we perceive other sentient beings), but this is not what appears to a Buddha.

I cannot recall which sutta states this, but there is a text where Buddha Śākyamuni is asked whether he is a person, or a human being, etc., and he says he is not.

vinegar said:
The textbooks are full of discussion on how buddhas are persons, but not sentient beings/suffering beings (by definition not human)
Your campaign to reject any statement that even remotely resembles a downplaying of personhood, selves, etc., is a common theme in your posts. Perhaps something to look at.
Alas I'm just replying to quotes, I'd much rather be debating subtle points of pramana

Buddhas are pure objects, pure persons, therefore it cannot be correct to say "persons are not products of delusion".  Seems pretty straight-forward

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas cannot be persons (gang zag) because they are not full (gang) of effluents (zag).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what vehicle one is talking about. If we are talking about śravakayāna, then yes.

Adamantine said:
Hmmmnn.. but he is not a śravakayāna teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Robes are the sign of the śravakayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
perceived by whom? by us of course. and what are we? displays of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we are displays of birth, aging, sickness, and death.

gad rgyangs said:
...and youth, health, creativity and joy as well. At least most people are. YMMV.

Malcolm wrote:
That's the aging part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
maybay said:
DJK wears clothes as an expression of the teachings

Malcolm wrote:
Are you sure? You've asked him?

Adamantine said:
This comes back to his statement "In Buddhism, we talk about several different stages of degeneration. There’s one degenerated time that Buddha called tagtsam zinpey du, the time when monastic robes are maintained just as a mark or symbol. That’s where we are now. At least I’m trying to hold on to that symbol."

I am not sure if that qualifies as an expression of the teachings, as I doubt the teachings recommend doing this. It sounds like he is just referring to a prophecy which probably saw wearing monastic robes as a symbol without keeping the vows as being one type of degeneration. So that would bring it back to self-expression. But out of curiosity Malcolm, would you agree that we are in the time called tagtsam zinpey du? Are you familiar with the prophecy and statements he is citing? This seems like it would fall into your area of scholarly expertise.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what vehicle one is talking about. If we are talking about śravakayāna, then yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
maybay said:
DJK wears clothes as an expression of the teachings

Malcolm wrote:
Are you sure? You've asked him?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Adamantine said:
If Lamas are teaching Westerners on thrones or on stages wearing special robes, and the disciples are discouraged from ever wearing these types of robes but only wearing their regular work clothes or sunday-best (i.e. church clothes from a Christian culture) it creates a wider gap-- separation between teacher and student.

Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking, my teacher usually wears a track suit or Hawaiian shirts when he teaches and gives empowerments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Should emptiness be discussed online at all?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
Emptiness doctrine should not be the very first taste of Buddhism a person should receive. It is advanced teaching.


Malcolm wrote:
It's the first taste I received, and as it says in the PP sūtra, when I first heard it, I was elated and delighted.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 6:58 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:



BuddhaFollower said:
Tulku system is not a meaningless tradition.

Tulku system is a method of preserving lineages.

Malcolm wrote:
A bad one.

BuddhaFollower said:
It has worked pretty well after the Chinese invasion.

Malcolm wrote:
It is even more corrupt now tham ever before.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
However, I would say that reality displays itself in infinite ways, including, but not limited to, everything we experience in this 3D realm.

Malcolm wrote:
No, reality is perceived in a myriad of ways. It does not, nor is it capable of showing itself in more than one way.

gad rgyangs said:
perceived by whom? by us of course. and what are we? displays of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we are displays of birth, aging, sickness, and death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
thats a cop-out. Its a simple question: "How do you know that 'there is only one entry way to knowledge of reality'"?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer, simply put, is that reality does not, in reality, display itself in myriad ways.

gad rgyangs said:
the question was about your assertion that "there is only one entry way to knowledge of reality", not about how reality "displays itself".

However, I would say that reality displays itself in infinite ways, including, but not limited to, everything we experience in this 3D realm.

Malcolm wrote:
No, reality is perceived in a myriad of ways. It does not, nor is it capable of showing itself in more than one way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:53 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
how do you know?

Malcolm wrote:
The real question is why you don't.

gad rgyangs said:
thats a cop-out. Its a simple question: "How do you know that 'there is only one entry way to knowledge of reality'"?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer, simply put, is that reality does not, in reality, display itself in myriad ways.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
what he's saying is perfectly clear and understandable.


Malcolm wrote:
So you think.

dzogchungpa said:
Perhaps you could give Rinpoche some pointers on how to express himself more clearly and understandably. I'm sure it would be much appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
I would rather admonish you all about not studying properly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
..... DJKR seems to have no allegiance to the stodgy, stale tradition-for-traditions-sake-at-all-costs attitude, I greatly appreciate his point of view.


BuddhaFollower said:
Tulku system is not a meaningless tradition.

Tulku system is a method of preserving lineages.

Malcolm wrote:
A bad one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
umm... here's the context:

Malcolm wrote:
I wish people would understand the context from which he says stuff like this.

gad rgyangs said:
what he's saying is perfectly clear and understandable.


Malcolm wrote:
So you think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I wish people would pay more attention when he says stuff like this.

Malcolm wrote:
I wish people would understand the context from which he says stuff like this.

gad rgyangs said:
umm... here's the context:

Malcolm wrote:
I wish people would understand the context from which he says stuff like this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: how do things end?
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
This person's misunderstanding is a direct result of the people of this forum ignoring their vows.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously? Get real man.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I wish people would pay more attention when he says stuff like this.

Malcolm wrote:
I wish people would understand the context from which he says stuff like this.

maybay said:
How would that change the meaning in this instance? What good are teachings of definitive meaning if they're context dependent?

Malcolm wrote:
One should understand that there are five Samantabhadras, not only one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: how do things end?
Content:
vinegar said:
Consider a cup that is falling and a moment later breaks on the floor

The cup has to be there to break, in which case, its not broken/didn't break.
Then when does the cup break, if not at the time of its breaking?

Suppose someone says then, the cup doesn't have to be there to break, in which case, there's nothing there to break

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same as Nāgārjuna's analysis of motion: apart from a cup that has broken and a cup that has not broken, there is no breaking cup (at present).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
A text attributed to Padmasambhava through Yeshe Tsogyal, his Tantric disciple, wife-consort, and scribe, known as Self-Liberation By Meditation Upon the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities (subtitled): “The Yoga of Knowing the Mind, the Seeing of Reality, Called Self-Liberation,” uncompromisingly emphasizes this view :


“There being really no duality, pluralism is untrue. Until duality is transcended and at-one-ment realized, Enlightenment cannot be attained. The whole Sangsara and Nirvana, as an inseparable unity, are one’s mind.”


http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/05/maha-ati-natural-liberation-through-primordial-awareness/


Malcolm wrote:
I would not put a lot of emphasis on this translation. It is poorly edited, and the person (Evans-Wentz] in whose book this is found understood nothing about the subject matter that interested him


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have never bothered to explain what ChNN means to people like you, since you basically do not give a shit what I say. So why would I bother?

dzogchungpa said:
OK, you're off the hook.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as I can tell, you are not even interested in Dzogchen.

dzogchungpa said:
I'm kind of curious about it.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not going to understand it through mere curiosity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I wish people would pay more attention when he says stuff like this.

Malcolm wrote:
I wish people would understand the context from which he says stuff like this.

dzogchungpa said:
Yes, it is good that we have people like you to explain Rinpoche's words for us.

Malcolm wrote:
I have never bothered to explain what ChNN means to people like you, since you basically do not give a shit what I say. So why would I bother? As far as I can tell, you are not even interested in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am being totally fair. Materialism doesn't "grow" in the way he suggests. You think our civilization is more materialistic than ancient Rome? Ancient China? Ancient India? Ancient Tibet? Please. I do recall a famous king in India who slaughtered many hundreds of thousands of people, and then got religion because he felt bad about it.

dzogchungpa said:
Whatevs, my point is that he was not suggesting that materialism and affluence had not found their way into Tibetan monasteries and religious institutions from the beginning.


Malcolm wrote:
What he said was:
The world’s growing materialism and affluence have found their way into our monasteries and religious institutions...
The world's? Come on, be honest, DKR and put down your romanticism. Your Tibetan monasteries have been rife with materialism right from the beginning. Padmasambhava stated to Nyang Tingzin Zangpo:
Having assembled here, you all must listen well. The minds of all these Buddhists of Tibet, for the most part, have never been prepared. So in all of their religious activity thoughts of death and impermanence have not arisen in their minds. If it had arisen, this laziness and indolence would have never existed. They have never understand the characteristics of samsara. If they had understood, they never would have been attached to things. They have never contemplated the difficulty of obtaining leisure and wealth. If they had contemplated, these meaningful activities would have done at once. They have never understood this presentation of their minds. If they had understood it, they would have left non-virtue immediately. They have not seen the benefits and qualities of virtue. If they had seen it, distractions from gathering the two accumulations would have never occurred. They have never approached the profound path even a little. If they had approached it, they could not bear to be separate from meditation and practice. They have never approached the direction of the Mahāyāna bodhicitta. [3/a] If they had approached it, they would work on behalf of others without looking for their own advantage. They have no inclination for ultimate reality. If they had, this jealousy and pride would have never occurred. They have never heard nor contemplated the nine vehicles. If they had done so, they would understand the difference between higher and lower. They have never approached the direction of the view of secret mantra. If they had approach it, they would not accept and reject nirvana and samsara. They have never comprehended the view of reality. If they had, this ordinary grasping behavior would have never occurred. None of them ever desired to obtain complete buddhahood. If they had, they would have given up the activities of this life as unnecessary. Again, none of them have interest in Dharma apart from a few.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Dependent Origination and the Cosmological Argument
Content:


Jeff H said:
1. Dependent origination = own-being? How can that be? What does it mean to be “dependent on another in an absolute sense ”?

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent existence (parabhāva) is not the same thing as dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda)

2. Miphamfan said, “the chain of causes is never-ending”; Wayfarer said, “[the chain of causes] ceases with ‘nirodha’, cessation”; Malcom said, “Cessation is simply the absence of causes for further arising”. Your (Malcolm’s) post sounds like you mean to contradict Wayfarer, but you seem to be saying the same thing. He didn’t mention the cessation of entities.

Confused.
[/quote]


The manner in which Wayfarer has stated this is such that it he appears to be saying that with nirodha, the chain of causation ceases.

What I am saying is that the absence of causes is nirodha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Miroku said:
Do you think there really is a way in which tulku tradition could stay alive and actually become credible?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
While there is much to applaud in DKR's missive, there are troubling blind spots, even still:
The world’s growing materialism and affluence have found their way into our monasteries and religious institutions, where many high lamas and especially lineage holders now lead a lifestyle so lavish and estranged from ordinary realities that they could almost be emperors!
This is a farce. Materialism and affluence have found their way into Tibetan monasteries and religious institutions from the beginning. The reason Langdarma was assassinated was not because he was going to destroy the monasteries, it was because he decided that they were bleeding the Tibetan economy dry, and so decided to tax them.

Materialism and affluence have plagued Tibetan Buddhism from the beginning, so this is nothing new.

dzogchungpa said:
The very next sentence after the paragraph you quote reads: This may have worked – and I am not saying it did work – in Tibet, where few questions were asked and where there was little scrutiny and huge devotion.
so I don't think you are being fair, as he clearly acknowledges that it was also an issue in TIbet. I think what he is saying is that the materialism and affluence of the world is growing so that, while it was always a problem in Tibetan monasteries and religious institutions, it is now even more of a problem etc. Just sayin'.

Malcolm wrote:
I am being totally fair. Materialism doesn't "grow" in the way he suggests. You think our civilization is more materialistic than ancient Rome? Ancient China? Ancient India? Ancient Tibet? Please. I do recall a famous king in India who slaughtered many hundreds of thousands of people, and then got religion because he felt bad about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As ChNN says in "On The Nature Of Samantabhadra - A Conversation with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu": So what is called the primordial Buddha, or Adibuddha, is only a metaphor for our true condition.

gad rgyangs said:
I wish people would pay more attention when he says stuff like this.

Malcolm wrote:
I wish people would understand the context from which he says stuff like this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As ChNN says in "On The Nature Of Samantabhadra - A Conversation with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu": So what is called the primordial Buddha, or Adibuddha, is only a metaphor for our true condition.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is called basis Samantabhadra, one of the five kinds of Samantabhadra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are 84,000 afflictions, that is why there are eighty four thousands "gates of Dharma." But in reality, Buddha taught only three gates of liberation: emptiness, signlessness and wishlessness.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Ok, but i read somewhere that even Nirvana does NOT exist.   (Nirvanalessness ?)


http://theendlessfurther.com/the-three-gates-of-freedom/

Malcolm wrote:
Nirvana is not a thing. It is a state where one is free of afflictions that cause further rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One can have all kinds of perspectives of a structure. But like a house with only a single door, there is only one entry way to knowledge of reality.

gad rgyangs said:
how do you know?

Malcolm wrote:
The real question is why you don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
This is pretty clear to me, as is most stuff that i have read.   I don't think I'm that delusional that i can't comprehend words and the concepts described
reasonably well...but there's always a secret meaning to confuse those like me, that are not high on the list of initiates...lowly practitioners, like me that do not deserve to know the truth.....because i haven't done millions of anything to purify all my sins.    So unless you are lilly white pure, you're screwed...

Malcolm wrote:
It is not the case that you are not deserving. There is no such thing. It may be the case that you do not have access to a good teacher.

You must remember that Buddhadharma is an oral tradition at heart. Without that oral lineage, you will not absorb the meaning of the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Kim said:
I've also seen many wonderful quotes by Malcolm. Thank you for them.

May I ask if you/he has any formal qualification? Is he a holder of some lineage?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I have formal qualifications.

Kim said:
Wonderful. In which traditions? Given by who?

Malcolm wrote:
I completed a three year solitary retreat of mixed Sakya and Nyingma practices, between 1993 and 1997.

I was given the title "Ācarya" (slob dpon) by Khenpo Migmar Tseten, Buddhist Chaplain of Harvard, Sakya, in 2004.

I was encouraged to teach by the late Kunzang Dechen Lingpa in 2006, who confirmed my Ācarya title, and also conferred the formal Ngakpa ordination upon me.

I was given the title of "Lama" by Lama Ngawang Tsultrim of Dongag Tharling in New Orleans, Nyingma, in 2008.

I am a Doctor of Tibetan Medicine, having graduated from the Shang Shung Medical School in 2009.

I have a forthcoming book, a translation of a seminal text in the Dzogchen tradition, available from Wisdom Pub., Dec. 6th, 2016.

Any qualities I possess I derive from the kindness of my gurus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Dependent Origination and the Cosmological Argument
Content:


Wayfarer said:
So clearly they diverge on that point, but I am interested in that aspect of similarity. Both are alike in saying that beings are not possessed of their own originating ground, cause or essence (= are empty of own-being).

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent existence is carefully articulated by Nāgārjuna to be a kind of "own-being." Thus, beings who are dependent on another in an absolute sense, have own-being.


MiphamFan said:
Dependent origination itself means that the chain of causes is never-ending.
It might be never-ending in one sense, but in another sense, it ceases with 'nirodha', cessation, does it not?

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that an entity ceases is annihilationism. This is rejected by the Buddha. Cessation is simply the absence of causes for further arising. In this way there is cessation without any entity ceasing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
What about Longchenpa's statements of everything being equal ............also a misleading statement and not to be taken literally ???
That's why i see so many discrepancies & my faith is dissolving...nearly everything i read and hold dear to my heart, i find out i misinterpreted it.

Malcolm wrote:
Then the fault lies in your interpretation and not in the material you read.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: DJK on tulkus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
While there is much to applaud in DKR's missive, there are troubling blind spots, even still:
The world’s growing materialism and affluence have found their way into our monasteries and religious institutions, where many high lamas and especially lineage holders now lead a lifestyle so lavish and estranged from ordinary realities that they could almost be emperors!
This is a farce. Materialism and affluence have found their way into Tibetan monasteries and religious institutions from the beginning. The reason Langdarma was assassinated was not because he was going to destroy the monasteries, it was because he decided that they were bleeding the Tibetan economy dry, and so decided to tax them.

Materialism and affluence have plagued Tibetan Buddhism from the beginning, so this is nothing new.

He continues:
On the other hand, I also have genuine empathy for the labrangs, monks, and others responsible for training our young incarnate lamas. They generally mean so well and have such good intentions, but they just don’t know how to raise a child in today’s world, and have simply not adapted to current conditions.
The real question arises: was there ever a system in Tibetan monasteries that properly raised children? I don't think so. Children are meant to be raised in families with mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

This last I whole heartedly agree with:
For this reason, I’ve also advised my friends, colleagues, and fellow Rinpoches time and again that, when they teach non-Tibetans, they should not encourage the wearing of Tibetan robes or any sort of Buddhist garb. By contrast, seeing a Buddhist practitioner in army uniform, suit and tie, or other normal dress sends the message that Buddhism can be practised by everyone.

The moment a lama imposes some sort of special robes, which is such a deeply ingrained habit, it immediately excludes others and creates a cultish atmosphere. In my view, one of the key reasons the number of Buddhists worldwide is decreasing while other religions like Islam are growing is our habit of introverted exclusivism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


Kim said:
You missed the point. I am not talking about J Akhon Lhamo but about the confirmation given to her by a highly regarded buddhist lama.

Malcolm wrote:
Not all confirmations are what they appear to be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
a house with only a single door, there is only one entry way to knowledge of reality.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Then why are there 84,000 gates ?

Malcolm wrote:
There are 84,000 afflictions, that is why there are eighty four thousands "gates of Dharma." But in reality, Buddha taught only three gates of liberation: emptiness, signlessness and wishlessness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
and what are you claiming is my "tenet"? I never said that all perspectives are "equally mistaken", I just said that they are perspectives, which by definition are limited.
Limited, and therefore, mistaken regarding what they purport to describe.

gad rgyangs said:
if we are both looking at a house, we will see slightly different views of it based on our perspective. Are our views mistaken because they represent a perspective and not some kind of "god's eye" view of things? No, of course not: a sentient being is a perspective, that is what a sentient being is. get used to it. Now, all philosophies, religions and mythologies are products of sentient beings, ergo they are limited perspectives. They are not mistaken, just like poems are not mistaken but rather express the perspectives and experiences of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
One can have all kinds of perspectives of a structure. But like a house with only a single door, there is only one entry way to knowledge of reality.


gad rgyangs said:
The point, when discussing reality, is that regardless of how many faulty descriptions there may be of it, the one correct description will allow one to realize it.
it would be a sad, impoverished reality that was completely capturable by the limited languages on this one particular planet.

Malcolm wrote:
There is but a single correct description of it in all languages, whatever they may be, whatever corresponds to "dependently originated," empty," and "natureless."

When you have discovered that, it is pointless to engage in a quixotic defense of "diverse expressions."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:34 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Adamantine said:
He's got the qualification of having made nearly 20,000 posts here! Holy!

Malcolm wrote:
Among other things....yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:33 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Only to westerners.

Astus said:
Why would that be? History is not a purely Western field of study. The Japanese are at the top level in Buddhist studies, and most Asian Buddhist countries are catching up. The historical perspective gained currency among Asian Buddhists in the 19th century, and has been found a valid method in researching past events. The Taisho Tripitaka compiled in 1924 is an obvious example. So it might be that only Tibetans have not yet caught up with the rest of the world.

heart said:
Or that the rest of the world haven't caught up with how it really is.

/magnus


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:32 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Only to westerners.

Astus said:
Why would that be? History is not a purely Western field of study. The Japanese are at the top level in Buddhist studies, and most Asian Buddhist countries are catching up.

Malcolm wrote:
For all intents and purposes, they are a modern, western industrialized nation.



Astus said:
The historical perspective gained currency among Asian Buddhists in the 19th century, and has been found a valid method in researching past events. The Taisho Tripitaka compiled in 1924 is an obvious example. So it might be that only Tibetans have not yet caught up with the rest of the world.

Malcolm wrote:
Only the Tibetans have understood that narratives beings written by Buddhologists have nothing to do with the narratives they find meaningful because they don't really give a shit about Buddhologists, and neither do I.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Kim said:
I've also seen many wonderful quotes by Malcolm. Thank you for them.

May I ask if you/he has any formal qualification? Is he a holder of some lineage?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I have formal qualifications.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and bon
Content:



BuddhaFollower said:
Loden Nyingpo revealed the myth of Tonpa Shenrab in the 14th century.

.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the first major bio of Tonpa Shenrab was revealed in the early 11th century by Shenchen Luga.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
are poems true or false or mistaken? the only thing they are mistaken about is their triumphalism.

Malcolm wrote:
Your tenet is self-deafeating since it negates the function of conventional truth. As Nāgārjuna states:

The Dharma explained by the Buddha properly relies on two truths:
relative truth and ultimate truth.
Someone who does not know the distinction between those two truths
does not know the profound principle of the teaching of the Buddha. 
The ultimate cannot be explained without relying on convention. 
Nirvana cannot be obtained without realizing the ultimate.

gad rgyangs said:
thats all well and good, but that passage only makes sense within the universe of Buddhist discourse (and even there it is not demonstrable, and must be taken on faith), and cannot be used in a meta-discussion about the validity of religious systems in general.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a nice sentiment, but I don't agree.

gad rgyangs said:
and what are you claiming is my "tenet"? I never said that all perspectives are "equally mistaken", I just said that they are perspectives, which by definition are limited.

Malcolm wrote:
Limited, and therefore, mistaken regarding what they purport to describe.


gad rgyangs said:
Claiming this does not "negate the function of conventional truth", it in fact affirms that all conceptually enunciated truths are conventional by definition and not definitve.

Malcolm wrote:
In order for a convention to be a convention, it must correspond to some function. The classic example is seeing one moon in the sky. When two moons are seen, this is not a conventional truth for those who are sober.

The point, when discussing reality, is that regardless of how many faulty descriptions there may be of it, the one correct description will allow one to realize it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
One thing I've noticed is that lamas are often more open-minded than their students.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends very much on the lama. And they are often too polite to let their students know what they really think.

dzogchungpa said:
It is good that we have people like you to let us know what they really think.

Malcolm wrote:
I've hung out with a lot of lamas. Their attitudes on many things often come as a major surprise to their students, you know, like supporting the invasion of Iraq by W.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which is relevant to whom, exactly?

Astus said:
Good question. I think it matters in case of interschool debates when historicity is brought into the argument.

Malcolm wrote:
Only to westerners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


Lhakpa said:
So I'm not saying that Seagal is a tulku...

Malcolm wrote:
He is indeed a tulku, recognized by Penor Rinpoche, in fact.

Lhakpa said:
I just meant I'm not trying to argue he is or isn't, just that he had a positive influence on me personally... which you of course don't have to be a tulku to do Still, I guess I'm less cynical about it than a lot of people I've seen.

Malcolm wrote:
David Carradine had a similar positive effect on me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
One thing I've noticed is that lamas are often more open-minded than their students.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends very much on the lama. And they are often too polite to let their students know what they really think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:


Lhakpa said:
So I'm not saying that Seagal is a tulku...

