﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Simon E. said:
VERY similar to Jeremy Corbyn's message to the Brit electorate, something is clearly afoot.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Clarification re: Dharmakaya and ...
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hi Wayfarer:

Dhātu is actually defined as a "source" such as a mine. It is never defined as "body." This definition is continuous from Abhidharma to Dzogchen.

Wayfarer said:
from my scanty knowledge, 'dhatu' is terminology from the Sanskrit abhidharma, referring to the 'body' or 'element'...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 2nd, 2016 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Simon E. said:
Within two presidency terms though Malcolm ?

We in the UK have our first Socialist Labour Party leader for 25 years.. I think he signals a movement  back to Socialism.
He is a forerunner. The next socialist Prime Minister of the UK will be in 12 years at the earliest.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, put it this way, Simon. Sanders has fanned the flames of the progressive enthusiasm that withered under Obama.

The difference between Sanders and all the other candidates out there is this: they all say in one voice, "Elect me, and I will take care of you. You can relax once I am elected." This is the standard message of American politicians since Nixon.

Sanders is saying, "Electing me is only the beginning. Without you, without continuous engagement in the democratic process, nothing will change. It is up to you, not me."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
America will be as socialist as Scandanavia if not this presidency then within the next two. Why? Millennials are a huge population and they support Sanders by a huge margin. There is a cultural and political sea change occurring in the US. Legal pot, completely upending traditional relationships and even gender, it goes on and on. In 16 years the political establishment we know will seem as outmoded as the civil war era. Honestly Bernie has a great shot at winning. If he loses, the pressure will go way up and the next president after this one will be a Sandersian. Sanders is making a huge impact.

Simon E. said:
As an outsider, I hope you are right. If I were a betting man though I would lay a large wedge that you are not.

Malcolm wrote:
The social and economic "conservatives" in the US are mainly white, middle class, and their demographic is shrinking exponentially. For example, the majority of children in grade school in Iowa are non-white.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
I do think Americans would be stupid to elect Trump and I do hope that they don't do it.

Taco_Rice said:
Neither I, and I imagine Michel Houellebecq, can understand why you do not recognize that the same is profoundly more true regarding the election of mainstream politicians. If I and others choose to elect Clark Kent in place of the regular movie extras placed into their glorified customer service positions by those who run the world, what does it matter if we suspect he may be Superman? Hopefully he's actually Lex Luther and brings us the intolerable.


Malcolm wrote:
No dude. Muslims who come here will be Americanized. They will, as they are doing, adopt liberal western values, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
The reason why honey isn't vegan is because it is stealing.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the reason why honey is not "vegan" is because Vegans believe honey bees are exploited. In general, Vegan philosophy is based on the idea of animal rights.

seeker242 said:
That right. And keeping bees so people can steal their honey, is itself, an exploitation.

Malcolm wrote:
Vegan ideology is not Buddhadharma, however, and people should keep this distinction in mind.

Honey, milk, butter etc. are all acceptable foods, even in most strict interpretations of Mahāyāna,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 12:26 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
rory said:
[

Kudos Astus, well posted, it's nice to see assertions supported with scholarly content as opposed to mere opinon.

Malcolm wrote:
You are hilarious. Astus is a nice person, but he loves taking indefensible positions merely for the hell of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connec
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Predictably, I will tell you that Father Tiso's book, while interesting, is not to be taken seriously by practitioners.

It is a mishmash, at best. However, his account of Khenpo Acho is quite nice.

Norwegian said:
That is what I expected...

How long is the part about Khenpo Acho? Worth buying the book just for that?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:


seeker242 said:
The reason why honey isn't vegan is because it is stealing.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the reason why honey is not "vegan" is because Vegans believe honey bees are exploited. In general, Vegan philosophy is based on the idea of animal rights.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connec
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Predictably, I will tell you that Father Tiso's book, while interesting, is not to be taken seriously by practitioners.

It is a mishmash, at best. However, his account of Khenpo Acho is quite nice.

Unfortunately, I will have to argue with people inspired by his syncretism and uncritical acceptance of some western academic bloviators for the rest of my life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Tsongkhapa Madhyamaka
Content:
Matt J said:
So is the point of Gelugpa Madhyamaka really to establish a conceptual view of emptiness...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 1st, 2016 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Samadhi
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You really do not understand the point.

Samadhi is a caitta, a mental factor, that all creatures possess, not matter in what realm, desire, form or formless.

This definition is basic Abhidharma.

Saoshun said:
but that's means nothing. it's like saying stone posses inherent buddha nature. whatever it poses or not, for the stone it means nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
You are failing to distinguish how that mental factor is being used. For example, a hunter uses his mental factor of samadhi to aim and shoot. A Dharma practitioner on the other hand uses his mental factor of samadhi to engage a path dharma, etc. Nevertheless, samadhi is one of the ten neutral mental factors possessed by all sentient beings.  When someone properly studies Buddhadharma, they understand such points are noncontroversial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 11:34 AM
Title: Re: Samadhi
Content:
Saoshun said:
yes, I understand yogacara view, but there is good story pointing out this thing from chan lore, you all know it probably about boat monk-master who beated up guy with the sandal? So when he said first "dharmakaya have no form" and after awakening, it's different.

I mean the view can bring realization in some students, but believing that everybody are in samadhi is nuts, there are not even everybody, there is only your experience and expression of those, so if you are in samadhi Malco, that's great, teach me if it's that possible.

Malcolm wrote:
You really do not understand the point.

Samadhi is a caitta, a mental factor, that all creatures possess, not matter in what realm, desire, form or formless.

This definition is basic Abhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
rory said:
Now for a nice example of a great modern master who was deeply influenced by reading Buddhist books and achieved great levels of realization as a hermit: Hsu Yun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsu_Yun

Malcolm wrote:
But of course:
During his years as a hermit, Hsu Yun made some of his most profound discoveries. He visited the old master Yung Ching, who encouraged him to abandon his extreme asceticism in favor of temperance. He instructed the young monk in the sutras and told him to be mindful of the Hua Tou, "Who is dragging this corpse of mine?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Samadhi
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhadharma, samadhi is a neutral mental factor that accompanies all minds. Everyone experiences samadhi all the time, every time they focus their attention single pointedly.

Different kinds of one-pointedness are given different names, for example, vajropama samadhi.


Saoshun said:
That's not true.

Malcolm wrote:
Take it up with Vasubandhu and Asanga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Taigen Shodo Harada Roshi Introduction to Zen
Content:
Dan74 said:
What we see, boda, is our thoughts about Jundo, and the rules of the forum say very clearly, no ad homs. So we continue to discuss what is said, not who is saying it. Otherwise I might comment on your continued disregard of this rule, but I guess it would be just as futile.

Malcolm wrote:
When someone makes personal claims on a public forum, it is not "ad hominem" to discuss them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
DGA said:
Does anyone know of an example of a contemporary or historical Buddhist master who has attained any degree of realization with nothing in support of his or her endeavors (in this lifetime) but a library card?  (or audio/video recording for that matter?)

Any examples at all?

Anybody?

Malcolm wrote:
Astus will be the first, based on his primordial vow of refusing to have a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Misterious message in a pendant
Content:
53RG10 said:
Thank you for the clarification. I hope I will be still able to find someone capable of translating it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not translatable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Misterious message in a pendant
Content:
53RG10 said:
Hello everyone,

Some months ago I found a pendant on the pavement (see link) and inside I found a rolled paper with something written on it.
After long searches I discovered it is Tibetan. I was trying to translate by myself, but it is more difficult than I expected, so I would like to ask you to help me understand what this message says.

Here is the link to the images:
https://drive.switch.ch/public.php?service=files&t=2812eaf6647946b191df1b4a19b84ea7

Thank you for reading my topic.

Kind Regards,
Sergio


Malcolm wrote:
It is not Tibetan. It a liberation through wearing amulet written in Dakini script.

It is not really translatable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Samadhi
Content:
Saoshun said:
Did you ever been/experienced samadhi? Cleary not, even one samadhi makes person mind little sage-ish.

Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhadharma, samadhi is a neutral mental factor that accompanies all minds. Everyone experiences samadhi all the time, every time they focus their attention single pointedly.

Different kinds of one-pointedness are given different names, for example, vajropama samadhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 31st, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Jeff H said:
Could it be that hearing from a master and reading sutras and shastras serve different purposes?

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing inherently wrong with reading. I read many sūtras and śāstras, as well as academic books. But it was not until I went to sit with HH Sakya Trizen and heard him teach the Dharma [a book I had already read] that the Dharma awoke inside of me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Śruta means hearing.

Queen Elizabeth II said:
True enough, yet in many modern Indian languages a person of great learning is called a bahuśruta, "one who has heard much" (e.g. Hindi बहुश्रुत and Gujarati બહુશ્રુત), no matter if he got that learning by reading books or by sitting at the feet of his guru. Is there any reason why in a Buddhist context the meaning of śruta should be strictly limited to things heard and that learning acquired by reading would not count as prajñā?

Malcolm wrote:
Such a person of great learning learned by sitting with their guru and orally reciting texts: first the ācarya gives a passage, indicating proper rhythm, tone, and so on, passage by passage, one at a time, and the student repeats it until it is memorized. Along with this, the meaning will be explained. Texts support this process, but by no means can they replace it. This kind of learning is fundamentally different than the sort of discursive learning we prefer today. The invention of the printing press fundamentally changed the way Europeans related to texts and the process of learning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out before: the three prajñās or wisdoms are hearing, reflection and meditation, not reading, reflection and meditation.

Queequeg said:
Well, there clearly is no consensus on this.


Malcolm wrote:
Śruta means hearing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, looks like we need a little more purification:


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing can purify this:


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: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Because... it is?

Malcolm wrote:
One would assume then that merely by reading the PP sūtra, everyone would comprehend it instantly.

Queequeg said:
The Sutra text is a written record of the Discourse...

Does everyone who hears the discourse comprehend it instantly?

Having heard it, though, they've formed a bond that will mature into comprehension, maybe sooner, but probably later.

To tie this in with the Tiantai correspondence above, a person who hears (or reads) the Name, Prajna Paramita, would by that be drawn onto the path, irreversibly...

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out before: the three prajñās or wisdoms are hearing, reflection and meditation, not reading, reflection and meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
Thems your peeps, though.
https://youtu.be/m8NIxYnO3JM?t=22s

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, these be my peeps:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Because... it is?

Malcolm wrote:
One would assume then that merely by reading the PP sūtra, everyone would comprehend it instantly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus said:
Even in Tibetan iconography Manjusri holds a book as a representative of the PP teachings.

tomamundsen said:
In Tibetan iconography, Dharma books are a symbol representing the enlightened speech of the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
You have to understand, Astus does not care about lineages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 30th, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
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]


Really...we need a little less saccharine here and a little more spice....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
Content:
Zhen Li said:
I personally don't mind the "world music" style that you hear from Imee Ooi, but the problem with that is that it isn't easy to replicate by, say, a choir or what have you.

dzogchungpa said:
I really like a lot of her stuff and in particular I find her rendition of the Vajra Guru mantra very moving:

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]


Admittedly, it doesn't swing.

Malcolm wrote:
Kitaro on prozac...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The reason I raise this is because it seems that as one advances on the path, a teacher's role is limited...


Malcolm wrote:
Even bodhisattvas of the tenth bhumi have teachers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the sūtra makes it clear that the doctrine of the PP must be heard from another.

Astus said:
The doctrine is contained in the sutra, and the sutra is a written text.

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtras are not written texts. This idea is at the heart of your misunderstanding. How can the PP, which is inexpressible, beyond thought and concepts be contained in a book?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:19 PM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
Content:


ngodrup said:
Its maybe not well known, but Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
was very fond of Gershwin's Porgy and Bess Classic "Summertime"
and felt it was unfortunate that the song didn't have "dharma words."
If it did, it would be all the more sublime.

Malcolm wrote:
His imagination was lacking, it is a perfect expression of anuyoga view:
Summertime, and the livin' is easy
Fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high
Oh, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin'
So hush little baby, Don't you cry

One of these mornings you're gonna rise up singing
And you'll spread your wings and you'll take to the sky
But 'til that morning, there ain't nothin' can harm you
With Daddy and Mammy standin' by

Summertime, and the livin' is easy
Fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high
Oh, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin'
So hush little baby, Don't you cry

One of these mornings you're gonna rise up singing
And you'll spread your wings and you'll take to the sky
But 'til that morning, there ain't nothin can harm you
With Daddy and Mammy standin' by


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:


Astus said:
That's in chapter 14, not the colophon. Also, the sutra has existed as a book as far as we can tell, not to mention that its translations are definitely textual works. Plus the sutra itself makes it clear that one should read and copy it, just like other Mahayana scriptures recommend the same for themselves. Why make copies if one needs to hear it? And what difference does it make if one reads it on paper or listens to the same text read out?

Malcolm wrote:
It is meritorious to write it and copy it. Nevertheless, the sūtra makes it clear that the doctrine of the PP must be heard from another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
Content:
Punya said:
How so?

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, their pronunciation sucks.

Second, it's doesn't swing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Choral version of Seven Line Prayer
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Possibly of interest:

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]


(hat tip to DJKR)


Malcolm wrote:
Horrible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Bakmoon said:
The other schools say that emptiness is much more than just the lack of inherent existence. It's about removing all views, most particularly the views of existence, non-existence, both, and neither.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because existence also cannot withstand ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is that even though he has a vision of the Tathāgatas before hand, he insists on finding Bodhisattva Dharmodgata to hear the PP directly from him.

Astus said:
That is a possible interpretation, not really emphasised in the sutra itself. However, it is stated repeatedly in this and other sutras that the scripture itself is the carrier and transmitter of the teaching - after the demise of Shakyamuni - worthier of veneration than relics.


Malcolm wrote:
No, you have not understood the colophons of this sūtra:
once he has heard the perfect wisdom, he follows and pursues the reciter of dharma and does not let him go, until he knows this perfection of wisdom by heart or has got it in the form of a book, just as a cow does not abandon her young calf"
"Hearing" requires hearing it from someone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Matt J said:
Classical Indian teachings tend to assume that three things are necessary for realization: 1) personal experience; 2) a teacher; and 3) scriptures. Why? The teacher prevents one from getting caught up in one's own delusions. The scriptures prevent the teachers from making up their own stuff. And personal experience prevents it from being a merely intellectual exercise.

A scripture simply can't tell you whether you're on the right track or not.

Astus said:
The teachings themselves are contained in the canon. At what point is a teacher indispensable?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, these are three of the four authorities. The fourth, which you omit here, is the intimate instructions. Ultimately, however, it is the guru that confirms the other three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
smcj said:
I think the Gelug version is that things are self-empty but they do arise interdependently.

Malcolm wrote:
Gelugs reject the appellation "rang stong", FYI.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 29th, 2016 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:


Astus said:
In that story, Sadaprarudita is told that the teaching will be either oral or scriptural:

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that even though he has a vision of the Tathāgatas before hand, he insists on finding Bodhisattva Dharmodgata to hear the PP directly from him.



Astus said:
Now that is something, although without context it is still not that clear. When it says mentor, is it kalyanamitra, upadhyaya, or something else?

Malcolm wrote:
Kalyanamitra, i.e. dge ba'i bshen gnyen


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...pretty much says a teacher is indispensable.

Astus said:
It's possible to read it that way.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, what is means is that you need a teacher. There are a ton of other citations that make the same point.

And, of course, there is the story of Sadaprarudita in the 8000 PP sūtra.

There is also the Ārya-kuśalamūla-paridhara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Never be separate from the Sangha,
never be separate from the virtuous mentor.
The Ārya-saṃghāṭi-sūtra-dharmaparyāya states:
When the virtuous mentor is seen, it is seeing the Tathāgata.
The Ārya-ratnākara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
In order to fully enter the dharmadhātu, one must rely on a virtuous mentor, associate with them and honor them.
This last one is basically the same in intention as Saraha's statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:


Astus said:
I appreciate your quotes (as always), and I can only agree with them. However, they don't seem to say the indispensability of teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
should never be abandoned even at the cost of one’s life
...pretty much says a teacher is indispensable.

Of course, as you note, in Vajrayāna, a teacher, it goes without saying, is definitely indispensable, as Saraha points out:
Ho, friends, the connate
can’t be gained from another; it is gained from the mouth of the sublime guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Lukeinaz said:
I am wondering what is different about the Gelug presentation.  Is it not harmonious with other traditions?

Malcolm wrote:
They insist that a negation is ultimate truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: All Buddhist traditions are oral traditions. Or...?
Content:
Astus said:
What I object to is this idea that an "authentic teacher" is somehow the key to everything.


Malcolm wrote:
Three Hundred Verses on Vinaya states: Disciplined, knows the rites of Vinaya, 
loving towards the ill, has a pure retinue, 
diligent in giving assistance with Dharma and materials,
his instruction timely, such a guru is to be praised.
The Sutrālaṃkara states: Rely on a virtuous mentor  who is disciplined, peaceful, pacified, 
diligent in the highest qualities, very learned,
understands the truth, eloquent, 
has a loving nature and has abandoned regret.
The Bodhicaryāvatara states: The virtuous mentor 
skilled in the meaning of Mahāyāna 
with the supreme disciplined conduct of a bodhisattva
should never be abandoned even at the cost of one’s life.
The Ratnāvali states: If you rely on those who
are content, compassionate and disciplined, 
with the discerning wisdom that removes afflictions,
through knowing them, give them respect.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 28th, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It just means that arising from conditions is a convention.
The consequence of Madhyamaka arguments is that things just happen, since existent causes and conditions are just non-causes and conditions, and past causes and conditions are just non-causes and conditions.

Queequeg said:
LOL

I'd say that's true of the duller folks who study Madhyamika... the ones who get lost in it precisely as they're warned not to.

They tend to emphasize the ultimacy of the analysis and ignore the remainder. Sad for them.

The remainder is what's interesting, IMHO. But you need to put the Madhyamika aside and utilize alternative methodologies for that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 27th, 2016 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The consequence of Madhyamaka arguments is that things just happen, since existent causes and conditions are just non-causes and conditions, and past causes and conditions are just non-causes and conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 12:00 PM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Things are not real.
Things are not unreal.

...although it is appropriate to say things are not how we think they are, it is more appropriate to say that things cannot be successfully thought of from any ontological position.

smcj said:
OK, so far I'm with you.
To argue against an inherent essence of a given object, but then to argue for the existence as a form of process or continuum over time, or even as a plenum void, is internally contradictory.
I don't get that at all.

conebeckham said:
Okay...what process or continuum do you propose to be real? Let's examine this.
I like trees.  Let's use the example of a tree.  Now, we can say a tree does not exist-but can we say a tree, as process of seed-Seedling-sapling-tree-flower-fruit-seed, exists?

Or, if you don't like this example, what, exactly, can be said to exist?

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka does not support process metaphysics. However, Yogacara does. Hence the debate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:


Yeti said:
What about view?  Where is it in this context?

Malcolm wrote:
No method, no view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddha-Nature is Change
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But I think "Buddha nature" ought to be put in quotes, or said with a wink.

Astus said:
Why?

Wayfarer said:
We don't want to be literalistic about such expressions. Otherwise you make a concept out of them, and then it becomes a matter of belief, like the kinds of ideas found in scholastic philosophy. And they're OK,in their own way, but they don't capture the living essence of Zen, which is ever elusive.

Malcolm wrote:
We can take the term tathāgatagarbha, etc. literally. Why? Because it is definitive in meaning. There is nothing interpretable about the statement in the Uttaratantra:
[E]mbodied beings are always buddha-natured.
And:
All migrating beings are said to be buddha-natured.
But we can take this out of the Zen forum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No, it is more like the image in the sūtras of using the sewage of a city to grow crops.

The image of the lotus shows that samsara and nirvana are different.

The images of the pyre and fire and sewage and crops shows that nirvana is a transformation of samsara.

smcj said:
Right. And the point I've been trying to make is that if it is not transformed it is still samsara.

I do not see Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner as Vajra Masters. What they are about, as understandable as it is, is not Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
They don't have a method. If they did, it would be different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Without the pyre of afflictions, how will the bonfire of pristine consciousness burn?

smcj said:
I see this as being similar to the analogy of the lotus flower rising unstained from the yuck and muck of the pond. YMMV.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is more like the image in the sūtras of using the sewage of a city to grow crops.

The image of the lotus shows that samsara and nirvana are different.

The images of the pyre and fire and sewage and crops shows that nirvana is a transformation of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:


smcj said:
We definitely see things differently on this point. That's ok. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in this case:
Without the pyre of afflictions, how will the bonfire of pristine consciousness burn?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If the fire is hot enough, it can burn even the greenest of wood.

smcj said:
I still see your posting as supporting my position.
"No fire"= "defilement" and therefore obscuration.
"Fire"="wisdom", and therefore legitimate Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
You are really missing the point:

No fire = no afflictions
Fire = afflictions

The statement is saying if there are no afflictions, there is no wisdom. Once the fuel [afflictions] is burned, the fire [wisdom] goes out


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:


smcj said:
Most of my Vajryana teachers have been monks that kept their vows purely, and did so without seeing a contradiction.

Just sayin'...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, monks can practice Vajrayāna, and often take consorts, hence the term " gsang yum."

smcj said:
Back to your quote: Without the pyre of afflictions, how will the bonfire of pristine consciousness burn?
To belabor the metaphor, if the pyre is soaked with water it will not burn. Then it is still nothing but afflictions. The only scenario whereby a monk can take a consort without breaking his vow of celibacy is if the pyre is bone-dry (renunciation) and the fire burns as wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
If the fire is hot enough, it can burn even the greenest of wood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:


smcj said:
Most of my Vajryana teachers have been monks that kept their vows purely, and did so without seeing a contradiction.

Just sayin'...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, monks can practice Vajrayāna, and often take consorts, hence the term " gsang yum."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:
smcj said:
But, having entered into Secret Mantra, we should never think of our bodies or sense enjoyments as impure.
But with an asterisk. My Gelug mentor told me that even in the Vajrayana the defilements are not to be indulged in per se. If they can be transmuted into wisdoms they are the means to enlightenment and therefore part of the Path. But if they remain as defilements they are still the source of suffering/dukkha.

He did not elaborate much beyond that, but my impression is that the Vajrayana still has "renunciation" as a premise. What it does not have is avoidance of anything in life--as long as it is lived with refuge, renunciation, and bodhicitta.

Malcolm wrote:
As Garab Dorje said:
W ithout the pyre of afflictions, how will the bonfire of pristine consciousness burn?

smcj said:
The Vajrayana is not a path Alister Crowley would have enjoyed.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, he most definitely would have, are you kidding me? Vajrayāna is not a path of renunciation at all. Recall, it started in this epoch because there was a king who needed to service 500 wives.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:
naljor said:
Malcolm, why then all those great Vajrayāna teachers teach Shantideva, why they don’t teach Vajrayāna view from the beginning?

Malcolm wrote:
Many do, for example, ChNN. They just do not generally leave commentaries which become famous in Shedras.

And, you must bear in mind that Mahāyāna subjects are generally speaking subjects for kids and adolescents in Shedras. When we come to Tibetan Dharma as adults, there are many things we perhaps do not know at all and need to learn as context for Vajrayāna.

But, having entered into Secret Mantra, we should never think of our bodies or sense enjoyments as impure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings who are not conventionally deluded can certainly know who has their best interests at heart.

dzogchungpa said:
When it comes to politics, it often seems that one man's conventionally deluded sentient being is another man's conventionally undeluded sentient being.

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally undeluded:



Conventionally deluded:



Just sayin...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Having a body is like carrying around a sack of poison
Content:
Yeti said:
I've been taught that there are views of this according to the 3 yanas.

Hinayana - view this body as nothing desirable.
Mahayana - as a vehicle to use to take all beings to liberation
Vajrayana - as having the qualities of the kayas, and to be treated as such

As a 3 yanaist these views can all coexist together without conflict.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they actually cannot. Both Mahāyana and Hinayāna view the body as impure and something to be abandoned. Practicing in this way is a violation of Vajrayāna samaya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


maybay said:
One could ask whether deluded sentient beings ever really know who has their best interests at heart.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on whether we are speaking about conventional delusion [seeing two moons in the sky] or ultimate delusion [not seeing the reality of their own nature].

Sentient beings who are not conventionally deluded can certainly know who has their best interests at heart. Since all sentient beings are ultimately deluded by definition, in this case, no politician can help them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Procured, thanks.

Think I'll read Garfield and Tsöndrü side by side, see how they compare.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, Jay is very influenced by Gelug, and his reading pretty much ignores the classical tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
maybay said:
Is it more important for politicians to be guileless and open with the electorate, or to have the best interests of the people at heart?

Malcolm wrote:
If they are not open with the people, how will the people know they have their best interests at heart, for example, the people of Flint, MI.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Garfield elided the last part from his translation. It would be best if you used someone else translation. Garfields is dated and quite inaccurate in many places.

rachmiel said:
What translation would you suggest? I'm interested in something that does not overlay a particular school-driven interpretation on the MMK, but strives to capture and communicate Nagarjuna's original intention.

Malcolm wrote:
Ornament Of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Way

It is a pre-Gelug Tibetan commentary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
There is a difference between real and fake. If everything is fake, the ability to distinguish them collapses.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence, they are of one taste.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Norwegian said:
Here's Siderits & Katsura:

" I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, 
who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, 
according to which there is neither cessation nor origination, 
neither annihilation nor the eternal, 
neither singularity nor plurality, 
neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvana characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization. "

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty dreadful as literature...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
Basically Iraq would become a US colony.

Taco_Rice said:
Would the Iraqis really be worse off for it?

Malcolm wrote:
No, but we would.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Garfield's translation has a different ending:

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
The best of teachers, who taught that
Whatever is dependently arisen is
Unceasing, unborn,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Not coming, not going,
Without distinction, without identity,
And free from conceptual construction.

What does mangalam mean?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Garfield elided the last part from his translation. It would be best if you used someone else translation. Garfields is dated and quite inaccurate in many places.

mangalaṃ is the auspicious verse in the beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: empowerments and focus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are rules, but in reality there are no rules.

Yeti said:
AFAIK, when the samaya is given at the end of the empowerment and it is said "The samaya is the view", then there is no specific practice commitment as such, and one unifies that practice with one's view (which to me is hugely challenging as practice).

But if a Vajra Master gives a specific practice commitment, then I see that as a literal instruction.  It's not my domain to literally reinterpret that.  (But one could always go to the VM as state why it's not possible to keep that practice commitment).  I admire magnus for walking out of that Yamantaka empowerment... that's a sign of respect and perspective.

I was told after taking the Sakya Vajrakilaya that the standard Vajrakilaya mantra would not suffice for the recitation commitment, and that one was required to do that specific mantra.

I must confess I don't do a lot of various daily practices that many of my better vajra brothers and sisters do, but I've been taught these practices combine to effect ones tendrul and manifestation and auspicious connections.

In the case of many great masters they did many daily practices, and regular retreats on these different practices.  In general, they are lineage holders, and myself, best to focus on the heart of the practice I'm focusing on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Ironically, the proper Madhyamakan response to my concern about causality is RIGHT THERE IN THE VERY OPENING OF THE FRICKIN' Madhyamakakarika:

1. Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

Shame on me for having forgotten this! I only read it like 20 times (a year or so ago). Forest for the trees ...

Malcolm wrote:
The opening mangalaṃ of the MMK captures the entire meaning of the text:
I prostrate to the most sublime of teachers, 
the Perfect Buddha,
by whom dependent origination —
not ceasing nor arising,
not annihilated nor permanent, 
not going nor coming,
not different nor the same,
the pacification of proliferation — was demonstrated as peace.
If this is understood, the whole of the MMK will be understood with ease.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: empowerments and focus
Content:


Adamantine said:
Yeah but according to what you've been emphasizing,  even if he had stayed he wouldn't need to practice that yidam as long as he was practicing an equivalent one daily or doing Guru Yoga daily, even if that contradicted what HH said at the time...

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. Why? Every time you take any empowerment into any deity, you are promising to take that deity as your yidam until you achieve awakening. So, when you have taken Dzogchen teachings, you should understand how to unify everything into one practice, and doing so fulfills all commitments. However, if you do not have this understanding, then it is better to be more judicious.

Of course, such instructions by HHDL, etc., are meant to discourage the merely curious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness implies conventional existence, not existence.

Jeff H said:
Fair enough. I agree with that. But is the correction you are giving me that conventional existence cannot be expressed as "existence" even when juxtaposed against the mistaken appearance of intrinsic existence?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Jeff H said:
Not at all, Malcolm. But if the OP is asking for “simple and brief”, I’m trying to share a starting point that may help. That sentence may have been overstated.

My point was in reference to phenomena, though. Conventional truth asks how things function in the world. Ultimate truth asks how they exist really. But both truths are referring to the same entity, and therefore emptiness implies existence -- just not intrinsic existence. Am I mistaken about that?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness implies conventional existence, not existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Sangha and harmony
Content:


Punya said:
What do you think Andreas means by "invigorating the clarity aspect"? And, is it reasonable to expect a live (not online) sangha to be peaceful or do you agree that this can be fake or only an outer appearance.

Malcolm wrote:
It means stimulating yourself so you do not fall into dullness or get carried away with agitation.

Punya said:
Thanks, that's not what I thought he was meaning. So when he says "They don't have that door open where the demons and the Buddha are come" what point is he making?

Malcolm wrote:
They never challenge their practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: empowerments and focus
Content:
Adamantine said:
If that's the case, then why wouldn't the Dalai Lama who is clearly an expert on Atisha give that conditional at the time of the Yamantaka wang that Magnus left:
heart said:
I left an empowerment of Yamanataka by HHDL because he clearly told us at the beginning of the empowerment that everyone that didn't want to apply the practice for the rest of their life should leave.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Because he wants people to put it into practice seriously. If you are a Gelugpa, this is going to be either your main practice or one of them.

But if you start practicing Dzogchen, unless you are a Gelug lineage holder, what is the point of maintaining irrelevant yidam practices?

heart said:
I am imagining Magnus is quite familiar with the POV you express but left to honor HH Dalai Lama's own perspective as the lineage Guru giving the wang.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, he used his common sense. He was never going to seriously practice this deity, I am quite sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Sangha and harmony
Content:


Punya said:
What do you think Andreas means by "invigorating the clarity aspect"? And, is it reasonable to expect a live (not online) sangha to be peaceful or do you agree that this can be fake or only an outer appearance.

Malcolm wrote:
It means stimulating yourself so you do not fall into dullness or get carried away with agitation.

It can be fake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: empowerments and focus
Content:
narraboth said:
I've heard that someone has to do a deity practice from both Sakya and Gelug lineage everyday because he received both from different masters, even the practices are just a little bit different in details.

Malcolm wrote:
Then in this case they do not understand the principles of the teaching.

Adamantine said:
I believe in every case it is really dependent on the Guru and what they instruct. If they are asked and answer that it is important to do the Sakya practice as it's own daily commitment separately then it wouldn't be appropriate to take liberties with interpretation that contradict the Guru's own command. Of course that may not be the case here.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite honestly, this is not what all the great masters of the past have taught. This practice 1) comes from lower tantras. 2) it arises from lineage provincialism.

For example, while it is the case that Vajrabhairava and Yamantaka are separate lineages, etc., there is not point in practicing both. There is no point in practicing the Sakya and the Gelug transmissions of Naro Khachö separately. There is no point in practicing two different forms of Hevajra, Vakrakilaya, or Kalacakra.

The way to unify all commitments is in Guru Yoga. If you understand this, you understand the real point of the teachings.

It is said that when Atisha came to Tibet, he thought he had nothing really to share, until he noticed one day that Rinchen Zangpo was practicing different several mandalas a day. Then Atisha realized he had a purpose and advised Rinchen Zangpo (many years his senior) to focus on one mandala, commenting, "Tibetans practice one hundred mandalas and realize none, whereas Indians practice one mandala and realize all."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Jeff H said:
You can only apply emptiness to an existing phenomenon.


Malcolm wrote:
So according to you, space and cessations are not empty?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 25th, 2016 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
"Emptiness does not mean that nothing exists. It just means that any existence that phenomena have is as a result of causes and conditions and will cease when those causes and conditions no longer apply."

Malcolm wrote:
But you have to understand the Nāgārjuna clearly shows that such an account of phenomena arising through causes and conditions is incoherent.

There is a reason that the most important moment on the path of a bodhisattva is the understanding gained on the eighth bhumi, patience for the nonarising of phenomena.

The ultimate conclusion of Madhyamaka is that nothing arises, yet everything appears. E ma ho!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 24th, 2016 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: empowerments and focus
Content:
narraboth said:
I've heard that someone has to do a deity practice from both Sakya and Gelug lineage everyday because he received both from different masters, even the practices are just a little bit different in details.

Malcolm wrote:
Then in this case they do not understand the principles of the teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 24th, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:
orgyen jigmed said:
Although it was not my intention here to either challenge Namkhai Norbu's scriptural authority, realization or capacity as a teacher, I nevertheless felt it appropriate to present only a small token of converging  views on the ganachakra samaya substances, that are equally based on scholarly and siddhas realizations - but not necessarily embraced or readily understood by some Dzogchen followers of Namkhai Norbu.

Malcolm wrote:
Since you have decided to attack ChNN's students on this score and ChNN as well, it must be pointed out to you that they are merely following the explicit instructions of their guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 24th, 2016 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
TRC said:
This same basic theme that keeps on appearing on the Open Dharma forum with regular monotony

Malcolm wrote:
Theravada is not being run down. The point is to establish, as I have done, that Theravada falls within the bounds of Mahāyāna critiques. This, after all, is a Mahāyāna website. It is understandable that Mahāyānists will want to understand what the Mahāyāna point of view is, and not the inconsistent speculation and revisionism that streams out of western academia.

We Mahāyānistas have our own narratives about the origin and rise of Mahāyāna. On this forum, a Mahāyāna forum, I demand that this be respected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 24th, 2016 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All modern research about the putative formation of Mahāyāna is at best speculative and there are very contradictory opinions in the scholarship.

TRC said:
Yes indeed and this is my point also; but it needs to be said emphatically that the view that Mahayana was taught simultaneously is in the minority.

Malcolm wrote:
Among westerners.


TRC said:
Now importantly, when this is considered, it changes the whole emphasis of debate dramatically and significantly towards the standing of Mahayana/Vajrayana, who would therefore no longer have any legitimacy as the arbiters of who is higher, who is lower and who’s who in the world of Buddhadharma, and quite frankly IMO this is how it should be.

Malcolm wrote:
The classical Mahāyāna sūtras, and authors such as Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha, are the sole arbiters of what Mahāyāna considers lower paths and higher paths.

TRC said:
At the very best the most that could be said with any legitimacy is that they are different. Without being Buddhavacana the Mahayana/Vajrayana no longer has claim to being the self-appointed authority on these matters.

Malcolm wrote:
And here we have hit finally on the salient point of your disagreement. You do not think that Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna are Buddhavacana at all, thus, there is no common basis for a discussion.

TRC said:
I would suggest this is what most concerns you and why you are vehemently opposed to the majority of Scholarly opinion.

Malcolm wrote:
Western scholars generally speaking don't care whether any of it is Buddhavacana or not. They, in general, have no interest in practicing Dharma. They are not lineage holders of Mahāyāna Dharma.

TRC said:
It’s not Reggie Ray’s opinion (when he asserts that Mahayana is a later development), that is in the minority, it is actually yours. You may skilfully argue the contrary and convince many that it is the minority, but the facts don’t bare it out.

Malcolm wrote:
In this conversation I had one main point, successfully presented, which states that the critiques and positions leveled against śrāvaka schools and paths in Mahāyāna apply just as much to Theravada as they do to Sarvastivāda, Mahāsaṃghika, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 24th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
ཨ


Malcolm wrote:
Nice try.

dzogchungpa said:
Curses, foiled again!





Malcolm wrote:
Well, your attempt was rather "transparent."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
ཨ


Malcolm wrote:
Nice try.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: empowerments and focus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In my opinion, irrespective of this or that empowerment, special or not, as long as one remains interested in the path, than all of your samayas are intact, whether or not you do this or that visualization or chant this or that mantra.

Your vows are all rolled up in one question: are you interested in liberating yourself for the benefit of all sentient beings or not? If yes, then you have samaya. If not, then not.

There are acts which can break your path commitments, but these also can be restored. Vajrayāna samaya is not whips and chains.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: What's in simple, brief explanation, emptiness?
Content:
Ervin said:
I still don't quite know what is meant by emptiness in Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
It means things are not real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that the Ray is wrong

TRC said:
The only fact evident here is that Reggie Ray disagrees with you. Nothing more.  If you weren't so caught up in the dogma and rhetoric you might actually begin to consider that maybe you are not correct. Yours is just one point of view, not the final word.

Now, what else is interesting is your criticism of academics/scholars who study and interpret Buddhism, yet the basis of your arguments and your approach is also very scholarly and academic. So is it just the case that you only reserve criticism for them when they don't agree with you? Most obviously your criticism of Buddhist academics and scholars who conclude that Mahayana is a later development (Ray is also clearly saying this above) and that the historical Buddha was not teaching Mahayana/Vajrayana concurrently. I think your criticism reveals a clear double standard.

Malcolm wrote:
You are discussing two separate issues:

One, there is Ray's opinions about the formation of Mahāyāna. All modern research about the putative formation of Mahāyāna is at best speculative and there are very contradictory opinions in the scholarship. For example, no one takes Ray's thesis that Mahāyāna formed in South Indian forest dwelling ascetic communities seriously anymore.

The traditional Mahāyāna account however is clear: Mahāyāna was taught by the Buddha, Mahāyāna teachings were preserved by ārya bodhisattvas, and eventually, they were promulgated widely.

The second issue, where I think that Ray is really out to lunch, is his perspective on Hinayāna: what the term means and to whom it applies. The basis of my argument about is the texts of the Mahāyāna tradition itself and the traditions it self-consciously identifies as objects of polemic, Sthaviravāda/Theravada being among them. Then of course there is irrefutable fact that people calling themselves "Theravadins" lay claim to being in fact the Sthaviravada tradition. As I pointed out, either there is a continuity of the Theravadin ordination lineage which goes back to Upali or there is not. If there is, there is no decent reason not to consider Theravada the modern representative of the Sthaviravādin tradition. That being the case, within the literature of the Pali Canon itself, the path of attaining Buddhahood, the practice of a bodhisattva, is nowhere taught. Therefore, in order to practice that path, aspirants must turn to Mahāyāna sūtras if they wish to have any hope of understanding how to practice that path beyond a vague notion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
HHST does not mean there is some wisdom or compassion "out there", disembodied, and free ranging. No, he means that there are buddhas.
He speaks English fluently, right?

Malcolm wrote:
His English is quite good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 23rd, 2016 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
I saw a friend last night. He's been reading a Sakya book and quoted HHSK saying the following in that book.

From:
"Treasures of the Sakya Lineage; teachings from the masters" compiled by Migmar Tseten and published by Shambhala in 2008, on page 54.

Malcolm wrote:
And edited by yours truly.

HHST does not mean there is some wisdom or compassion "out there", disembodied, and free ranging. No, he means that there are buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Bakmoon"]
Well no one is stopping you from taking up the Gelugpa interpretation of Madhyamaka which posits conventional existence. In that system statements like that by Buddhapalita are subject to interpretation.[quote]

Gelugs would reformulate it as follows.

"It is not that Madhyamaka negates existents, it merely removes claims for inherently existing existents."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Conebeckham said:
The English terms "Absolute Truth" and "Conventional Truth" are not the best translations.

Wayfarer said:
I think they're quite intelligible and that there is a real distinction between conventional and ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the former is the object of a deluded cognition, the latter is the object of a un deluded cognition. Please Candrakīrti's definition in the MAV.

Wayfarer said:
From the viewpoint of ultimate truth, there is no distinction - that's one of the implications of non-dualism -  but for those who still are bound by conventional realities, the distinction is real and important.

Malcolm wrote:
It is important to know the difference between delusion and nondelusion, yes.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 11:59 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, this is resolved by what the Buddha says, they retain the knowledge obscuration because of traces they fail to eradicate. It is not the case that they have active afflictions. But they do not eliminate all traces and until they do, they still possess a knowledge obscuration, in addition to the fact that as the Buddha says, śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not realize the emptiness of phenomena, only the emptiness of persons.

Astus said:
What traces and where? Are those the effects of past deeds, what we can see (e.g. http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/English-Texts/Why-the-Buddha-Suffered/index.htm ) affecting the Buddha in the same way?

Knowledge obscuration is clinging to mental phenomena, dharmas that are within the skandhas. But if somebody is still bound by the skandhas, that is not liberation from samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, if you want to argue with the Buddha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu, go for it. I provided precise definitions for you, but if you still wish to invent your own, please continue without me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, your qualm directly contradicts the Buddha's statement in the Lanka that śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas are liberated, but they have obscurations to full awakening.

Astus said:
I recognise it as well that there are contradictions. At the same time, the concept that sravakas are unbound (from attachment to skandhas) but still obscured (by conceptual attachments) is a contradiction in itself.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is resolved by what the Buddha says, they retain the knowledge obscuration because of traces they fail to eradicate. It is not the case that they have active afflictions. But they do not eliminate all traces and until they do, they still possess a knowledge obscuration, in addition to the fact that as the Buddha says, śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not realize the emptiness of phenomena, only the emptiness of persons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
It is not disingenuous to point out that the  statement  that Theravada was specifically criticised as a Hinayana school is lacking in evidence. It does lack evidence and what we have argues against it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not lack evidence at all.