Malcolm wrote:
He is indeed a tulku, recognized by Penor Rinpoche, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: There's buddhadharma and then there the rest
Content:
Kim said:
I have no exposure to Jetsunma Akhon Lhamo except seeing one video of her. My first impression of her is that she is quite un-orthodox. Perhaps that's why to me she seemed fresh in her presentation.

Malcolm wrote:
One must take care with regards to teachers one finds on the internet, including those recognized as reincarnations.



Caveat emptor


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
no, perenialism would say its dumb for them to argue because they're all saying the same thing, which they are not. But they are all talking about the same thing: the nature of reality. Each one describes it according to its perspective, but the nature of reality is beyond all attempts to delineate it once and for all with one or another system of concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
But the corollary you attempt to draw, i.e., that they are all equally mistaken concerning reality is false.

gad rgyangs said:
are poems true or false or mistaken? the only thing they are mistaken about is their triumphalism.

Malcolm wrote:
Your tenet is self-deafeating since it negates the function of conventional truth. As Nāgārjuna states:

The Dharma explained by the Buddha properly relies on two truths:
relative truth and ultimate truth.
Someone who does not know the distinction between those two truths
does not know the profound principle of the teaching of the Buddha. 
The ultimate cannot be explained without relying on convention. 
Nirvana cannot be obtained without realizing the ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
isn't it comforting to know that the nature of reality is not beholden to Buddhists, Vedantins (and everyone else) arguing about which poetic metaphor best describes it?

krodha said:
A comforting thought for perennialists, perhaps.

gad rgyangs said:
no, perenialism would say its dumb for them to argue because they're all saying the same thing, which they are not. But they are all talking about the same thing: the nature of reality. Each one describes it according to its perspective, but the nature of reality is beyond all attempts to delineate it once and for all with one or another system of concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
But the corollary you attempt to draw, i.e., that they are all equally mistaken concerning reality is false.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Astus said:
= from a modern historical point of view...

Malcolm wrote:
Which is relevant to whom, exactly?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen teachings are the earliest Buddhist teachings, predating all others by eons and eons.

Astus said:
Dzogchen may teach that there was a first buddha. But I think everyone else says that there is no beginning of buddhas. So I guess infinite beats first.


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, what Dzogchen teachings says concerning this is that in every eon from beginningless time, Dzogchen teachings appear first and disappear last.

So, we have our cake and can eat it too...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Quality of Sanskrit Texts
Content:
jmlee369 said:
The notion that the Pali scriptures somehow capture the original words of the Buddha is a long discredited one in academia.

Astus said:
From a historical perspective, the Nikayas are still the closest to the original and the most accurate resource of the earliest teachings, as it has been confirmed through the comparative studies with the Chinese Agamas and fragments in other languages.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely not. Dzogchen teachings are the earliest Buddhist teachings, predating all others by eons and eons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 21st, 2016 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
If a terton (who is not on the bhumis) receives dream teachings, do these dream teachings come from an external source?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such a thing as a terton who is not on the bhumis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Tirisilex said:
It says here in the book "Medicine Buddha Teachings" by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche in the introduction page XIV "The Medicine Buddha, Vajrayogini, Tara, Vajradhara, Vajrasattva, or Chenrezig. And although it is said, from the standpoint of relative truth, that some, if not all, of these deities actually do exist as individual beings who can be supplicated, they exist as such because, and only because, the qualities that they embody were already inherent in the clear light nature, the buddha nature of their own minds."

So according to Khenchen Thrangu they do exist. Any more arguements to this statement?

Malcolm wrote:
I already answered this at length above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Choden Rinpoche on Chulen
Content:
maybay said:
The problem is they can't get the population up fast enough to handle what will happen when they make it legal. The sudden demand will by devastating. They know from experiences with ivory trade.

Malcolm wrote:
There is not a large demand for rhinoceros horn in Tibetan medicine. There is a larger demand for musk, bear bile and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: Choden Rinpoche on Chulen
Content:
maybay said:
Is anyone else bothered by that reference to rhinoceros horn on the page http://www.lamayeshe.com/article/taking-essence

Don't people know what brutalities are committed in pursuit of rhino horn and other animal parts?

Malcolm wrote:
You don't understand. In Tibetan medicine, Rhinoceros horn is used in extreme small quantities, and from animals found deceased from natural causes.

On the other hand, musk is also used. Bear bile is used. Ox bile is used. In traditional medicine, when such animals were not killed in large numbers for sport, their byproducts are important materia medica.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Choden Rinpoche on Chulen
Content:
maybay said:
And for good reason. If you do it incorrectly you might just cause drought or famine.

Malcolm wrote:
Ridiculous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Bön as the 5th Tibetan Tradition.
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Unbelievable but i know you would have your reasons to claim this.
So bring some light into my ignorance, because i heard here and there bi lateral exchange of Dharma, but never heard it to the point.

So we have Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen.

I think Bön ZZNG is 100% original Bön
So i guess Sutra like (Prasangika) Madyamika is not from Bön like the Prajnaparamita Sutras.

KY

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is the fact that no Bonpo texts were even written down until the early eleventh century, apart from some Dunhuang finds. And Dunhuang finds about Tonpa Shenrab just do not support the elaborate bios found in the Mdo 'dus, etc.

I am happy to respect this and that narrative account as useful, inspirational chronicles, but we cannot confuse them with what we consider "history." History is secular, mundane, and injures Buddhist narratives just as much as it injures Bonpo ones.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2016 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Bön as the 5th Tibetan Tradition.
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Bön would be derived from the other Tibetan Traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
Largely, this is the case, but it is not entirely the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Bönpo Guru Rinpoche
Content:


orgyen jigmed said:
I think it would have been much better if you used the actual Bon name of Pema Thotrong

Malcolm wrote:
It's actually Pema Thongdrol (Padma who liberates through seeing.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Bönpo Guru Rinpoche
Content:



kalden yungdrung said:
Well do you maybe think there was only one Guru Rinpoche ?
Or that both were ok maybe?

Malcolm wrote:
I think there was one Guru Rinpoche, and there are three different versions of his bio: the Nyingma version, the Indian version, and the Bonpo version. They each served different needs of different communities.


kalden yungdrung said:
One thing is sure, the "GR" who did start a magical fight with a certain Bonpo, that is the one we know in Bon very well. He seems to be a Yogi from India.
That is never the same one we know in Bon.
It does not the matter which names we give to them.

Malcolm wrote:
At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, "What is the point of maintaining sectarian stories that unnecessarily alienate us from others?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Bönpo Guru Rinpoche
Content:



kalden yungdrung said:
Well do you maybe think there was only one Guru Rinpoche ?
Or that both were ok maybe?

Malcolm wrote:
I think there was one Guru Rinpoche, and there are three different versions of his bio: the Nyingma version, the Indian version, and the Bonpo version. They each served different needs of different communities.


BuddhaFollower said:
What Indian version?

Malcolm wrote:
The one related by Buddhaguptanatha to Taranatha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Bönpo Guru Rinpoche
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Well it is sure true that there are similarities between Bon and Vajrayana, but the lineage is different and sure if we take in consideration Bon Guru Rinpoche and the new Guru Rinpoche. So the core of the discussion is not to prove who owns what, but who did do what and under which name and certainly based on what motivation.

Malcolm wrote:
This is just a variant of the Gelug myth there was two Padmasambhavas, one bad, one good.


kalden yungdrung said:
Well do you maybe think there was only one Guru Rinpoche ?
Or that both were ok maybe?

Malcolm wrote:
I think there was one Guru Rinpoche, and there are three different versions of his bio: the Nyingma version, the Indian version, and the Bonpo version. They each served different needs of different communities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
I also see now that no less than my man Anam Thubten wrote a blurb for the book:
This is one of best contemporary books on the integration of meditation and nonduality. Personally, I’m thankful to Loch for offering this gift to humanity at this crucial time when so many people are looking for living spirituality free from outdated paradigms. Read this if you want to wake up to the beautiful mystery of life.

Malcolm wrote:
It's nice to have fans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Bönpo Guru Rinpoche
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Well it is sure true that there are similarities between Bon and Vajrayana, but the lineage is different and sure if we take in consideration Bon Guru Rinpoche and the new Guru Rinpoche. So the core of the discussion is not to prove who owns what, but who did do what and under which name and certainly based on what motivation.

Malcolm wrote:
This is just a variant of the Gelug myth there was two Padmasambhavas, one bad, one good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Language
Content:


Tao said:
Anyway it doesnt seem that all animals have idea of "self" or self-recognition, just a few with high mental capacities.

Malcolm wrote:
If they run away when threatened, they have a sense of self.

dzogchungpa said:
I don't see how that follows. I'd be surprised if they can't program robots to do at least primitive forms of that now. Just sayin'.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not the same. In order just to feel threatened, one must have a sense of self vs. other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't hate Loch Kelly. I have never met him.

I was responding to some facts which are available to anyone, since someone brought up his career.

And in any case, my lack of sympathy towards "spiritual workshop" culture is well known. These teachings, sadly have no lineage to speak of, and will never last beyond the lifetime of their promulgators, whether or not they obtain the "endorsement" of this or that famous Lama, Hindu Guru or western self-proclaimed "awakened master."

dzogchungpa said:
That's really great. I still think the thread should be moved, but it doesn't really matter.

Malcolm wrote:
It would be a better idea to the delete the thread in its entirety, since this is a forum for discussion of Buddhadharma, and not Milanese stews.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
... Caucasian Tibetan Buddhist teachers...never recognize the conceptualizing mind.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a huge overgeneralization, so huge as certainly to be false.

dzogchungpa said:
I don't know how huge it is, but it is certainly false.

Mods, since this thread seems to be turning into a "Let's All Hate On Loch Kelly" thread, perhaps it could be moved to a more appropriate forum?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't hate Loch Kelly. I have never met him.

I was responding to some facts which are available to anyone, since someone brought up his career.

And in any case, my lack of sympathy towards "spiritual workshop" culture is well known. These teachings, sadly have no lineage to speak of, and will never last beyond the lifetime of their promulgators, whether or not they obtain the "endorsement" of this or that famous Lama, Hindu Guru or western self-proclaimed "awakened master."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
... Caucasian Tibetan Buddhist teachers...never recognize the conceptualizing mind.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a huge overgeneralization, so huge as certainly to be false.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Language
Content:


Tao said:
Anyway it doesnt seem that all animals have idea of "self" or self-recognition, just a few with high mental capacities.

Malcolm wrote:
If they run away when threatened, they have a sense of self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
JAC72 said:
This is a pretty typical way to talk about whether the host can get enough people to attend for a teacher to accept an invitation to spend 5 days including travel. You can easily look at the fees on Loch’s website which are reasonable and similar to other dharma teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
I have never heard of such arrangement being required by any Dharma teacher that I know of, up to and including HH Sakya Trizin. HH Dalai Lama is a different case, because, as a former head of state, he travels with an entourage.

In my opinion, apart from travel expenses, no Dharma teacher worth their salt should have any expectation of making a profit from their teachings. Making a profit from teaching Dharma is extremely gauche. Should students wish to make donations out of their devotion to this or that teacher, this is fine. When students understand that they must collaborate together to cover expenses and so forth in order to invite a teacher, this is also fine. But to set fees with the notion that teaching 1-5 students is too few in order to spend 5 days working with them is extremely saddening.

Now of course, if one is teaching inside of an institution like Omega or Kripalu, etc., these companies set a fee structure out of which a teacher will be paid. But the idea that someone decides to teach students based on whether there are "enough" students, especially in the case of teachings derived from the Tibetan and other traditions which have traditionally circulated in small groups, is exceedingly strange.

JAC72 said:
2. Loch is a wonderful person who has mainly done clinical social work in New York City with the severely mentally ill, the homeless and families of 9/11, where he was a first responder.

Malcolm wrote:
Being a Dharma teacher has a different set of qualifications than does being a wonderful person, etc. The latter is not necessarily commensurate with the former.

Of course, people are free and they can do what they like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Well..what did he realize when he saw the morning star ?

In seeing the morning star and exclaiming, “I and all sentient beings on earth, together, attain enlightenment at the same time,”


http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Modern%20Teachers/John%20Daido%20Loori%20-%20Dharma%20Talks/Dharma%20Discourse%20Trusting%20Buddha.htm

Malcolm wrote:
This is a late Chan story. It is mot to be taken literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But more than that, the nonduality people like kelley, etc., dont have same idea of awakening as the one found in Buddhadharma.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
But didn't Buddha even say upon his Enlightenment, that everyone/everything was Enlightenend simutaneously ?
You can't get more non-dual than that...

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Buddha never said this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what one means bynthe term awakening.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
So you can be awake but not fully Enlightened ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But more than that, the nonduality people like kelley, etc., dont have same idea of awakening as the one found in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
Who care's if it's Buddhadharma or not....i don't think Awakening is intended for only Buddhists...that's why there are 84,000 gates.
I loved his beautiful smile.
And i thought he was sincere.
And i watched the whole video.


Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what one means bynthe term awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Here's an interview:

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]



I haven't watched it yet but I've often found these BATGAP interviews to be a good way to get a sense of where someone is coming from.

Malcolm wrote:
Spirituality Lite™. It's less filling!

Seriously though, his idea about awakening have nothing to do with Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, sure, since Advaita is knock off version of Yogacara Madhyamaka with an eternalist slant.

Losal Samten said:
As in Shantarakshita's YC-MA? Or you mean Yogacara's Madhyamaka exegesis. Isn't Advaita basically Yogacara with a transpersonal perfected nature?

According to this, Ratnakirti actually expressed that view; dunno if it has any basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnak%C4%ABrti

Malcolm wrote:
As in Gaudapada's Agama Shastra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 16th, 2016 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


Simon E. said:
Ok let's ask him. Did you Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, sure, since Advaita is knock off version of Yogacara Madhyamaka with an eternalist slant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Zag bcas is an adjective, emotion is a noun. Definitely a poor translation choice. But hey, since DKR is a tulku, he can ride roughshod over any language he likes, right?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
what translation? im sure he was speaking english.

Simon E. said:
But he translated from the Tibetan or used an existing translation.

gad rgyangs said:
are you saying he doesnt know the difference between a "klesha" and an "emotion"?

Malcolm wrote:
He may not. ChNN uses the term "emotion" for kleśa (nyon mongs) regularly.


OED:
Emotion:

a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others:
Monier-Williams

gad rgyangs said:
kleśa:

kleza	m. pain , affliction , distress , pain from disease , anguish S3vetUp. Mn. Ya1jn5. MBh. &c. ; (in Yoga phil. five Kles3as are named , viz. %{a-vidyA} , `" ignorance "' , %{asmi-tA} , egotism "' , %{rAga} , `" desire "' , %{dveSa} , `" aversion "' , and %{abhiniveza} , tenacity of mundane existence "' Yogas. Prab. Sarvad. ; the Buddhists reckon ten , viz. three of the body [murder , theft , adultery] , four of speech [lying , slander , abuse , unprofitable conversation] , three of the mind [covetousness , malice , scepticism] Buddh. Sarvad.) ; wrath , anger L. ; worldly occupation , care , trouble (= %{vyavasAya}) L.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Nope.


Malcolm wrote:
So which of the four do not accept? Why? Barring inadequate translation issues (like emotion = kleśa, etc.)

gad rgyangs said:
what translation? im sure he was speaking english.

Malcolm wrote:
"all afflictions are suffering" (sarvakleśasadukkham) /= "all emotions are painful"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 14th, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: What Makes You NOT A Buddhist. A reminder.
Content:
Simon E. said:
'What makes you not an informed student of the Buddhas Dharma' works just as well.

Remember that there are no 'ists' or 'isms' in Tibetan.

So Dzogchungpa,  D.K.R's four points, do you accept them or not?

dzogchungpa said:
Nope.


Malcolm wrote:
So which of the four do not accept? Why? Barring inadequate translation issues (like emotion = kleśa, etc.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 14th, 2016 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Socialism makes people selfish
Content:
conebeckham said:
Nicholas, your agenda is showing, and it's not pretty.  Further, your sources are innaccurate and flawed, and here, on this Buddhist forum, you should reflect on the Dharma which teaches cause and effect.  Socioeconomic systems in the real world, to say nothing of theoretical systems which cannot be realized, are codependently originated along with sentient beings, and are as much a result as a cause of behavior.

There are elements of socialism, and elements of free market capitalism, in all current societies.  This windmill you keep tilting at, however, does not exist, even as a functioning appearance.

Malcolm wrote:
While indeed I think our friend NIck's crusade is indeed quixotic, he does have one good point, which is that Marxist socialism has been an abject failure, and ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history, along with a lot of other bad ideas. Which is not to say that all of Marx's ideas are bad, rather the system that arose out of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kim said:
He's been studying with these rinpoche's for a few decades.

Malcolm wrote:
What does this mean?

Sorry, but at minimum, someone who is teaching Dzogchen or Mahāmudra should at least have rudimentary grasp of Tibetan. For example, we have this fellow in Sweden who has claimed he was authorized to teach Dzogchen by TUR, but when such claims are investigated, the basis upon which they are made seems to evaporite like morning mist when the sun rises.

heart said:
Sweden? You probably mean Denmark, right?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Right, but all you Scandinavians look alike.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
anjali said:
In the course of conversation with a learned man who asked about Purusha and Prakriti, Sri Bhagavan said: Purusha and Prakriti are only the bifurcation of the one Supreme.They are surmised because the student has the sense of duality deep rooted.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is completely consistent with Advaita.

anjali said:
Which is contrasted with statements like,
Unless one knows oneself as the witness, ignorance, which takes the form of the ego, will not be removed.
The apparent contradiction is resolved with teaching instructions such as,

Malcolm wrote:
Which is completely consistent with Saṃkhya and Advaita.

anjali said:
He must first discern consciousness from insentience and be the consciousness only. Later let him realise that insentience is not apart from consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Which is completely consistent with Advaita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I didn't bring it up, I was just responding to Astus.

Malcolm wrote:
Rebutting something you are not prepared to actually rebut? Well, I guess it is just the internet after all...

dzogchungpa said:
I said his statement was not correct. Why? Because I don't see how it could be established. I can provide more quotes that I feel support the idea that RM would not have accepted an "ultimate observer", but why bother? If this issue is important to you, why don't you contact an expert like David Godman? I'm sure he would respond.

Malcolm wrote:
No proper Saṃkhya or Advaitan would accept an ultimate buddhi/mahat. Buddhi, etc., is relative, and nonsentient.

Purusha, on the other hand, is a passive, disengaged "enjoyer" which "lights up" the tattvas from buddhi down to the element of earth.

When Purusha recognizes buddhi down to the element of earth as not being its own state, it takes the name Jñā, the knower.

The difference between Saṃkhya and Advaita is the Saṃkhya recognizes infinite separate puruśas, whereas Advaita recognizes only one. In both cases, puruśa is eternal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
Well, I didn't bring it up, I was just responding to Astus.

Malcolm wrote:
Rebutting something you are not prepared to actually rebut? Well, I guess it is just the internet after all...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
BTW, which Gelugpa savants conflated the two?

Malcolm wrote:
Sumpa Khenpo, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
M.: ‘Witness’ is applicable when there is an object to be seen. Then it is duality. The Truth lies beyond both. In the mantra, sakshi cheta kevalo nirgunascha, the word sakshi must be understood as sannidhi (presence), without which there could be nothing. See how the sun is necessary for daily activities. He does not however form part of the world actions; yet they cannot take place without the sun. He is the witness of the activities. So it is with the Self.
Anyway, like I said I don't want to get into an argument about it.


Malcolm wrote:
This is just standard Shaiva view, ultimately rooted in the Saṃkhya notion of Puruśa/Jñā.


People who study tenet systems and Dzogchen view properly would recognize this instantly. Frankly, people who do not study tenets and Dzogchen view in a proper frequently conflate the two, as have a number of Gelugpa savants.

Finally, if you don't want to get into arguments about this or that, don't bring it up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Very clear statements about the Dzogchen path- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
As far as a meditation instruction? All over the place iirc. I've seen the same instruction in Mahamudra writings I'm certain, heck..I think I even read some Thai Forest people and Zen people with the instruction to observe the observer, know the knower etc. Not saying it's the same thing exactly in those contexts of course...

Astus said:
Mahamudra vipasyana instruction starts with first observing the mind, then thoughts, then external phenomena. As for Zen, it is one of the first questions (huatou) given: Who is it?; or in China especially: Who is reciting the name? (i.e. asking this while chanting Namo Amituo Fo). By the way, Neo-Advaita has this method as well, particularly in Ramana's community, since they actually believe in an ultimate observer.

dzogchungpa said:
Gnothi seauton and all that. I don't want to get into a big argument about this as it is off-topic, but your statement about Ramana and his "community" is not correct.


Malcolm wrote:
Can you substantiate this? Quite frankly, many claims are made about RM, but when one reads what he has actually written on this and that subject, one gets the sense that his view does not go beyond normative Hindu tropes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
When Dharma becomes your source of income...

fckw said:
Well, that's true for pretty much all Tibetan monks and nuns, as well as for ChNN and a whole series of other highly respected teachers, isn't it?

I believe that Westerners have this odd reverse prejudice against Westerners charging money for Dharma. The idea that "it should be free" actually comes from an entirely different culture where a monastic lifestyle was in a much higher regard than it is in the West. Furthermore, it's quite well known that some mahasiddhas charged their students outrageous amounts of money for transmission of a certain teaching cycle, yet others again gave teachings to their students for free.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN has a pension.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kim said:
He's been studying with these rinpoche's for a few decades.

Malcolm wrote:
What does this mean?

Sorry, but at minimum, someone who is teaching Dzogchen or Mahāmudra should at least have rudimentary grasp of Tibetan. For example, we have this fellow in Sweden who has claimed he was authorized to teach Dzogchen by TUR, but when such claims are investigated, the basis upon which they are made seems to evaporite like morning mist when the sun rises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


Anders said:
What makes one method 'manjushri method', another 'Vajrapani' method, a third 'Tara' method and a fourth 'Vajra Dakini' method?

Malcolm wrote:
Lineage, and the disposition of the one to be tamed.

Dzogchen's use of "Samantabhadra" in a similar context makes this point fairly clear (and also that there is no relation to the mahasattva "Samantabhadra")

Anders said:
But your explanation here doesn't address the 'how and why' of what looks to me like a very deliberate ongoing correlation made between the continuum mahasattvas and the yidams correspondingly named all across the board but-not-really-deities.

Malcolm wrote:
Some people are attracted to the result, Mañjuśrī, so there is a path where one identifies as Mañjuśrī to realize that result. It is very straightforward and not at all complicated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kim said:
A person like that doesn't become new age overnight simply because the lama's permission isn't there after all.

Malcolm wrote:
A person becomes new age when, instead of teaching Dharma, they teach a sort of Milanese Stew:
He studied Buddhism with Professor Lily de Silva at the University of Kandy, Sri Lanka, Insight Meditation with Godwin Samararatne and at the Theravada monasteries, Inter-Spiritual Contemplative Meditation with Fr. Bede Griffiths and Anthony de Mello, Advaita at Sri Ramana Ashram, and Dzogchen and Mahamudra Meditation with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in Nepal.
Dzogchen and Advaita (not to mention Mahāmudra) are as incompatible as day and night.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: List five books everyone must read
Content:
Lazy Monk said:
Oh, but entertaining novels belong in the other derailed thread I started...