Caodemarte said:
If you establish what current Theravada doctrines actually are and what was criticised in the early polemics. then you can compare the two and make an argument that they would have been criticized if had they been around. However, this is a speculative argument, not an historical argument.

Malcolm wrote:
But they were around, for example, the Dipavamsa is circa third/fourth century. There is a clear continuity between the modern day Theravada and Sthaviravada.

You are claiming instead that there is one river called  Sthaviravada which was interrupted, and then another river called Theravada in a different place. But if this is true, then Theravada ordinations are invalid since you are claiming there is no historical continuity.

Caodemarte said:
However, an historical argument has been made without  historical evidence for it.  The repeated creation of straw man arguments, throwing out red herrings, and intemperate language does not advance the discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
It is really simple: does the Theravadin ordination come from Upali or not? If it does, then cease complaining about whether the Mahāyana criticism of Sthaviravada also apply to Theravada -- for they do. If not, then you are left with the consequence that Theravada ordinations are invalid.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
http://www.compassionateaction.info/ChapterFive.pdf [/i]...

Malcolm wrote:
No, Zach did. I am quite sure that Chatral Rinpoche used a term like theg dman or theg pa chung ngu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Wayfarer said:
Much of this debate is caused by the fact that current English has no lexicon for degrees of reality or modes of existence; it has been 'flattened out'.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such lexicon in Sanskrit either.

There are no degrees of reality or existence. There is no state where something is partially real and partially unreal; partially true and partially false.

In order for one to be a nihilist, one has to assert something that becomes nothing. As stated, Madhyamaka does not claim things do not exist; it merely removes the claim that this and that thing exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Yangsi Kalu Rinpoche's Marriage
Content:
conebeckham said:
It's on Facebook......frankly, I think that's where it should stay, IMO.  I'm not interested in discussing it here.  (or on FB, for that matter!).  But whatever.  If others want to discuss, within the bounds of our TOS, have at it.

Malcolm wrote:
Kids these days...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Saving all beings
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Thank you for your replies. I will try to get at the gist of things in a general way, to avoid an overly long post.

My basic question is easier to frame now given the replies: How does a Buddhist work in this life to save all beings?


Malcolm wrote:
By practicing the six or ten perfections.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
This would mean that one of the cornerstones of Buddhist dharma, dependent arising, is ultimately illusion. Ditto, I assume, for the other biggies: anicca, anatman, rebirth, etc. Dharmakaya too. Is anything not ultimately illusion?

Bakmoon said:
Precisely, all is illusory,

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Haribhadra states the path, including the attainment of buddhahood, is illusory from beginning to end.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
This would mean that one of the cornerstones of Buddhist dharma, dependent arising, is ultimately illusion. Ditto, I assume, for the other biggies: anicca, anatman, rebirth, etc. Dharmakaya too. Is anything not ultimately illusion?

Malcolm wrote:
Things are illusory because they are impermanent, lack self, etc. Dharmakāya is the ultimate realization of this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The fact is that the Ray is wrong, about this as he is about so many other things. He is here seriously dismissing the idea that Sarvastivāda is Hinayāna? Crazy.

dzogchungpa said:
Now, now Malcolm, there's no need to make Ray into an Aunt Sally. Here's another passage from the same book: Trungpa Rinpoche once expressed the view that within the Theravadin tradition over the course of its history, there were undoubtedly realized people who reflected a Mahayana and even a Vajrayana orientation. He also commented that within the historical Theravada there were probably realized siddhas (the Tantric Buddhist enlightened ideal).
CTR was a bit on the greeny-yallery side though.

Malcolm wrote:
There have been many thousands of Mulasarvativadins who reflect a Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna orientation, but not one single person among them was confused about the fact that Mulasarvastivada was, is, and always will be a Hinayāna school.

dzogchungpa said:
I think part of the problem here is that you seem to think these traditions are defined by books or tenets or whatever, and that is definitely not Ray's approach.

Malcolm wrote:
I think the problem is that people have not actually studied tenets, and so they really have not a single frickin clue what they are objecting to when they object to the fact that the Theravada sect, like the other 17 sects, is definitely included under the rubric of Hinayāna, as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu points out over and over again.

Instead, these days you have clueless nitwits who say "there are three vehicles, Theravada, Mahāyan̄a and Vajrayāna" and so on, like this clown:

https://networkologies.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/knowing-your-buddhisms-distinguishing-the-vehicles-of-therevada-mahayana-vajrayana-and-beyond/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
So if things are ultimately neither dependent nor independent ... what is the nature of the relationship between them?

Malcolm wrote:
Illusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
smcj said:
This is totally wrong. "Other-emptiness"/gzhan dngos (Shentong) means being empty of anything other than its own (Buddha) Nature without being dependent upon anything else. Since Buddha Nature is beyond the conceptual process it is beyond Mahdyamaka reasoning and therefore is not negated by it. Therefore it can be said to have true and absolute existence.

See: Khenpo Tsultrim "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" page 66.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not utterly wrong. gzhan dngos is not a term for gzhan stong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Malcolm,
I did read the text you cite. It was very interesting and I thank you for it. When I said "Theravada was not included by name as one of the 18 schools."  I meant to refer to the early Mahayana polemics, of course, and not to any text at all. That was my error.

Malcolm wrote:
If the Theravādins regard themselves as the heirs of the mantle of the Sthaviravadins, and the Sthaviravadins are explicitly mentioned in early Mahāyāna polemics, when the Ārya Sthaviravadins are mentioned for example, in the Karmasiddhiprakarana, the Tarkajvala, The Yogacarabhumi, the Mahāyānasamgraha [where a passage of theirs is cited concerning the bhavanga citta], or when Vasubandhu mentions the Sthaviravadins in the Vivṛtagūḍhārthapiṇḍavyākhyā (which contains a number of views of various śrāvaka schools) we can understand that this includes Theravada. Therefore, it is disingenuous to imagine that mainland Indian Mahāyānists were unaware of Sthaviravada/Theravada.

Caodemarte said:
It is likely that the Dīpavaṁsa’s account was a portrayal of the situation at the time the Dīpavaṁsa or its sources was composed, when the Sri Lankan Mahāvihāra was in deep and protracted conflict with the Mahāsaṅghika schools. This situation was backdated to the time of the root split, providing mythic authority for the Mahāvihā.

Malcolm wrote:
My reply to this is simple. When we examine the positions of Sthaviravadins that are discussed by Mahāyānists, we find they correspond precisely to ancient, middle as well as modern Theravada positions: for example, the nonexistence of the antarabhāva, the theory of the bhavanga consciousness ( srid pa'i yan lag gi rnam par shes pa ), etc.

And whether or not Theravadins were the REAL heirs to the Sthaviravada, they certainly imagined they were, and held to positions and continue to hold positions which are clearly identified as Sthaviravadin in Mahāyāna polemical texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Asanga states in his commentary in the Uttaratantra: ...
Vasubandhu states in the Sūtra-alaṃkara, he states: ....
He provides a definition as well: That concept of the three wheels,
is asserted as the knowledge obscuration.
Then of course there is the passages in the Lanka in which the Buddha states that due to not realizing selflessness in phenomena, śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess a knowledge obscuration.

Astus said:
All that are good and well. And in order to be obscured by agent-action-object and the emptiness of appearances one needs to maintain some attachment, an identification with the aggregates and sensory areas. So if such clinging is asserted in the sravakas, then they cannot even be called liberated, they are lost in some pseudo-nirvanic state (e.g. the apparitional city in ch. 7 of the Lotus Sutra). But if there is no such grasping, they cannot be obscured either.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, your qualm directly contradicts the Buddha's statement in the Lanka that śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas are liberated, but they have obscurations to full awakening.

Liberation and full awakening are not the same thing. Thus, on the scale of pure, pure and impure, and pure, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas belong to the second category, like bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He is translating the term parabhāva as "entity of difference." But this is a very strange translation. In this context, "para" means "dependent" or "other." He is here translating svabhāva, aka inherent existence, as essence.  You could also translate parabhāva as "extrinsic existence," but the meaning is the same, i.e. one thing depends on another thing for its existence.

rachmiel said:
My Garfield translation of the MMK doesn't have this sentence. Nor can I find any commentary in the book that asserts dependent existence (Pratītyasamutpāda) to be a gloss for inherent existence. In fact, Garfield repeatedly reminds us that Pratītyasamutpāda ensures the lack of inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Malcolm said, "Either Theravada identifies itself as one of the eighteen schools or not (it does). And if it does, then it is precisely what Mahāyāna authors such as Nāgārjuna and Maitreyeanatha, etc., identify as 'Hināyāna.'"

Theravada was not included by name as one of the 18 schools.  If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please publish.

Malcolm wrote:
I already pointed this out to you, but you missed it.

These 17 sects are schismatic,
only one is non-schismatic.
With the non-schismatic sect,
there are eighteen in all.
Like a great banyan tree,
the Theravāda is supreme,
The Dispensation of the Conqueror,
complete, without lack or excess.
The other sects arose
like thorns on the tree.
-- Dīpavaṃsa, 4.90–91 [Taken from Bhikkhu Sujato. Sects & Sectarianism: The Origins of Buddhist Schools. Santi Forest Monastery, 2006. p. i; http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sects__Sectarianism_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf ]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It was addressed. I referred you to where you can find the Sarvastivadin discussions, as well as Agamic sources, for the idea that śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess a nonafflictive ignorance.

Astus said:
Anything in English? Also, the question I referred to is the reason for it, since generally it's the knowledge obscuration attributed to sravakas, but such obscuration can exist only if they have attachment to something, however, they are free from the skandhas and dhatus, so there cannot be anything to be obscured by.

Malcolm wrote:
Asanga states in his commentary in the Uttaratantra:
Ordinary common people are impure because of the afflictive obscuration. Śrāvaka [arhats] and pratyekabuddhas are not separated from taints because of the knowledge obscuration.
In virtually the same words, Vasubandhu states in the Sūtra-alaṃkara:
Ordinary common people are impure because of the afflictive obscuration. Śrāvaka [arhats] and pratyekabuddhas are not separated from taints because of the knowledge obscuration.
He provides a definition as well:
That concept of the three wheels,
is asserted as the knowledge obscuration.
Then of course there is the passages in the Lanka in which the Buddha states that due to not realizing selflessness in phenomena, śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess a knowledge obscuration.
Mahāmati, since all śrāvaka [arhats] and pratyekabuddhas do not realize the selflessness in phenomena and do not obtain the inconceivable peace due not abandoning the knowledge obscuration and the traces of karma obscuration, three vehicles are explained to śrāvakas, and not one vehicle.
And: Mahāmati, while the abandonment of the afflictive obscuration is not different for śrāvaka [arhats] and pratyekabuddhas because there is only one liberation, they do not abandon the knowledge obscuration.
Mahāmati, the knowledge obscuration is purified by seeing the selflessness in phenomena.
The one thing that never fails to amaze me is the presumption that we know Agamic Buddhism better than those who were raised in it, such as Nāgārjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu. So when I see objections like yours, Astus, I just have to shake my head.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
muni said:
There is no disparity between appearances-emptiness.  And that is the ultimate truth.

Malcolm wrote:
There is however a disparity between objects of deluded cognitions [relative truth] and objects of undeluded cognitions [ultimate truths]. In the former, the way things appear and the way things are not in accord. In the latter, the way things appear and the way things are in accord.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 22nd, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Keep in mind that here, Nāgārjuna has already demonstrated that dependent existence is merely a gloss for inherent existence.

rachmiel said:
Could you please provide a quote from the MMK of this demonstration, or tell me what passages to read (I have the Garfield translation)? Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
It is all in chapter 15.
The inherent existence of dependent existence is what is called "dependent existence."
It is the passage that immediately precedes the one I gave above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
TRC said:
... however, not all Vajrayana practitioners hold this pernicious view. Here's Reggie Ray, on this very point, in his book The Indestructible Truth (2000) P.240:

“… ‘Hīnayāna’ refers to a critical but strictly limited set of views, practices, and results. The pre-Mahāyāna historical traditions such as the Theravāda are far richer, more complex, and more profound than the definition of ‘Hīnayāna’ would allow. ...The term ‘Hīnayāna’ is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hīnayāna identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravāda or any other historical school …"

It's worth quoting again, to see what one Vajrayana teacher of some prominence in the West, who is not locked into rigid old sectarian views and polemics, thinks. I'm sure there are others too.

Malcolm wrote:
Nice to see you so easily drop your intellectual standards, since you above claim that it is anachronistic to call Theravada "pre-Mahāyāna."

The fact is that the Ray is wrong, about this as he is about so many other things. He is here seriously dismissing the idea that Sarvastivāda is Hinayāna? Crazy.

Either Theravada identifies itself as one of the eighteen schools or not (it does). And if it does, then it is precisely what Mahāyāna authors such as Nāgārjuna and Maitreyeanatha, etc., identify as "Hināyāna." Why? Because no path to Buddhahood is described in Nikayas/Agamas (one of Nāgārjuna's principle observations about the Śravaka canon).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All this amounts to saying is that you have no confidence in any sources, apart from the ones you like and serve your exegetical purposes.

Astus said:
I think the technical term for that is discerning direct (nitartha) from indirect (neyartha). However, that does not address any of the raised issues, particularly the ignorance of arhats.

Malcolm wrote:
It was addressed. I referred you to where you can find the Sarvastivadin discussions, as well as Agamic sources, for the idea that śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess a nonafflictive ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhapalita states:
"It is not that we claim there are no existents; however, we remove claims for existing existents."

rachmiel said:
Sneaky! Wittgenstein would have had a field day deconstructing some of the more language-game passages of the Madhyamakakarika ...

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a language game. Nāgārjuna states in the MMK [rendered in prose]:

Where is there an existent that is not included in inherent existence or dependent existence? If there is inherent existence or dependent existence, existents are established. However, if existents are not established, nonexistents will not be established.
Keep in mind that here, Nāgārjuna has already demonstrated that dependent existence is merely a gloss for inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
While much attention has been devoted to explaining the nature of the ultimate truth in view of its special soteriological role, less has been paid to understanding the nature of conventional truth, which is often described as "deceptive," "illusion," or "truth for fools. But conventional truth is nonetheless truth.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Wayfarer. The Cowherds, eh? They should start a band ...

Malcolm wrote:
Conventional "truths" are not true. They are in fact the objects of mistaken cognitions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Yes. I'm borrowing the terms (phenomena, noumena) from Kant, but it's obviously not HIS idea ... many others have said more or less the same thing. Plato, for example: All we can see/know are the shadows on the cave walls, not that which casts the shadows. What I'm saying, in essence, is that we do not create reality from scratch. We co-create it by detecting shadows of "what's really out there" and then interpreting these shadows as this or that.

Malcolm wrote:
This definitely does not correspond with Madhyamaka view. In Madhyamaka view, there is no reality.

rachmiel said:
Nagarjuna does not afaik assert that there are no existents, rather that we misunderstand HOW existents actually exist (interdependently). I'm calling "how existents actually exist" reality.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhapalita states:
"It is not that we claim there are no existents; however, we remove claims for existing existents."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
All we can ever see/know is phenomena; the noumena that "give birth" to these phenomena (in our minds) are forever beyond our seeing/knowing.

Bakmoon said:
Could you explain what you mean here in some more detail? Are you saying that there is a noumena beyond phenomenal existence which produces phenomena, but that this noumena is itself unknowable?

rachmiel said:
Yes. I'm borrowing the terms (phenomena, noumena) from Kant, but it's obviously not HIS idea ... many others have said more or less the same thing. Plato, for example: All we can see/know are the shadows on the cave walls, not that which casts the shadows. What I'm saying, in essence, is that we do not create reality from scratch. We co-create it by detecting shadows of "what's really out there" and then interpreting these shadows as this or that.

Malcolm wrote:
This definitely does not correspond with Madhyamaka view. In Madhyamaka view, there is no reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Glad you have placed it on such a subjective basis.

Astus said:
When there are such stories on both disciples and the Buddha, then some treatises come up with a way to explain those events in one way and another, that is those author's interpretations. As for my side, such theories are neither well established nor balanced, although they certainly serve a purpose. And again, as I have mentioned before, this is the case of divergences in exegesis.

Malcolm wrote:
All this amounts to saying is that you have no confidence in any sources, apart from the ones you like and serve your exegetical purposes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: John Canti, Wulstan Fletcher 2016 Khyentse Fellows
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Translators John Canti and Wulstan Fletcher of the Padmakara Translation Group were awarded the 2016 Khyentse Foundation Fellowship, for their service to the Buddhadharma:
http://khyentsefoundation.org/2016/01/2016fellows/

An interview with the fellows:
http://khyentsefoundation.org/2016/01/conversation-with-2016-khyentse-fellows/

Malcolm wrote:
Nice fellows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Three things that help me get the feel of emptiness:

No matter how much I think/feel that something exists "from its own side" ... all I'm really doing is assigning a symbolic name to a nameless phenomenon.

No-thing is as it seems.

All we can ever see/know is phenomena; the noumena that "give birth" to these phenomena (in our minds) are forever beyond our seeing/knowing.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no noumena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 21st, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You can read the Agama citations which detail the non-afflictive ignorance of arhats and pratyekabuddhas in the Abhidharmakośaṭīkālakṣaṇānusāriṇ, etc.

Astus said:
Such a category can be used to exploit otherwise ordinary stories and claim that arhats are not that perfect. At the same time, similar events in the Buddha's biography can be found as well, but those are explained in a very different light.

But still the source of such ignorance is not explained. Or maybe it's the expectation of fantastic omniscience - beyond what logically can come from clear seeing of appearances - of a buddha that would need to be established. Otherwise, such stories can only fall into the category of parables.

Malcolm wrote:
Uhuh. So basically what you are saying is that if a source does not fit your preconceptions, it is a "parable" and does not conform to your notions of what is "logical."

Glad you have placed it on such a subjective basis.

In short, omniscience is not required for arhatship, indeed, none of the five mundane abhijñās are required. All that is required is that through seeing phenomena through the lens of the four noble truths, one relinquishes all ten fetters. That's all. In the Hināyāna teachings, only a buddha does this in one session, without a teacher to guide them. Arhats have a teacher to guide them, and generally gradually so. However, the same Hinayāna sources note there are severe restrictions on the knowledge of arhats like Maudgalyayāna which do not apply to a buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beli
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I do not believe in birth and death

Malcolm wrote:
It happens to you whether you believe in it or not.


jundo cohen said:
Yes, I agree, Remove the mind created delusion and, like a house of cards, karma, affliction, birth and death and all the rest come tumbling down.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is, seeing into the delusion of birth and death does not mean that birth and death stops for everyone. It only stops for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Techno Yogi said:
Posters on Dharma Wheel may find the following resources to be helpful:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha126.htm " by Ven. W. Rahula - this article explains the difference between a sect and a vehicle.

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty much a Theravada take on the bodhisattva path. It should be pointed out that there are serious differences between the bodhisattva taught by the Buddha in Mahāyāna, and the bodhisattva path which is described by commentators in Theravada.

Techno Yogi said:
" https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/hinayana.pdf " by Ven. Analayo - this essay explores why it is anachronistic and incorrect to refer to Theravada as "Hinayana".

Malcolm wrote:
This essay depends on acceptance of the idea that there was no Mahāyāna at the time the Buddha was teaching in India. However, as we know, Maitreyanatha states in the Sūtra-alaṃkara that "Mahāyāna arose at the same time," meaning that Buddha taught Mahāyāna during the Early Buddhist period. Not only this, Agamic teachings are explicitly referred to in the Samdhinirmocana sūtra as the first turning of the wheel teachings, where as Mahāyāna teachings are referred to second and third turnings. Thus means that from a Mahāyāna point of view, Mahāyāna teachings existed during the early Buddhist period.

Techno Yogi said:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10503&hilit=tantric+theravada - a series of links exploring the reality of Theravada Buddhist practice in Asia, which incorporates a significant amount of mantra, visualization, energy work, and outright magic.

Malcolm wrote:
While indeed Vajrayāna was once practiced in all countries that are presently considered Theravadin, and even by people who were self-described Theravadins, what is described in these links is not Mantrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Neither arhats nor pratyekabuddhas are completely free from ignorance, only a buddha is

Astus said:
I meant in the Agamas, an arhat is completely free from ignorance, otherwise he would still be stuck in samsara. Of course, in a one vehicle approach, only a buddha is truly wise and free.
Arhats have ignorance, and this means they possess the knowledge obscuration.
What are they ignorant of? Knowledge obscuration means being bound by the view of grasper and grasped, the concepts of agent, object, and action. They are free from clinging to the five aggregates and the six sensory areas, so there is nobody to grasp anything. What is left then to be obscured by?