Agree though that Bataille was a dirty good writer. But if anyone is prepping for the dark side, I rather recommend the academic book "Serial Murderers and Their Victims", by Eric Hickey at California State University. And a book about forensic science, but only know a Norwegian book about this topic. It's certainly darker than what any novelist has managed to write.

Malcolm wrote:
But you asked for five books that everyone must read, and think these satisfy the bill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dude, you are such a pretentious guy. Stop telling other people how they should behave when you don't even have a handle on your own behavior.

smcj said:
If by suggesting that someone should seek out a traditional teacher for clarification on an important question such as this has offended people, I apologize.

Malcolm wrote:
You are being incredibly presumptuous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: List five books everyone must read
Content:


Lazy Monk said:
Malcolm, your books are too onesided and not dark enough to be considered the top five essential books for mental prepping.

Malcolm wrote:
The point was neither darkness nor mental prepping, the point was literary quality and entertainment value.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


Jeff H said:
A third ticket of Stein/Sanders (or Sanders/Stein) would have, at least, provided a realistic referendum about what Americans actually want.

Malcolm wrote:
While for the time being I am going to vote for Stein, I have serious reservations about the US Green Party's adopting "eco-socialism" as the party's political ideology. I have studied it fairly closely, and as a deep green/left biocentric, I have found that it is just green washed old-school Marxism. The policies of their leading thinkers, like the Trotskyism of the past, will lead to eco-gulags, or alternately, an Eco-Stalinism, when and if Green parties gain power, and discover again that their attempt to induce a world revolution will be confined to a single country.

If people truly value the Green parties, they must resist these regressive marxist tendencies within the environmental movement. Marxist Socialism, like Capitalism, cannot solve the problems it has created.

Queequeg said:
Can you elaborate on this? Or links?


Malcolm wrote:
http://www.gp.org/green_party_moves_towards_declaring_itself_eco_socialist:

\In a major development, the Green Party took a key step towards declaring itself Eco-socialist. The party’s National Committee voted Sunday night to approve a proposed amendment to the party’s platform entitled “Ecological Economics.” The proposed platform position declares that the Green Party is anti-capitalist and in favor of a decentralized vision socialism.

Queequeg said:
The proposal to amend the 2016 platform will go to the Green Party National Convention for a final vote. The convention will be held in Houston, Texas, August 4-7, a week after the Democratic Party’s National Convention. Almost 78 percent of the National Committee voted in favor of sending the proposal to the convention (76 voted “yes,” 22 voted “no,” with 9 voting to “abstain,” on Proposal 835).

The proposal would have the Greens go on the record, for the first time, that they want to go beyond reforms intended to make capitalism greener, in favor of a democratic and decentralized conception of green socialism. The proposal, “addresses the economic inequalities, social inequalities, and productivism of both capitalism and state socialism and emphasizes grassroots democracy in the workplace. This workplace grassroots democracy has been largely absent from the Green platform, and many believe it is the way forward for a truly ecological economy and a new system...The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices...Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions.” http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=835

Andrea Mérida Cuéllar, the National Co-Chair of Green Party, told IndyBay, “The themes of the left that we saw develop in the early parts of the 20th century are timely again because of the economic, social and environmental upheaval wrought by late-stage capitalism. Even though these themes have been co-opted by the political center, it's clear that the working class in this country is ready for revolution. As the true left discusses reform vs. revolution, the Green Party is now uniquely positioned to finally be the electoral tactic of grassroots movements ... we are now ready to finally become the party of the 99 percent and be worthy of the attention of an anti-oppressive and leftist worker cadre.”

Malcolm wrote:
The late David Orton expresses his own, milder, reservations about Ecosocialism:
David Orton on Deep Ecology and Ecosocialism

[This message was posted on the EI-Network yahoogroup on December 21, 2008. To make reading easier, I have divided several long paragraphs, but otherwise the text is unchanged. The original is here.]

Greetings ecosocialists and deep green fellow travelers:

I would like to sign on to the Belém Ecosocialist Declaration (see http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/ ), whose spirit I am very sympathetic to, but unfortunately I cannot. There is much I agree with, as for example the critique of the market assumptions of the climate change debate (unfortunately embraced by the Green Party in Canada and Elizabeth May, the current leader). Several people who I respect, because of their work for the natural world and for social justice, including some left biocentrists, have signed on to the Declaration.

I describe myself as someone on the socialist/communist side of the political spectrum. But I am also someone who has embraced the philosophy of deep ecology, first outlined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. This is the understanding that humans have to come into a fundamentally new ecocentric relationship with the natural world, which rejects a supposed human domination over nature. Nonhuman life and the Earth itself are to be valued independently of their usefulness for human purposes. Also, in order to thrive, human and nonhuman life need “a substantial decrease of the human population”, as the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform outlines.

This does not mean that I and other deep greens “hate socialism” as one of the signers of the declaration has alleged (Joel Kovel, The Enemy of Nature, second edition, p. 302). It does mean, however, that a socialist/communist perspective fundamentally influenced by deep ecology does not share some of the assumptions of this Ecosocialist Declaration.

What are some of these assumptions?

— I think the use of the term “ecosocialism” excludes options and implies that post-industrial societal models of sustainability (based on the socialist/communist tradition) already exist and can be adopted and modified. This is foolish and unfortunate Left arrogance, given the historical record. The environmental legacies of “actually existing” socialist and communist societies are quite negative. (The possible exception here would be Cuba, which has shown leadership, by example, in small plot intensive urban gardens and in developing alternatives to fossil fuel-based rural agriculture, and in the protection of the island’s natural biodiversity.)

It seems to me that “socialism” or “ecosocialism”, as a description of a future deep ecology-inspired and socially just post-capitalist society, is not adequate or inspirational. The type of future ecocentric and socially just social formations is up for discussion. There are no worked out social models that can be simply adopted. Socialism is in many ways an expression of the industrial proletariat, and while its legacy of social justice remains valid, and indeed needed for a future ecocentric society, it is not correct to say that “ecosocialism” will describe the future post-industrial ecocentric society. The features of such a society are a work in progress for all of us to engage with.

I am sympathetic to the view expressed by Saral Sarkar in his book Eco-socialism or Eco-capitalism? that “There is no contradiction between socialism and a truly ecological economy if the former can be conceived of as a non-industrial society…” (p. 5)

— Stan Rowe (1918-2004), a Canadian eco-philosopher, was also a socialist. But he noted in his writings that we are first Earthlings, part of mother Earth, and only in second place human beings. For Stan, both capitalism and socialism as social systems express the basic problem of species selfishness. As he pointed out in his first book of essays Home Place, “Neither philosophical liberalism championing liberty nor philosophical socialism championing equality will save us from ourselves. Human history will end in ecology, or nothing.” (p. 7)

The Belém Declaration is unfortunately people-centered, not Earth-centered. Where is the advocacy for wilderness preservation and other species? Nonhuman species appear to be an afterthought. Social justice for humans is of course necessary, but it must be subordinate to Earth justice for all species. As Rowe has said, although socialism and capitalism share a common “rapacious” anthropocentric view towards Earth exploitation, “socialism has the virtue of extending the circle of care beyond the selfish individual, at least turning our vision outward in the right direction.” (p. 193) But social justice for humans cannot be at the expense of the ecology. “Community” has to include not just humans but other animals, plants and the Earth itself.

— There is no mention of population reduction in the Declaration. This should be a priority for an ecocentric socially just society. It is not only wrong from a human-welfare perspective ­ there are far too many of us ­ but it shows that the habitat needs of other life forms are not considered important.

— The Declaration assumes that it is capitalism, not industrialism, which is the main problem. Left biocentrists see industrial society’s social and technological formation as the main problem, and it can have a capitalist or a socialist face.

— The Declaration assumes “full employment for all” in the new ecosocialist society. This statement conveys that the transition will be painless, and implies that production and consumption will continue. Nothing could be further from the truth. To live sustainably will mean living with much less, along with serious redistribution of wealth to those who are economically marginalized. As has been said, the ecology movement is the first social movement in history to promise a lower material standard of living.

— I feel that generally the Declaration underplays the primary contribution of the environmental and green movements, which have not, in the main, been driven by a socialist consciousness. Socialists have mainly been in the wings, not in the activist vanguard.

— The Declaration says nothing about the need for a new Earth-centered ethics, as part of a green politics, which ends the spiritual separation of most people from the natural world.

— I think that an “Anti-Capitalist Belém Declaration” would be a more appropriate and encompassing name. The endless growth and consumerism of capitalism has no respect for the ecological limits of the Earth or concern for fundamental social justice for all citizens. This could be a banner to rally a wide variety of opposition forces, and it could allow the needed discussion about the nature of a future Earth-friendly and socially just world society. This discussion is pre-empted by using the term “ecosocialist”.

The above should not convey that I am hostile to the Belém Ecosocialist Declaration, because I am not. I regard this Declaration as a positive development and wish to maintain a dialogue with those who sign the Declaration. There is not just one path forward for the Ecocentric Left. As Naess has said, “the front is long.” Perhaps the Declaration will be modified in a more Earth-centered direction at the forthcoming January 2009 meeting in Brazil, a vast country with a rich diversity of plant and animal life, as well as peoples from many ethnic and racial backgrounds.

For the Earth,
David Orton


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kim said:
What the *hell* is going on here... Someone shouts from the bushes a oneliner saying about a "misunderstanding" that Loch Kelly isn't an authorised mahamudra teacher and doesn't proof this claim in any way. And already Loch Kelly is thought of as big of a hoax as Jackson Peterson. Hello..?.

Malcolm wrote:
Let's put it this way, Kim. If someone asked me if they should study with him, I would ascertain if they were truly interested in Dharma or preferred new age workshops before issuing my recommendation. But that's just me.

Guruitis is a very serious inflammation of the brain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 12:22 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


Jeff H said:
A third ticket of Stein/Sanders (or Sanders/Stein) would have, at least, provided a realistic referendum about what Americans actually want.

Malcolm wrote:
While for the time being I am going to vote for Stein, I have serious reservations about the US Green Party's adopting "eco-socialism" as the party's political ideology. I have studied it fairly closely, and as a deep green/left biocentric, I have found that it is just green washed old-school Marxism. The policies of their leading thinkers, like the Trotskyism of the past, will lead to eco-gulags, or alternately, an Eco-Stalinism, when and if Green parties gain power, and discover again that their attempt to induce a world revolution will be confined to a single country.

If people truly value the Green parties, they must resist these regressive marxist tendencies within the environmental movement. Marxist Socialism, like Capitalism, cannot solve the problems it has created.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 12:12 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
Sounds like you have your own interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, for example, the refuge prayer of Khenpo Jigphuns treasure, the Throat Locket Kilaya begins, rang rig lha la khyabs su mchi, i.e. "I go for refuge to the deity, my own vidyā." When he explained this, he explained that the deity was nothing other than the nature of ones mind, vidyā or rig pa.


smcj said:
Other Guru-Yogas do start with your human guru, go through various levels of sophistication, and end up as you say. However even what it means for your human teacher to be the focus of Guru-Yoga is usually badly misunderstood. It's not creating a cultish fixation on his personality.

The interpretations you speak of are later stages of Guru-Yoga. If your instructor has given that to you, then fine. If not, consider verifying your understanding of the subject with him. Misapplying an interpretation in the context of your practice can be an obstacle. It's not like seeing something on a menu you like and ordering at a restaurant.

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, you are such a pretentious guy. Stop telling other people how they should behave when you don't even have a handle on your own behavior.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: List five books everyone must read
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I think the statement in that commentary should be contextualised; most likely he is referring to different tirthika philosphies (Samkhya, Advaita etc) and in the context of writing polemics in India.I think it is rather absurd if you take it literally; you end up with lamas who claim that Abhidharma cosmology must be true because it is said in the sutras and who reject modern cosmology because it is a "tirthika" thing... but Buddhists need to realise that science is just a method, a way to work with inference and induction, something which is perfectly justified even in Buddhist epistemology.

Losal Samten said:
Not to get into this, but abhidharma cosmology is perfectly viable relatively when seen via the valid cognition of pure vision

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. It is just the distorted picture of the planet Earth seen through early medieval Indian Buddhist eyes.

Pure vision and blurred vision should not be conflated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: List five books everyone must read
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
In no particular order:

I Am That - Nisargadatta
Nothing Ever Happened - David Godman
Time, Space and Knowledge - Tarthang Tulku
The Profound Treasury of the Ocean of Dharma - Chogyam Trungpa
The Mahabharata


Malcolm wrote:
Hippy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
chimechodra said:
I think I probably know the answer to this question already, but figured it can't hurt to ask:

Is Ati Guru Yoga by itself able to maintain/strengthen your connection with the guardians/dharmapalas? Or, in order to build this relationship, is more elaborate practice absolutely necessary? Obviously I do what I can when I can, but I'm not sure I've read anything speaking one way or the other about this point as it pertains to the DC specifically.

Malcolm wrote:
As ChNN says often, the protectors are in you. So yes, Guru yoga is sufficient.

Crazywisdom said:
The Protector is another name for a Buddha. Since that is one's own nature, Guru Yoga is invoking the protector.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, I am referring to dharmapālas, not the Nātha [mgon po], a title of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: List five books everyone must read
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
(Oh and Buddhahood in this Life by Panchen Vimalamitra)

Lobsang Chojor said:
Should we buy the copy translated by Malcolm Smith

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think there is another translation coming out anytime soon...so...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: List five books everyone must read
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Story of the Eye by Bataiile
Diary of a Drug Fiend by Crowley
Maldoror by Lautrement
Philosophy in the Bedroom by De Sade
Nomadology by Delueze and Gauttari

(Oh and Buddhahood in this Life by Panchen Vimalamitra)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Wisdom Books UK RIP
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Is there a connection with Wisdom Publication in Boston?

Malcolm wrote:
Many years ago. But not for a couple of decades.

Wisdom Publications is a nonprofit and sustain themselves through fundraising as much as book sales (I was an employee back in the early '90's) AFAIK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
philji said:
I have now discovered that his authorisation to teach by Mingyur Rinpoche is going to be removed from his website...a misunderstanding he says!!!!


Malcolm wrote:
Jax II


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 11th, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
philji said:
I am not too comfortable with his comments.. "I do feel that I get most everything they are pointing to and so I trying to convey but I try to update them where the practices at times seem archaic and too formal and miss the how-to pieces which I try to fill in in different ways."
As for fees well????!!!!

Kim said:
I'd recommend anyone to check out how he teaches mahamudra practices.

But for sure, there is a business interest there. He charges 7700 USD per weekend, plus flights, hotels and meals. H e said it's perfectly fine with organisers in the US. He failed to understand that in remote European countries like the one where I live, he is practically unknown so taking a financial responsibility like that wasn't something I wanted to take. In regards to his fee, there was no mention of charity projects etc.

Malcolm wrote:
That is f$&king outrageous.

Kim said:
He also mentioned his teacher, Mingyur, charges more than him. I don't know what to make of that.

Malcolm wrote:
I highly doubt that this is the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Title: Wisdom Books UK RIP
Content:
Unknown said:
Resolutions for Winding-up
WISDOM BOOKS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED

(Company Number 02425147)

Registered office: 25 Stanley Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1RW

Principal trading address: 25 Stanley Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1RW

Notice is hereby given that the following resolutions were passed on 29 June 2016 as a Special Resolution and an Ordinary Resolution respectively:

“That the Company cannot, by reason of its liabilities, continue its business, and that it is advisable to wind up the same, and accordingly that the Company be wound up voluntarily and that Lee Anthony Green and Andrew Anderson Kelsall, both of Larking Gowen, King Street House, 15 Upper King Street, Norwich, NR3 1RB, (IP Nos: 015610 and 009555) be appointed as Joint Liquidators for the purposes of such voluntary winding up.”

Further details contact: Lee Green, Email: mailto:lee.green@larking-gowen.co.uk, Andrew Kelsall, Email: mailto:andrew.kelsall@larking-gowen.co.uk, Tel: 01603 624181. Alternative contact: Kerry Horne, Email: mailto:kerry.horne@larking-gowen.co.uk

Lee Anthony Green, Liquidator

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2567056


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
I pray to you Lama Chenrezig.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because the guru, in order to introduce you to the practice of Avalokiteśvara, must generate himself as well as vase and so on, in the form of Avalokiteṥvara.

smcj said:
I pray to you Yidam Chenrezig

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because this the path the guru has introduced you to.

smcj said:
I pray to you Perfect Noble Chenrezig.
I pray to you Lord Protector Chenrezig
I pray to you Lord of Love Chenrezig
Great Compassionate Victor, please hold us with your compassion...please bestow the blessing to obtain omniscient Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because Avalokiteśvara is a tenth stage bodhisattva, who is a being who has a separate continuum from you.

But for example, Hevajra was never a bodhisattva on the paths and stages, per se, there is no being with a separate continuum "Hevajra". The Hevajra mandala is a method taught by Vajradhara in the Hevajra Tantra to the tenth stage bodhisattva Vajragarbha.

Anders said:
What then is the relationship between Avalokiteśvara the mahasattva and Avalokiteśvara the yidam? Giving them similar names would imply shared identity on some level.

Malcolm wrote:
I explained this above already, but again: Avalokiteśvara the mahasattva is an independent being with his own continuum. Avalokiteśvara the yidam the is the means by which oneself may realize that same state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Loch Kelly
Content:
Kim said:
I
I invited him to teach in my country too but once he informed me of his fee demands all I could say was, "That's not OK for any dharma teacher". He got offended and never replied to me again.

Malcolm wrote:
[P]ermitting someone with gifts in the gate,
stopping the one without gifts outside the gate–
supporting relatives by feeding them with devotional offerings;
Also leave great meditator’s Dharma and go!
— Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
chimechodra said:
I think I probably know the answer to this question already, but figured it can't hurt to ask:

Is Ati Guru Yoga by itself able to maintain/strengthen your connection with the guardians/dharmapalas? Or, in order to build this relationship, is more elaborate practice absolutely necessary? Obviously I do what I can when I can, but I'm not sure I've read anything speaking one way or the other about this point as it pertains to the DC specifically.

Malcolm wrote:
As ChNN says often, the protectors are in you. So yes, Guru yoga is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Miphamfan said:
smcj, this is what Padmasambhava himself said.

smcj said:
If I may ask, do you have a traditional meditation instructor?

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahha. Don't be a ninny. Of course he does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 12:37 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But for example, Hevajra was never a bodhisattva on the paths and stages, per se, there is no being with a separate continuum "Hevajra". The Hevajra mandala is a method taught by Vajradhara in the Hevajra Tantra to the tenth stage bodhisattva Vajragarbha.

Fa Dao said:
ok, so how does Dorje Drolo fit into all of this Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
Drollo is a manifestation of Guru P. Drollo is also a yidam. They are not the same thing. The former is the result; the later is a path. Yidam practice is the method of taking the result as the path.

Hevajra, for example, is a heruka. Vajradhara manifested as Hevajra in order to tame the eight worldly gods. In this respect, Hevajra represents the result. Practicing Hevajra as a yidam is the path, in this case too, the result is taken as the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
That is a nice thing for you to say.

That said, I still say you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps, SMCJ, it is better for you to be a practitioner rather than a teacher giving explanations.

smcj said:
I am raising questions and encouraging people to seek out traditional teachers to answer them. That is a far cry from appointing myself teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, appeals to authority are just not the Buddhist way, without being backed up by citation and reasoning. Otherwise, it just amounts to gossip.

The funny thing is, everything I stated, all my opinions, are grounded in traditional teachings. Actually, I am a much more traditional practitioner than you. I don't mix any western ideas or tendencies into my Dharma practice. Zero.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
I have an enormous amount of respect for Malcolm's accomplishments. And I have huge regard for his sincerity. Those two things form a firm basis for a practice. However I disagree with many of his interpretations, which should be obvious over many threads.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a nice thing for you to say.

That said, I still say you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps, SMCJ, it is better for you to be a practitioner rather than a teacher giving explanations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Simon E. said:
Dont you know Dzogchungpa?

dzogchungpa said:
In general, no, but believe it or not, the question was raised at the first major empowerment I attended. At first the Lama himself was unsure, but it seems the answer is black in this case.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the Yidam. Śākyamuni's eyes are blue. But often enough, they are black.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
I pray to you Lama Chenrezig.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because the guru, in order to introduce you to the practice of Avalokiteśvara, must generate himself as well as vase and so on, in the form of Avalokiteṥvara.

smcj said:
I pray to you Yidam Chenrezig

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because this the path the guru has introduced you to.

smcj said:
I pray to you Perfect Noble Chenrezig.
I pray to you Lord Protector Chenrezig
I pray to you Lord of Love Chenrezig
Great Compassionate Victor, please hold us with your compassion...please bestow the blessing to obtain omniscient Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because Avalokiteśvara is a tenth stage bodhisattva, who is a being who has a separate continuum from you.

But for example, Hevajra was never a bodhisattva on the paths and stages, per se, there is no being with a separate continuum "Hevajra". The Hevajra mandala is a method taught by Vajradhara in the Hevajra Tantra to the tenth stage bodhisattva Vajragarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


Anders said:
To be honest, the emphasis I catch from this thread is very much of a 'po po if you take the deity to be real' in a way much stronger than you'd ever see for all our casual, but far less skilful, 'reals' like 'myself', 'my family', etc. If it's ok to treat those as conventionally real, surely the same rule applies to the deity in roughly similar measure?


Malcolm wrote:
No, a Yidam is not a sentient being possessing its own continuum. It is a method, that is all. People who do not understand this point, whether Tibetan or Western, do not understand Vajrayāna.

In other words, yidams exist as methods, but not as sentient beings. There is no external Kalacakra existing somewhere whom we petition for blessings when we do a Kalacakra sadhana.

M

smcj said:
Yidams are Sambogakaya expressions of enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
If you mean a yidam is a method taught by the Sambhogakāya, sure, no problem.

The problem here, is that you are not properly distinguishing what is a method and what is not.

For example, when Buddha demonstrated to King Indrabhuti the Guhyasamaja Mandala, that mandala display was being demonstrated as a method to Indrabhuti. It was not being displayed as some external being to whom Indrabhuti was supposed to make offerings and petition for blessings. It was being shown to Indrabhuti to illustrate the pure appearances of the aggregates, sense bases and sense elements of Indrabhuti's own continuum. The latter understood this, and attained Buddhahood on the spot, and in turn, taught the Guhyasamaja Mandala to his kingdom. This can be applied to all instances of the communication of yidam methods in the tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


Anders said:
To be honest, the emphasis I catch from this thread is very much of a 'po po if you take the deity to be real' in a way much stronger than you'd ever see for all our casual, but far less skilful, 'reals' like 'myself', 'my family', etc. If it's ok to treat those as conventionally real, surely the same rule applies to the deity in roughly similar measure?


Malcolm wrote:
No, a Yidam is not a sentient being possessing its own continuum. It is a method, that is all. People who do not understand this point, whether Tibetan or Western, do not understand Vajrayāna.

In other words, yidams exist as methods, but not as sentient beings. There is no external Kalacakra existing somewhere whom we petition for blessings when we do a Kalacakra sadhana.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
I assume you guys are hip to the fact that HHDL consults an oracle, right?  That entails a man going into a trance and being possessed by some sort of spirit. It's not an enlightened deity, just some sort of spirit-thingy. The spirit gives HHDL cryptic predictions.

Malcolm wrote:
A worldly protector like the Nechung oracle (Dorje Dragden) is a sentient being continuing in samsara. Nechung is not a Yidam.

A transcendent protector like Mahākala is a sentient being who is beyond samsara. When you make offerings to him, you are making offerings to an external entity. Mahākala also has yidam practices.

But when you practice Mahākala as a yidam, in this case, one is not making offerings and so on to an external being, one is using Mahākala as a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
haha said:
Nairatma is a deity; a method to recognize their own mind. But Yogeswor Virupa received empowerment and guidance from her.

Malcolm wrote:
The Nairatma from whom Virupa received teachings is clearly stated to have been a nirmanakāya, in other words, a human woman.

haha said:
The version have heard or read said that the Nairatma appeared in his dream.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, she appeared in his dream after he tossed his mala in the toilet, but he recieved empowerment and so on the following day from the nimanakaya Nairatma whom he met in person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


conebeckham said:
Malcolm, if I recall, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa conversed directly with Padmasambhava.  In dreams? Or in waking life?

Malcolm wrote:
Both. His communication with Padmasambhava was part of his own experiential vision. But he also was a person who was highly realized bodhisattva (IMO) on the paths and stages, and so his vision was not confined to the (impure) nirmanakāya level of perception, as is ours.

But if you ever told him his experience of Padmasambhava was real, he would have had a good chuckle at that notion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
haha said:
Nairatma is a deity; a method to recognize their own mind. But Yogeswor Virupa received empowerment and guidance from her.

Malcolm wrote:
The Nairatma from whom Virupa received teachings is clearly stated to have been a nirmanakāya, in other words, a human woman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 11:16 AM
Title: Re: Perdurabo - biography of Aleister Crowley
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm not really sure why you say that.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I am afraid that you never will.

dzogchungpa said:
Jeez, what is this, Hate On Dzogchungpa Day?

Well, I like to read about stuff and if you were actually familiar with the fairly large number of memoirs available concerning Gurdjieff and his students, I doubt you would consider them to have been crashing bores. .

Malcolm wrote:
Virtually everyone is a crashing bore when you get right down to it.



dzogchungpa said:
Surely not the "awesome" Crowley.


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, uncle Al had his moments, but if you have never read his autobiography, you really ought to -- he dictated it to his mistress while usimg extraordinary amounts of cocaine. It is really hilarious, ego-inflated, outrageous and generally entertaining.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


smcj said:
So let us go through it by the numbers with the guru, who is obviously a separate human being from us, and come to an understanding of how it can truly be said that one's mind is the guru. Then we can plug that definition back into the idea of a Yidam.

Malcolm wrote:
Yidams are not beings. They are a kind of method. That's all. That method must be received from a guru. If you don't receive a yidam from a guru, you cannot practice it at all.

Kelwin said:
And just to be completely clear, how do we reconcile that with their historical appearing?


Malcolm wrote:
I suggest you read some Tantras. Then you will understand perfectly the origin of this and that yidam. In short, Vajradhara taught these yidam practices as methods.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Perdurabo - biography of Aleister Crowley
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I like to read about stuff and if you were actually familiar with the fairly large number of memoirs available concerning Gurdjieff and his students, I doubt you would consider them to have been crashing bores. .

Malcolm wrote:
Virtually everyone is a crashing bore when you get right down to it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Perdurabo - biography of Aleister Crowley
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm not really sure why you say that.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I am afraid that you never will.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


smcj said:
So let us go through it by the numbers with the guru, who is obviously a separate human being from us, and come to an understanding of how it can truly be said that one's mind is the guru. Then we can plug that definition back into the idea of a Yidam.

Malcolm wrote:
Yidams are not beings. They are a kind of method. That's all. That method must be received from a guru. If you don't receive a yidam from a guru, you cannot practice it at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
As a Shentongpa, I understand that the emptines the deity arises from as being empty of anything other than Buddha Qualities.

Malcolm wrote:
And therefore, you invalidate the path...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2016 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, who gives a flying f%#k what some Tibetan says.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess it would depend on the Tibetan.

Malcolm wrote:
It very much would, indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
The point of the completion stage is to eliminate the idea that the deity you imagine yourself as is real.
So since you don't think it's real before you start does that mean you don't need to do the completion stage?

Malcolm wrote:
The creation stage and completion stage, ideally, are merged from the start. However, to directly address your question, the issue is not real/unreal, the issue is impure/pure. The creation stage exists to break attachment to impure appearances, that's all. Nothing more. The completion exists to break attachments to pure appearances, nothing more.

Further, this is the point of starting out from emptiness. The deity arises from emptiness. That means even at the beginning of the practice you must realize the deity is unreal. If you do not realize from the start that the deity is unreal, the process of transforming your vision from impure to pure will never happen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, there is no deity, just as there is no person. All of these methods are just skillful means to cut clinging to impure appearances by training in pure appearances.

The point of the completion stage is to eliminate the idea that the deity you imagine yourself as is real. This is why you dissolve the deity into the state of emptiness at the end of a sadhana. Why? Impure appearances are not are real and pure appearances are not real.

smcj said:
So therefore you conclude that you do not have to believe that the deity is present during practice. This is a classic example of why I've been saying that it is necessary to go ask a Tibetan. I don't think anything you just said, while technically correct, mitigates the need for faith and believing in the presence of a deity.--at all. Ultimately, there is no deity, just as there is no person
As I've said, the higher teachings can become a refuge from Dharma for the quasi-secular.

Flip that around: just as there is a person, there is a deity, which is exactly what Chime R. was quoted as saying: "Tara is as real as you are".

Hey, kick back and enjoy the show. Let people ask Tibetans like I said. Let's see if Tibetans say that there is no need to believe that the deity is present. Who knows, maybe some will agree with you?

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, who gives a flying f%#k what some Tibetan says.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 12:15 PM
Title: Re: Perdurabo - biography of Aleister Crowley
Content:
Wayfarer said:
There are plenty of counter-cultural figures I like and admire. I have even discovered a magician, John Michael Greer, a Druid, whom I think is really interesting and worth knowing about (blog http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au ) . Always had a bit of time for Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (albeit no contact with the schools). But Crowley gives me the creeps. 'Beware the dark side, Luke'.

Malcolm wrote:
Gurdjieff was a lightweight. Crowley, despite his many flaws, actually understood yoga, Etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


smcj said:
What I believe is incorrect is:
Malcolm wrote:
You do not have to believe a deity is present — that is dualistic. You have to be the deity.

smcj said:
If no deity is present, there is nothing for you to become.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, there is no deity, just as there is no person. All of these methods are just skillful means to cut clinging to impure appearances by training in pure appearances.

The point of the completion stage is to eliminate the idea that the deity you imagine yourself as is real. This is why you dissolve the deity into the state of emptiness at the end of a sadhana. Why? Impure appearances are not are real and pure appearances are not real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think that Tibetans did not import their own cultural prejudices and misinterpretations?

smcj said:
Because their culture has been saturated with Vajrayana for over a millennia.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you clearly have spent absolutely no time reading Vajrayāna polemics if you imagine there is some uniform, correct, vetted, curated, massaged, Tibetan view of Vajrayāna practice.

In fact, the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism disagree with each other over Vajrayāna practice even more than they disagree with each other over sūtra teachings like Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
...and then say, "So all that means that I don't have to believe that there is a deity actually present when I do sadhana, right?"

Malcolm wrote:
You do not have to believe a deity is present — that is dualistic. You have to be the deity.

Sadly, it is quite useless conversing with you, because you just misinterpret what everyone says and make really off the wall remarks.

smcj said:
The thrust of what I am saying is go to ask a Dharma question of an authority that lacks any possibility of corruption due to cultural prejudice and misinterpretation. At the very least that will encourage people to have active communication with the living tradition of Dharma. You should be joining me in encouraging people to do that.

Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think that Tibetans did not import their own cultural prejudices and misinterpretations?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
...and then say, "So all that means that I don't have to believe that there is a deity actually present when I do sadhana, right?"

Malcolm wrote:
You do not have to believe a deity is present — that is dualistic. You have to be the deity.

Sadly, it is quite useless conversing with you, because you just misinterpret what everyone says and make really off the wall remarks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2016 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
No. Tibetans have a different culture than we do. The way they hear and understand Dharma is different than what we hear. If you ask a Tibetan if the deities are real and you ask a Westerner if the deities are real, you will get two different answers. Since the topic at hand is how to understand the deities in the original context, the proper procedure is to ask an expert that has not corrupted the teachings with their quasi-secular interpretations that misapply the higher teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Lets see, who has corrupted what teachings with interpretation. Please be specific.

smcj said:
So I proudly say again, with absolutely no qualms about being accused of racism, that in order to get the correct answer people should ask a lama of Tibetan heritage so as to not get a corrupted answer.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, because other people who have practiced as long or longer don't know shit.

smcj said:
The simplest way I can think to ask the question is, "Should I believe that the dieiy is actually present when I do my sadhana practice?" Then when the answer is yes say,"But aren't they all the nature of emptiness? (Or non-duality, or provisional, or nature of my own mind, or whatever your favorite idea that discounts their nature might be) The answer will be yes. So then go back and say, "So therefore I do not have to believe they are really present when I do my practice." Let me know what your Tibetan lama says.

Malcolm wrote:
When you do the sadhana, you are supposed to be the deity, it is not actually conceived as some external entity to which you are making an appeal. For example, when one makes offerings, prostrations and praises in a sadhana to whom is one making offerings, prostrations and praises? One is making offerings, prostrations and praises to oneself as the deity.

You arrogantly have elected yourself the defender of the tradition against what you perceive to be corrupting influences, but as far as I can tell, you have not actually understood the tradition you imagine you are defending.


smcj said:
...someone will have gone to the effort to have contact with the living tradition of the Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that I am someone who was appointed by a real, live Tibetan to be an Ācarya within the Sakya school, and someone who was entitled Lama connected with a Nyingma monastery (Donak Tharling) by another, real live Tibetan? And yet, somehow you seek to cast aspersion on us all who actually made connections with the living tradition of Vajrayāna because we don't accept your very skewed ideas of what this tradition states.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
And, as far as this thread is concerned, I'd like to see the question posed to Tibetan lamas that were raised and trained in Tibet over the ones in India too.

dzogchungpa said:
I've heard Anam Thubten, who meets this criterion, address this question. His answer was a bit more subtle than what I've heard so far on DW.


Malcolm wrote:
Don't be a tease, do tell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Ancient Chinese Flood
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Evidence that it did happen, not just a legend:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a22195/scientists-confirm-truth-ancient-chinese-flood/

Malcolm wrote:
You are connecting this event to Noah's Ark?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
That's the reason why I say ask an Asian.

Malcolm wrote:
Your fan boyism for "Asian Lamas" is not charming, and it is pretty racist, actually.

smcj said:
Actually you are even worse. You not only specify Tibetan lamas as being superior, but Tibetans that are still in Tibet above the ones in India. And, as far as this thread is concerned, I'd like to see the question posed to Tibetan lamas that were raised and trained in Tibet over the ones in India too. But that is putting too far out of reach and it might be interpreted as avoiding getting an answer.

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is still the case that there are more realized Tibetans in Tibet than in India. For example, when is the last time you ever heard of a rainbow body in India?  (Answer: never).

But my point, simply put, it this: there is nothing magical about Tibetans educated in the monasteries that renders their understanding of the two stages and so on necessarily superior to the understanding of the same among say, Chinese, American or Europeans. It really depends on the person. I have met many "Lamas" who are quite ignorant of the principles behind the rituals they practice. When I say your point of view is racist it is because unwittingly you are invoking the trope of the "Asian sage."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
That's the reason why I say ask an Asian.

Malcolm wrote:
Your fan boyism for "Asian Lamas" is not charming, and it is pretty racist, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Perdurabo - biography of Aleister Crowley
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Why would a Buddhist admire a satanist?

Malcolm wrote:
He was a very interesting person. Definitely not a saint, but who needs saints? Saints are boring.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
But in any case ask an Asian lama. Make sure they understand you don't accept thar the deities are actually present when you practice. See what they say.

Malcolm wrote:
You seem, erroneously, to think that merely because one understands that in the process of the creation stage yidams are conceptual, mental constructs (which are generated and dismantled), that this also means one thinks that there are no sentient beings who, relatively speaking, mounted the paths and stages, no beings that swore themselves to the protection of Dharma and so on, no beings that taught methods of the two stages, etc.

It is your failure to make this distinction yourself that is the root of your confusion and the reason why you keep making up faults in others where none exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


smcj said:
A while ago I introduced the idea of Shentong here at DW...

Malcolm wrote:
You flatter yourself, and it isn't true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Perdurabo - biography of Aleister Crowley
Content:


MiphamFan said:
His reputation as a "black" magician is vastly overstated, partly because he himself loved the notoriety and also because cultural Christianity was stronger then. His magic is no more or less objectionable than that of different tirthika tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
Crowley was awesome.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
No doubt due to the intense, rather public, squabbling of a certain group of dimwits.

Malcolm wrote:
Specifically one dimwit who took the Maharshi epithet as ChNN's endorsement of the same.

dzogchungpa said:
Which one was that?

Malcolm wrote:
Mustang Cave...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Oh, that! But that book is not a presentation of Rinpoche's teachings. Furthermore the offending material was not "slipped in" to anything but rather was chosen as an epigraph for the book by one of the translators...

Malcolm wrote:
And withdrawn in the next edition...

dzogchungpa said:
No doubt due to the intense, rather public, squabbling of a certain group of dimwits.

Malcolm wrote:
Specifically one dimwit who took the Maharshi epithet as ChNN's endorsement of the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Is Tobacco an obstacle to practice?
Content:
Sādhaka said:
There's a story about a Lama who took a student's  cigarette, took a drag, and blew smoke from his skin pores, and then said (paraphrased) 'When you can do this, then you can smoke without any problems'.

Malcolm wrote:
It was Dudjom Lingpa, and he used tobacco regularly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
I just don't think poo-pooing the idea of not killing, etc., simply because it can be viewed as a "vow," is actually productive.

Malcolm wrote:
The point I am addressing, and it is a very normative view in Buddhism, is that taking vows makes our virtue more virtuous. But this is actually quite silly if you really put on your thinking cap.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
When was that?

florin said:
The marvelous primordial state.

dzogchungpa said:
Oh, that! But that book is not a presentation of Rinpoche's teachings. Furthermore the offending material was not "slipped in" to anything but rather was chosen as an epigraph for the book by one of the translators...

Malcolm wrote:
And withdrawn in the next edition...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
But the first three are pretty indispensable, and I'd be highly skeptical of any Buddhist who saw refraining from killing, stealing, and lying (even without officially holding vows against them) as erroneous behaviors.

Malcolm wrote:
He does not kill, he does not steal, and he does not lie. So for what reason does he need vows to refrain from these actions?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: family line versus reincarnation
Content:
Jeff H said:
Materiality cannot arise from consciousness and consciousness cannot arise from materiality...

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, Vasubandhu maintains that matter arises from consciousness, and this is a standard position in Buddhadharma from Sautrantika all the way to Dzogchen.

Jeff H said:
I appreciate the correction, but I thought that was just a Cittamatrin view. Perhaps I am over-interpolating what Geshe Tashi Tsering wrote:
Geshe Tashi said:
There is a very close connection between mind and body. But there is no way one can replace the other or be transformed into the other. Mind cannot become material and material cannot become mind. Mind is mere experience, nothing more, and experience is not the same as brain function. There is nothing physical about it at all. It is supported by the physical – the eye consciousness is supported by our physical eye and the nerves etc. – but the mind itself is mere clarity and knowing. No more than that. This is a very important point.

Jeff H said:
I think you’re saying that even though mind is completely non-material and matter is completely non-experiential, so that they cannot transform into one another, nevertheless matter originally arose from consciousness.

Assuming I got that specific point wrong, does it negate my general point, that family lineage is derived from a process of physical causality and rebirth refers to the karmic process of mental causality? In other words, birth is the merging of these two different processes, and rebirth refers to the continuity of mental moments being re-associated with different forms.

Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple. From consciousness arises space; from space, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; and from water, earth.

The reality of it is the consciousness and matter are completely inseparable. This substance dualism that some Western Buddhists latch onto is not at all the intention of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
The lama HHK 16 assigned to our center told me that from the time he was a toddler his parents told him that the 3 Jewels would never fail him. So according to you his parents ruined him as a practitioner!

As an example of his faith, here's a story. He went on retreat in 1948, well before there were problems. The first he knew that there was something wrong was when the Chinese attacked his monastery. He broke down his cell door to find explosions, gunfire, flames, screams and death. So after 11 years of retreat, with no riot warning whatsoever of an immanent life and death crisis, how did he react? Did he take the Mahamudra approach and say, "It's all mind"? No. He said to himself "The 3 Jewels will not fail me" and took off running. No provisions, no planning, just faith and his feet.

I get one story from the teachers of my lineage and a different story from you. Hmmmm....

Malcolm wrote:
What about all the people murdered by the Chinese who also took refuge in the Three Jewels? No higher power helped them. And no higher power helped your lama friend. He escaped because he had two legs and luck.


smcj said:
The way to have direct experience is to work with a guru from whom one can receive direct introduction. That's the point.
Well, yes, if that's appropriate for your karma. However very few people are karmically ripe enough for that to work. That is true even if they have acces to an authentic Dzogchen master.

Malcolm wrote:
It may be the case that not everyone has the karma to meet Dzogchen teachings, that I can accept. But, every person who has the karma to meet Dzogchen teachings and is interested enough to pursue them has the capacity for them — which is proven by their interest in them to begin with. In Dzogchen teachings we do not make a distinction between sharp and dull in faculties.

smcj said:
That is why Ati is normally taught by most Dzogchen teachers as the 9th yana.

Malcolm wrote:
Ati (the path of self-liberation) is taught as a ninth vehicle to contrast it with the vehicles of cause (paths of renunciation) and result (paths of transformation), not because it is the result of a gradual progression through the nine yānas. However, this is a common misunderstanding even promulgated widely in the Nyingma school.


cone said:
Two Stages are somehow "lesser."
Basically, the position of ancient Dzogchen masters in India such as Śṛī Siṃha is that the creation stage is unnecessary.
Would it be accurate to say that this position is something of an outlier?

Malcolm wrote:
Śṛī Siṃha was the Dzogchen guru of Padmasambhava, Vairocana and Vimalamitra. So, I think we can say with certainty that this is the normative position of Dzogchen teachings. As I mentioned before, it is not the case that it is impossible to realize Dzogchen through deity practice, as Mañjuśrīmitra notes, however, deity yoga is not necessary on the Dzogchen path, and moreover, as Padmasambhava states in the Khandro Nyinthig, developing a detailed samadhi of a deity is completely unnecessary. It is sufficient to merely think you are the deity, that's it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: family line versus reincarnation
Content:
Jeff H said:
Materiality cannot arise from consciousness and consciousness cannot arise from materiality...

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, Vasubandhu maintains that matter arises from consciousness, and this is a standard position in Buddhadharma from Sautrantika all the way to Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
It's a lot simpler than that.

Basically Malcolm (and a few others) don't like or accept anything like a "higher power" or the idea of faith.


Malcolm wrote:
Faith is fine; but you are right, I think the idea of a 'higher power" is horse shit. It does not belong in Buddhadharma. Buddhahood is not given from outside, it is discovered inside.

There are three kinds of faith. I don't accept the kind of blind faith you advocate, and no practitioner should.

smcj said:
The way to transition from outer to inner to direct experience requires faith. That's the point.

Malcolm wrote:
The way to have direct experience is to work with a guru from whom one can receive direct introduction. That's the point.

cone said:
Two Stages are somehow "lesser."

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the position of ancient Dzogchen masters in India such as Śṛī Siṃha is that the creation stage is unnecessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:


smcj said:
Nothing is accepted as definitive by everybody, not even Dzogchen view.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. On the other hand, people who do not understand Dzogchen teachings will not consider them definitive. Meanwhile, everyone who does, does.

dzogchungpa said:
It must be really great to understand Dzogchen teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
However the Uttaratantra is considered definitive.

Malcolm wrote:
By some, not by others And definitely it is not definitive with respect to Dzogchen teachings.

smcj said:
Nothing is accepted as definitive by everybody, not even Dzogchen view.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. On the other hand, people who do not understand Dzogchen teachings will not consider them definitive. Meanwhile, everyone who does, does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
The Uttaratantra says that the Buddha Activity is ceaseless, and that it is only our karmic limitations that do not allow us to see it.

Malcolm wrote:
And from a relative [deluded] point of view, this is all fine.

smcj said:
However the Uttaratantra is considered definitive.

Malcolm wrote:
By some, not by others And definitely it is not definitive with respect to Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Kelwin said:
To what degree then does the relative cease to exist, when we realise the absolute?

Malcolm wrote:
If the relative ceased to exist, this would be annihilationism. If the relative arose, this would be eternalism. As the Guhyagarbha Tantra states:
E ma ho, what an amazing wonderful Dharma!
The secret of all perfect buddhas
is that everything arises from nonarising, 
when it arose it did not arise.

Kelwin said:
Right, so what is the problem with divine beings teaching compassion or pointing out the absolute? Or, blessing our practice for that matter?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing wrong with it at all, as long as you understand it is all a delusion, a mistaken perception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
The Uttaratantra says that the Buddha Activity is ceaseless, and that it is only our karmic limitations that do not allow us to see it.

Malcolm wrote:
And from a relative [deluded] point of view, this is all fine.

Kelwin said:
To what degree then does the relative cease to exist, when we realise the absolute?

Malcolm wrote:
If the relative ceased to exist, this would be annihilationism. If the relative arose, this would be eternalism. As the Guhyagarbha Tantra states:
E ma ho, what an amazing wonderful Dharma!
The secret of all perfect buddhas
is that everything arises from nonarising, 
it did not arise when it arose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And who wrote the preface?

dzogchungpa said:
Now, now guys, there's no need to make an Aunt Sally of poor smcj.

Since ChNN and Tara have come up, I thought you all might enjoy reading this passage from his preface to "Guru Arya Tara and Her Twenty-One Praises": Across cultures and eras in this human experience, we have sensed the existence of a force or fundamental energy that we have come to represent in the form of various female divinities. The ancient people of Shang Shung, for example, recognised this energy by the name Namchi Kungyal, the Grandmother or Ancestor Queen of Heaven. The central female divinity in the pre-Buddhist Bon pantheon, Loving Mother or Chamma, is very similar to Arya Tara in the Buddhist tradition. The American Indians and Australian Aborigines still call this force Mother Earth; the ancient Greeks called it Athena and the ancient Egyptians Great Mother.