Malcolm wrote:
You can read the Agama citations which detail the non-afflictive ignorance of arhats and pratyekabuddhas in the Abhidharmakośaṭīkālakṣaṇānusāriṇ, etc. As an example, in the discussion of the nonafflictive ignorance which both śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess,  the Buddha states in one passage:
All of the causes 
in a single peacock feather
is not an object of knowledge for the one who is not omniscient, 
but that can be known through the power of omniscience.
Other examples include Śariputra rejecting a candidate for ordination that Buddha later deemed suitable, and so on. These commentaries on the Kośha provide examples extracted from the Agamas which display the non-afflictive ignorance of arhats and pratyekabuddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Astus said:
A stream-enterer is not yet free from ignorance, only an arhat is.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither arhats nor pratyekabuddhas are completely free from ignorance, only a buddha is,
As the Agamas teach freedom from appearances, and that means no obscurations, it is no different from realising buddha-nature.
This is your own fabrication. Arhats have ignorance, and this means they possess the knowledge obscuration.

BTW, when the Buddha says this or thet is not realized by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not realize this or that, "śrāvaka" here means śrāvaka arhats,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beli
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Rebirth is a product of delusion and ignorance in all Buddha's teachings. This is why the first link of the twelve fold chain of dependent origination is ignorance. The point is that as long as one is under the power of delusion and ignorance, for that long one will take rebirth.

jundo cohen said:
That is why I am hoping you put all that ignorance down soon. This rebirth is of your own mental making!

Malcolm wrote:
Everything is made by mind, Jundo. This is why your active disbelief in rebirth is a little puzzling.

jundo cohen said:
We all have dualistic thinking, Jundo. Yours just happens to be grounded in a fundamental disbelief in the Buddha's core teachings (dependent origination, karma, rebirth, four kinds of realized persons, etc.).
I believe in all that! Just perhaps not as you do, and by seeing through the self-created dualisms that brings the shadows to life.

Malcolm wrote:
You believe in none of it. Do you know why the Buddha taught dependent origination, his motivation?  It was to prevent people from asking him who they were in their past lives. So he said instead, based on affliction in a given continuum, there is karma, based on karma there is birth, if affliction is not eliminated, one will engage in karma, and if one engages in karma, suffering will result for that continuum until the end of time.

You believe that when you die, the terminus point of your mind is when your brain is dead. The Buddha described such a point of view as annihilationism (ucchedavāda). You see, there were whole schools of people in iron-age India, not followers of the Buddha, who hold your modern twentieth century belief that when the body dies, the mind dies with it.

All authentic Dharma teachings from Theravada to Dzogchen teach that based on affliction in a given continuum, there is karma, based on karma there is birth; if affliction is not eliminated, one will engage in karma, and if one engages in karma, suffering will result for that continuum until the end of time. The difference between all these schools, from Theravada to Dzogchen lay in the details of how this problem is approached and resolved, not in the essential problem itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Astus said:
it seems logical to me that the full knowledge of one requires the other two as well.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is not the case. For example, even Maudgalyayāna needed to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth.

Astus said:
So for you, arhats, first stage bodhisattvas, buddhas and pratyekabuddhas all demonstrate precisely the same qualities and realization. If not, why not?
Yes, from the wisdom side of things that's exactly what should happen.

Malcolm wrote:
But again, it isn't the case. Why? Because if it were the case, than even hinayāna stream entrants should have the same realization as a buddha, but they do not.

Astus said:
It is possible to keep buddha-nature with a one-vehicle explanation, where every level is only a stage on the path to buddhahood. And in order to explain the historical problem raised here by many, it can be said that while the Agamas are not at fault or lacking, the way they were interpreted by some is incorrect, thus we see that Mahayana apologetics are against Abhidharmic ideas primarily. Similarly, in Tibetan Buddhism they find the sutra teachings somewhat deficient as they actually view them through a number of treatises (while, for instance in some Mahamudra works quoting sutras that match with the highest teaching is fine).

Malcolm wrote:
Or, the Agamas, as Nāgārjuna says very clearly, do not teach the path to Buddhahood, let alone buddhanature (which itself can only be seen by buddhas).

Mahāyāna sūtras provide details on a path that are not detailed in the Agamas. If they were detailed, the Mahāyāna sūtras would be unnecessary, not to mention the tantras and the Dzogchen tantras, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beli
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Second, I happen to believe that he probably --did-- teach that as a man of Iron Age India, but that Buddha also taught (in Mahayana interpretation) that rebirth is a mind created nightmare that sentient beings need to see through. So, he also taught that rebirth is the product of delusion and ignorance.

Malcolm wrote:
Rebirth is a product of delusion and ignorance in all Buddha's teachings. This is why the first link of the twelve fold chain of dependent origination is ignorance. The point is that as long as one is under the power of delusion and ignorance, for that long one will take rebirth.

The fact that Buddha lived 2500 years ago is irrelevant.

jundo cohen said:
It may exist for you, Malcolm, because you believe in it and that you will be reborn, a product of your own dualistic thinking that you need to pierce.

Malcolm wrote:
We all have dualistic thinking, Jundo. Yours just happens to be grounded in a fundamental disbelief in the Buddha's core teachings (dependent origination, karma, rebirth, four kinds of realized persons, etc.).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beli
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Yes, I also believe that you suffer an "utter lack of understanding of the Buddha's teachings"...

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that the Buddha really did teach rebirth in samsara as the principle existential problem that sentient beings face, and I happen to agree with him. You don't. Thus, the main difference between us is that I support Buddha's core teachings, you don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Agamas/nikāyas teach leading a path of freedom, but not a path leading freedom and omniscience, the latter is found only in Mahāyāna.

Astus said:
Omniscience is not an attribute of the Buddha in the Agamas.

Malcolm wrote:
While this is not actually the case (that omniscience is not an attribute of the Buddha in the agamas), nevertheless, you are agreeing to the basic premise, i.e. that a path leading to omniscience is not found in the agamas.

Astus said:
As for Mahayana, omniscience is really just the prajnaparamita, not abiding in any dharma whatsoever.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not all omniscience is for Mahāyan̄a. There are two kinds of omniscience a buddha possesses: the omniscience of just how things are and the omniscience of all things that there are.

Astus said:
Furthermore, buddha-nature is completely revealed once there is no grasping at illusory appearances, and all possible buddha-qualities manifest. Since the Agamas teach not relying on any dharma, that should also mean the accomplishment of all attributes of perfect enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
So for you, arhats, first stage bodhisattvas, buddhas and pratyekabuddhas all demonstrate precisely the same qualities and realization. If not, why not?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Buddhist scholars or worldly scholars?

Malcolm wrote:
Classical scholars. But there is no consensus among them on this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course they can, since they are a movement spread among several lineages, not just one, and they too base their ideas on statements uttered by the Buddha.

Not only do they take refuge in the Buddha, but they engage in the three trainings, śīla, samadhi, and prajñā.

Mother's Lap said:
So note no.225 isn't correct then?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LPMRr-V9BFQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA402#v=onepage&q&f=false

Malcolm wrote:
The note is accurate, some scholars have this opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The terms Hinayāna, or Śrāvakyāna, are umbrella terms covering all kinds of points of view, from Pudgalavāda to Theravada.

Mother's Lap said:
Can Pudgalavada even be called shravakayana? Wouldn't they be "Buddhist by refuge" at best?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course they can, since they are a movement spread among several lineages, not just one, and they too base their ideas on statements uttered by the Buddha.

Not only do they take refuge in the Buddha, but they engage in the three trainings, śīla, samadhi, and prajñā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beli
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Many folks in the Buddhist world (perhaps!!!) become upset with Batchelor because they see such beliefs as central and fundamental to Buddhism and their own personal beliefs. The reaction of many in the Buddhist world to such skepticism or denial is much the same as denying that the Bible is the literal word of God for some Christians. It is no surprise that folks get upset when their closely held religious beliefs are challenged.

Malcolm wrote:
No, no one is upset when people like you and Batchelor present your physicalist rejections of rebirth. Instead, we are saddened by your utter lack of understanding of the Buddha's teachings and in it, the central role of escaping rebirth.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Saving all beings
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
What does "saving all beings" actually mean to you, in terms we can all understand where we are now?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a virtuous aspiration, that is all. For example, the question is posed in by Shantideva, "How did the Bodhisattva perfect generosity without satisfying all sentient beings' needs and wants?" The answer Shantideva provides is that while the Bodhisattva did not have the capacity to satisfy all sentient beings' needs and wants, he sincerely wished to. It is developing that spirit of generosity that perfects generosity, not whether one actually has anything to give.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
TRC said:
I know you were quoting CTR Simon, but the points still stand. In fact your erroneous first statement is all founded on a self-view too as well as clinging to rights and rituals. These would no longer arise at stream entry.

I notice Dan was making pretty much the same points as I was writing my reply.

I have to add these are typical misrepresentations of the path expounded in early Buddhism. On these gross misunderstandings (most typical in Vajrayana) the Mahayana can't be trusted to define what Theravada is.

Malcolm wrote:
The terms Hinayāna, or Śrāvakyāna, are umbrella terms covering all kinds of points of view, from Pudgalavāda to Theravada. There are many tenets which belong to various Hinayāna schools. For example, Nāgārjuna negates the Theravadin theory of karma in the MMK.

It is not the case that Hinayāna is some monolithic entity when it comes to tenets. However, it is monolithic with respect to its goals, arhatship as opposed to buddhahood. Why? It conceives of buddhahood as being merely a special kind of arhatship, attained by special kind of person, a bodhisattva, who hasn't even an inkling of awakening until his final birth in which he attains buddhahood. A buddha must be a "he," since in all Śrāvakayāna schools there is no chance that a women can become a buddha, even though she can become an arhat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Is it? In Dhammapada, the Buddha says: Just as a bubble may be seen,
just as a faint mirage,
so should the world be viewed

Astus said:
If we analyse a bit deeper than just repeating over and over the same things ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y ) of superior or not, then it can be clear that on the wisdom side of things the Agamas teach the same complete freedom as any Mahayana or Vajrayana path (see http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=19609 and http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=21768 ). However, it should also be recognised that the bodhisattva path is more extensive when it comes to other aspects, particularly the ability to teach beings, as that's the main quality a buddha has to possess. And when I say extensive, it doesn't mean one cannot find those qualities in arhats, but they are not requirements.

Malcolm wrote:
The Agamas/nikāyas teach a path leading to freedom, but not a path leading to freedom and omniscience, the latter is found only in Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
and how did he describe what it was like?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, in his Vajra Tantra and many other places.

gad rgyangs said:
and he said....?


Malcolm wrote:
You can read these things for yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
and how did he describe what it was like?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, in his Vajra Tantra and many other places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I think you may have missed the memo. There's a fifth vision now.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is a Bonpo thing where they split up one of the four visions into two parts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As for producing someone who claims to have done so, I can point to the late Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, who indeed claimed to have experienced the fruit of the Mahāyāna path in his lifetime.

gad rgyangs said:
He actually claimed to be a fully awakened Buddha? I thought Maitreya was going to be the next one.

Malcolm wrote:
He reached the end of the fourth vision. That is buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
They might even get to #3 Malcolm before feeling too unsettled .

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, you mean this one:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=2916&p=30739#p30739


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Astus said:
That is actually what accepting on faith is: trusting in what others say without gaining an understanding on one's own.

SpinyNorman said:
But that only goes so far.  Sooner or later there is a need to develop personal confidence through experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the fastest way to do that is to practice Dzogchen. Everything else is much slower and far more indirect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Dan74 said:
If Malcolm came to ZFI and offered his view on things...

Malcolm wrote:
...people would freak out.

Simon E. said:
For some reason  this set my mind imagining Malcolm on 'New Buddhist '....

Malcolm wrote:
They can come here and read my 16K + posts, and revel in the inconsistent glory that I have become.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not circular reasoning, any more is it circular reasoning to accept a car functions on the basis of its definitions.

gad rgyangs said:
the existence of a car is demonstrated by getting in one and driving, which we have done. Neither you nor I have experienced ourselves as a Buddha, nor can you produce anyone who claims to have done so. Otherwise just because you define a unicorn as a horse with one horn doesn't mean that they exist.


Johnny Dangerous said:
If you cannot accept the premise that Buddhas arise and teach,  what value are Buddhist teachings to you, and why?

Malcolm wrote:
This is just what Dante does between guitar lessons, just as this is what I do between pecha pages. It is serious on the one hand, but not so serious on the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not circular reasoning, any more is it circular reasoning to accept a car functions on the basis of its definitions.

gad rgyangs said:
the existence of a car is demonstrated by getting in one and driving, which we have done. Neither you nor I have experienced ourselves as a Buddha, nor can you produce anyone who claims to have done so.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither you nor I have gotten into a space shuttle, and yet we both accept they exist.

As for producing someone who claims to have done so, I can point to the late Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, who indeed claimed to have experienced the fruit of the Mahāyāna path in his lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Dan74 said:
If Malcolm came to ZFI and offered his view on things...

Malcolm wrote:
...people would freak out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
A Buddha is a conventional entity around which definitions are constructed. The question is, "Are those definitions functional?"

If you argue that they are, then you are accepting the Buddha as defined. If you argue that they are not, then you are rejecting a Buddha as defined.

Since there is no other place to discover the definition of a Buddha other than texts and people who describe a buddha in this way and that, there is no way to establish what a Buddha is in absence of authority, since an authority is needed to provide a conventional definition of what a Buddha is.

For example, though Dharmakirti tries to do this, ultimately he fails because he has to rely on the definition of a Buddha provided in Buddhist texts.

gad rgyangs said:
ouroboros-1.jpg

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not circular reasoning, any more is it circular reasoning to accept a car functions on the basis of its definitions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Do you need to believe, if you can see? Moreover, the belief can interfere with the seeing, if handled unwisely.

Malcolm wrote:
Well Dan, you know what they say, "Seeing is believing."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
how are you be able to say that the result of mahayana is superior?

Malcolm wrote:
Through reasoning and inference.

gad rgyangs said:
actually lets start with something simplier:

can you, through reasoning and inference, and without appeal to authority, establish that there is such a thing as a "Buddha", i.e. someone who has attained the kind of result that you claim the mahayana texts present?

Malcolm wrote:
A Buddha is a conventional entity around which definitions are constructed. The question is, "Are those definitions functional?"

If you argue that they are, then you are accepting the Buddha as defined. If you argue that they are not, then you are rejecting a Buddha as defined.

Since there is no other place to discover the definition of a Buddha other than texts and people who describe a buddha in this way and that, there is no way to establish what a Buddha is in absence of authority, since an authority is needed to provide a conventional definition of what a Buddha is.

For example, though Dharmakirti tries to do this, ultimately he fails because he has to rely on the definition of a Buddha provided in Buddhist texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, that's fine. I will say that, IMO, "the Mahayana" is not some monolithic thing you either have confidence in or not, and part of the problem with insisting on "The Buddha" as it's unique source is that it tends to foster the opposite idea.

Malcolm wrote:
Consistently we have pointed to the sources for Mahāyāna being the Buddha, Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha. Actually, what we call Mahāyāna now is largely a product of the Maitreyan synthesis.

dzogchungpa said:
Oh? So is it a monolithic thing you either have confidence in or not?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes (apart from differences in opinion over matter of the view of emptiness between Yogacara and Madhyamaka).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, that's fine. I will say that, IMO, "the Mahayana" is not some monolithic thing you either have confidence in or not, and part of the problem with insisting on "The Buddha" as it's unique source is that it tends to foster the opposite idea.

Malcolm wrote:
Consistently we have pointed to the sources for Mahāyāna being the Buddha, Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha. Actually, what we call Mahāyāna now is largely a product of the Maitreyan synthesis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I don't think fence sitters are awful, it just seems like people want to have their cake and eat it too, to simultaneously practice the Mahayana while having no  real confidence in it. People can be whatever they want to be, in the truest sense...it just seems like a confused, and borderline dishonest approach to me. Beyond that, a few people have even indicated that somehow they think fence sitting is productive practice, or even an integral part of Dharma practice. I'm  not trying to play with credentials or anything, just going off what people are saying, and there are some big holes in this notion of vague skepticism being equated with some kind of inquiry.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, that's fine. I will say that, IMO, "the Mahayana" is not some monolithic thing you either have confidence in or not, and part of the problem with insisting on "The Buddha" as it's unique source is that it tends to foster the opposite idea.

BTW, I've found you can do some fairly high quality sitting on fences. It's just a question of balance.

Malcolm wrote:
Here's to high quality fence sitting:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
That's the whole point of listening to The Buddha, once you have decided he is The Buddha...

Malcolm wrote:
That is the point — there are fence sitters who don't really think Mahāyāna is the teaching of the Buddha, even though they like Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna teachings.

dzogchungpa said:
Fence sitters are really terrible, aren't they?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, awful people....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
That's the whole point of listening to The Buddha, once you have decided he is The Buddha...

Malcolm wrote:
That is the point — there are fence sitters who don't really think Mahāyāna is the teaching of the Buddha, even though they like Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna teachings. They basically accept (without any nuance) the Western view that the Buddha's "original" teachings are those contained in the Pali Canon/Agamas. They do not contend the general thrust of Buddhist text critical studies at all. They really have no confidence in Mahāyāna teachings because at the end of the day, they do not believe the Mahāyāna was the Buddha's teaching. For them, there is no issue of whether or not Theravada is Hinayāna because for them there is no Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Examining the teachings IS practice, or at least could be.

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite sure that JD knows that reflecting on the teachings is part of practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
how are you be able to say that the result of mahayana is superior?

Malcolm wrote:
Through reasoning and inference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words, I think the ideas in the Mahāyāna sūtras, in general, are better than the ideas in Hinayāna sūtras, etc.

dzogchungpa said:
Right, so why bother trying to pretend that the ideas in the Mahāyāna sūtras are the teachings of one particular person?

Is that too challenging?

Malcolm wrote:
I credit the ideas in Mahāyāna sūtras to the person to whom they are credited in Mahāyāna sūtras, i.e., the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that the reason I do so is precisely because I have judged the ideas on their own merits? In other words, I think the ideas in the Mahāyāna sūtras, in general, are better than the ideas in Hinayāna sūtras, etc.

gad rgyangs said:
I see instead judgment of the Theravada as incomplete or inferior based on the fact that the mahayana texts say so rather then any demonstration that can be supported without appeal to authority.

Malcolm wrote:
Theravada is a śrāvakayāna path.

The question centers not around whether Mahāyāna judgements about Śrāvakayāna paths are valid —— that is an entirely separate question — the question centers around whether the Theravada path matches the criteria set out in Mahāyāna Sūtras for such a path, and the answer, as far as I am concerned, is yes.

The question of superiority or inferiority can only be answered by an analysis of view and practice. In my opinion, the view, meditation and result of Mahāyāna is in every way superior to that of any śravaka school —— but hey, that is just me. Everyone has to come up with that answer based on their own study and practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so what is the ultimate authority of texts with such an origin?

Malcolm wrote:
Why, the community that observes them.

It is pretty hard to consider oneself a Mahāyāna practitioner if one does not consider Mahāyāna sūtras authoritative for one's view and practice.

gad rgyangs said:
and why would you consider texts that are, by your own admission, "edited, formalized, formatted, sanitized and generally prepared for an audience" authoritative at all? Its not that the sutras are not of interest or don't contain interesting ideas. The problem is when one set of texts are arbitrarily considered "authoritative" then other texts are by definition considered false, mistaken or "provisional". Buddhism is not the only tradition that has wasted time and energy arguing about what is authoritative on arbitrary grounds (usually appeals to mythological sources for the texts). All religious traditions do this. But in the West since the 17th century we have developed the idea of judging ideas on their own merits without appeals to authority. This seems to me to be progress in awakening, which is what Buddhism purports to be the goal. Ironically, even the Buddha is portrayed as discouraging his followers from blind adherence to his teachings and that they should rather test them on their own merits and not simply appeal to authourity.

Malcolm wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that the reason I do so is precisely because I have judged the ideas on their own merits? In other words, I think the ideas in the Mahāyāna sūtras, in general, are better than the ideas in Hinayāna sūtras, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so what is the ultimate authority of texts with such an origin?

Malcolm wrote:
Why, the community that observes them.

It is pretty hard to consider oneself a Mahāyāna practitioner if one does not consider Mahāyāna sūtras authoritative for one's view and practice.

For myself, I use a hierarchical approach:

Where Mahāyāna sūtras contradict Hinayāna Sūtras, I follow the former.
Where Vajrayāna tantras contradict Mahāyāna Sūtras, I follow the former.
Where higher tantras contradict lower tantras, I follow the former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
. So, while Malcolm will give you all kinds of reasons why the mahayana polemic about Theravada being an incomplete path is actually true...

Malcolm wrote:
They are not my polemics. They are critiques made by the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras, and following them, Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha.

People are free, and they can make up their own minds, gurus or not. But they should be properly informed, and the point of view that holds that Theravada is immune from being considered an exemplar of Śrāvakayāna, aka Hinayāna, by the criteria laid out in Mahāyāna texts is quite simple misinformed.

There is these days a species of Buddhist Correctness however, which misguidedly tries to claim that the path of an arhat is just the same as the path of a bodhisattva, no better, no worse, just "different" (whatever that means) even though Theravadins by and large have abandoned the idea that it is possible to become an arhat — examples of this anecdotally exist in Tibet, where Vajrayāna practitioners who lack Mahāyāna bodhicitta still manage to eliminate their afflictive obscuration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
it does not remove the knowledge obscuration.

Astus said:
How do you define knowledge obscuration?

Malcolm wrote:
See the Abhisamaya-ālamkara, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Removing Obscurations
Content:
Astus said:
This is a topic raised by the question ( http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=320501#p320501 ) of whether freedom from attachments equals realising buddha-nature. Please tell if you agree or disagree and why.

Malcolm wrote:
Freedom from attachment only removes the afflictive obscuration, it does not remove the knowledge obscuration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who does not believe that one can become a Buddha, that only special people like Gotama Buddha have that capacity, that it is better to eliminate birth through eradicating afflictions right now, rather than embarking on the harrowing path of full buddhahood.

gad rgyangs said:
But why would anyone believe that if they heard the mahayana teachings? as we have seen, everybody in the sangha heard all the teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
And as we see, not everyone was capable of accepting what they heard. BTW, do you think that in Mahāyāna sūtras, evam maya srutam ekasmin is spoken by Ananda? No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who does not believe that one can become a Buddha, that only special people like Gotama Buddha have that capacity, that it is better to eliminate birth through eradicating afflictions right now, rather than embarking on the harrowing path of full buddhahood.

dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, in all seriousness, do you really believe in the harrowing path of full buddhahood? Not as some kind of pro tem Mahayana polemicist, but as a practitioner, parrticularly a dzogchenpa?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. Without the Vajrayāna path, it is the only possible way to become a buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 18th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
for example, the PP in 8000 lines speaks at the beginning of " a great gathering of monks, with 1200 monks, all of the Arhats..." etc. In other words everybody was there. So explain to me how, after that, the teachings would be rejected by enough of those there that there would be no mention of them at all in the Pali canon?

If the various early canons have all come down to us in fragmentary state, then you would expect a random mix of teachings, both shravaka and mahayana. This is obviously not the case. The pali canon has only non-mahayna sutras. how do you propose to explain this?

Malcolm wrote:
Dante:

Everything written down in a book is edited, formalized, formatted, sanitized and generally prepared for an audience.

This applies to all Buddhist canons, not just the Mahāyāna canon.

Secondly, in the Pali Canon itself it details the fact that Buddha would put on disguises and go and teach various things to various people, devas and so on.

Third, why do you assume the reports about the proceedings of the first council are factual?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I just don't buy the idea that the Buddha taught a hobbled version of the Dharma that is what is preserved in Theravada, and a complete version that is preserved in mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma found in the Agamas and Nikayas is not incomplete if your goal is to become a arhat. It is incomplete with respect to how one becomes a buddha. This is both Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha's point.

gad rgyangs said:
who says "I dont want to become enlightened like the Buddha, I just wanna be an Arhat"?

Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who does not believe that one can become a Buddha, that only special people like Gotama Buddha have that capacity, that it is better to eliminate birth through eradicating afflictions right now, rather than embarking on the harrowing path of full buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Dan74 said:
As regards Theravada, I've seen precious little understanding of what Theravada does or does not teach here and elsewhere in Mahayana/Vajrayana circles and much misunderstanding. Just like I've seen plenty of misunderstanding of Mahayana/Vajrayana among Theravadins. That's why I suggested earlier in the thread, that if one if genuinely interested in Theravada-related questions, it is best to turn to Theravada sources and teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
Dan, the Theravada teachings are not some mysterious "other." Many of us here have studied Theravadin and other Śrāvakayāna teachings in quite a great bit of detail. Many of us here have read in detail and extensively all the Pali Canon translations that are available both from Bhikku Bodhi and the PTS. The sum total of all classical Theravada meditation practices can be found in the Visuddhimagga, and they are little different than their counterparts in Sarvastivadin Abhidharma. We all share the 37 bodhipakṣa dharmas, the five skandas, the three afflictions, various schemes of dependent origination, and so on. We all share the common ideas about stream entry, etc. So you see, many of us have done our homework and checked into these sources.

The differences lie mainly not between the Sarvastivada and Theravada employment of these key concepts, the difference is that in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna these ideas are treated a little differently. Nevertheless, Mahāyāna too is grounded in these key concepts.

Another point is that the meditation practice tradition in Theravada is largely reconstituted from books. It was revived, and does not have a living continuous tradition as in Tibetan Buddhism, Zen and so on. Indeed, Theravada for many centuries even seems to have given up the idea that arhatship is possible, though, in the 20th century it appeared that this skepticism was partly reversed. In Mahāyāna, it has never been the case that we have ever given up the idea that awakening and even buddhahood is possible.

The usual contested "misunderstanding" is the Mahāyāna assertion that the path of buddhahood does not exist in the Agamas/NIkayas. Well, it does not. It does not matter if there are such texts as the Buddhavamsa and so on. Texts such as these are hagiographies, not manuals for practice. Mahāyāna sūtras cover many topics, but their central concern is describing the bodhisattva path, which is distinct from the arhat path.

There is another point — anyone who is a Theravadin can follow Mahāyāna by properly taking the bodhisattva vow if they so choose, just as many Mahāsamghikas, Sarvastivādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mulasarvastivadins and so on have. They can also follow Vajrayāna if they so choose. Some people seem to think that Theravada is the only active Śrāvakayāna school left, but it is not true.

Sarvastivada abhidharma ideas, such as the six causes and four conditions actively permeate even Dzogchen teachings. Whole mandalas are constructed on the basis of the thirty-seven bodhisapaksa dharmas, such as the mandala of Cakrasamvara.

Śrāvakayāna teachings form the backbone of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, but the goal put forward in those teachings is limited in its scope since they concern only achieving liberation for oneself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I just don't buy the idea that the Buddha taught a hobbled version of the Dharma that is what is preserved in Theravada, and a complete version that is preserved in mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma found in the Agamas and Nikayas is not incomplete if your goal is to become a arhat. It is incomplete with respect to how one becomes a buddha. This is both Nāgārjuna and Maitreyanatha's point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


TRC said:
To further verify that the Buddha didn’t hold back a different set of teachings, he categorically states this in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Malcolm wrote:
No, but he clearly parceled out different teachings to different kinds of students, for example, teaching the Kalamas only about the four brahma-viharas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Lungta
Content:
Adamantine said:
It is fine to commission someone to hang flags for you: it is important they are consecrated by a qualified Lama with mantra, sometimes done during a sang ceremony, first however.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you can consecrate them yourself. But if you think some lamas blessing is more potent, go for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: The posture
Content:
tingdzin said:
Too, your own cultural chauvinism may be sufficient reason to reject thousands of years of Asian lore about physiology in one fell swoop, but your remark also shows that you are completely unfamiliar with Western psychological research on the hemispherical functioning of the brain that shows the brain's two sides do indeed have complementary functions, which do, indeed, play out in human psychophysical activity.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you do have to bear in mind that Jundo's teacher thinks the goal of seated practice is to cause a spontaneous alignment of the vertebrae of the spinal column resulting in a balanced "body-mind" which, according to him, is the essence of Soto practice. Here is his own summary of his theory of Zazen:
When he was 29 years old he left the palace in search of the meaning of life, and after several years, when he was 35 or 36, after adopting a simple method of physical practice that balanced his body and mind, he discovered what he had been searching for; he found that the world exists just at this time and in this place, and that the whole universe is splendid just as it is. For many years he taught his disciples about the simple practice and what it meant as the essential truth that all human beings should know. Gautama Buddha was not a god, but a man. And he taught that we can all return to our original state, which is serene and peace- ful. His teachings are not spiritual, but essentially humanistic; with this simple practice we can all attain our perfection as hu- man beings.
And:
What do we experience in Zazen?

Zazen is the simplest form of action, and when we are practicing
Zazen we do not intentionally think about anything or concentrate
on our feelings and perceptions. We sit in a simple nondiscriminating
state where our body-and-mind are balanced and
undivided. However, in order to discuss the state in Zazen we
cannot avoid making divisions and categorizations. In spite of
these categorizations, the actual experience of Zazen remains a
wholistic one.

We can describe four aspects in the practice of Zazen. They
are: 1) Different from thinking; 2) Making the body right; 3) Oneness
of body-and-mind; and 4) Oneness with the Universe.

1. Different from Thinking
The state in Zazen is without intention and is different from thinking.
This statement sounds strange as we normally believe that
we are always thinking. We avoid intentionally following a train
of thought during Zazen by concentrating on maintaining the
posture. Of course spontaneous thoughts and images arise in
our consciousness during Zazen, but they are not important.
When we notice that we are thinking about something, we should
simply stop. If we correct our posture, the thought or perception
will disappear and our consciousness will slowly become clear
and we will feel peaceful. In this peaceful and balanced state,
we are in the state that is “different from thinking.”

However, if we intentionally try to attain the state that is different
from thinking, we can never do so. When our consciousness
is full of thoughts and feelings during Zazen, we should
leave our state as it is. Our worries will bubble to the surface
and evaporate into the universe! In this way, by concentrating
on the posture, we will return naturally to our original state
during our practice.

2. Making the Body Right—a Balanced Autonomic Nervous System

In Zazen we sit on a cushion on the floor with both legs crossed,
and with our lower spine, upper spine, and head held straight
vertically. Keeping the spine straight has a direct and immediate
effect on the autonomic nervous system that controls many of
our body’s functions. Its effects include control of heart rate and
force of contraction, constriction and dilatation of blood vessels,
contraction and relaxation of smooth muscle in various organs,
the ability to focus the eyes and the size of the pupils, and the
secretion of hormones from various glands directly into the blood
stream.

The autonomic nervous system is composed of two subsystems:
the sympathetic and the parasympathetic nervous systems.
When the sympathetic nervous system is stimulated, our
heart rate increases, arteries and veins constrict, the lungs relax,
and our pupils dilate; in short, we become tense and alert. When
the parasympathetic nervous system is stimulated, the opposite
happens; our heart rate decreases, arteries and veins dilate, the
lungs contract, and the pupils constrict. You can see that the two
systems prepare the body for an active or passive response—
sometimes known as the “fight or flight” syndrome. When the
effect of the two systems on the organs is in balance, we are neither
ready to fight, nor ready to run away; we are in a normal
state.

The parasympathetic nerves emerge from the spinal chord
at the base of the spine (the second, third and fourth sacral vertebrae)
and through the cranial vertebrae in the neck, whereas
the sympathetic nerves emerge from the spinal chord through
the middle vertebrae in the back (the T1 to L2 vertebrae). 
Keeping the spine normally upright, with the
head sitting squarely on the top of the
vertebral column minimizes the compression
of the nerves of these two systems
at the points where the nerves
emerge through the vertebrae,
and ensures an uninterrupted
supply of blood, allowing them
to function normally. When the
parasympathetic and sympathetic
systems are both working
normally, they function in
opposition to give us a state of
balance of body-and-mind; not
too tense, and not too relaxed,
not overly optimistic or pessimistic;
not too aggressive
and not too passive. It is this physical state of balance in the
autonomic nervous system that give rise to what we call a balanced
body-and-mind.

In addition to this, sitting in the upright posture, where the
force of gravity acts down through the spine onto the pelvis, is a
position in which our body’s reflexes can work efficiently to integrate
the functioning of the whole body.

3. Oneness of Body and Mind in the Present Moment
Usually we think there is something that is called “mind” and
something else called “body” and that the two are separate, although
they have a great effect on each other. In Buddhism we
believe that body and mind are two sides of one entity, which
we call “myself,” but that we actually cannot fully grasp. We
believe that every mental phenomenon has a physical side, and
every physical phenomenon has a mental side. We do not believe
in the independent existence of something called “mind”
that is separate from the physical body, brain, nervous system,
and so on. When we sit in Zazen, because we do not concentrate
on thoughts, or perceptions, our body-and-mind exist undivided
in the present moment. When our mind is in the ordinary state
and our autonomic nervous system is balanced, we are in the
“balanced state of body-and-mind.”

4. Oneness with the Universe
When we are practicing Zazen, not only can we say that bodyand-
mind are one; we are also sitting in the state where there is
no distinction between ourselves and the external circumstances—
the world around us. Most people have at some time
experienced this simple feeling of oneness with everything, and
in Zazen we can notice that it is not just a feeling, but the actual
state of things in the present moment. When we are sitting in
Zazen we are one with the Universe, and the state includes all
things and phenomena. In that sense, although we are experiencing
the state, we cannot grasp it intellectually. We cannot
describe it completely. We call the state “ineffable,” or “dharma,”
or “truth,” or “reality.” But even these words are inadequate to
describe the simple and original state that we return to in Zazen.
http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/NishijimaZazen.pdf


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: What is Luminosity?
Content:
fckw said:
can you tell which specific Tibetan or Sanskrit terms Malcolm referred to? A lot is lost during translation.

Malcolm wrote:
luminosity = 'od gsal ba
clarity = gsal ba.

Sometimes the latter is used as a abbreviation for the former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is no record of a lot things.

gad rgyangs said:
if the mahayana sutras are actual records of teachings of the historical Buddha, there would be at least some mention of them in the Pali corpus, if no more than to reject them.

and even that makes no sense: the Buddha was obviously worshiped and idolized by his close circle. Do you seriously think they would have been at rajagriha but then were like "nah... thats not right, lets pretend he didn't give that teaching."?

Malcolm wrote:
Different people heard different things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Saoshun said:
You don't understand process of Buddha, you do not have any cultivation achievements. Buddha was only 1 day in each village moving all the time, he set only process of purification, he was setting people life to way of enlightenment as set the sails, he was not cheating, he knew people limitations. Do you ever notice why they had orange-like robes? because is the color of basic root chakra, he was working on sutrayana first to get "soldiers" for the future. I do not know if you are trolling but I hope you are joking.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahaha, dude, there was no set color for monks robes. Some monks died their robes blue, etc. They just could not be white.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
haha thats cheating.

Are you seriously saying that the monks who preserved and passed down the pali canon chose to exclude what later appeared as "mahayana" sutras because they didn't like them?

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? After all, there are millions of people who take a pass on Dzogchen and Vajrayāna (like Spiny Norman) because they don't like it or think that it is valid.

gad rgyangs said:
there are no records of councils or schisms from the early period where a "mahayana" sect split off and "their" sutras were rejected by the conservative elements.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no record of a lot things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
haha thats cheating.

Are you seriously saying that the monks who preserved and passed down the pali canon chose to exclude what later appeared as "mahayana" sutras because they didn't like them?

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? After all, there are millions of people who take a pass on Dzogchen and Vajrayāna (like Spiny Norman) because they don't like it or think that it is valid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Arhats are nowhere described by the Buddha has having the ten powers, four fearlessnesses and so on. Ananda, in the Gopaka Moggallana Sutta, states that no one has all the qualities demonstrated by the Buddha.

gad rgyangs said:
so why don't they ask the Buddha: "tell us how to attain the same enlightenment that you have?"

Malcolm wrote:
They did. The answers are recorded in Mahāyāna sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html, among others.

gad rgyangs said:
there he is describing his own state I see no comparison of it with arhatship.

Malcolm wrote:
Arhats are nowhere described by the Buddha has having the ten powers, four fearlessnesses and so on. Ananda, in the Gopaka Moggallana Sutta, states that no one has all the qualities demonstrated by the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He never equates the attainment of arhatship with total awakening.

Astus said:
Thus the requirement of a bodhisattva accumulating merit on a grand scale over aeons. But then it's been overwritten by the inherent buddha-nature whereby anyone can reach buddhahood in a single lifetime.

Malcolm wrote:
This latter statement of yours is false, the latter does not preclude the former.


Astus said:
And how can the full function of buddha-nature manifest? By not being attached to appearances, thus removing all obscurations. However, since arhats are also without clinging to appearances, their buddha-nature should manifest in the same way.

Malcolm wrote:
This statement lacks any basis. All obscurations are not removed merely through lacking attachment to appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so is the Buddha portrayed in the Pali canon as saying "what I am teaching you here does not lead to total awakening: it is just a first step"?

Malcolm wrote:
He never equates the attainment of arhatship with total awakening.

gad rgyangs said:
how does he distinguish (in the Pali canon of course) his awakening from arhatship?

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html, among others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: David Loy's call for ecological engagement
Content:
kirtu said:
http://www.lionsroar.com/can-we-awaken-to-the-ecological-crisis/... or as I would put it, Buddhists have to start helping to save the world.

Loy has a tendency to make claims from the unsubstantiated position that Buddhists are not already doing something but he has a point here even though most people I know have been engaged at least in raising consciousness about our looming ecological disasters.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Sour grapes on Loy's part. I don't know anyone who fits the description he is painting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so is the Buddha portrayed in the Pali canon as saying "what I am teaching you here does not lead to total awakening: it is just a first step"?

Malcolm wrote:
He never equates the attainment of arhatship with total awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 17th, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One does not have to prove anything. One cannot attain buddhahood by following the path Buddha taught in the Pali canon because he did not teach that path in those teachings.

gad rgyangs said:
so you're saying a "Samma Sambuddha" is not a "Samma Sambuddha"?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that no path to becoming a sammasambuddha is presented in teachings of the Samsambuddha in the Pali canon/Agamas, those teachings only exist in his Mahāyāna teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so says the Mahayana mythology. The Theravada mythology begs to differ.

Malcolm wrote:
People somehow have developed this mistaken idea that because we can find examples of the pāramitās in the myths surrounding the careers of Buddhas in Theravāda texts that this makes Theravada teachings about the path of buddhahood equivalent with Mahāyāna teachings. They are not equivalent: not in structure, not in content and not as a path.

gad rgyangs said:
thats not the point. who says they're the same? the point is that some people prefer one mythology with its meditation advice, others prefer the other. It is only insecurity that would drive someone to consider it necessary to "prove" (as if that were possible) the superiority of one mythology over another.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not have to prove anything. One cannot attain buddhahood by following the path Buddha taught in the Pali canon because he did not teach that path in those teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so says the Mahayana mythology. The Theravada mythology begs to differ.

Malcolm wrote:
People somehow have developed this mistaken idea that because we can find examples of the pāramitās in the myths surrounding the careers of Buddhas in Theravāda texts that this makes Theravada teachings about the path of buddhahood equivalent with Mahāyāna teachings. They are not equivalent: not in structure, not in content and not as a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
]

Theres really no qualitative difference between arguing about which flavor of Buddhism is superior/inferior and being ISIS. Its only a quantitative difference: you use words, ISIS uses guns and bombs.

Malcolm wrote:
There is both a qualitative difference as well as the quantitative difference you mention. The qualitative difference is that no one is suggesting that Śrāvaka schools are peddling something false (that is the what Śrāvaka schools say about Mahāyāna), what is being suggested is that if you want to become a buddha instead of an arhat, you need to follow Mahāyāna because the path for achieving that does not exist in Śrāvakayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Available for free reading in its entirety on Google books The Bodhisattva Ideal: Essays on the Emergence of Mahayana
By Karel Werner, Jeffrey Samuels, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Peter Skilling, Bhikkhu Anālayo, David McMahan is quite interesting in light of this thread. The bodhisattva ideal in Theravada is discussed. Good reading for anyone seriously interested in informed discussion on the differences between Theravada and the Mahayana as well as the rise of the early Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
All of the information in there is old news.

None of the articles seriously treat Nāgarjuna's and Maitreya's positions with respect to their rebuttal of Śrāvakayāna critics of Mahāyāna with regard to the the absence of a bodhisattva path in the Śrāvaka canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
It would be bad manners.

TRC said:
It is also bad manners to ascribe certain characteristics to a path that you do not personally practice. This has been mentioned before. How can one be completely objective about another path when it does not practice that path, but instead practices another path? Well of course it can't. So it is not only bad manners, but moreover, it is delusional.

Malcolm wrote:
Is there some kind of practice in Theravada which is absent in Mahāyāna? No, there is not. There is nothing in Theravada as path which is not also practiced in Mahāyāna, but there is much in Mahāyāna which is not practiced in Theravada, nor any other of the eighteen schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


TRC said:
If the Mahayana was a higher more complete path it would have the knowledge and vision to understand that Theravada is not Hinayana.