The external forms embodying this divine energy are just as diverse as the names and characteristics attributed to it in cultures throughout time. While some populations, such as American Indians and Australian Aborigines, have maintained their ancient traditions throughout processes of change and evolution, others have modified or substituted their ancient religious systems, identifying the essence of this force or energy with a saint or divinity.

One of the most widely known personifications of this maternal and generative energy is found in the Christian tradition, venerated in the form of Mary, considered the Mother of Christ and later called Our Lady or the Madonna, particularly in Latin countries.

The cult of St. Sophia is a good example of the evolution of an ancient religious system. In ancient Greece, sophia, wisdom, was initially one of the chief attributes of the goddess Athena. Later, this quality was personified in a female saint by the same name. The ancient tradition also personified wisdom in female form, for example in the Mahayana, with Yum Chenmo, the Great Mother, the source of al the tathatagas or buddhas.
...
Whether we consider her a goddess, saint, or buddha, and by whatever name we call her, the Great Mother is the compassionate wisdom that nurtures us on the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
Malcolm doesn't buy that.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither does Mipham:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparition, while a false appearance, appears to the deluded, similar to an illusion.
And the Buddha states in the PP Sūtra in 8,000 lines, etc:
Son of a good family, the tathāgatas neither come nor go. Son of a good family, for example, an illusory group of elephants, group of horses, group of chariots, or group of soldiers neither come nor go. Son of a good family, the kāya of the tathāgata also neither comes nor goes. 

Son of a good family, for example, a person who has gone to sleep sees one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty tathāgatas or more in his dream; but when he awakes from sleep he does not even see one tathāgata. 

Son of a good family, what do you think? From where do those tathāgatas come? To where do they go? Sadaprarudita, son of a good family, the phenomena in a dream are not established. Dreams are false, they are not real.
If the previous two statements are understood properly, one will understand all the key points of creation and completion stage. In other words, creation stage is the dream, waking is the completion stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and bon
Content:
philji said:
If one has taken refuge in three jewels, is it breaking one's refuge vow to practice teachings within Bon, such as given online by Tenzin WNgyal Rinpoche which may be useful for healing?

Malcolm wrote:
Many sectarian lamas will say so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
You advocate that we should not make up our own version of Dharma. Since HHST is the head of your sect, and your view is not compatible with his, you might want to reconsider you opinions on this matter.

Malcolm wrote:
I am certain my point of view is compatible both with HHST and ChNN, despite whatever conciliatory things they say to those who are transitioning to Buddhadharma and have unresolved doubts.

Second, I don't belong to a school, not Sakya, not Nyingma, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
Regardless of the semantics (and I'd like to point out how the focus here has been on the offensive word with its root of "theism"), HHST is clearly affirming that that "a divine compassion or a divine wisdom, manifest in the form of a deity" is part of the tradition. However you want to characterize that, with or without an English word with a root of "theism", that idea is part of Buddhadharma. He is not ambiguous about the idea at all.

Malcolm wrote:
God isn't anything at all since it does not exist (like the son of a barren women, etc.). As I said, these kinds of statements are for the benefit of ex-theists like yourself who are struggling with absence of God in Buddhadharma.

You wonder about my background: I was not raised in any religion, was never baptized, and my parents are confirmed atheists. I have only been to a Christian service three time in my life, all as an adult: High Episcopalian Xmas masses twice, and a Congregationalist service.

I remain bewildered at why people need such a concept in their lives. And since there is no concept in any traditional Buddhadharma text, I really fail to see why it is so hard to understand that HHST and ChNN are attempting to speak to those people from theistic backgrounds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
I guess these guys don't understand their traditions either. They need to join DW so that they can get straightened out.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are the one who needs straightening out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
I am discussing what is taught by the tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
You are discussing your impressions of some tradition you think you understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
The Uttaratantra says that the Buddha Activity is ceaseless, and that it is only our karmic limitations that do not allow us to see it.

Malcolm wrote:
And from a relative [deluded] point of view, this is all fine.

smcj said:
I do have an antipathy towards the importation of theism into our religion.
Ah yes, the old bugaboo "theism". And the reason for that antipathy would be because...?

Malcolm wrote:
It does not belong in Buddhadharma. It is an outsider tenet.

smcj said:
And if so, why did you not use your editorial discretion and correct HHST's quotation in that book? Is it because you would have had to communicate that decision to him and you knew it would not fly?

Malcolm wrote:
I contributed to Treasures of the Sakya Lineage, but I did not edit it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
But compassion and wisdom in Buddhadharma does not come from a god. It flows out of the empathy and understanding of human beings, and is perfected in the case of a buddha.
Uh huh. And once someone becomes a Buddha does all that go to waste? Or is a Buddha actually able to benefit being's? After all, the entire point in becoming a Buddha is to benefit others.

Malcolm wrote:
As Garab Dorje's disciple, Mañjuśrimitra wrote:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.

In other words, the appearance of a buddha working for the benefit of sentient beings is delusion from our side.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
However Malcolm spins this to mean: There is no divine compassion or wisdom apart from the nature of the mind.
Which is quasi-secular.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing secular, quasi or otherwise, about my statement.

smcj said:
It is am importation of an antipathy towards religion learned from our culture, and not found in Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
I am have no antipathy towards religion, I belong to one (Buddhism, nominally speaking). I do have an antipathy towards the importation of theism into our religion.

And by the way, there were and are plenty of Tibetans who did not and do not give a shit about Dharma. Your continued insistence that Tibetans are all devout Buddhists is just Shangrilaism, or a species of orientialism ala Said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
All Trump had to do was go after Clinton for the next 90 some odd days...


Malcolm wrote:
And all Clinton has to do is keep trotting out surrogates to bait him into responding like the ass he truly is and walla:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
chimechodra said:
I don't think what Malcolm is doing here is "spinning the teachings to be quasi-secular" in any way...

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not. There is nothing secular about rebirth, karma, samsara, the three kāyas, rainbow bodies, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
smcj said:
Headlines read that the GOP wants to do an intervention. Swell. Suppose he wins, then what? Are they going to be doing interventions during an international crisis when he's POTUS?
The GOP source insisted that there was no real movement yet to prepare for Trump exiting the race -- a step that would be unprecedented in modern politics. But the source also noted that if the billionaire did quit before September 1, it would be theoretically possible for the GOP to come up with a nominee who could get on the ballot in enough states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/donald-trump-campaign-disarray/

You just can't make this stuff up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, with all due respect, you are quite far from being my main source of information in this area.

Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect, who cares?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
As I said earlier in this thread, the problem of the higher teachings taken out of context of the lower teachings is that they can be spun to be quasi-secular.

dzogchungpa said:
I think I understand your concern. What's wanted is a kind of "religionless religion", a phrase which btw appears to have been coined by Rajneesh.

Online, people often err on the religionless side but in practice, I don't think it's much of a problem.

Malcolm wrote:
I am pretty happy with the religion the Buddhas taught (——>afflictions——> karma ——> suffering ——>). What I am not interested in is Western attempts to recast Buddhadharma as a theism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The usage "to impute upon" is many centuries old, and is found in the works of Samuel Coleridge, etc.

Matibhadra said:
A falsary does not like to be caught, let alone exposed, right?
By the way, spending a lot of time out there in Texas searching for my profiles on scholarly websites?
Anyway, please keep visiting my humble blog, and drop a comment there once in a while! One day if I have time I'll publish our old long '98 debate where your clumsy views were thoroughly defeated, whence your nocturnal panic attacks ever since!


Malcolm wrote:
I don't live in Texas, nor do I ever spend time searching profiles, or for that matter, visit your blog. I have no interest in ghost cultists like you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
HHST said:
If, however, God is something else, a divine compassion or a divine wisdom, manifest in the form of a deity, you might say that Buddhism is not atheistic but polytheistic."

smcj said:
vs.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no divine compassion or wisdom apart from the nature of the mind

smcj said:
The two statements are not compatible.

dzogchungpa said:
As ChNN says: God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody.
and The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of "one and two," otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also the concept of "individual" presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this, isn't he?

Malcolm wrote:
Again, ChNN is just being kind to those people who are still addicted to divine anything.

He also said:
The very meaning of the Tibetan term Dzogchen, "Great Perfection," refers to the true primordial state of every individual and not to any transcendent reality.
"Divine" means "of, from, or like God or a god..."

But compassion and wisdom in Buddhadharma does not come from a god. It flows out of the empathy and understanding of human beings, and is perfected in the case of a buddha.

Just in case you forgot, of the six kinds of beings in the six realms, only human beings are capable of buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://twitter.com/jesselehrich/status/760806897524015105


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Buddha Boy - Ram Bahadur Bomjon
Content:
Simon E. said:
It would be a bit of a stretch to believe that all the reports of rape, beatings, chainings, illegal imprisonments and the mysterious disappearance of large sums of money with which this man and his cronies are directly associated, are all slanderous and fictional.

Nicholas Weeks said:
Those were not 'cronies' but supposed devotees who took the donations for their own use.  They were eventually found out and booted out of the ashram.

[Your posts are doubling]

By the bye, I wrote the Office of HHDL to see if he or any respected Bhikshu has met the young sage and gathered an impression, good or bad.


Malcolm wrote:
He used to be a student at the Sakya Center in Derha Dun. No one takes him seriously outside of his Nepalese devotees, and a few misguided westerners, the same kind of people who follow Benjamin Creme or that Mt. Shasta "Buddha Maitreya."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Title: Elinor Ostrum's Victory of the Commons
Content:
Unknown said:
The biggest roadblock standing in the way of many people’s recognition of the importance of the commons came tumbling down when Indiana University professor Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for Economics.

Over many decades, Ostrom has documented how various communities manage common resources—grazing lands, forests, irrigation waters, fisheries—equitably and sustainably over the long term. The Nobel Committee’s recognition of her work effectively debunks popular theories about the Tragedy of the Commons, which hold that private property is the only effective method to prevent finite resources from being ruined or depleted.


Malcolm wrote:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-victory-of-the-commons


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
Some months ago there was a thread where HHST was quoted as saying that Vajrayana was polytheistic. I guess he thinks the Yidams are deities.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he was saying that Buddhism recognizes the existence of such deities as Brahma, and so on. It has nothing to do with "Yidams" per se.

smcj said:
The quote in question:

Q.  Buddhism is sometimes said to be atheistic because it holds that there is no God.

HHST:  Buddhism does not believe in a God as the creator of the world, and in that sense, you might say it is atheistic.  If, however, God is something else, a divine compassion or a divine wisdom, manifest in the form of a deity, you might say that Buddhism is not atheistic but polytheistic."

Malcolm wrote:
I do not think this use of "polytheism" is very precise.  On the other hand, he is trying to help theists (like you) get a handle on the multiplicity of buddhas in Buddhadharma— so it is forgivable, despite being a stretch.

Buddhism is only a polytheism in the sense that it recognizes the existence of the polytheistic pantheon of ancient India.

If we "worship" iṣta-devatas, yidams, as external beings, then our practice becomes Nonbuddhist. Rather than being a insider practice, it becomes an outsider practice. One might object and claim, "In Kriya tantra we are instructed to visualize the deity like a minister petitioning a king, therefore this is a kind of external practice." In reply, while it is true that in Kriya tantra, we generate the deity before us while remaining in our ordinary form, the point is that we are "generating" the deity. This is something we are visualizing, so therefore, even though it may seem externally directed, unlike Vedic practice (where one worships mundane, external sentient beings such as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), there is nothing to be found which is not a product of one's own minds.

There is no divine compassion or wisdom apart from the nature of the mind. People who realize that nature of the mind fully are buddhas. People who have partially realized that are called "bodhisattvas." People who aspire to realize that are called "practitioners." People who have no interest in that at all are called "ordinary sentient beings."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
So no, I don't agree with you on this.

Malcolm wrote:
Because, as usual, you don't really know what you are talking about.

smcj said:
As I have always maintained, I am a lower yana practitioner. As such I think my view is dharmically correct. It is how my teachers have taught me. It is not incorrect of me to repeat it here.

Malcolm wrote:
No one teaches that the jñānasattva is in fact some relative entity (much less an ultimate entitiy) that can be summoned with a mudra and a mantra from "over there" to "over here."

The summing and absorption of the jñānasattva is an empowerment drama (recapitulated in daily sadhana practice), meant to symbolize the fact that while we have never been separate from the nature of the mind, we have not seen it up till now, and so therefore, the summoning of the jñānasattva is meant to dramatically emphasize this fact and bring it to our attention.

And in lower tantras, the jñānasattva is dismissed "to its natural abode," which is why, among other reasons, that lower tantra is lower. And of course the meaning of this is that in post-equipoise, one readopts one's ordinary form, because now the mandala "drama" in your daily practice is finished. In higher tantra, of course, one is supposed to maintain the dramatic person of the yidam throughout all activities until it no longer feels like a dramatic persona, but instead, one really feels that one is the deity.

There is no deity apart from the nature of one's mind. If someone thinks there is a deity apart from the nature of the mind, they have understood nothing at all about the creation stage, let alone the completion stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
Some months ago there was a thread where HHST was quoted as saying that Vajrayana was polytheistic. I guess he thinks the Yidams are deities.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he was saying that Buddhism recognizes the existence of such deities as Brahma, and so on. It has nothing to do with "Yidams" per se.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Matibhadra said:
Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English...

Malcolm wrote:
This shows you have read very little English, Lobzang.

Matibhadra said:
Or, more likely, that you thought very little about the much you think you have read.

Malcolm wrote:
The usage "to impute upon" is many centuries old, and is found in the works of Samuel Coleridge, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Norwegian said:
" You must understand that the invocation, and so on, enable you to recall the primordial indivisibility of the samaya and wisdom beings; it is not as though you are placing one into the other. " -- Jigme Lingpa

tomamundsen said:
Even if it's ultimately a misconception, the Mahayaogatantra technique involves a union. Not sure what the Sarma equivalent name for that is. But basically, this is applying a Dzogchen view to the technique, which may not be accepted by all tantric practitioners.

conebeckham said:
Anuttarayogatantra.

The Jnanasattva/Samayasattva is a common element of sadhanas for this class in Sarma.  But the sadhanas also include various other methods of development--including instantaneous recollection, and a variety of levels of "building up" and "taking down" the "supporting" and "Supported."

Another interesting difference, in general terms, between Kye Rim in Nyingma and Sarma sadhanas involves whether the Dak Kye and Dun Kye (Self- and front-visualizations) arise simultaneously or whether successive stages of the sadhana focus on one or the other....

I've also been interested in these differences.  Perhaps this isn't the place to discuss the finer points, though...

Malcolm wrote:
Cakrasamvara defines different methods of creation based on the kind of birth they are supposed to purify (there are four methods for the four kinds of birth). Thus even instant creation in Sarma does not have the same view as Anuyoga, since there is still a samayasattva/jñānasattva duality, which is characteristic of mahāyoga on down.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Fa Dao said:
ok then..so how does this process work (samayasattva and jnanasattva)  when you are doing it Anuyoga?

Malcolm wrote:
Anuyoga recognizes that the two sattvas have always been inseparable, thus obviating the need to summon the jñānasattva and absorb it (the entire process of which is a mental fabrication).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
smcj said:
So no, I don't agree with you on this.


Malcolm wrote:
Because, as usual, you don't really know what you are talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Please guys, don't confuse vinegar with facts.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Why? because simply not eating meat in no way, shape or form guarantees a healthy diet

treehuggingoctopus said:
How true it is. My wife has been recovering for three years now from her seven-year-long vegetarian adventure. The doctors are shaking their heads. The correlation between health/longevity and vegetarianism might be easily explained, though. If my experience is significant here in any way -- and it may be and it may not be -- many if not most of those who become vegetarians are first world people coming from upper middle/upper class families. They can afford to take care of their health properly, and usually enjoy a properly balanced vegetarian diet.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Yep, precisely. Most vegetarians (the ones that go that way by choice, in western countries at least) come from an economic background where they have access to higher quality foods, and are more likely to at least sometimes eat fresh vegetables, due to having thought more about food than your average person.. fresh vegetables being a likely cornerstone of most healthy diets minus rare people's who have certain subsistence diets etc.

So of course being vegetarian can be very healthy, like the whole rest of the conversation, it's all about context. Talking about diet, it's also IMO the height of silliness to pretend there is only one "healthy diet" that follows strict rules, any unbiased study of nutrition you can see that this is not so, and that there is likely a range of healthy diets for human beings. But..people gonna' cherry pick to make their case, and 90% of the "studies" and mainstream claims out there about diet aren't worth squat without consulting with someone who has the education and experience to make sense of them - IME.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Boy - Ram Bahadur Bomjon
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Looks like a new USA website that is better organized than the Nepal one.  Also noticed mainly Eastern faces among his new monks, perhaps they have met a good knowing advisor - hope so.  Not clear if they were bhikshus before or laymen?

http://us.bsds.maitriya.info


Malcolm wrote:
Great, new cult in the offing...

Nicholas Weeks said:
Any evidence? or just suspicious?

Malcolm wrote:
Open your eyes, and all will be revealed to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
DGA said:
Dr. Jill Stein stuck her foot in her mouth over the weekend trying to court the whackaloon anti-vaccine vote. She's walked that back now but it's enough for me to question her judgment as a tactician.  What could possibly be gained by courting members of a movement whose peculiar fantasies have the consequence of maiming and killing children?  Why taint yourself by flirting with the nuts when the overwhelming majority are allergic?

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/an-anti-vaxer-in-the-white-house/493916/

Malcolm wrote:
Its a hit piece, and untrue.

DGA said:
The Washington Post piece that started the kerfuffle was. The Atlantic article linked above is neither a hit piece, nor untrue.

I still intend to vote for her, but...

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, it is since she is not an anti-vaxxer. Her concern, rather, is the process by which vaccines are approved for the public. A concern I agree with.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Yidams
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Both the samayasattva and the jñānasattva are fabrications. If it is visualized, it is fabricated. Period. This is fine, but just be clear what you are doing (and what you are talking about).



Tirisilex said:
I don't see how a Yidam can have any power if it doesnt exist. If it's just a fabrication of my mind then how does it have any power to fix my mind? I mean how can a delusion fix a delusion?

smcj said:
When you actually do a Yidam meditation the first step is to create a contrived mental image of the deity. That is nothing more than your own mental fabrication, called the Samayasattva. If that were all that there is to it, it could not help you. Your question shows you understand that much.

It is the next step that makes the meditation efficacious. Typically you imagine lights streaming out from you fabricated mental image which invite the "real" Yidam, called the Jhanasattva, to come from wherever they are in the universe and merge with your Samayasattva. The Jhanasattva is NOT a fabrication. Whether you consider it a being, or a radiant expression of enlightenment, or whatever, it is exactly the thing that can fix your mind. And the more faith you have the better it works.

My shorthand is that they are real, with the proviso that their true mode of being is beyond our imagination. It is our limited idea about what "real" means that is being denied, not the validity of the deity.

I hope that helps.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
vinegar said:
And spending an extra thee to five years congratulating oneself on being pure doesn't sound too appealing to me.
Actually, on avg an extra 15 years of life.  That's quality life too, unlike people who eat saturated fat and cholesterol.

Malcolm wrote:
This statistic is a fantasy stat.


vinegar said:
"Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid."

Malcolm wrote:
And:
Only a handful of randomized controlled trials have ever causally tested the traditional diet-heart hypothesis. The results for two of these trials were not fully reported. Our recovery and 2013 publication of previously unpublished data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study (SDHS, 1966-73) belatedly showed that replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid significantly increased the risks of death from coronary heart disease and all causes, despite lowering serum cholesterol.14 Our recovery of unpublished documents and raw data from another diet-heart trial, the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, provided us with an opportunity to further evaluate this issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4836695/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Matibhadra said:
Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English...

Malcolm wrote:
This shows you have read very little English, Lobzang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Boy - Ram Bahadur Bomjon
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Looks like a new USA website that is better organized than the Nepal one.  Also noticed mainly Eastern faces among his new monks, perhaps they have met a good knowing advisor - hope so.  Not clear if they were bhikshus before or laymen?

http://us.bsds.maitriya.info


Malcolm wrote:
Great, new cult in the offing...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Buddha Boy - Ram Bahadur Bomjon
Content:
Tilopa said:
He's highly regarded as a Buddhist teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
By whom? Can you name anyone?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
DGA said:
Dr. Jill Stein stuck her foot in her mouth over the weekend trying to court the whackaloon anti-vaccine vote. She's walked that back now but it's enough for me to question her judgment as a tactician.  What could possibly be gained by courting members of a movement whose peculiar fantasies have the consequence of maiming and killing children?  Why taint yourself by flirting with the nuts when the overwhelming majority are allergic?

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/an-anti-vaxer-in-the-white-house/493916/

Malcolm wrote:
Its a hit piece, and untrue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, the documentation illustrates that is suicidal to eat an American diet.

vinegar said:
Well, depends how much saturated fat and cholesterol you eat, and how little whole-plants and fiber you eat

In the vietnam era 1000s of young adults were autopsied and 80% were found to have onset of heart disease
Now, its 100% of young adults.  Additionally, its now also 100% of 10 year olds.  Even babies these days are being born with early onset out of the womb.

This is compared to certain countries where their populations live long lives, 10000 of them were autopsied and only 1 had a minor trace of heart disease.

Malcolm wrote:
HFC + Antibiotics (in meat) + hormones + early onset of heart disease


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I never knew bacon could give you lung cancer, or that some people ate cigarettes, amazing!

vinegar said:
It was linking their increase risk in producing their respective cancers.  So 100g of bacon to produce colorectal cancer carries the same increase in risk as smoking 7 cigarettes in producing developing lung/throat cancer.

I've been studying nutrition almost 4yrs now, only in the last 6 months did we get to animal products vs whole-plants.  In the end the past 3 months I went 100% whole-plant, not for the animals, but for myself.  All the documentation illustrates that its suicidal to eat animal products.  Heavily documented.

Though the thought "i'm not willing to kill a cow myself, but i am willing to pay someone to have done it" was really starting to grate on me as i continued to reflect on it

Malcolm wrote:
No, the documentation illustrates that is suicidal to eat an American diet.

So, in bacon, what is actually the carcinogen? Mainly the sodium nitrites + the method of cooking + amount. Processed meats are the most carcinogenic, followed by grilled meat, then roasted meat, with boiled meat being the least risky. Moreover,
The conclusion puts processed meats in the same category of cancer risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos. This does not mean that they are equally dangerous, says the International Agency for Research on Cancer — the agency within the WHO that sets the classifications. And it's important to note that even things such as aloe vera are on the list of possible carcinogens.
And:
The recommendation, Gapstur tells The Salt, is based on research. For instance, a systematic literature review on colorectal cancer published in 2011 by the World Cancer Research Fund found a statistically significant, 16 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with each 3.5 ounces of red and processed meat consumed per day. As the ACS points out, this is an amount of meat roughly equivalent in size to a deck of cards.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451211964/bad-day-for-bacon-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

And of course, the reason why tobacco is a carcinogen is because the Tobacco plant takes up Polonium-210 and Lead-210, and exudes it in the essential oil on its leaves along with nicotine, which is used to defend the plant against insects and other plants.

vinegar said:
Polonium-210 and lead-210 accumulate for decades in the lungs of smokers. Sticky tar in the tobacco builds up in the small air passageways in the lungs (bronchioles) and radioactive substances get trapped. Over time, these substances can lead to lung cancer.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Chomsky on Lesser Evil Voting
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Electoral politics is a crock. What counts is movements.