Malcolm wrote:
But Theravada is indeed a Hināyāna path: that its goal is arhatship, it denies that bodhisattvas are awakened beings, etc. It bears all the characteristics Buddha tells us belong to a Hinayāna path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Reggie Ray Mindrolling podcast
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Feeling unsafe and blown apart seems to be important concepts to Trungpa students, I have noticed. They generally like to brag about it.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, there may be some truth to what you say but your formulation is somewhat intemperate IMO.

Malcolm wrote:
Moderation was never my strong suite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point actually is that if there is no Mahāyāna there could not be a Theravada or any other Hināyāna school because there would be no Buddha to teach śrāvakas the arhat path.


Adamantine said:
We are discussing people who have all mutually taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Followers of Shakyamuni Buddha. So your seeming parallel is a non sequitur.

Astus said:
It would be possible to point out that Mahayana has a different interpretation of all three of the treasures, so while on the surface they sound the same, they don't mean the same, just like Buddha is the ninth incarnation of God for Vaisnavas. And even if they are the same, it still seems illogical to give any "benefit of doubt", as that would also mean doubting one's own tradition.
However Mahayana sutras are addressed to those embarking on the Bodhisattva path, they're not intended to make sravakas feel bad about themselves. As I already said, these types of things are contextual teaching devices, not proclamations to be heralded on billboards or in a Theravadan forum.
Vimalakirti sutra, ch 3 is a good example of making sravakas feel bad. But if such instances are teaching devices, then there is no discussion of any Hinayana school, only a number of misinterpretations that do not represent any actual doctrine and discipline, therefore it not only has nothing to do with Theravada, but it's not relevant to the Agama scriptures either. Personally, I am sympathetic to that interpretation of the Mahayana supremacist rhetoric, but so far it has not really surfaced in this thread as an option.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you and others have been taking of nothing but allegiences, that thats what the whole issue is: buying into a perspective


Malcolm wrote:
You and Herbie can team up in your Heman Belief Haters Club.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Reggie Ray Mindrolling podcast
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, on the mp3 at least, precisely at 31:47, although for context a little before would be good, maybe at 30:00 or so.


Malcolm wrote:
Feeling unsafe and blown apart seems to be important concepts to Trungpa students, I have noticed. They generally like to brag about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Reggie Ray Mindrolling podcast
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I listened to the interview last night and the bit about Ray not considering CTR to have been a Buddhist was a bit of a letdown.

Still, though, an interesting interview.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, where is it on the tape.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Perhaps you should start another, more responsible forum.

Malcolm wrote:
Already have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
I don't and wouldn't,  pop up on Dhamma Wheel making claims of superiority or even equality...why would I ?

SpinyNorman said:
I'm not making "claims", just challenging the assumption that Theravada is inferior.  And your phrase " even equality" speaks volumes.


Malcolm wrote:
However, it is foregone conclusion in Mahāyāna that Theravada, being part of the Śrāvakayāna, is a lower path. There is nothing even to argue about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: A good book on Jhanas
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
Hi, I came across Leigh Brasington's Right Concentration : A Practical Guide to the Jhanas. Very interesting ! It appears to be Theravada ( excuse my limited experience with Buddhism ). What is the Tibetan or Mahayana equivalent to such a book ? Is it samatha ? I tried looking it up on the net for a simple explanation but didn't get anything that enlightens ( sorry I can't resist the pun ), instead it got more confusing. Can someone throw some light on this ? Thanks...

Malcolm wrote:
One important thing you need to understand about all Theravada meditation traditions is that they were reconstituted from books in the mid 19th century in response to European interested in Buddhist meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Western Philosophy
Content:
smcj said:
You said "Rigpa was self-aware..." I was responding to that.
Rigpa is not being aware of its own nature?

Malcolm wrote:
"Self-aware" is a term liable to misunderstanding. Generally it it is taken to mean that a consciousness is aware of itself as an object.

Rigpa is not "self-aware" in that context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
kirtu said:
That is completely ridiculous.  Sartre was not a systematic, academic philosopher.  After WW2 many philosophers weren't.

smcj said:
I'm still waiting on a clarification on this:
Sounds to me he was barking up the right tree. Too bad nobody every told him that Rigpa was self-aware without any duality. It would have saved him a whole lot of work that was wasted believing the subject/object duality was unavoidable.

Malcolm wrote:
To be self-aware automatically implies duality...its an even worse duality, since consciousness needs to take itself as an object...

smcj said:
That was Sartre's thesis. My thesis is that Rigpa is non-dual awareness that does not take itself as an object, thus simply allowing it to express itself to itself. (Easier said than done.) Somehow you seem to be agreeing with Sartre and not me, while having just dissed Sartre.

If this thread goes further is might be good to end up in the Lounge.

Malcolm wrote:
You said "Rigpa was self-aware..." I was responding to that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sarte is not a serious philosopher.

kirtu said:
That is completely ridiculous.  Sartre was not a systematic, academic philosopher.  After WW2 many philosophers weren't.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and they are not serious either. FWIIW, I was raised by a philosophy professor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
rory said:
Now whether you regard Open Dharma as a Hell realm like Malcolm and Simon...

Malcolm wrote:
I view it as irresponsible.

Ayu said:
Harsh words from someone, who demanded "Free speech" at another occasion on DW.

So what is your proposal? Please define it.

Malcolm wrote:
There are limits to free speech, there always have been.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
rory said:
Now whether you regard Open Dharma as a Hell realm like Malcolm and Simon...

Malcolm wrote:
I view it as irresponsible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Well, inferior doesn't sound nice - but deconstructing this with all honesty--
If one path is complete, and one is incomplete, wouldn't you say the complete one was
the superior one? (I mean, you know, if you had a gun to your head)

SpinyNorman said:
But then a Theravadan probably wouldn't accept the premise that the Theravada path is incomplete.   So again we're back to the problem of subjectivity, one vehicle judging another according to it's own assumptions, and not to any objective standard.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Theravadins would not accept their path is incomplete, but the ultimate of the lower is the relative of the higher, and from a Mahāyāna point of view the Theravada path, along with the path of the rest of the eighteen schools, is incomplete in that following it will not result in buddhahood.

In other words, for a Mahāyāni, the point of the path is not only personal freedom, but rather it is the attainment of bodhisattva awakening and eventual buddhahood in order to free all sentient beings from suffering. The path laid out in the 18 schools simply does not cover the bodhisattva path.

The Buddha teaches in many sūtras that the arhat path is incomplete and inferior. So, really, it is not Mahāyānis who are making this statement, it is the Buddha.

You may choose not read those sūtras the Buddha taught where he expresses these things, that is your privilege. But in a Mahāyāna forum, one assumes that the Buddha's teaching in Mahāyāna sūtras are the baseline for what is higher and lower, and so on, and in this case, the Buddha in these sūtras clearly lays out which paths lead to which results. Moreover, there is an entire literature explicating in detail the meaning of these issues, authored by Nāgārjuna, Maitreyanatha and their followers, who clearly explain the intent of the Buddha in the Mahāyāna Sūtras. Those are the teachers we follow, and it is their teachings on this matter to which we refer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
smcj said:
If I'm not mistaken they do call Sakyamuni in his previous lives a Bodhisattva. That's say he was on a different path.

SpinyNorman said:
As far as I can see a Buddha is a Buddha.  It's not like there are "inferior and selfish" Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure there are, pratyekabuddhas are lower than samyaksambuddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Dhyāna is very precisely defined. It is not at all mysterious to those who have been properly educated and trained in Buddhadharma.

jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

You remain a master of the cut and dried assertion, I feel anyway.

In such case, "properly trained" may come down to being the fellow and his interpretation that the speaker happens to believe.

A fascinating book of a few years ago was Richard Shankman's "The Experience of Samadhi", not particularly for the author's personal interpretation, but for the interviews with many experienced and venerated teachers from a variety of lineages (granted, primarily on the Theravada/Vipassana side of things), who agreed on very little in the details.

http://www.shambhala.com/the-experience-of-samadhi.html

Malcolm wrote:
Considering that Theravadins completely reconstituted their meditation traditions from books, it is not surprising at all that there are disagreement among them.

Fortunately, in the Tibetan tradition we have a continuous meditation tradition which goes back to Indian Buddhism and its continuities. While there are indeed disagreements over some philosophical issues, there is broad agreement, experientially as well as theoretically, over such issues was what constitutes the first dhyāna and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Hi Astus,

Yes, it could be so ... assuming, of course, that the "various manuals" and tests are reliable. How often have we seen voices, visions, various unusual phenomena, miracles and the like proclaimed and confirmed by "experts" in all religions only to have a more worldly cause demonstrated later? One might call this "Shroud of Turin" Syndrome.

Malcolm wrote:
For example?


jundo cohen said:
As in our recent discussion of "Jhanas", there has been some wonderful writing in recent years which basically shows how poorly the meaning is defined, how little agreement on what the experience constitutes, great subjectivity and disagreement in how to test for it and so forth.

Malcolm wrote:
Dhyāna is very precisely defined. It is not at all mysterious to those who have been properly educated and trained in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
Simon E. said:
Its an extraordinary moment...On a forum dedicated to Mahayana and Vajrayana we are told that see Buddhadharma in terms of the Mahayana and Vajrayana ' stinks of sectarianism '
As though the forum were a platform for the neutral discussion of academia...which apparently for a tiny few it is.

Which perhaps follows naturally if you don't actually practise Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=21709&start=120#p320132


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Dudjom Tersar question
Content:


Adamantine said:
Dorje Drollo is within the Guru cycle, but it is not generally given or permitted until one is quite advanced on the path. It is perhaps the most secretive and protected practice within this terma.


Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha, this was the very first empowerment I ever received in Nyingma...other than the Khon KIlaya....

Adamantine said:
I'm guessing not the Dudjom-- was it Kunzang Dechen Lingpa's Drollo terma you're referring to? I think I was at the same wang with you in Vermont.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am referring the full Dudjom Drollo empowerment granted by Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje in 1992 in Newton, Ma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In this subforum, there is neither Dharma of realization nor Dharma of texts. The minute you introduce texts, then people like Kim issue derisive statements to the effect that one cannot here use textual authority. This is completely wrong headed.

Adamantine said:
Really? Is that true? I haven't followed so many threads in Open Dharma,
so I haven't witnessed this.


Malcolm wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=21709&start=20#p319608


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Disrespect is one thing, but I really think there should be a place on DW for people to ask detailed and CHALLENGING questions about Mahayana. There is no need to defend anything. Factual or logical errors are easily corrected. Everything else is basically down to one's faith or trust or whatever, and that is all one really needs to say to defend it. Some people may not like that, but isn't that how it really is?

Malcolm wrote:
There are already many places for this on DW, the whole forum in fact.

dzogchungpa said:
Nope, the whole reason this thread exists is because I pointed out to you that saying you preferred the Mahayana POV was irrelevant in the Open Dharma forum, i.e. that it was not a good argument here. Apparently that was too challenging but I don't think it should be disallowed on that account, or even discouraged.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the "Open Dharma" forum is a misnomer, there is no such thing as "open dharma," as if it were code.

Dharma is not based on the petty squabbles of the ignorant and the fraudulent, it is based on the realization of the Buddhas. Those who do not themselves possess realization, must depend on the Dharma of texts. In this subforum, there is neither Dharma of realization nor Dharma of texts. The minute you introduce texts, then people like Kim issue derisive statements to the effect that one cannot here use textual authority. This is completely wrong headed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Another area which I believe is related to "How much should Buddhism Change" is the question "How much can Buddhism do without superstition?" That is certainly eye of the beholder, depending on such basic questions as what one considers "superstition". I personally advocate Buddhism abandoning much within it that is perhaps superstition and fallacy.

Astus said:
I consider that too extreme a view. It is undeniable that not only rebirth but also superpowers have always been very much elements of Buddhism. Seeing them as metaphors and superstitions is failing to understand what they meant to our ancestors and even to many contemporary practitioners. Instead of rejecting them out of cultural habit, there are two important areas where we can practise openness towards initially strange teachings. One is the anthropological and historical approach, considering the role of those teachings in the past. Second is the practical approach, in how we can actually make use of those elements of the path. I think both are possible, interesting and educational.

Malcolm wrote:
There are people who care about the Dharma, and then there are people who care about wearing funny gear, having students and followers, and otherwise putting on spiritual pretenses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
One difference now is that we have some actual tools to know how the world likely is structured and how it works, just a tad better than in the past.

Malcolm wrote:
Having abandoned inner tools and inner knowledge, which are infinitely precise, we have instead come to depend on material tools that are crude and limited, which crudely limit how much of the world we can actually see.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I personally advocate Buddhism abandoning much within it that is superstition and fallacy.

Malcolm wrote:
You are just editing Buddhadharma to fit with your conceptuality.

jundo cohen said:
As has everyone in the Mahayana since the founders invented the Mahayana and its sacred books out of whole cloth to fit their own conceptuality of what Buddhadharma should be, and as inspired and creative teachers have done ever since.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna was not invented out of whole cloth, and the suggestion that is such a fabrication is deeply offensive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Disrespect is one thing, but I really think there should be a place on DW for people to ask detailed and CHALLENGING questions about Mahayana. There is no need to defend anything. Factual or logical errors are easily corrected. Everything else is basically down to one's faith or trust or whatever, and that is all one really needs to say to defend it. Some people may not like that, but isn't that how it really is?

Malcolm wrote:
There are already many places for this on DW, the whole forum in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I personally advocate Buddhism abandoning much within it that is superstition and fallacy.

Malcolm wrote:
You are just editing Buddhadharma to fit with your conceptuality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
May I ask how you know who is a qualified teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it starts with one's prospective teacher having received a good education in Dharma, etc.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, how do you know what constitutes a good education in Dharma, or even what Dharma is, etc?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, it is pretty easy to ascertain — Sakya Pandita opined that it took about 7 years to become competent in Dharma studies.

As for what Dharma is? That is similarly easy, whatever is conducive to liberation is Dharma, the opposite is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Dudjom Tersar question
Content:


Adamantine said:
Dorje Drollo is within the Guru cycle, but it is not generally given or permitted until one is quite advanced on the path. It is perhaps the most secretive and protected practice within this terma.


Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha, this was the very first empowerment I ever received in Nyingma...other than the Khon KIlaya....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Dudjom Tersar question
Content:
madhusudan said:
I feel really fortunate to have connected to this authentic lineage. The wording of the ngondro is profound in the way that it condenses vast teachings into just a few words. I wonder about the statement that it is, "intended for those who do not understand or are unable to recite the extensive preliminary practices according to the New Treasure."

I'm wondering, is this a complete path? Or should one aspire to the "extensive preliminaries"? I guess I'm asking because I feel really suited to the concise presentation of the dharma in this terma and I want to commit to just one simple essence path. Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dudjom Tersar ngondro is a complete path. The extensive ngondro states explicitly states that one needs no other practice besides it.

In Dudjom's Rinpoche collected works, in the volume that contains the extensive ngondro and its commentary, the two main practice manuals for practicing Dzogchen are found directly after it. If you follow this system, you don't really need any other practices at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


seeker242 said:
What other people do or don't do is their own business. What they do or don't do is irrelevant. I think you've missed the point I was making, which is that it's not appropriate to engage in offensive speech....If you are trying to say that just being a Mahayana Buddhist, is itself, offensive, that is not close to being the same as oneself engaging in offensive speech.

Malcolm wrote:
So, by using the term "Hināyāna," Buddha was engaged in offensive speech?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
May I ask how you know who is a qualified teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it starts with one's prospective teacher having received a good education in Dharma, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
ok I'll bite: for example?

Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, for example, is a bodhisattva on the stages.

gad rgyangs said:
actually, if you read the description of the first stage here:

http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/stages-and-path

it actually does sound like him.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed...hence my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
This isn't about me..or you. No matter how much cuts that across your attention seeking agenda.

dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, I really should get a life, shouldn't I?

Simon E. said:
Its about the fact that real teachers exist with real teachings for those who can get their eyes off their own reflection.

dzogchungpa said:
You mean, lIke Ngakpa Chogyam and Pema Khandro?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:



Saoshun said:
We can talk about it. I actually have good understanding (read almost all english publication of dzogchen) on the concept based and view, and rigpa etc. but sitting all the time in rigpa doesn't seem to release from samsara beyond recognition of rigpa which is there, but maybe I miss some other instructions to get with union empty and blissful as they say.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha, my friend, reading about Dzogchen will get you no where.

And no, we cannot really talk about. Dzogchen is the path that depends on direct introduction and personal experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, for example, is a bodhisattva on the stages.


Saoshun said:
he seems rather like intellectual dzogchen wh just passing the view and talks about it. but I do not know him rather besides some youtube videos and couple ifnormation that he passing things like yantra yoga etc. but I do not see any manufactured enlightenment beings by his works. Many of his students which I met have rather level of realization like lip service dzogchen, it's fine while talking about it but then when life gets you it's useless.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't understand Dzogchen. If you did, you would not say such silly things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
ok I'll bite: for example?

Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, for example, is a bodhisattva on the stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
smcj said:
Let's make Dzogchungpa the moderator and add the rule that you've got to have a sense of humor to post in Open Dharma. That should diffuse problematic posting.


dzogchungpa said:
This.



Simon E. said:
Yes. The way that putting the village idiot in charge of the coffers would solve the communities finance problems.

dzogchungpa said:
I'm beginning to feel like a bit of an Aunt Sally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: What is terma?
Content:
Terma said:
Someone here please correct me if this is wrong, but I have been taught that all Terton's are emanation's  of one of the "25 disciples of Guru Rinpoche" that were present during the assembly of the great dispensation. This is the direct correlation of why these particular Masters were destined to find the particular Terma at that specific time.

Malcolm wrote:
This really is not true. There are all kinds of termas that have nothing to do with Padmasambhava, for example, the 17 tantras, Vima Nyinthig, the Brahmin cycle, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Have you met and interviewed Arhats, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas in order to understand what if any realization they have, or are you merely reporting what is said in various old texts of diverse origins? And on what grounds do you decide which of those texts, when they disagree, you will believe?

Reporting on, and discussing what is presented in old texts is called historical research, and is very interesting. Taking what they say as absolutely veridical without a shred of evidence is foolhardy.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we have that evidence in the form of the continued tradition of practice of Mahāyāna teachings for more than 2000 years.

We also have the evidence of the practice of Theravada, etc., for 2000 years.

We know quite well that for Theravadins, etc., nirvana is the end of the road, cessation. This point of view is strictly rejected in Mahāyāna.

gad rgyangs said:
we know what the texts say, thats not the issue. The question is, do the texts make any sense & what is the concrete evidence that anything in them is true? Isn't there an irredeemable subjective component to the whole thing, in that there is no way to proceed from the assumption of another's attainment?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha describes quite well in the Agamas the differences between his realization and that of four classes of aryas.

gad rgyangs said:
And as far as the different fruits go, well lets talk to an Arhat, a Bodhisattva on the levels and a Samyak Sambuddha and ask them. Oh wait.... there aren't any to talk to..

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, that is really not true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:


Jeff H said:
Challenging Buddha’s teachings in order to re-establish them for ourselves is a common Buddhist teaching across many traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
People are challenging the teachings without even beginning to understand them, or as in the case of some here, have no interest really in learning what Mahāyāna Buddhism actually is and why it critiques non-Mahāyāna schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Matt J said:
One could argue that those who reject rebirth aren't Buddhists, but neo-Buddhists. Why? Because they reject the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Noble Truth. Under the materialist view, the origin of suffering is biological birth, and suffering will cease upon death. Accordingly, the Buddhist teachings are at best, merely an early exit from suffering. At worst, they are a complete waste of time.

Rather than spend time on practice, we would be better off spending our time earning money or otherwise making ourselves as comfortable as possible until the liberating moment of death. The quickest and surest path to the end of suffering is not Zen, Vajrayana, Dzogchen, or Mahamudra, but actually a premature death.

It seems like the whole enterprise falls apart without rebirth.

Kim O'Hara said:
Uh, uh ... suffering will cease upon death, you say, but how do you know?
And what happens if you're wrong?


At times like this, I call for the Apannaka Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html



Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.
And thus, we can see here clearly the Buddha taught rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
Ayu said:
Critisized? Can you give examples, please?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Abhisamaya-alaṃkāra contains a detailed critique of the arhat path and pratyekabuddha path based on the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

The first section of the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṃkāra similarly contains a fairly detailed critique of Hināyāna schools and a defense of Mahāyāna.

These are just the treatises involved. In the sūtras themselves the Buddha mentions many reasons why the path taught in the Agamas/NIkayas is incomplete and not the definitive meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
Norwegian said:
I find it extremely tiresome that actual quotes from Mahayana sutras can be questioned, challenged, ridiculed, picked apart, and criticized on a Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism forum. Of all the places.

dzogchungpa said:
Do you think everything in every Mahayana sutra is literally true?