Unknown said:
Political campaigns are not social movements. Even great campaigns like those of Jackson in the 80s, Obama in the recent past or Sanders today are not social movements. We must distinguish between social momentums, social rebellions and social movements. Given the massive national security state and the pervasive carceral state, social movements are rare -- past, present and future. The American Empire is more ripe for a counter-revolution than revolution, for right-wing movements than left-wing ones. This is so primarily because of the deep xenophobic roots in the country and profound militaristic sentiments in the culture. Hence, progressive social momentums and chaotic social rebellions are more likely to reshape our priorities and gain some concessions from greedy elites and callous citizens. This is why moral and spiritual dimensions of social activism are crucial -- to sustain our will to fight inside and outside the system with little chance of immediate victory!

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36488-cornel-west-black-americans-neoliberal-sleepwalking-is-coming-to-an-end


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Until they smell bacon...

vinegar said:
Class 1 carcinogen, meaning its mechanisms for producing cancer is well understood.  iirc 100g of bacon equates to smoking 7 cigarettes

Funnily enough bacon tastes like crap with all the salt and seasoning.  I've been eating pumpkin spinach and purple potato stews no salt some pepper and lemon juice... after a time these taste unbelevably good, and everything that used to taste good like cheese or in and out chocolate milkshake, now taste like crap

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what kind of bacon you are eating.

As far as tastes go, of course if you stop eating processed crapola, your sense of taste reorients itself.

As for myself, I don't eat processed crapola.

I never knew bacon could give you lung cancer, or that some people ate cigarettes, amazing!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Simon said:
This [not taking the precepts] has made no difference at all to my practice which continues to deepen.

boda said:
You can't know what your practice would be like had you taken the precepts since you haven't lived that life.


Malcolm wrote:
Do you realize how presumptuous you are being?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, there is also the Barney Frank argument: "Vote for Clinton to humiliate the whiny, little bitch."

Queequeg said:
"whiny, little bitch"?

Well, that is some zinger coming out of his lisping mouth. It could only be more poignant if it was delivered with a finger snap by some flamboyant twink strutting down Christopher Street during Pride.

Yeah, still doesn't do it for me. Can't muster that much indignation, even against the likes of Trump.

Are you adopting this rationalization to pull that lever for Clinton?

Malcolm wrote:
It was on the Bill Maher show that he said this, I paraphrased and embellished for effect.

As for myself, it all depends on how I feel when I pick up my ballot. Right now, still voting Green.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Chomsky on Lesser Evil Voting
Content:
WeiHan said:
However much many of you here may hate Donald Trump, computer simulation is showing that Trump could reach the highest percentage of the popular votes, which could be more than anyone in history even surpassing FDR in the Great Depression.

But no, he won't be able to change anything. Political change is surely coming and he is just the bridge of lesser resistance to this coming huge change. Clinton will be a huge obstruction to this change.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to go to fivethirtyeight.com.

There is 0 chance Trump will win the popular vote. Well, not quite true, there is a 35 percent chance...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
Meanwhile, Clinton is as Clinton does, moving to triangulate by appealing to moderate Republicans and disaffected conservatives. Right now the appeal is limited to the Bloomberg, "God Help Us" argument, but its only a matter of time until we see the policy concessions that will be needed to get the big name Republican endorsements that are coming. And how will the concessions to Bernie coexist with the concessions to the right? We know who loses in that case..


Malcolm wrote:
No, there is also the Barney Frank argument: "Vote for Clinton to humiliate the whiny, little bitch."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: How do you renounce everything to attain Nirvana?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Au contraire.

Detachment from food means to be completely present in the eating. In the taste. In the texture. In the pleasure. Then doing the next thing.

Jeff H said:
Yes. And attachment means wallowing in the eating, taste, texture, and pleasure, while greedily thinking of the next thing, which you want to grasp without giving up the first one. I don't see the contradiction.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is to be free of attachment AND aversion. Otherwise, the nonattachment of śrāvakas is just a form of bondage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:


smcj said:
Our teachers are not our nannies, and it demeans them for us to rely on them so.
I've learned to watch myself around good lamas. I've been spanked for bad attitude and behavior, and recently too. The reprimand was not invited, although I did deserve it--sort of. It wasn't fun. But then again I am a child, so I'm sure he would have preferred for me to simply act like an adult.

Rumor had it HHK16 told CTR to stop drinking. If so he would have done well to listen.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, grow up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
knowledge of emptiness is the result of rational analysis

Malcolm wrote:
Conceptual knowledge of emptiness is a result rational analysis, however, this is solely an "approximate ultimate." It is not the ultimate of realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
Nobody has the right to lay trips on us about it other than our teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Even they do not have that right.

smcj said:
They can make an issue out of it, just as they can call us out on any number of behaviors. We are not obliged to listen however.

Malcolm wrote:
Our teachers are not our nannies, and it demeans them for us to rely on them so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Simon E. said:
No definitive argument has ever been presented that convinces those of a different view, and almost certainly never will be.

seeker242 said:
That's inaccurate. I have single-handedly convinced hundreds of people...


Malcolm wrote:
Until they smell bacon...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:


vinegar said:
don't take the vow giving up alcohol.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are following the path of renunciation, this is fine.


vinegar said:
use alcohol only in advanced practice when finding and denying the object of negation has/is trying to become habitual, at which point alcohol is no longer alcohol, and your interaction is utterly beyond desire to put things into your food hole

Malcolm wrote:
You must be a Gelugpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
Nobody has the right to lay trips on us about it other than our teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Even they do not have that right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: Bardo of death may be a problem for becoming lucid
Content:
Admin_PC said:
Pure Land could've developed within the borders of the Indosphere and still been initially transmitted in the language of Gāndhārī Prakrit (utilizing  Kharoṣṭhī script) rather than Sanskrit. Just sayin...

Malcolm wrote:
But there is no evidence to support this thesis. And what we have today are Sanskrit tecensions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 10:48 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
then things like flying and purchasing gasoline are equal to buying in meat in terms of putting dollars towards death, and must be accounted for in order for your argument to have any consistency. Which is the point..it doesn't.

vinegar said:
You're arguing that you don't need to be ethical in one thing because you can't be ethical in all things.  Does it make sense to you?
If you think you have done that simply by not eating meat though, I think you are deeply fooling yourself.
Noone has any time to care about anyone else's intention.  Also it is irrelevant and offtopic.

The only relevancy is 'am i willing to kill a person once a week to eat them, or not?'

If not, then 'am i willing to pay someone to hire ppl to kill them so i can get some meat?'


Malcolm wrote:
The old cannabalism fallacy...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2016 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Chomsky on Lesser Evil Voting
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump is just not capable of wreaking the havoc everyone fears. However, there is one solid argument for voting for Clinton, and that is to humliate Trump.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Good Ngondro schedule without burnout
Content:
Lazy Monk said:
What is a realistic schedule for doing the four Ngondro practices when not attending any retreats?

My ego desires to finish them as quickly as possible, turning the practice into a project, which is a wrong approach obviously. The ego also gets bored and burned out easily, so how many hours a day is a balanced way, without getting fed up by it?

Athritis in both knees prevent prostrations, but read in another thread that:

"Lama Pema Dorje, in response to older students who find it physically difficult/impossible to do prostrations, has instituted an alternative: For those 50 years old and older, 10 million Vajra Guru mantra in three years"

How long does it take to finish one such mantra?

And what is a so-called "table prostration" for those with a physical disability, and how long does each take?

Planning on doing the Ngondro without retreats. But time itself is not a problem. Just want to avoid a burn-out halfway.

Can I ask a Karma Kagyu Lama in Oslo to get the permission to begin Ngondro even though I will practice Dzogchen within Nyingma? Or is that not an optimal solution? Ask because I can't seem to find any Nyingma center in Norway. Can move to Gomde in Denmark however, later this autumn.

Malcolm wrote:
Find a teacher, ask them. Replies to this question given here will not address your needs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2016 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
A pastor goes from No Trump to supporting him as a 'morally good choice' - flaws and all:

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Malcolm wrote:
Strange choice.

But not when you consider Trump's cynical expolitation of social conservatives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2016 at 10:20 AM
Title: Re: Avadana
Content:
Nyedrag Yeshe said:
Any source for avadana tales in english?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the first volume of the Divyavadana is in English.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2016 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
smcj said:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11270440
At the same time, people seeking a better life - now as in the past — clamor to live in the United States.

mañjughoṣamaṇi said:
People tend to migrate to places where capital is concentrated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2016 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that refusing to eat meat is an appalling waste of life

vinegar said:
The killing is the waste of life.

So how does eating a pig's corpse make the no-longer-existing pig's life not a waste?


Malcolm wrote:
When a practitioner consumes the the meat of a deceased animal (and the arguments about cannibalism, etc, are utterly specious) in a state of mindfulness and attention, the consciousness of the sentient being involved is benefitted though the creation of positive karmic connection between the the practitioner and that being. In the end, when that practitioner become an awakened person, all those sentient beings will be reborn as their disciple. So says my guru, and for me, that is the final word. YMMV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2016 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
As far as not wasting food, that is not the subject of discussion so not surprising it hasn't come up. But since it has, I am a "Vege-Buddhist" who also hates wasting food. The numbers which I'm sure you're aware of are just appalling, especially in the US.

Also confused by the intention of some arguments here.
Are people saying that someone who abstains from meat, in whatever imperfect attempt to reduce harm, should instead just eat meat like everyone else?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that refusing to eat meat is an appalling waste of life because, quite frankly, we live in a world where animals eat other animals.

Ahimsa is admirable, and if some how, the world woke up one day and all the humans in it lost their appetite for meat and ceased to slaughter animals, as well as ceased keeping pets and livestock (chickens, mainly) that require animal protein their diets, that would be just fine with me. For example, some of our fine vegetarian friends here definitely have cats and dogs and feed them standard dog and cat food.

In the meantime, arguing that one ought not eat slaughtered meat while countless millions of animals are being slaughtered all the time is a recommendation to waste lives and food.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2016 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
if you did not see it killed, kill it yourself, or directly order it killed ( for example, placing an order for a side of beef with your local beef CSA), there is no problem. Why? Because you cannot inflict suffering on a piece of dead meat anymore than you can inflict suffering on a wool sweater or leather boots.

vinegar said:
I know, my argument is from the pov of the desire that is at the foundation of the industry.  If you fail to abstain from that desire then you encourage it, make it not taboo, participate alongside it, giving the impression that it is normal, healthy, and acceptable.

Especially when it costs you nothing, the opposite, you would get healthier from it.  So rather than benefit your health, and try to convince others to drop the object supporting the industry (their craving), you just decide to go along with it instead.  Shrug.

(I'm talking "you" in general)

Malcolm wrote:
But in fact it is normal, as any examination of the world will quickly demonstrate.

As to your debatable contention that abstaining from eating meat is "healthier," the four Medicine Tantras list many, many kinds of meat and their health benefits, as well as the health benefits of alcohol, moderately used.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2016 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: Bardo of death may be a problem for becoming lucid
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
what page

Admin_PC said:
Preface xii
p125-129
The extant Sanskrit of the Larger Sukhavativyuha is https://archive.org/stream/BuddhistSanskritLiteratureOfNepal_784/FinalBookBuddhistSanskritLiteratureOfNepalByShankerThapa_djvu.txt
The extant Chinese translations are all much earlier.

rory said:
As AdminPC points out the Chinese translations are much earlier and don't involve Sanskrit at all! Modern scholarly thinking is that Pure Land originated in Central Asia, Lokasema came from Kushan,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokaksema_%28Buddhist_monk%29
so we have to refine our past assumptions. Pure Land came from the West, which is pretty cool to think about.
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
The Kushana empire formed much of what is northern India, as well as Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

rory said:
Kanishka I (c. 127 – c. 140)[edit]

Kanishka, Mathura Museum.
The rule of Kanishka the Great, fifth Kushan king, who flourished for about 13 years from c. 127. Upon his accession, Kanishka ruled a huge territory (virtually all of northern India), south to Ujjain and Kundina and east beyond Pataliputra, according to the Rabatak inscription:


The Qila Mubarak fort at Bathinda, India was built by Kanishka the Great.
In the year one, it has been proclaimed unto India, unto the whole realm of the governing class, including Koonadeano (Kaundiny, Kundina) and the city of Ozeno (Ozene, Ujjain) and the city of Zageda (Saketa) and the city of Kozambo (Kausambi) and the city of Palabotro (Pataliputra) and so long unto (i.e. as far as) the city of Ziri-tambo (Sri-Champa).

— Rabatak inscription, Lines 4–6
His territory was administered from two capitals: Purushapura (now Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan) and Mathura, in northern India. He is also credited (along with Raja Dab) for building the massive, ancient Fort at Bathinda (Qila Mubarak), in the modern city of Bathinda, Indian Punjab.

The Kushans also had a summer capital in Bagram (then known as Kapisa), where the "Begram Treasure", comprising works of art from Greece to China, has been found. According to the Rabatak inscription, Kanishka was the son of Vima Kadphises, the grandson of Sadashkana, and the great-grandson of Kujula Kadphises. Kanishka’s era is now generally accepted to have begun in 127 on the basis of Harry Falk’s ground-breaking research.[51][52] Kanishka’s era was used as a calendar reference by the Kushans for about a century, until the decline of the Kushan realm.

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

rory said:
Lokaksema was a Kushan of Yuezhi ethnicity from Gandhara. (See Greco-Buddhism.) His ethnicity is described in his adopted Chinese name by the prefix Zhi (Chinese: 支), an abbreviation of Yuezhi (Chinese: 月支). As a Kushan Yuezhi, his native tongue might have been the official Kushan language, Bactrian, one of the Tocharian languages, or even Persian or Greek. All of these are Indo-European languages and were spoken by the peoples of the Kushan Empire during his era.

Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokaksema_%28Buddhist_monk%29




Saying that Lokaksema comes from "Kushan" is less than descriptive. His name is Sanskrit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


vinegar said:
Unfortunately i cannot choose a dead body to eat among bodies that were not killed, and there is no reasoning that contributing to it outdoes abstaining.

Malcolm wrote:
Is there something magical about a body that someone killed that makes it taboo, as opposed to a body that apparently died naturally? You apparently are completely unfamiliar with Bhavaviveka's discussion in his Tarkajvala about why it is fine to eat meat pure in three ways. In fine, if you did not see it killed, kill it yourself, or directly order it killed ( for example, placing an order for a side of beef with your local beef CSA), there is no problem. Why? Because you cannot inflict suffering on a piece of dead meat anymore than you can inflict suffering on a wool sweater or leather boots.

Thus, for as long as human beings continue to fish, hunt and raise animals for meat, refusing to buy meat in a market, etc. is simply a waste of a sentient being's life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For that reason, since one is liberated because of having given up the intrinsic cause of bondage [i.e. deceived concepts,] the objects which [earlier] became the condition of that [bondage] [now] become the condition of liberation.[/i][/list]

vinegar said:
Right, we use afflicted desire to get rid of afflicted desire, to become liberated from useless crap like cancer-causing estrogenic alcohol and everything else in the desire realm.

That's the only time to use it.  Otherwise we are proponents of emptiness who are have less renunciation than the proponents of essences that have developed the skill to correctly discriminated the unsatisfactory nature of desire realm objects, achieving form realm absorption

Malcolm wrote:
Objects of the three realms are never the problem. Indeed, the three realms are pure.

And yes, proponents of essences often have more "renunciation" than proponents of emptiness. Why? Since they have no understanding of emptiness, they also have no understanding of purity.

Further, form realms absorptions just are not all that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 2:57 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh for lord's sake, not everywhere is a college campus.

Myoho-Nameless said:
I didn't live much on campus. These things happen a lot online, that might not be for the best. but thats the world at present.

Malcolm wrote:
Poor young white men, they have so many disadvantages in our society, so many doors are closed to them

Myoho-Nameless said:
You are creating Trump.

Malcolm wrote:
Dont be daft. I know quite a bit about being a young white male.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 12:10 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


mossy said:
oh look at that, victim blaming is acceptable when conservatives are the victims.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see any victims, I see an antagonizing asshole who nearly got his ass kicked for being an asshole. Typical Tea Party whiny little bitch dramatics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 12:06 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump is just using you people.

Myoho-Nameless said:
Me? No. I am not a Trump supporter.

These people would not be so "useful" to Trump if not for the bigoted spiteful controlling neo leftist trash who turned on young straight white men.

Malcolm wrote:
Poor young white men, they have so many disadvantages in our society, so many doors are closed to them (not).


Myoho-Nameless said:
People are sick of people told what to say and how to say it, what to watch, what to read, how to make and play a video game, what to masturbate to. People don't like being demonized. I was a hardcore leftist at one point but they clearly don't want anything to do with the likes of me. the left is doing the same thing that the religious right was doing in the 90s. A good chunk of the Bernie crowd millennials would actually agree with me here too.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh for lord's sake, not everywhere is a college campus.


Myoho-Nameless said:
The left created Trump.

Malcolm wrote:
Total nonsense. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC created Donald Trump for ratings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Culture fit justice
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
[

I don't think its ok for a business to choose its culture. If businesses are allowed to do what they like, they exclude the kinds of people they have always excluded - that's racism and sexism, in case you haven't noticed it in operation - and pay people as little as they can get away with - that's slavery, if they can get away with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, this is cesspool the Tea Party wants the US to wallow in.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
smcj said:
Steven Colbert's suggestion is to write in "Michelle".

I'd do that before I'd vote for Stein.

Simon E. said:
If I was American, so would I.


Malcolm wrote:
Stop hating on Jill, guys. She is not going to win, she knows it, we all know it. But in order for the Green Party to be anything but a blip, they have to field a presidential candidate and someone has to vote for her (in solid blue states of course).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
mossy said:
are you talking about the young turks? if so they are blatantly biased, and are the far left equivalent to fox news.

Myoho-Nameless said:
they are worse

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]


unless people on fox have spat on other people, or after going on record by manys a time being against fat shaming, fat shaming Alex Jones, wackadoo though he may be, like the vile wench Anna does here.

Malcolm wrote:
Alex Jones deserves what he got. He deliberately antagonized TYT.


Myoho-Nameless said:
You created this.

Malcolm wrote:
No, absolutely not. We are not responsible for the racism and bigotry of Donald Trump, Alex Jones and all like minded people. Trump is just using you people. Sad!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
For example, if you are a sūtra practitioner, it is ultimately considered ideal to give up sexual pleasure; in Vajrayāna, it is not, in fact, it is the opposite.
My Vajrayana teachers are mostly monks. There are a couple of non-monks, but they are in the minority. And none of them downplay the role of Sutrayana as a foundation for Vajrayana. And none of them have suggested that drinking alcohol is a practice.

Oh, except I did know one Western lama/monk (not a teacher of mine) that was an alcoholic and used the Vajrayana as a rationalization for his drinking. His teachers were not pleased.

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtrayāna is not a foundation for Vajrayāna in terms of the path. Loppon Sonam Tsemo, one of the five founder masters of Sakya, writes (citations excluded) in his General Presentation of Tantra. First with regard to the Sūtra path, he says:
[T]he Pāramitāyāna practitioner makes that basis into a path by giving it up.
He continues a little later:
First, the basis, as explained before, is the five desire objects. Those are the basis itself, but if it is the objects themselves, how are they to be given up? Since most people are totally fettered, how are [they] able to give up [the basis]? [The basis] is not to be given up. 

Now then, if one asks “Won’t there be bondage because of objects?” Those without a method will be bound, i.e., like common beings. If one possesses a method, liberation is assisted by those [objects] themselves. For example, like poison or like fire. Therefore, objects do not intrinsically create bondage. Bondage is created by the deceived concepts depending on those [objects]. For that reason, since one is liberated because of having given up the intrinsic cause of bondage [i.e. deceived concepts,] the objects which [earlier] became the condition of that [bondage] [now] become the condition of liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
smcj said:
Yet he is winning in our DW straw poll--and overwhelmingly so.

Malcolm wrote:
This poll does not count -- there are foolish people from outside the US who are pushing Trump over Hillary, and many people outside the US who in an ideal world would prefer Jill Stein.

If the poll were restricted to US citizens only, a different picture would emerge.

Simon E. said:
Really Malcolm?


Malcolm wrote:
I am referring to DW denizens.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
Is it the same concept when used in the two different contexts?


Malcolm wrote:
Yup.

In Sūtra, the path is based on giving up sense pleasures. In Vajrayāna, it is not.

smcj said:
My Gelug teacher was very specific in making it clear to me personally that in no form of Dharma are the defilements to be indulged...

Malcolm wrote:
"Indulging in defilements" is not what "using the sense pleasures" on the path means.

For example, if you are a sūtra practitioner, it is ultimately considered ideal to give up sexual pleasure; in Vajrayāna, it is not, in fact, it is the opposite.

Vajrayāna is the path devised by the Buddhas for the era (this one) when afflictions are so strong they cannot be abandoned; and therefore, since they are the ultimate causes of suffering, they must be transformed using the special methods of Vajrayāna, because in fact, they cannot be abandoned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 29th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
It is the same word in Tibetan and Sanskrit, therefore, it should be the same word in English. Weariness (revulsion, etc.) is a different word.
Is it the same concept when used in the two different contexts?


Malcolm wrote:
Yup.

In Sūtra, the path is based on giving up sense pleasures. In Vajrayāna, it is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Minimum requirement for getting a relatively okay rebirth?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
As has been pointed out, ChNN's style of teaching is not "non-traditional".

Nor is it invariably "non-structured"

Kelwin said:
Agreed, of course! Maybe i should say 'not following the typical traditional Nyingma structure', although that could also be seen as incorrect. But I guess you get the meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
Every teacher teaches his or her students according to their best effort. It is not correct to say this approach or that approach is the best for all students.

There is no such thing as "pure Dzogchen," and ChNN himself said it first.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
And further, Vajrayāna (for the 100th time) is not a path of renunciation, though one must develop weariness with respect to samsara to embark upon this path.
Personally I like to make the distinction by saying that Vajrayana is not a path of eschewment. This clarifies any confusion the weariness of which you speak which is correctly called renunciation. Using the same word for both things is extremely misleading imo.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same word in Tibetan and Sanskrit, therefore, it should be the same word in English. Weariness (revulsion, etc.) is a different word.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Minimum requirement for getting a relatively okay rebirth?
Content:
Lazy Monk said:
So what do you Tibetan Buddhists think about the necessary minimum requirements for at least avoiding a miserable life the next time I die on this potentially never-ending journey through samsara?

Malcolm wrote:
Find a a master of Dzogchen, a guru who will directly introduce you to your "primordial state." Then, practice according that guru's instructions. Even if you do not realize buddhahood in this life, or even the bardo, you will never return to samsara as a sentient being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Ayu said:
There are several Vajrayana teachers who wouldn't agree to a claim like this.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe amongst Gelugpas.