Malcolm wrote:
That is completely beside the point. But do you think that everything written about Buddhadharma in Western Academia is literally true? Do you think the account of the rise of Mahāyāna given by Western Academics is more true than the account traditionally given? Are people even aware of what the traditional account is?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:


kirtu said:
We should also be able to defend the orthodox Mahayana position on it's own merits.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not allowed in this forum. In other words, in a Mahāyāna forum there is a subforum where people are barred from using that tradition's own texts as a means to defend the tradition when it is attacked:

Kim O'Hara said:
If you can point us towards some standards by which to judge the superiority or inferiority of a religious path - from outside that religion - I would be delighted. But if you can only argue Mahayana's superiority from within Mahayana, your arguments are fatally tainted by the stink of self-justification.

kirtu said:
Debating the teachings is also meritorious.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if there is a common basis for debate.

Actually, Mahāyāna texts do indentify very specific Hināyāna positions that Thervadins continue to hold, and refute them precisely on the basis of what those Agama/Nikāya sūtras do or don't teach. In order to show how Mahāyāna is a superior to Hinayāna it is precisely by relying on those texts that we do so, as Nāgārjuna indicates in the Ratnavali.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, unless I'm mistaken, DW is a forum where everone, even non-Buddhists, can discuss Mahayana and Vajrayana. I think it's a sign of strength that the whole place doesn't have to be some kind of Mahayana safe space.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not mean we have to provide a sandbox for people to engage in non-virtue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Why would we, as a Mahāyāna forum, wish to encourage a subforum where people can engage in the unmeritorious activity of criticizing Mahāyāna Dharma?

Astus said:
People have questions whether they can post it or not. They also have disagreements to various degrees. Since the sections for specific traditions are meant to accept and maintain the given school's tenets - that is, as I imagine it, in a discussion those are the sources that take primacy over other. Therefore, Open Dharma means that no source whatsoever have primacy. Although in a way that is a straight way to chaos and confusion, it could also mean a 'pure reason' arena, where only the very basics of perception and logic counts. Except that very few, if any, can uphold such argument rules. Still, we can try.

Malcolm wrote:
Why should Mahāyānis have to defend Mahāyāna on a Mahāyāna forum?

Why should there be a subforum where people are allowed to challenge any and all Mahāyāna tenets with impunity?

There is plenty of debate in the specific traditions forums, debate that is open and grounded in sources.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Have you met and interviewed Arhats, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas in order to understand what if any realization they have, or are you merely reporting what is said in various old texts of diverse origins? And on what grounds do you decide which of those texts, when they disagree, you will believe?

Reporting on, and discussing what is presented in old texts is called historical research, and is very interesting. Taking what they say as absolutely veridical without a shred of evidence is foolhardy.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we have that evidence in the form of the continued tradition of practice of Mahāyāna teachings for more than 2000 years.

We also have the evidence of the practice of Theravada, etc., for 2000 years.

We know quite well that for Theravadins, etc., nirvana is the end of the road, cessation. This point of view is strictly rejected in Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Should the Open Dharma forum continue in its present for
Content:


Kim O'Hara said:
1. There is no need whatsoever for any member to view Open Dharma unless they actively choose to do so, and even less need for them to participate in it.

Malcolm wrote:
I have explained to you before that avoiding forums is not the way to go.

Kim O'Hara said:
2. That said, it is apparent from the stats on the Index page that a large number of members do value the forum.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it merely draws a high number of views because it is the forum in which there are the most controversies.

Kim O'Hara said:
3. The admin team did review both the existence and the guidelines for the forum quite recently and made them clearer but didn't change them in any substantive way.

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out, the language you chose ENCOURAGES CRITICISM OF THE DHARMA.

Kim O'Hara said:
4. One primary reason for retaining Open Dharma was precisely for discussing differences between schools - and not just Mahayana vis-a-vis Theravada, but Vajrayana vis-a-vis Pure Land, or Zen vis-a-vis Sufism, etc. For that discussion to be free, the guideline needed to be, as it is now, "... all Mahayana teachings are open to challenge." But that is quarantined from the rest of the board by the first half of that sentence, "The only forum on Dharma Wheel in which ..." (emphasis added).

Malcolm wrote:
Only a non-Mahāyāni would have written the rules of this subforum in this way. Why would we, as a Mahāyāna forum, wish to encourage a subforum where people can engage in the unmeritorious activity of criticizing Mahāyāna Dharma?

Kim O'Hara said:
5. Return to point (1) if (4) still bothers you.

Malcolm wrote:
This not the same as for example, avoiding going to white power forums, etc. Here, you are permitting a level of prejudice and polemics that is not tolerated on Dhamma Wheel.

In short, the principles of this "open dharma" subforum are neither open nor Dharmic. It is an embarrassment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Is this unreasonable?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is quite unreasonable to have a subforum in a Buddhist forum in which it is allowed for people to attack the very foundations of Buddhadharma, and secondly, in a Mahāyāna forum, to attack the foundation of Mahāyāna.

For example, Kim would like there to be some standard outside of Mahāyāna for Mahāyāna critiques of arhat path and so on. When evidence is provided from Mahāyāna Sūtras and treatises, it is dismissed as invalid. But this is quite ironic — here, in a Mahāyāna forum, evidence from Mahāyāna sūtras themselves are not counted as sufficient evidence for the Mahāyāna position. Amazing and disgusting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Please feel free to do so. All I am saying is that in the Open Dharma forum, saying you prefer the Mahayana POV is not much of an argument. Perhaps you object to the mere existence of such a subforum in a Mahayana forum, but that is a separate issue. As far as I can tell, the whole point of the Open Dharma forum is that it is open to other, possibly non-Mahayana, POVs, right?

Malcolm wrote:
I have objected to this forum often to the staff.

The fact that this is a Mahāyāna forum means that Mahāyāna standards should dominate. Having Open Dharma forum here is akin to a Black Lives Matter forum having a special area for the KKK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
A) do some Buddhist texts represent the Buddha saying that Mahayana is superior to Hinayana? Yes.

B) did the historical Buddha ever say any such thing? No way of knowing, but doubtful.

C) are such sayings more likely nothing but triumphalist sectarian boasting issuing from much later Buddhist communities and put into the mouth of the Buddha as an attempt at legitimization? Almost certainly.

Malcolm wrote:
This assumes that you have decided there is no difference between the realization of an arhat, for example, and a Buddha. It also means that you have excluded the possibility of awakened bodhisattvas, ala Theravada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...  I prefer the traditional account of the rise of Mahāyāna. Given that this is a Mahāyāna forum, it is one that should receive the most respect.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, but as I tried to point out earlier, apparently in a way that displeased some mod, this is the Open Dharma forum i.e. the "only forum on Dharma Wheel in which all Mahayana teachings are open to challenge" so your point here is irrelevant.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you imagine the shit storm that would ensue if I took your attitude to Dhammawheel? As far as I know, Mahāyanīs do not pester Theravadins with the Mahāyāna POV there. Why should anti-Mahāyāna sentiments be left unchallenged here?

If this is the Open Dharma forum, than this means that it is entirely appropriate for me to post any and all sūtras where Buddha discusses the difference between Hinayāna and Mahāyāna (there are many), as well as any commentaries which are germane to the point.

Further, this agenda of this forum is unfair. The Dhamma Wheel Open Dhamma Forum simple states, "An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation."

Why should we experience the discrimination of having "The only forum on Dharma Wheel in which all Mahayana teachings are open to challenge. Discuss ‘hot topics’ such as rebirth, karma and differences between schools..."?

It is simply wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
There is no contradiction here. To establish the nature of the Great Vehicle it is not necessary to delineate other vehicles.

Malcolm wrote:
But they are delineated, as the Sūtra of Great Liberation states:
The Hinayāna is explained to narrow-minded śrāvakas. The Madhyayāna is explained to the broader-minded pratyekabuddhas. The Mahāyāna is explained to the bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered the great path.
And:
The example for the Mahāyāna is Sumeru,
the example for Hināyāna is an anthill. 
The example for Mahāyāna is the sun and moon,
the example for Hinayāna is a spark.

Kim O'Hara said:
Sigh.
Standard sectarian polemics.

Malcolm wrote:
No, these are the words of the Buddha.

Kim O'Hara said:
Not even a trace of justification for them - or perhaps there is but you just didn't bother posting the continuation?

Malcolm wrote:
Why do I need to justify the words of the Buddha? Are you going to censor the Buddha's own words now as sectarian polemics?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That's a savagely truncated version of a long and interesting paper. The whole of it is worth reading.

Malcolm wrote:
It assumes that the Western Academic version of Buddhist history is the correct one.

Kim O'Hara said:
Do you have a better version, then?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a just so story, just like any history.

That being the case, I prefer the traditional account of the rise of Mahāyāna. Given that this is a Mahāyāna forum, it is one that should receive the most respect.

That being the case, I therefore assume that Mahāyāna was taught during the Buddha's career, irrespective of when Mahāyāna sūtras were set down in writing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Hmmm.. would

appearances be equivalent with the dependent nature
conventions equivalent with illusory nature


In the Yogacara view?

Bakmoon said:
I also would really like to know the answer to this question. The Yogacara teaching of the three natures has always been a bit confusing to me because different sources seem to present them differently (and that's just in a Cittamatra context, not even going into the Shentong version of the three natures).

Mostly I am confused because some sources make it sound like the dependent nature means the appearance of the object and the illusory nature is the designation applied to it, but in other places it sounds like the dependent nature refers to the mind, and the illusory nature is the appearance.

Also, is the idea of mapping the three natures onto the two truths with the illusory nature and dependent nature being subdivisions of conventional truth something that is laid out in Indian texts or is that a latter appropriation?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventions are the imputed nature. Appearances are the imputed nature in the dependent nature.

The mapping of the two truths to the three natures is a Tibetan thing.

There is no mention at all of the the two truths in the three of the five treatises of Maitreya. The two truths are mentioned briefly in the Uttaratantra and once in the Sutra-alamkara. Any discussions about relative and ultimate truth are generally confined to Vasubandhu's Yogacara commentaries, etc., apart from Asanga breifly discussing them in his Uttaratantra commentary.

Basically, it appears that Yogacarins tried to come up with an explanation of emptiness that completely bypasses the idea of the two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Matt J said:
This is not an easy question to answer. Take this cup. Lots of appearances--- table, floor, cold feeling, tingling etc., but I select some of them and say "cup." So I can't say the appearance doesn't depend on the convention. On the other hand, if I close my eyes, the cup appearance vanishes, so I can't say that the appearance does depend on the convention.

Even worse, whatever one would call a convention is also an appearance--- a thought or set of thoughts, feelings, etc.

I would reject them both and say interdependent.

Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty clear that conventions depend on appearances. In other words, there has to first be an appearance upon which a convention is settled.

Relative truths are appearances to a misapprehending mind, while conventions are designations made on the basis of appearances.

Thus, when it is said that something exists conventionally, this means no more and no less than a group of people have agreed that a given appearance bears the identity which has been agreed upon. Thus appearances do not depend on conventions, but conventions certainly depend on appearances. As such, they are a step removed from perception. Appearances are perceived, conventions are not, the latter are superimposed on appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Matt J said:
I would say there is no convention apart from appearances, so what's with separating them?

Malcolm wrote:
Which is dependent on the other?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Matt J said:
I vote for: appearances!



Malcolm wrote:
What precisely is a convention?
Let me ask you then. Does the convention arise before the appearance, with the appearance or after the appearance?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Ayu said:
I mean: whatever path one chooses, one should study that, understand it more and more, stick to it - and don't compare it.

SpinyNorman said:
I agree, but it's not me who is comparing one set of schools unfavourably to another set with an inbuilt assumption of superiority.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna has that inbuilt assumption, hence its name: "Mahāyāna."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Simon E. said:
There is no contradiction here. To establish the nature of the Great Vehicle it is not necessary to delineate other vehicles.

Malcolm wrote:
But they are delineated, as the Sūtra of Great Liberation states:
The Hinayāna is explained to narrow-minded śrāvakas. The Madhyayāna is explained to the broader-minded pratyekabuddhas. The Mahāyāna is explained to the bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have entered the great path.
And:
The example for the Mahāyāna is Sumeru,
the example for Hināyāna is an anthill. 
The example for Mahāyāna is the sun and moon,
the example for Hinayāna is a spark.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What precisely is a convention?

Taco_Rice said:
Obviously, it's the way things appear to ordinary people in ordinary daily existence.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean things appear to us as or through social contracts? No, I don't think so.


Taco_Rice said:
He's obviously using this word to signify what is referred to in T'ien T'ai stuff as "provisional positing," where the world is full of birds, trees, cars, cities, theme parks and data collators, whereas in Emptiness there is ultimately no car, no tires to go missing, no witnesses or authorities to report to nor any bat to strike any head nor trauma to overcome. Thusness; all that is is what everything is, whereas you thought it was what you thought—despite the fact that it is precisely because it isn't, which is why you thought that. That truth is everywhere, just like that bat.

Malcolm wrote:
So now you have three isolates to deal with provisional positing, emptiness and suchness.

One: are these three things the or different?

Two: Are emptiness and suchness not the same thing?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Consuming Honey = Stealing?
Content:
lucidaromulus said:
Is consuming honey considered supporting the act of committing Stealing?

Reason being, them bees spend their day gathering honey, whiles the bee guy/girl collects the honey without asking permission and seeking consent.

Malcolm wrote:
The bees are actually paying rent on nice condos built for them by beekeepers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
a Tibetan Lama told me in private once that people of lower intelligence as far as dharma goes are born in Hinayana countries, and those with higher capacity are born in Mahayana countries and of course those with the greatest intelligence and capacity are born in Vajrayana Tibet.

Conversely, a monk at a Burmese temple, after I told him I was a student of Tibetan Buddhism, invited me to come to his temple to "learn the real Buddhism".

what a bunch of wankers.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they have not understood that the people with the very most highest capacity are classical guitarists in NYC.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
"Enlightenment" (at least as we encounter and live such in the Zen corner of the Mahayana, others may define "enlightenment" some other way) can be encountered, embodied, expressed and lived.

Malcolm wrote:
In other words, it is just a belief that you hold, and ill-defined at that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Malcolm,

Again, conventionally, but not inherently.

Is Malcolm real?

Well, yes, conventionally it's the most real thing you know, your moment to moment qualia.

But ultimately, no, it is a conceptual construct that tries to "freeze" your ever-changing mindstream into a fixed independent entity.

Malcolm wrote:
What precisely is a convention?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That's a savagely truncated version of a long and interesting paper. The whole of it is worth reading.

Malcolm wrote:
It assumes that the Western Academic version of Buddhist history is the correct one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


Matt J said:
It seems like the whole enterprise falls apart without rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
It does, but then what to do with the fancy gear, robes, titles and students?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Jundo:

You resort to the same fallacy twice in the course of a single day. Your wits need some sharpening.

You are so hilarious -- you accept "Enlightenment" with about the same evidence for it as there is for the FSM, and yet you reject rebirth since there is no evidence for it.

Well, what did someone say once? "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

jundo cohen said:
And Malcolm, Also there are a huge number of assumptions in the above, themselves liable to be faulted.
Oh yes. Arguments against rebirth are "assumptions" while those in favor (no matter how "what if" and jumping through hoops to explain) are evidence ...

... and we should just believe. If I may offer (and I just propose the possibility, I could be wrong), the method of argumentation you employ is about the same as people in another corner of the religious world use to defend the earth being 5000 years old and made in 6 Days. The difference? Perhaps only that they are religious Christians defending a hard to swallow tenet of their religion via similar routes of defense. I must say about them as well, that "anything is possible" and more power to them.

Room in the great wide world (whether 5000 years old or not)  for all of us, and no need to argue who is right.

Gassho, Jundo


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
Malcolm, ultimately yes, conventionally no.

Malcolm wrote:
And a convention, does it indicate something real?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
rachmiel said:
But (imo) there IS no owner of these parts, there is only a set of processes that happen to exist in an
interdependent web. Flower points to this web of processes.

SpinyNorman said:
A phrase I've found helpful is:  "No things, only processes."  Or perhaps just one big process?

Malcolm wrote:
There aren't even processes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


smcj said:
Sounds to me he was barking up the right tree. Too bad nobody every told him that Rigpa was self-aware without any duality. It would have saved him a whole lot of work that was wasted believing the subject/object duality was unavoidable.

Malcolm wrote:
To be self-aware automatically implies duality...its an even worse duality, since consciousness needs to take itself as an object...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Happy Zhang Zhung Losar !
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
- Could you explain the difference here between Tsulug and Phulug ?

Malcolm wrote:
Simply put, they are two different systems of calculating the calendar based on the information in the commentary on the Kalacakra Tantra called Vimalaprabha.

Bonpos indentify three different Kalacakras: the Sūtra Kalacakra found in the Ziji, which I mentioned already, which details the formation of the eon and so forth. The Buddhist Kalacakra Tantra, and finally so called Kalacakra of oral instructions for calculating the years, months, days and hours, which is basically the elemental calculation we know today. In the Bon tradition, the last one was taught in China by the Bon version of Mañjuśrī, Mrawey Sengey, to Kongtse Trulgyal. In the Buddhist tradition, elemental calculation was taught by Mañjuśrī in China to Kongtse Trulgyal. The two systems are so similar, that in the Bonpo astrology manuals, constant reference is made to earlier Buddhist texts, especially a Karma Kagyu text called the Bumzang, which is very popular in Eastern Tibet.

Really, about the only real difference between Bon and Buddhist astrology is the origin myths, and even here, the Bonpos include Sakyamuni as being one of the teachers of Kalacakra in general. A second difference is that the name Kalacakra is applied also to elemental calculation in the Bon tradition, but in the Buddhist tradition, elemental calculation and Kalacakra are regarded as being distinct and as having separate origins.

kalden yungdrung said:
Shambala seems to be a non-Buddhist Tradition which was received by an Indian King. The text would be fallen on the roof of his palace...... Well this seems to be a serious story.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no. Sakyamuni is said to have taught Kalacakra in South India, and the Shambala king was present for that teaching, and he returned home with it and taught it in Shambhala widely.
Code: #
If Bön would follow the Tsurpu tradition, what would this mean ?
It means that they followed the Karma Kagyu system of calculating calendars, that's all. It is just a kind of math.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


smcj said:
But no, areligious humanists have put a huge amount of work into trying to establish a code of ethics that is fundamentally justified beyond simply saying "That's how I would like it to be". To the best of my knowledge they have not been able to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
You apparently have never heard of Kant.

smcj said:
Actually I prefer Sartre, who predicates his ideas on the duality of subject/object relationship of mind. In other words his philosophy is based on the idea that Mahamudra/Dzogchen is impossible, but its' still a worthy effort.

Malcolm wrote:
Sarte is not a serious philosopher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You then follow this up with "I just don't believe in rebirth." This is a statement of opinion, but it is not an argument.

jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

I have quickly spelled out some of the reasons why I doubt detailed, traditional models of Buddhist Rebirth. That is an argument.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are a list of qualms. Qualms and doubts are not arguments.

jundo cohen said:
However, putting aside my shorthand summary, some others have spelled out more detailed arguments and evidence against:
If we take that time period back to the aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, the problems only ramify. Around 700,000 to a million lifetimes and we are into the pre-hominid.

At this point there is certainly no developed language, and the bodhisatta would have had no name. He could only have been one or another variety of animal, but even so, animals only go back about 600-700 million years.

Prior to that it’s not clear the bodhisatta could have been reborn on Earth, at least that would be the case if we assume that only animals have the consciousness available for kamma and rebirth.

Of course, the Buddha could have been reborn on other planes or planets, but once again there is no mention of vast divergences in body plan, language, culture, or surroundings that would indicate such a rebirth. Indeed, the evidence provided in MN 39 is consistent with a world in which humans always existed in a way much as in the Buddha’s own time. If this is evidence for rebirth, it is not very convincing. More convincing would have been some otherwise inexplicable stories about social, linguistic, and morphological change as the Buddha retreated into memories of the distant past.
http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/

Malcolm wrote:
This amounts to saying, "Since Homer couched the events of Troy using the contemporary morays of his day, this should cause us to have great doubts about whether Troy existed."