Ayu said:
What about Tai Situ Rinpoche who is Kagyü? "Renunciation in the Three Yanas" http://multimedia.getresponse.com/725/68725/documents/8770.pdf

Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect to Tai Situ, he has been a monk his whole life. He is not qualified to discuss the issue of alcohol. It is like Mipham writing a Tibetan Kama Sutra, it was all theory with no real practice. This is why Ganden Chöphel wrote one based on his experience of women.

And further, Vajrayāna (for the 100th time) is not a path of renunciation, though one must develop weariness with respect to samsara to embark upon this path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
narhwal90 said:
What about vajrayana use of heroin or crack cocaine?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, when you are in pain, you can use pain killers, there is little difference between this opioid and that, apart from potency or purity, the effect of all is the same.

And, of course, you can try anything once. I once smoked freebase (crack), in 1986. I didn't like the taste, and I don't like cocaine. I have done methamphetamine, heroin, morphine, etc. I don't recommend these things, but the hysteria around drugs and the war on drugs is really crazy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
mossy said:
at least they are taking Trump seriously now.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they aren't. And only a fool would vote for the Donald.

Jeff H said:
If all the smart people vote for Stein, only the fools are left. I agree with you that both Clinton and Trump are bad choices. But one of those two will be elected and I disagree that it makes no difference which one.

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out elsewhere, we Dharma practitioners are very few. Our vote will not sway the election one way or another. Therefore, we should vote for the right path, not the wrong path.

Our Foreign Military Sales program sells military gear to 224 countries in the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
smcj said:
And only a fool would vote for the Donald.
Yet he is winning in our DW straw poll--and overwhelmingly so.

Malcolm wrote:
This poll does not count -- there are foolish people from outside the US who are pushing Trump over Hillary, and many people outside the US who in an ideal world would prefer Jill Stein.

If the poll were restricted to US citizens only, a different picture would emerge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.

Ayu said:
There are several Vajrayana teachers who wouldn't agree to a claim like this.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe amongst Gelugpas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
mossy said:
at least they are taking Trump seriously now.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they aren't. And only a fool would vote for the Donald.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 11:02 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
smcj said:
Speaking as someone that had to sober up 17 years ago, the problem with that strategy is that the first few drinks completely destroy your ability to gauge yourself. For instance, the number of people that would contest the validity of their drunk driving tickets dropped precipitously when the dashcams came into being. They really thought they weren't that drunk until they saw the video later from a sober perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus, you discovered your limitation.

smcj said:
My employers, credit cards, and landlord brought it to my attention. I thought I was doing ok until then.

Malcolm wrote:
It just shows at that point in your life you were lacking integration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:46 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I try to discover what my limitations are. But I don't make that determination before hand.

smcj said:
Speaking as someone that had to sober up 17 years ago, the problem with that strategy is that the first few drinks completely destroy your ability to gauge yourself. For instance, the number of people that would contest the validity of their drunk driving tickets dropped precipitously when the dashcams came into being. They really thought they weren't that drunk until they saw the video later from a sober perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus, you discovered your limitation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 10:43 AM
Title: Re: What is 'mind'.
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Three different words:
manas ( yid ): "refers more to the ability to think, it is the idea of "the thinking mind""
vijnana ( rnam shes ): "refers more to the sense of being aware, that there is something which knows / perceives, simply speaking"
citta ( sems ): "refers more to the complex apparatus which contains all of the perceiving, thinking, and associated apparatus that goes with the general sense of the English word "mind". It has the sense of "the whole cognitive apparatus of dualistic mind" and is closest of all the other terms to the general sense of the English word "mind""
(quotes are from Lama Tony Duff)

Malcolm wrote:
These definitions are not traditional.

According to Vasubandhu, manas is a past mind, vijñāna is a present mind, citta is a future mind —— however, they are ultimately synonyms.

tomamundsen said:
Is that in Chapter 2 of the Kosha, or somewhere else?

Malcolm wrote:
Chapter one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You go ahead and limit yourself all you want.

boda said:
Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that you don't limit yourself?

Malcolm wrote:
I try to discover what my limitations are. But I don't make that determination before hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:


boda said:
Circumstances may rise in the future where killing becomes an issue. In that case making a social promise could help to refrain. Assuming that the killing in this situation were serving selfish reasons and not to save a village or whatever.

Social promises can be powerful. Willpower can be weak.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a lower yana approach, appropriate for some, not for all.

boda said:
It doesn't have anything to do with Buddhism particularly. We are a social species and have limited willpower.

Malcolm wrote:
You go ahead and limit yourself all you want.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 28th, 2016 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


conebeckham said:
Now, as I heard it, this Siddhartha dude knew that his actions would bear some gnarly fruit, but he acted for the benefit of other human beings on the boat, and apparently for the benefit of all sentient beings in future.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think voting for Clinton or Trump will benefit anyone. In both cases, their supporters feel they are going to vote for the most beneficial candidate — in both cases, their supporters are sadly deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: What is 'mind'.
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Three different words:
manas ( yid ): "refers more to the ability to think, it is the idea of "the thinking mind""
vijnana ( rnam shes ): "refers more to the sense of being aware, that there is something which knows / perceives, simply speaking"
citta ( sems ): "refers more to the complex apparatus which contains all of the perceiving, thinking, and associated apparatus that goes with the general sense of the English word "mind". It has the sense of "the whole cognitive apparatus of dualistic mind" and is closest of all the other terms to the general sense of the English word "mind""
(quotes are from Lama Tony Duff)

Malcolm wrote:
These definitions are not traditional.

According to Vasubandhu, manas is a past mind, vijñāna is a present mind, citta is a future mind —— however, they are ultimately synonyms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Talking about Vibrations
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: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Question about Right-Views on Rebirth/Tulkus
Content:
smcj said:
In Mahayana the mindstream that goes between lives is variously called :
The all-base or storehouse consciousness
The 8th consciousness
The alaya vijnana
You won't find it in the Pali. This is one of many reasons why DhammaWheel has its own website.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

In the Theravada the question of what transmigrates is more complicated because their version of liberation is cessation.

The teachings on Buddha Nature are much later than the Theravada So if they're talking about it they're appropriating it from the Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
The cittasaṃtana was a doctrine of the Sautrantika school, and it has a corollary in the bhavanga citta of the Theravada school.

smcj said:
In this case I'm going to say Malcolm knows best--even if I didn't understand what he said.

Malcolm wrote:
Asanga argues that bhavanga citta (sometimes seen translated as relinking mind, etc.) and the alāya vijñan̄a are the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Question about Right-Views on Rebirth/Tulkus
Content:


davidbrainerd said:
So...is there an actual mention of mind stream somewhere in an ancient text?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, cittasaṃtana, you can find it in the Abhidharmakośa and its commentary, and earlier texts.


davidbrainerd said:
Because my impression is that a doctrine of the Buddha Nature as true self has been lost from Mahayana due to infiltration by Theravada concepts, and with the loss of the same, they had to invent a new term mind stream or stream of consciousness.  How wrong am I?

Malcolm wrote:
The cittasaṃtana was a doctrine of the Sautrantika school, and it has a corollary in the bhavanga citta of the Theravada school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 12:17 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
Not all practitioners are willing or able to.

Malcolm wrote:
Why take a vow you don't need? For example, I dont kill anything, so of what use is the vow of refraining from taking life ffor me?

boda said:
Circumstances may rise in the future where killing becomes an issue. In that case making a social promise could help to refrain. Assuming that the killing in this situation were serving selfish reasons and not to save a village or whatever.

Social promises can be powerful. Willpower can be weak.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a lower yana approach, appropriate for some, not for all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
Bubba killed it.

Malcolm wrote:
Lewinsky was conspicuous by her absence...and Alicia Keys was better than bubba...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: Unity of Buddhas
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Nah, it was Malcolm's response. Although I will assume that he was glossing over some of the details. Asserting the Dharmakaya as a singular entity is not a common view in Mahayana Buddhism, as far as I know. That website you are referencing, "What Buddhists Believe," is known to be authored by someone who maintains some fringe views on Mahayana Buddhism. I hope Malcolm can clarify this matter more clearly for you.


Malcolm wrote:
It is absolutely the normative Mahayana view.

tomamundsen said:
Well, OK. Thanks for your clarification, Loppon. I had previously been led to believe otherwise from someone around these parts who used your citations to prove his claim. Anyway, this view seems to reconcile quotes like this, which I was originally shocked by because of my previous understanding:

Lama Tharchin Rinpoche said:
After our teacher passes into parinirvana we have an incredible opportunity to connect with their wisdom mind that has been uncovered from the physical elements and has merged with the vast Dharmakaya.


Malcolm wrote:
The dharmakaya is one because the realization of all buddhas is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Unity of Buddhas
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
I can assume from your reaction that something strange has been said? Was it me?

tomamundsen said:
Nah, it was Malcolm's response. Although I will assume that he was glossing over some of the details. Asserting the Dharmakaya as a singular entity is not a common view in Mahayana Buddhism, as far as I know. That website you are referencing, "What Buddhists Believe," is known to be authored by someone who maintains some fringe views on Mahayana Buddhism. I hope Malcolm can clarify this matter more clearly for you.


Malcolm wrote:
It is absolutely the normative Mahayana view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


Jeff H said:
I don't know what your graphic means, but I don't think I missed your point about war. I was making the point that, while I support peace and any peace candidate or party, voting for Jill will support Trump. They may both be war mongers, but I think Trump poses the bigger threat generally.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I utterly reject your premise. Voting for Clinton, like voting for Trump, is a support for wrong government.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Why take a vow you don't need? For example, I dont kill anything, so of what use is the vow of refraining from taking life ffor me?

smcj said:
The way my Gelug teacher explained it to me is that simply abstaining from one of the negative actions is a non-action It is a zero. Whereas taking the vow and upholding it is meritorious and a cause for liberation. Arhats aren't just people that behave themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, i think that explanation is very limited in its understanding.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
Not all practitioners are willing or able to.

Malcolm wrote:
Why take a vow you don't need? For example, I dont kill anything, so of what use is the vow of refraining from taking life ffor me?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: Unity of Buddhas
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
I heard that there was a doctrine expounded by Nichiren that Amitābha Buddha and Gautama-Buddha (as well as perhaps, other Buddhas) are somehow, mystically, understood to be the same Buddha, but I don't know enough about Nichiren to know where to start to look to get information on this belief. Does anyone know what doctrine I am referring to, if it exists, and what it is properly called?

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmakaya of the buddhas is one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
Effectively to this case I believe the middle way here is between training more or less diligently. No crime or sin, though perhaps a broken vow or promise, if such a vow were taken.

Malcolm wrote:
That vow, like all vows, exist for those who need them. Not all practitioners do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Any questions as to why we cannot continue to support the Democratic Party?

Jeff H said:
Yes. How will President Trump fix that situation? With nationalistic isolationism? Imperialism? Does POTUS really have the power to reverse globalization? He certainly wouldn't tamper with capitalism.

Malcolm wrote:
You have utterly missed the point. Both candidates are the war candidate, and as practitioners of Buddhadharma we have a moral obligation not to support the international arms trade, etc.

There is only one peace party in the world, and that is the Green Party.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Unknown said:
During President Obama’s first six years in office, Washington entered into agreements to sell more than $190 billion in weaponry worldwide -- more, that is, than any U.S. administration since World War II.  In addition, Team Obama has loosened restrictions on arms exports, making it possible to send abroad a whole new range of weapons and weapons components -- including Black Hawk and Huey helicopters and engines for C-17 transport planes -- with far less scrutiny than was previously required.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176169/tomgram:_william_hartung,_how_to_arm_a_%22volatile%22_planet/#more

Any questions as to why we cannot continue to support the Democratic Party?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


Queequeg said:
This is GREAT TV.

Malcolm wrote:
It is bread and circuses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not the anesthetic quality that is valued in Vajrayāna, but rather the conviviality that accompanies its consumption in small quantities.

boda said:
Conviviality I had to look that up. Suffice to say that Vajrayāna values chemical dependencies over training?

Malcolm wrote:
Suffice to say that Vajrayāna recommends a middle way between abstinence and overindulgence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Simon E. said:
So I ask for the third time, does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path? That would constitute a different paradigm, as you've claimed.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not the anesthetic quality that is valued in Vajrayāna, but rather the conviviality that accompanies its consumption in small quantities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
Your point appears to be rather dull.


Malcolm wrote:
So is vehemently insisting that all Buddhists must desist from a glass (or two) of wine with dinner.

Frankly, booze back in the day was pretty awful stuff. We have managed to improve it in terms of flavor etc., quite a bit in 2500 years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
anjali said:
It's as if they are living in two different worlds...

Malcolm wrote:
They are, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Expressions of Gratitude
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That's ok, but it should be:
I'm grateful to my teachers, including ones who shared as little as one phrase of the Dharma.
I'm grateful to the Buddha and the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, shoten zenjin, and all the beings of the billion world universe.
I'm grateful to the Buddha Dharma.
I'm grateful to my fellows on the path who share their time and presence and offer encouragement.
I'm grateful to my parents for providing a home where the Buddha's Pure and Far Reaching Voice reverberated since time immemorial.
I'm grateful for the circumstances of life that afforded me so many freedoms and advantages.
I'm grateful for my wonderful and supportive wife who fills our home with love.
I'm grateful for my children who inspire wonder and adorn my life with laughter.
I'm grateful for my family and friends who share their joys and tribulations and commiserate with me on this path.
I'm grateful for my neighbors who make our town a diverse and pleasant place to live.
I'm grateful for my clients who place their trust in me and give me an opportunity to serve them.
I'm grateful for my professional colleagues who have built our business into a place where we like to work.
I'm grateful for my fellow citizens who through cooperation have created a society where we are able to pursue dreams and opportunities.

I bow three times.
Ok, now it is perfect, in order of importance. ( I excluded the last line of fellow beings, since they are covered in line two.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


Wayfarer said:
The Brexit vote went against the Stay side because of apathy by the Stay voters who didn't turn out.

Myoho-Nameless said:
Those people weren't Stay voters. Otherwise they would have voted. Brexit was majority rule. Democracy. Majority of those who cared to participate.

Simon E. said:
However, a recent poll among Brexiters after the event makes it clear that a proportion of them were unsure of the full implications of Brexit and are now worried about the possible fallout (a bit late chums). Or even voted leave as a protest, not dreaming that they would win....
A sizable minority of Brexiters even thought that the victory for leave meant that all those of a different colour to the Anglo Saxon/Celtic population would now have to leave the UK even if they were third generation Brits... That's what they thought they were voting for...

Malcolm wrote:
Many of the people voting for Trump have no idea of what is implied by supporting him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Question about Tibetan rebirth/Dalai Lama
Content:
smcj said:
"tulku of benediction"

Malcolm wrote:
This idea comes from Dzogchen tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2016 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.

boda said:
You misunderstand. As you say, drinking may be "permissible" in Vajrayāna, but permissible does not mean non-toxic.

Does the Vajrayāna understand the anesthetic quality of alcohol, or rather aversion to pain, a viable method in the path?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that Vajrayāna understand that immunity to some toxins can be developed by consuming small quantities of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2016 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
boda said:
There's no "Buddhist paradigm" where alcohol doesn't negatively effect our nervous and endocrine systems.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is. It's called Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I guess that's one way to see it.

Malcolm wrote:
This is why Dzogchen teachings are definitive, everything else is provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:


MiphamFan said:
Anyway my point again is that Islam has not been defanged by Enlightenment values the same way Western Christianity has been (a point I believe you yourself made before). They rejected their own "enlightenment" in favour of strict legalism.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think it is fair to say that Islamic culture has had an enlightenment yet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:


MiphamFan said:
That's the Renaissance. And they translated from Arabic to Latin (Sicily, Spain etc).

Enlightenment came much later. After Copernicus, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz laid the groundwork for a new non-scholastic epistemology and understanding of the universe.

Malcolm wrote:
And that was done on the basis of the corpus of knowledge preserved by Islamic scholars which was brought to Europe. Thus you make my point.

MiphamFan said:
If you want to say that then you might as well say the https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=22497&p=334471&hilit=scholastic#p334471, in addition to what they got from the Greeks and Persians.

Anyway, yeah the Muslims did pass on Aristotelian thought to the Latins. But the rediscovery of Stoicism, Neo-Platonism etc was a completely separate thing which took place after the fall of Byzantium to the Muslims. These were either passed down from Greek scholars fleeing the Muslims or discovered in manuscripts from the 5th century to the Carolingian period.

The Muslim "Golden Age" died after Al-Ghazali put an end to any critical examination of the Qur'an.

Malcolm wrote:
Muslims got a lot of their knowledge from Central Asia, and Muslim high culture flourished in many places, at different times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:


MiphamFan said:
The problem is that Islam has not been defanged by enlightenment values the same way Western Christianity has been.

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, the Enlightenment was a result of the influx of the vast corpus of classical writing preserved by Muslim scholars in Arabic translations that were back translated into Greek from Arabic.

MiphamFan said:
That's the Renaissance. And they translated from Arabic to Latin (Sicily, Spain etc).

Enlightenment came much later. After Copernicus, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz laid the groundwork for a new non-scholastic epistemology and understanding of the universe.

Malcolm wrote:
And that was done on the basis of the corpus of knowledge preserved by Islamic scholars which was brought to Europe. Thus you make my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Real world Relations: Poll
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All five.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If the awakening of the sugata does not exist, then his appearance is just a delusion of the deluded, similar to an illusion (i.e., something a person believes is real, when it is not).

Queequeg said:
but this "does not exist" does not equal "nothing"..

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it equals delusion. When one is no longer deluded, for what reason would one need the appearance of a buddha? Given that this is so, just how is the appearance of a buddha not a delusion?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:


MiphamFan said:
The problem is that Islam has not been defanged by enlightenment values the same way Western Christianity has been.

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, the Enlightenment was a result of the influx of the vast corpus of classical writing preserved by Muslim scholars in Arabic translations that were back translated into Greek from Arabic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
maybay said:
For someone with such little merit, Mohammed's words have gone quite far don't you think?

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, Mohammed must have had great merit for his words to be followed by 23% of the world's people. Even Māra has merit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Words
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
For example, I oppose & do not tolerate, in the sense of not caring enough to object, to many notions.  But I am not 'unquestionably right' nor think those opinions I oppose are 'unreasonable or wicked' - just wrong and causative of more sorrow.


Malcolm wrote:
You also hopefully do not condemn entire portions of humanity, even though you are NOT fond of Communism.

Nicholas Weeks said:
'Hopefully'?? Just shows that after 25? years you and me and the rest of the posting minions do not know each other at all.

Wonder what percentage of DW folk have  contacted another face-to-face (no, FaceTime does not count) or know well & personally another? Very tiny I surmise.

Malcolm wrote:
We know each other in this context, we don't know each other outside of it. That said, this just means that my knowledge is you is limited, as you observe, to out interactions in this medium. However, I have by and large found meatspace interactions with folks I have met online here to be salubrious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Words
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
For example, I oppose & do not tolerate, in the sense of not caring enough to object, to many notions.  But I am not 'unquestionably right' nor think those opinions I oppose are 'unreasonable or wicked' - just wrong and causative of more sorrow.


Malcolm wrote:
You also hopefully do not condemn an entire portions of humanity, even though you are fond of Communism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:


Queequeg said:
This passage is the culmination of his declaration of his Immeasurable life span when he explains he's constantly abiding and teaching beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.
-- Mañjuśrimitra

Queequeg said:
Similar to an illusion? But not quite...

Malcolm wrote:
If the awakening of the sugata does not exist, then his appearance is just a delusion of the deluded, similar to an illusion (i.e., something a person believes is real, when it is not).


Queequeg said:
Your record is public... often, there's no question...

Malcolm wrote:
On a Buddhist forum, one's interest can be taken for granted.

(that includes you too, maybay, nonperson that you are)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are also not entitled to the common courtesy I extend to others, since you are anonymous, and therefore can spew forth your bigotry without fear of consequences.

maybay said:
Well I can understand why my anonymity is a sore point.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a sore point-- it merely means that your opinions and feelings are less worthy of consideration than they would be otherwise.

maybay said:
But let me assure you it works both ways, and there are many benefits, like not having to protect my reputation and all the rest of that fame and notoriety crap.

Malcolm wrote:
This is merely cowardice and hiding in the shadows. But of course, bigotry and cowardice run hand in hand.

maybay said:
Here words rest, for the most part, on their merit alone.

Malcolm wrote:
No, words never rest on their own merit, they rest on the merit of the person who enunciates them. And if you are not a person (no anonymous internet participant can truly be considered a person, merely a nym), than your words have no merit at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Words
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't recall labeling you a bigot.

maybay said:
The martyr becomes the cause.

Malcolm wrote:
How desperate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
maybay said:
But it is the height of temerity to judge my life experience of people's opinions, core beliefs, and actions – let's not forget their actions – as nothing but a noetic glitch.

Malcolm wrote:
You are a sentient being. By definition that makes you a noetic glitch. In your case, however, your glitchiness expresses itself as a general lack of kindness and compassion, idiotic and otherwise, at least the way you present yourself here.

You are also not entitled to the common courtesy I extend to others, since you are anonymous, and therefore can spew forth your bigotry without fear of consequences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Words
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Since the poor commie Victims have been pushed aside, (as is the norm) for our diversion into verbal scrimmaging, let us take a peek at 1913 Websters:
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
My bold - so the main thing in bigotry, it seems, is the non-melow, unreasonable quality of the bigot. Therefore, opposing firmly any opinion that differs from ones own is not bigotry unless some of the notions in bold type rule.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't recall labeling you a bigot. Others however really do deserve the term, c.f., "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I should also add, that if you want to be a vegetarian, it is better to do so based on principle, like Dante, rather than invoke the authority of this or that teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:


Queequeg said:
This passage is the culmination of his declaration of his Immeasurable life span when he explains he's constantly abiding and teaching beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.
-- Mañjuśrimitra


Queequeg said:
I've suggested above about telling people about dharma with no expectation.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't say anything unless some asks of their own accord. It's a discipline.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
narhwal90 said:
There are a number of passages in the Lotus Sutra like this "“Ajita, suppose there is a person who speaks to another person, saying, ‘There is a sutra called the Lotus. Let us go together and listen to it.’ And suppose, having been urged, the other person goes and even for an instant listens to the sutra."

Malcolm wrote:
Such passages presume an pre-existing interest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:


Adamantine said:
To be fair though Malcolm, you've also changed your views on this since I've known you, and it can be a hard thing to accept on faith alone.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed. I held this point of view, then became disturbed by industrial abattoirs and reversed my point of view. I then regained my equanimity, and found a deeper perspective.

Adamantine said:
So it is not as if there are no Vajrayana teachers and practitioners who keep a vegetarian diet and ethic and believe it to correspond with correct understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
If people choose to avoid animal protein in their diets for health reasons, this is fine. If people think it is unethical to kill animals for food, well, they are right, it is unethical by any Dharma standard. Patrul Rinpoche was responding to the fact that in Tibet, Tibetan monasteries were deeply engaged in ordering animals slaughtered for provisions. If you read his texts, you will see that in general he taught to avoid eating meat, but he saved his most cutting remarks for monastics.

That said, if you want to be a healthy vegetarian, learn to cook Ayurvedically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
maybay said:
Since you use this word bigot with such vehemence and so often, consider how your use of it is any different from its definition "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."


Malcolm wrote:
You are completely entitled to your opinions. It does not make you any less of a bigot, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 12:09 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Ok. But what wayfarer points out is not negated. There is an effort to reach others.


Malcolm wrote:
Not really — this is why a buddha is likened to a wish-fullfilling gem. When found, wish-fulfilling gems grant all wishes. When not found...


Queequeg said:
This passive Buddha you seem to describe does not jive with what I've understood as the path...


Malcolm wrote:
That is the nature of understanding the difference between samsaric paths and nirvanic paths; lower paths versus higher paths.

Queequeg said:
I'd point out the active, proactive Buddha is a feature in East Asia in general.

Malcolm wrote:
I would point out that this is irrelevant.

Queequeg said:
It's expressed in the ideal of Bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara and Ksitigarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
Ideals are nice, but they are just that — ideals; and ideals are fabrications.

Queequeg said:
It's in the Lotus where the Buddha is constantly contriving to approach beings and lead them on the path. The Buddha's hand is always extended, always active, guiding beings whether they are aware or not.

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds like you confused Jesus with the Buddha.

Queequeg said:
This impulse to serve others is a capacity understood to be intrinsic to us -just as a parent is selflessly concerned for their child. it follows that when we find a path out, even if we have not completed it, we see others struggling and know they could be freed, we might want to share that.

Malcolm wrote:
This impulse is generally speaking, a Māra.

Queequeg said:
Just as I would stop and offer a jump to a stalled driver, or give directions to someone who is lost. There's no ego in that, just the simple fact that someone needs help and I can. Car jump started, or person sent in the right direction, and off I go.

Malcolm wrote:
This is quite different than evangelizing and proselytizing Buddhadharma. In the case of helping someone with a flat, you know exactly what the problem is and what to do to help them. In the case of Buddhadharma, generally, we really do more harm than good to sentient beings through the arrogance that we can help anyone. In fact, it is impossible unless you are yourself a realized person.

Queequeg said:
It seems you guys are guided by a modesty, but the house is on fire and the restraint you practice could be viewed as callous.

Malcolm wrote:
In the parable of the burning house, it is the Buddha that calls out to his three children, trying to entice them with different carts. Who among us is a Buddha, with the capacity to help sentient beings out of that house when indeed we are just as trapped, in the very same house?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Why is a mantra on a card handed out in time square not liberation through seeing?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the mantra. Not all mantras are liberation through seeing.

Queequeg said:
Assuming it is, then what?

Malcolm wrote:
People are not handing out liberation through wearing mantras in Times Square. It would be strange if they were.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
Dan74 said:
Few of us, if any, understand what is really happening...

Malcolm wrote:
Whats is happening in this thread is the usual three afflictions: desire, hatred and ignorance— especially hatred.

Buddhists are so precious in their judgments of others, not understanding that their own bigotry makes equal with the objects of their bigotry— afflicted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:52 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Muslims...

Malcolm wrote:
We must understand, as I said before, structurally speaking, there is very little difference between Christianity, Islam, Capitalism and Communism.

Bataille's Accursed Share is required reading to understand this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 11:49 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
maybay said:
What I'm saying, unrepentant liberals, is that you can project your liberal ideals on to others as much as you like but it won't stop them turning round and biting you in the ass as soon as they reclaim the hand of power. Some people watch roar and see a movie about cats. I cant get past the bunch of idiots

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the rallying cry of bigots everywhere: "I told you so."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
My current boss is a Muslim and she is more than happy with my beliefs.  We discuss religion all the time.  Actually a couple of weeks ago I was sharing a room with her husband and after arriving back at the hotel, completely beat from a day of running around like lunatics, we did our prayers together:  he did his Slat al-Isha and I did my Dharmapala practice.

maybay said:
Your defending Islam reminds me of the 1981 movie ROAR and its agenda of proving that wild cats can partake of our humanist ideals.

Malcolm wrote:
Wow, I never realized you were such an unrepentant bigot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Content:


Nicholas Weeks said:
Did I write that it was a practice unique to communism?  No.  But the denial of commie spies & intellectual property theft in the past and now, was & is very popular.  Spy Alger Hiss still has his defenders, blindly claiming his innocence.

Malcolm wrote:
The point, Nick, is that you seem to involved in fighting the conflicts of the past. Communism, like God, is dead.

Nicholas Weeks said:
I agree that Islam is the far bigger problem, but look how many folk still cannot face the totalitarian nature of Islam.

Malcolm wrote:
Monotheistic religions in general are totalitarian. Just look at the social conservative movement in the USA. The only reason we do not live in a theocracy is because of the Scottish Enlightenment, and the influence of atheists like David Hume, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, etc.


Nicholas Weeks said:
If you wish, with your fine intellect, to call present day communism as not real - fine.  But you are making an intellectual distinction that has no practical difference.

Malcolm wrote:
Vietnam will democratize as soon as they stabilize their economy. You forget that Ho Chi Minh was our ally in WWII, and was bitterly disappointed that his plea to us to help Vietnam throw off repressive French colonialism after the war was totally ignored by the USA. Likewise, Castro wrote the US Gvt. asking for aid to defeat Batista, and again he was ignored. If these two countries are nominally "communist," it is the fault of our own broken foreign policy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2016 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
Lobsang Chojor said:
Socialism is a Marxist spinoff and it isn't communism

Malcolm wrote:
This is a huge misconception. Marxist Socialism is merely one kind.

Lobsang Chojor said:
I never knew that. I've learnt alot of non-dharma topics from you today

Malcolm wrote:
An ok summary of the field:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism

For example, the socialism of one of the founding fathers of the US, Thomas Paine, held:
"the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus, Paine viewed private property as necessary while at the same time asserting that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Pish posh Malcolm; the point has been made, such as it is.

Just as the buddhadharma has many distinct, differing views, yet all are Buddhism, so if one wants to parse the variety of Marxist spinoffs as different, fine - but they are all Communism.

Lobsang Chojor said:
Socialism is a Marxist spinoff and it isn't communism

Malcolm wrote:
This is a huge misconception. Marxist Socialism is merely one kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Content:


Nicholas Weeks said:
Did I write that it was a practice unique to communism?  No.  But the denial of commie spies & intellectual property theft in the past and now, was & is very popular.  Spy Alger Hiss still has his defenders, blindly claiming his innocence.

Malcolm wrote:
The point, Nick, is that you seem to involved in fighting the conflicts of the past. Communism, like God, is dead.

Sherab Dorje said:
There are still some adherents here and there, but really...  Deader than democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. I'd be more worried about terrorism and war carried out in the name of Islam, Christianity, Democracy and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Content:


Nicholas Weeks said:
This book is one example of another facet of communism - trying to destabilize nations via espionage.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, unlike the US policy of regime change that we have conducted for the past 120 years?

Nicholas Weeks said:
Did I write that it was a practice unique to communism?  No.  But the denial of commie spies & intellectual property theft in the past and now, was & is very popular.  Spy Alger Hiss still has his defenders, blindly claiming his innocence.

Malcolm wrote:
The point, Nick, is that you seem to involved in fighting the conflicts of the past. Communism, like God, is dead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Content:


Nicholas Weeks said:
This book is one example of another facet of communism - trying to destabilize nations via espionage.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, unlike the US policy of regime change that we have conducted for the past 120 years?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
China is not a communist country and has not been for a couple of decades now.

Nicholas Weeks said:
Pish posh Malcolm; the point has been made, such as it is.

Just as the buddhadharma has many distinct, differing views, yet all are Buddhism, so if one wants to parse the variety of Marxist spinoffs as different, fine - but they are all Communism.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing the slightest bit Marxist about the Chinese Government. I have been there. I know. They are more Confucian now than they ever were Marxist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Andy Weber
Content:


Lobsang Chojor said:
I might phone the studios as they're close to me.

I wonder why hackers would target his website

Malcolm wrote:
They run scripts that look for vulnerabilities in a range of host IP addresses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche's birthday?
Content:
yeshegyaltsen said:
Actually it depends on different terma cycles, whether his birth was in monkey month or the sheep month.  The difference in calendar only signifies when those days would correspond to the modern solar calendar, not when the birth is thought to have occurred.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you give an example of a treasure biography of Guru Rinpoche that gives his birth month as the sheep month?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Buddhism has been a proselytising religion from the beginning. That is the point of the Nikaya story about the Brahma Sahampati beseeching the Buddha to 'teach for the benefit of many, for the sake of those with a little dust in their eyes'. Recall that prior to this intervention, the Buddha was inclined not to teach, but afterwards, decided to go forth and teach, which he did, and which is the reason that Buddhism spread throughout the ancient East and remains the force for good that it is today.


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not stand on a street corner broadcasting his message like a radio, with no consideration of who was listening. Instead, Buddhadharma has spread on the basis of Dharma teachers teaching those who are interested that which they were interested to hear, and that which they were able to employ in their lives.

Nor did the Buddha and his disciples stand on a street corner handing out handbills, with hopes that people would show up at his teachings.

Proselytizing, the attempt to convert someone to one's own religion or set of beliefs, is the very opposite of the Buddha's project. Evangelism, in this instance the zealous advocacy of a cause or set of views, is also the very opposite of the Buddha's project.

Buddhadharma has spread in the world due to the merit of sentient beings, and when that merit is finally exhausted, the Dharma will vanish at the same time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Queequeg said:
How's that different than carving mantras on the side of a mountain?

Malcolm wrote:
A mantra carved in a mountain in liberation through seeing. There are six liberations, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touch and thinking. Liberation through propaganda is no where mentioned.

Queequeg said:
Why is a mantra on a card handed out in time square not liberation through seeing?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on the mantra. Not all mantras are liberation through seeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche's birthday?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Right, I have indeed noticed the Losar difference, but not with major Wheel days like Saga Dawa or Chokur Duchen-- or am I wrong and those are a month off too for Tshur Lugs?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Victims of Communism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
From Rivkin's article at the blog.  Like to hear all the DW sages specifically respond to the content of this quote and 2) read and respond to the articles on communism in 2016 Vietnam, N. Korea, Cuba etc.

This is so I may learn from your greater wisdom.
Despite our best efforts and intentions, America has not been as successful at eradicating communism as President Eisenhower had hoped. In the 21st Century, more people live under communism than at any point in history. While most of Eastern Europe is free of communism, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and North Korea still have communist regimes that continue to rob a combined 1.5 billion people of their human rights and liberties. Beyond the borders of communism, the populations of Russia, Belarus, and Crimea continue to suffer under collectivist and statist regimes that resemble communism as nearly as makes no difference.
One more point about my frequent lack of engagement with those wiser heads here, I post very often not to solicit responses or discuss, but just to give lurkers something to ponder.

Malcolm wrote:
China is not a communist country and has not been for a couple of decades now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Queequeg said:
How's that different than carving mantras on the side of a mountain?

Malcolm wrote:
A mantra carved in a mountain in liberation through seeing. There are six liberations, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touch and thinking. Liberation through propaganda is no where mentioned.


Queequeg said:
So in that light, maybe its better to not use the word "evangelism" and rather talk about public, interactive practice out in the Buddha's wheat field.

Malcolm wrote:
There are some Buddhist groups that engage (mistakenly) in evangelism. But the Dzogchen point of view is broader, more subtle, and far, far more effective at providing the causes of liberation to sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
Everyone who is effective in their run for office is repetitive.

Malcolm wrote:
They are all repetitive, what makes it a sin is dullness.

Queequeg said:
What makes it a sin is that it might get him elected. I think he had to be dull last night... everyone was expecting a bombastic s**t show with him live tweeting.

Malcolm wrote:
He won't get elected. His message appeals to a very limited base. And if he does get elected, it proves that Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Dems to pick (#Still Sanders). So that will be on the Clintons and the Dems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is absolutely no need to evangelize the Dharma. A precious human birth is something that arises from past merit accumulation. If you have the merit to meet Buddhadharma, it is inevitable that you will. If you don't, you won't. The Nicherin evangelical trip always struck me as odd.

Queequeg said:
In some ways it strikes me as odd, too, but nobody is really interested in discussing its details so, putting it aside.

I raised the argument above that there is something fatalistic in this view of karmic destiny. Kind of Calvinist.
Not at all -- if one should waste this opportunity, there is no knowing when one will meet it again. The Calvinist point of view, by contrast, was that there is an elect who are preordained for salvation.
It also does not in any way undermine evangelizing activities, because it can equally be said that the chance encounter with the Buddhist preacher on the corner was the particular manner in which that person's encounter with Buddhadharma was conditioned to happen in this life.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does. What it means is that there is no point to evangelical activities in Buddhadharma because people will always meet the Dharma in this world for as long as there are fortunate people and the Dharma has not disappeared. And even if the Dharma has disappeared, since suchness is always present and waiting to be discovered, even if there are no buddhas, there is always the possibility of awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
Everyone who is effective in their run for office is repetitive.

Malcolm wrote:
They are all repetitive, what makes it a sin is dullness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:


Queequeg said:
I agree, particulary with the second paragraph, though the third paragraph seems a little too timid. Not that I know what a good stronger approach would be. Just quietly practicing doesn't seem particularly effective, especially in the West where people will have no idea that a person is exemplifying Buddhist ideals. The role model might need a little more marketing around it.

Malcolm wrote:
There is absolutely no need to evangelize the Dharma. A precious human birth is something that arises from past merit accumulation. If you have the merit to meet Buddhadharma, it is inevitable that you will. If you don't, you won't. The Nicherin evangelical trip always struck me as odd.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:


Queequeg said:
That speech last night was brilliant.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree. I thought it was repetitive and dull.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2016 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche's birthday?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Which one says which? According to the system used by the Rigpa calendar it's the 6th month... Apparently the Dalai Lama follows the other calendar indicating the 5th month.

And if it has to do with calendar systems why isn't every thing else off by a month?

Malcolm wrote:
Everything, like losar etc. Karma Kagyu's (Tshur Lugs) celebrate losar a month early.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Is this a figure of Avalokiteshvara?
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
it looks like representation of the 11-headed, 1000-armed form of Avalokiteshvara. He is usually portrayed as standing. First time I've seem an image of him sitting. Nice statue.

Malcolm wrote:
Standard east Asian presentation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Guru Rinpoche's birthday?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Why do some say Guru Rinpoche's birthday is the 10th day of the
5th month, and others that it's the 10th day of the 6th month? Does anyone know the deal?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on which calendar you follow, Tshur lugs or Phug lugs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Is this a figure of Avalokiteshvara?
Content:
Pumo said:
For the experts here, is this in fact a figure of Avalokiteshvara, or I'm wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Queequeg said:
What Trump gets...

Malcolm wrote:
Is more and more long winded and rambling...what a pathetic speech. Sad!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: Meanwhile, the crushing of Tibet continues...
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Would you say that to the devotees?
It wouldn't be the first time people had to hear protests at an empowerment...
We should be mindful of how we discuss the three jewels.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I would tell that to "devotees."  This fake panchen lama is a fraud and he himself knows it. Those fools who protested HHDL were ghost devotees also.

These people are not the three jewels.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Meanwhile, the crushing of Tibet continues...
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Do you doubt that China's Panchen Lama can properly bestow the empowerment? Or that him not being the "real panchen lama" is a fault? and that the empowerments he gives are 'fake'?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. Yup. Yup. Plus he is a ghost devotee.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
Economists, in a market economy, use the analogy of a dollar being a "vote".


Malcolm wrote:
Thus, if you "vote" for oil, you "vote" for corn and soy feed, thus you "vote" for meat and slaughterhouses. Why? Because you are "voting" for the principle cause of industrial agriculture and animal husbandry, especially organic agriculture, which heavily relies on animal "by-products" for fertilizers, and we are not just talking manure here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
shaunc said:
The argument coming up is that if I buy product A, this will result in product  B being supported by my money either directly or indirectly. Wouldn't this just be a type of interdependence that is a theory taught by buddhism.
Unless we are living in a remote area and are completely self sufficient we've all supported causes that we weren't aware of, good causes as well as bad causes.


Malcolm wrote:
The argument being made is that buying meat shows intent for and support of killing animals. I disagree, on the principle that if this is true, then it follows that buying any corn, etc., also shows intent to kill animals through pesticides, etc.

The world is made no less a grisly abattoir by refraining from eating meat. Frankly, there are more important issues to be concerned about:


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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2016 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Terry, The Man Who Knew All About It, But Couldn't.
Content:
conebeckham said:
You will notice the Tingsha a-top Malcom's instrument...

Malcolm wrote:
Korg Synthesizer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I will never vote for Hillary -- hell will freeze over first.

dzogchungpa said:
There's no way Trump will take Massachusetts anyway so I guess it doesn't matter, but if you were in a different state maybe you would?

Malcolm wrote:
Under no circumstances. I don't vote for neo-liberal, neo-conservatives, regardless of the party to which they belong. There is too much at stake:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Terry, The Man Who Knew All About It, But Couldn't.
Content:
conebeckham said:
You will notice the Tingsha a-top Malcom's instrument or amp or whatever that is.......

dzogchungpa said:
Gadzooks, I totally missed that!


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and you also missed the metal Tibetan horn I am holding in my left hand. This dates the photo to 1984 when I was briefly part of a band called Sleep Chamber, many of whose members would eventually become hardcore junkies. The music was and remains pretty horrible. But our inspiration at the time was PTV, Coil, David Tibet, Nurse with Wound, SPK, etc., which you can see from the little Psychick Cross pin I am wearing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You can't win an election based on hate porn.

Queequeg said:
That's an aspirational prayer, I'm afraid.

Better make best efforts and vote for Hillary to ensure its truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I will never vote for Hillary -- hell will freeze over first.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
Simon E. said:
I have a horrible feeling that he is going to win.

I do hope that feeling is mistaken.


Malcolm wrote:
You can't win an election based on hate porn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Terry, The Man Who Knew All About It, But Couldn't.
Content:
conebeckham said:
Malcolm was a punk rocker.  I thought everyone knew that.

Ok, maybe not a "punk rocker"--maybe a more experimental rock musician.  Weren't we all musicians in a past life? Or in this one?

(Assuming this screed of Simon's refers to Malcolm is a stretch, I think....it could easily refer to me.  Or a number of us).

Malcolm wrote:
Just to set the record straight:
malcolm_industrial.jpg (139.96 KiB) Viewed 3092 times


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
That is, you are basically helping to pay the wages of someone working in the slaughterhouse whose job is to keep on killing animals so you can eat them.

Malcolm wrote:
You pay taxes. So you are subsidizing the corn used to feed the cattle that are being slaughtered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: FPMT Empowerment
Content:
bizilagun said:
Hello everybody. I haven't been around this forum for ages.

As far as I know, nor Medicine Buddha or Tara empowerments include taking boddhisattva vows (Chenrezing or Vajrasattva do, for example).
.


Malcolm wrote:
Of course they do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Response to Wrong Views?
Content:
Queequeg said:
So a sort of related question: what is the Buddhist view of secularism?

Malcolm wrote:
This "Buddhist" regards it as essential to freedom and democracy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Simon E. said:
You are taking your stance from a different Buddhist paradigm.

vinegar said:
It applies to all buddhist traditions--which do you think it does not apply to?

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is false. For example, it is impermissible for a śravaka bhikṣu to handle gold; but is permissible for a mahāyāna bhikṣu to do so. Likewise, it is permissible for Vajrayāna pracititioners to eat meat and drink alchohol, where it is impermissible in lower yānas.

This also ignores the fact that one-pointedness is a mental factor present in all minds, the difference between your one pointed samadhi and the one pointed attention of a cat on a mouse is solely the motivation driving it.
I'm speaking about practitioners with perfect samadhi or close to it (7th stage, 8th stage), not the samadhi that all minds have
You are referring to the nine stages of placement? In this case, there is no difference, as I noted.
Vajrayana accepts Sutrayana's general explanation, the only real difference being that Vajrayana makes the unique assertion of being able to attain various paths using only perfect samadhi or near-perfect samadhi of the desire realm.
This is a strange tenet, from where or whom is it derived?
This means without the generation of any form realm mental factors, meaning desire to sense object is severely controlled but not altogether understood as being very coarse and not without attachment to them being defeated
This is completely false.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:


ThoroughlyCutting said:
I'm saying that I'm going to "err" on the side of caution. As I don't much care for being berated during teachings for living a lifestyle that is consonant with the teachings of other lamas that I admire and my own feelings on the matter, I'm going to give thanks for the teachings and I've received from ChNN, and bow out. Whether or not his view on the matter is correct or incorrect is certainly not for me to say, but it's not right for me.

tiagolps said:
Whos berating you?

ThoroughlyCutting said:
ChNN. At least once per teaching I've found that Namkhai Norbu endorses eating meat, and as Malcolm mentioned, also chastised practitioners like me who refuse to do so, hence my post above.

Malcolm wrote:
You have to understand one critical point: ChNN states that if, for example, you are a common Mahāyāna practitioner, then of course you must be a vegetarian. But if you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, than you have methods available to you to benefit sentient beings which wind up on your plate, either as a byproduct of agriculture, or as a consequence of slaughter. To refuse to use those methods and prefer a lower sutrayāna view makes your compassion "miserable."

The idea that you can only eat meat if you have the capacity to transfer the animal's consciousness to a buddhafield is a superstition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: 5 precepts. Alcohol?
Content:
Simon E. said:
I wrote 'completely present and awake'... which is rather different.

vinegar said:
Fair enough.. even so the same argument applies;  it is impossible to be present and awake without perfect single-pointedness, and perfect single-pointedness is mutually exclusive to depending on sense objects.   Literally the bliss, equanimity, etc, produced by the various absorptions do not depend on sense objects on the contrary the habit for attraction to them impedes those good qualities from arising

Malcolm wrote:
Only from a sūtrayāna, aka path of renunciation, presentation of one-pointedness.

This also ignores the fact that one-pointedness is a mental factor present in all minds, the difference between your one pointed samadhi and the one pointed attention of a cat on a mouse is solely the motivation driving it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
The willfull killing is built into the experience.

Malcolm wrote:
If you kill an animal, or ask someone to do so for you, then yes. If not, then, no.

gad rgyangs said:
if you buy meat in a supermarket or order some in a restaurant, then you are "asking someone to do so for you" by putting your money into an ecomonic chain that orders more animals to be killed to supply more meat to replace what you just bought.


Malcolm wrote:
I understand that is how it appears to you. But it is faulty logic, discussed to death already in this thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Talking about Vibrations
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: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
The willfull killing is built into the experience.

Malcolm wrote:
If you kill an animal, or ask someone to do so for you, then yes. If not, then, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Don't bother him with emails about vegetarianism.


Malcolm wrote:
Most def


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 3
Content:
kirtu said:
I was asked several times if I was Jewish after a night out in Munich or Koeln when people saw that I was circumcised

Myoho-Nameless said:
Wh.....what kind of "night out" gave THAT appropriate context?


Malcolm wrote:
Better to not ask...