Also there are a huge number of assumptions in the above, themselves liable to be faulted.

jundo cohen said:
Now let us go back to the case of young Lama Osel and his predecessor. Although one hypothesis to explain his appearance in Lama Zopa's dream, and his choice of the right rosary, is that he is the reincarnation of Lama Thubten Yeshe, could we not conceive of an alternative hypothesis that would be no less problematic than the theory of rebirth? One has to remember the environment in which Lama Osel has been brought up. From a very early age he has been immersed in images of Lama Yes he and the world of Tibetan Buddhism (like the photo he referred to in the interview), subjected to high-profile media attention because of his having been identified as a tulku, and surrounded by people with a high investment in believing that he is the reincarnation of their teacher. Let us imagine that the child is simply responding to the expectations of the adults around him. He already knows that when he makes certain gestures or speaks in a certain tone of voice, those who care for him will exclaim with joy, "Oh, that's just like Lama Yeshe!" So when this sensitive child is confronted with a range of rosaries, could he not simply be responding to the hopes and expectations of his audience—none of whom are indifferent to the outcome? One wonders if the same tests were run under laboratory conditions in the presence of neutral observers whether the results would be the same.
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/rebirth-a-case-for-buddhist-agnosticism

Malcolm wrote:
This is an irrelevant example. Buddha himself never spoke of such an institution of recognizing tulkus, but when Maudgalyayāna inquired of the Buddha where his mother had taken birth, the Buddha was able to answer him.

Thus, the institution of recognizing reincarnations has no bearing on whether or not rebirth is a fact of being a sentient being.

jundo cohen said:
However, I do not want to rehash the arguments, and simply point out that to some of us these beliefs are not necessary, and there is some basis in old texts for claiming the illusory nature of the whole thing.

Malcolm wrote:
And yet you refuse to take the illusory nature of the whole thing to its logical conclusion...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


smcj said:
But no, areligious humanists have put a huge amount of work into trying to establish a code of ethics that is fundamentally justified beyond simply saying "That's how I would like it to be". To the best of my knowledge they have not been able to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
You apparently have never heard of Kant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Happy Zhang Zhung Losar !
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Thanks for your explanation Malcolm.

The astrological calendar is important to know regarding time tables.

But it is amazing that we can speak here about two "different" systems.
The only time calculation i know until the very moment is the Kalachakra system.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and there are two systems of calculating the yearly calendar based on this, Tshulug and Phuglug.

kalden yungdrung said:
Kalachakra system is in Bön also known but not seen as highest Tantra etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, because it comes from the 20th chapter of the Ziji, and this text was a terma not revealed until the 14th century, nearly 400 hundred years after the Kalacakra Tantra was introduced to Tibet.

kalden yungdrung said:
So i guess that Kalachakra connects Bön with Kagyud maybe.

Malcolm wrote:
It seems the Bonpos follow the system developed at Tshurphu.

kalden yungdrung said:
But how are the astrological sytems of the other Tibetan Traditions explained  and why they maybe could differ, that would be interesting to know.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference lies in the calculations are made. No system of Tibetan astrology is actually based on how the stars move in the sky.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
I think another point central to this topic is the question: why exactly do we feel the need to create a label "Buddhism" and then judge who is inside this circle and who isn't? I get that all of us are following teachings that are traced back to the same guy... But at some point, it seems like a little too much to have long debates about which labels apply to whom. Just my two cents.


Simon E. said:
I would suggest that no one is doing that. What some are doing is pointing to Buddhadharma as given. It is an individual matter whether one internalises that Dharma or substitutes something else.

tomamundsen said:
Doesn't the title of this topic assume that is going on to some extent? If we haven't created the label of Buddhism, then what are we talking about that is changing? And if we aren't labeling certain traditions or people as non-Buddhist based on their changes, then what exactly is this conversation about?

Malcolm wrote:
Some people will obviously depart from the Dharma because they adopt principles which run counter to the basic tenets the Buddha taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
I think another point central to this topic is the question: why exactly do we feel the need to create a label "Buddhism" and then judge who is inside this circle and who isn't? I get that all of us are following teachings that are traced back to the same guy... But at some point, it seems like a little too much to have long debates about which labels apply to whom. Just my two cents.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the point. But regardless of what anyone personally believes, rebirth is a tenet of Buddhadharma which is nonnegotiable. So when people express their lack of confidence in the Buddha's teaching, their understanding of those teachings are likely to be called into question, and even whether or not they are actually people who are following the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So far, you have not pointed out anything which represents a coherent negation of rebirth. So if you can't refute it, you should accept it.

jundo cohen said:
That is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Malcolm wrote:
No one said, "You should accept the flying spaghetti monster as real because you cannot prove it is false."

But we are discussing a premise the Buddha taught, and since you have not presented any coherent argument against this premise, you should accept it.

You have said only "The Buddha, while enlightened, might be wrong about this and other things." But this is also another fallacy, "Poisoning the well."

You then follow this up with "I just don't believe in rebirth." This is a statement of opinion, but it is not an argument.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I am merely pointing out to you that you keeping placing limitations, mostly material, on the limitless.

jundo cohen said:
You are correct. Howeverm although there is that which is limitless, it that does not mean that whatever fantastic thing human beings may imagine is necessary the actual state of affairs. It does not mean that Obama was born in Nigeria or that Jesus walked on water. 'Granted, perhaps in some alternate universe there is a Pres. Obama born in their Nigeria, etc.). Even if the Buddha and Jesus got together to say Obama was born in Nigeria, I do not think that would make it so (granted, I just doubt it and it is not central to Practice).

Thus "limitless" does entail everything being true.

Malcolm wrote:
So far, you have not pointed out anything which represents a coherent negation of rebirth. So if you can't refute it, you should accept it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Thank you, Malcolm. It may be so. I celebrate your tightly held religious beliefs and personal philosophical positions.
do not preclude
"Does not preclude" is not the same as "is thus necessarily". It could be, just not so important to all of us in the Buddhist world.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
I am merely pointing out to you that you keeping placing limitations, mostly material, on the limitless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If there is no rebirth, there is no point to the Dharma, as Dogen makes very clear in Shobogenzo. It does not matter whether that rebirth is illusory or relative, in contrast to an ultimate state in which there is no birth or even death.

As long as we live in this illusion called birth and death, the point of Dharma practice is to put an end to the illusion of birth and death. As long as we are talking about illusory sentient beings, being illusory, their birth, death and transmigration functions from delusion about their own illusory nature. Otherwise, if rebirth is rejected, you are placing hard, material limitations on something which you argue is not actually real at all. This is an internal contradiction in your thinking.

jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

I have no trouble with any of this. This is what I teach in our little Sangha.

The only question I hold (and likely share with most skeptics on this issues in the Buddhist world) concerns very detailed models of rebirth in which, once this corpse is dumped in the grave, my soulless stream of Karmic effects comes back as a bunny rabbit, Asura, a god somewhere over Mt. Sumeru (another hard to defend model of reality that Buddhism has pretty much learned to survive without) or a prisoner of the ice hell.

Not important to Practice. Take that or leave that. If I come back as a bunny, please give me a carrot. We are dying and reborn in each moment, and we create endless little heavens and hells for ourselves and for others in this life by our volitional words, thoughts and acts. We need to see through all that, plus through the life and death of the grave. That's enough.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
There is and only ever has been one model of rebirth in Buddhadharma. You keep conflating cosmology with the principle of punarbhāva, rebirth. The former is not necessary to the latter.

One, in Mahāyāna it is maintained that the three realms are mind only. This includes the six lokas, features such as Mt. Meru and so on, including the perception you have of your own sense organs, body and so on. According to Mahāyāna, all of these perceptions and experiences arise from traces activated in the all-basis consciousness.

Now that we have removed physicality and cosmology from the equation, we can understand that the apparent death of our physical body is not a death of a physical body, rather it is the cessation of the perception of a physical body we have now and in this life time. But given that we accept, as Mahāyānists, that all phenomena are only mind, the exhaustion of this life's appearances do not preclude the arising of the appearance of a new series of aggregates to our consciousness, whether or not we have any memory of a past life.

Descarte had it wrong, there is no demon in the mix; but there are afflictions in the mix, and for as long as the traces of those afflictions contaminate our minds streams, then for us there is no end to birth and death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

Eyes and ears ... drowning or not drowning ...

I am still not sure what that has to do with whether very detailed models of rebirth are actually so, and whether it is central to Buddhist Practice.

A life preserver I can see and, dream or not, it seems to keep me afloat in the stormy sea (dream or not).

If someone else thinks that "rebirth" floats their boat and keeps them afloat in the stormy samsaric sea, then I salute them if they can clutch on to that. Good for them. Likewise for someone who believes in flying elephants that may swoop by and save one from drowning, good for them.

Whatever keeps you afloat.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
If there is no rebirth, there is no point to the Dharma, as Dogen makes very clear in Shobogenzo. It does not matter whether that rebirth is illusory or relative, in contrast to an ultimate state in which there is no birth or even death.

One does not cling to rebirth as a raft. In this, you have it wrong. It is quite the opposite. Rebirth is itself the stormy ocean of samsara, from which one seeks rescue via the raft of Dharma.

As long as we live in this illusion called birth and death, the point of Dharma practice is to put an end to the illusion of birth and death. As long as we are talking about illusory sentient beings, being illusory, their birth, death and transmigration functions from delusion about their own illusory nature. Otherwise, if rebirth is rejected, you are placing hard, material limitations on something which you argue is not actually real at all. This is an internal contradiction in your thinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
So you do not believe the world to be illusory after all.

jundo cohen said:
This is a great Koan ... it is yet not yet it is ...

... and so many aspects of the world exist largely between the ears and behind the eyes  (I doubt an ant would worry about rebirth and all this debate) ...

Malcolm wrote:
So your eyes and ears are not illusory.



jundo cohen said:
The world is illusory but then some things are even more illusory!


Malcolm wrote:
You sound like a person who, while drowning, argues over whether some water is more watery than other water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Happy Zhang Zhung Losar !
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Phuglug Losar, followed by Gelugpas, Sakyapas, and Nyingmapas, comes next month.

tomamundsen said:
Nyingmapas from Eastern Bhutan observed it yesterday.

Malcolm wrote:
Then they too are following Tshurlug. Most Tibetans however will celebrate this on February 8th.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are on shaky ground with these citations, Jundo. If you accept illusory sentient beings, why not accept their equally illusory birth, death and transmigration?

No one can doubt that illusory elephants in shadow play never experience birth, death and transmigration, but no one doubts that appearance of illusory elephants arise, abide, perish and then reappear elsewhere in another show.

jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

I am not sure of your elephantine point here. Just because I dream of pink flying elephants who are reborn each night in my dreams, or read about them in an old sacred text (or see one in an old Disney movie which repeats when I put in a DVD) does not mean that there are actually pink flying elephants in this world born or reborn.

Malcolm wrote:
So you do not believe the world to be illusory after all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Happy Zhang Zhung Losar !
Content:
tingdzin said:
I wasn't aware there was a Losar different from the Tibetan one. More information, please!

Malcolm wrote:
The Bonpo Losar and the Karma Kagyu Losar fall on the same day. This is because Bonpo astrologers follow Tshurlug, rather than Phuglug.

The Phuglug Losar, followed by Gelugpas, Sakyapas, and Nyingmapas, comes next month.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 12th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are on shaky ground with these citations, Jundo. If you accept illusory sentient beings, why not accept their equally illusory birth, death and transmigration?

No one can doubt that illusory elephants in shadow play never experience birth, death and transmigration, but no one doubts that appearance of illusory elephants arise, abide, perish and then reappear elsewhere in another show.


jundo cohen said:
Heart Sutra:

No old age and death, no [start nor] cessation of old age and death [because empty]

Vimalakirti Sutra

"The Dharma knows nothing of living beings, because it is removed from the defilement of such concepts as "living beings." The Dharma knows nothing of "I," because it is removed from the defilement of such concepts as "I." It knows nothing of a life span, because it knows nothing of birth and death. It knows nothing of individuality, because it is cut off from considerations of past or future lives. The Dharma is forever still and serene, because it has wiped out all characteristics.

...

Shariputra said to the goddess, "When your present existence comes to an end, where will you be reborn?"
The goddess replied, "The way the Buddha is born in his transformation body-that's how I'll be born."
Shariputra said, "When the Buddha is born in his transformation body, it is not a matter of birth or death.
The goddess said, "It's that way with living beings too-they are without birth or death."

...
The bodhisattva Good Will said, "The realm of birth and death and that of nirvana form a dualism. But if one sees the true nature of birth and death, one sees that there is no birth or death, no binding, no unbinding, no birth, no extinction. One who understands in this way may thereby enter the gate of nondualism.

...

Again, the sutras enable one to practice the teachings as the Law directs, to accord with the twelve-linked chain of causation, to set aside erroneous views and accept the truth of birthlessness, to realize once and for all that there is no ego, no existence of living beings, no deviating from or disputing with the law of cause and effect, thus removing all thought of personal possession. They teach one to rely on meaning, not on words; to rely on wisdom, not on consciousness; to rely on sutras that are complete in meaning, not on those that are incomplete in meaning; to rely on the Law, not on the person; to go along with the true form of things, realizing that there is no entering in and no destination. They teach that, since ignorance in the end does not exist, so too action in the end does not exist, and so on through the other links in the twelve-linked chain of causation down to the fact that, since birth in the end does not exist, so too old age and death in the end do not exist. And when one learns to see in this manner, the twelve-linked chain of causation will cease to have any form that comes to an end, and one will no longer entertain the view that it does. This is called the finest of all offerings of the Law'"

Surangama Sutra
While the (illusory) knower became a living being.í This is the origin of a living being.
Ever after, this living being grasped at his body and mind as his Ego. How then can he now
recognize his (essential) boundless True Mind? So in delusion, he thinks that his mind is in his
body. Since ‚nanda clung to a mind within his body, he mistook this (illusory) mind for True Mind;
hence he saw only the Buddhaís excellent characteristics which he admired but failed to realize that
neither body nor mind exist. As he relied on the five aggregates, he divided them wrongly into six
sense organs with corresponding sense data. He further clung to the four elements that produced
five sense data as his Egoís fields of activities, thereby (creating) six consciousnesses and indulging
in discriminations, illusions and karmic acts.
This was the origin of the cycle of births and deaths caused by attachment to body and mind
as an Ego.
...
ë‚nanda, you are still not clear about the illusory appearances
of all passing phenomena which vanish wherever
they arise. These illusions in the shape of forms spring from
(their underlying nature which is) the substance of wonderful
Bodhi. So also are the six entrances (organs), the twelve
‡yatana (six sense organs and six sense data) and the eighteen
realms of senses which falsely arise from the mixture
and union of causes and conditions and which falsely vanish
when the same causes and conditions are disconnected.
They are but creation and destruction appearing and vanishing
within the permanent, wonderfully bright, immutable,
all-embracing and profound Bhåtatathat‡ (absolute) nature
of the Tath‡gata store wherein neither coming nor going,
neither delusion nor enlightenment, and neither birth nor
death can be found.5
The Korean Son Teacher Chinul:
: Birth and death are originally nonexistent; they exist because of a
false notion. It is like a person with diseased eyes who sees flowers in the
sky. If a person without this disease says there are no flowers in the sky, the
afflicted person will not believe it. But if his disease is cured, the flowers in
the sky will vanish naturally and he can then accept that they were nonexistent.
Although the flowers he sees have not yet vanished, they are, in fact,
still void. It is only the sick man who takes them to be flowers; their essence
does not really exist.

In the same way, people wrongly assume that birth and death exist. If a
man free of birth and death tells them that birth and death are originally
nonexistent, they will not believe him. But one morning,if c.ielusion is put to
rest, and birth and death are spontaneously abandoned, they will realize
that birth and death are originally nonexistent. It is only when birth and
death are not yet ended that, although they do not really exist, they seem to
exist because of this false conceptualization. As a sutra says:
Men of good family! Since time immemorial all sentient beings have been subject
to all kinds of inverted views. They are like people who have confused the four
directions. They wrongly assume that the four elements are their own bodies.
They regard the shadows conditioned by the six sense-objects as their own'minds.
This is like diseased eyes which see flowers in the sky. Yet even if all the flowers in
the sky were to vanish from space, it still could not be said that they actually
vanished. And why is this? Because they never came into existence in the first
place. All sentient beings mistakenly perceive an arising and a ceasing within this
non-rising state. For ,this reason, it is called the revolving wheel of birth and
death."
According to the text of this sutra, we can be sure that if we have a penetrating
awakening to the true mind of complete enlightenment, then, as originally,
there is no birth or death.
We know now that there is no birth and death; but still we cannot liberate
ourselves from birth and death because our practice is imperfect. As it says
in the texts, Ambapali once asked Maiijusrf, "I can understand that birth is
actually the unborn dharma, but why then am I still subject to the flow of
birth and death?" Maiijusrf answered, "It is because your power is still insufficient."
The mountain master Chin asked the mountain master Hsiu, "I
understand that birth is actually the unborn dharma, but why am I still subject
to the flow of birth and death?" Hsiu replied, "Bamboo shoots eventually
become bamboo. But can you use them now to make a raft?"" Accordingly,
to know that there is no birth or death is not as good as to experience
that there is no birth or death. To experience that there is no birth or death is
not as good as to be in conformity with the birthless and the deathless. To be
in conformity with the birthless and the deathless is not as good as to make
use of the birthless and the deathless. People nowadays do not even know
that there is no birth or death, let alone experience, be in conformity with,
or make use of the birthless and the deathless. Is it not only natural, then,
that people who assume there really is birth and death would not be able to
believe in the birthless and deathless dharma?
http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Collected-Works-of-Chinul.pdf
One can find countless such passages in imaginary Sutras and Shastra within this dream.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Actually, Malcolm, the question (both in the OP and in this part of the discussion) was "really whether Theravada is superior or inferior," and you have skidded deftly away from it.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that before we can even begin to address the question of inferiority, etc., we first have to evaluate whether Theravada fits the Mahāyāna description of a Hināyāna school.

Kim O'Hara said:
Why on earth do you feel you need to do that?
As I just said, "as soon as a path (team, race, ...) is defined as "other" it is, almost automatically, defined as inferior" and 99% of the rest is mere rationalisation. It's another manifestation of good old-fashioned clinging, really - my path, my nationality, my identity.
If you can point us towards some standards by which to judge the superiority or inferiority of a religious path - from outside that religion - I would be delighted. But if you can only argue Mahayana's superiority from within Mahayana, your arguments are fatally tainted by the stink of self-justification.
Kim

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, the first step is to see whether or not Theravada fulfills the criteria that the Mahāyāna lays out for what a Hinayāna path might look like.

This can be evaluated in two ways:

1) There are two results to which one can aspire in Buddhadharma, arhatship and buddhahood. The path of arhatship, as everyone knows, does not lead to buddhahood. The bodhisattva path does lead to buddhahood.

2) It is claimed that the bodhisattva path is superior to the arhat path because the former results in buddhahood while the latter does not.

The Agama/Nikāya sutras teach only the arhat path. The principles of the bodhisattva path are not taught not in those sūtras, as observed by Nāgārjuna in the Ratnavali. Only Mahāyāna sūtras teach the bodhisattva path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Saoshun said:
Many people do not realize even stream-entry so what is point to discuss inferiority of things if you do not realize even basics fruits of hinayana?

Actually everyone miss the point here, everyone. The question like this appeared back in history because people was realized not only on intellectual level like here, just talking. They have fruits of hinayana that's why buddha said that there is something more and put them on check. The question you raised is only raised to someone who realized fruits of hinayana no other ways. For regular person is does not matter.

Malcolm wrote:
For regular persons this is indeed an important issue. For example, as I mentioned before, if you take the bodhisattva path, according to Theravada ideas, you cut yourself off from the possibility of stream entry, and thus, if you elect to follow the bodhisattva path, you are barred from the basic fruits of the path for eons, until you achieve full buddhahood. Therefore, as a regular person, it is indeed important to know the differences in presentation between Mahāyāna and Śravakayāna schools like Theravada concerning such things the path and so on so one can make an informed choice.

It is just not the case at all that the paths of all common people are alike in every respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Actually, Malcolm, the question (both in the OP and in this part of the discussion) was "really whether Theravada is superior or inferior," and you have skidded deftly away from it.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that before we can even begin to address the question of inferiority, etc., we first have to evaluate whether Theravada fits the Mahāyāna description of a Hināyāna school.

Kim O'Hara said:
Why on earth do you feel you need to do that?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the question has been raised.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Actually, Malcolm, the question (both in the OP and in this part of the discussion) was "really whether Theravada is superior or inferior," and you have skidded deftly away from it.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that before we can even begin to address the question of inferiority, etc., we first have to evaluate whether Theravada fits the Mahāyāna description of a Hināyāna school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: A re-introduction
Content:


mindyourmind said:
Um, well...

I've been away so long that I feel that I should re-introduce myself. Due to the loss of loved ones and experiencing the daily and increasing suffering of my best friend, I spent the last three years pretty much in a dark hole, with lots of doubt, anger, experimentation, far too much intellectualization, self-pity and other very ugly sentiments. Through it all, thankfully, I have managed to hold on to my own daily Dzogchen and Mahamudra practices, even though I had hardly any contact with my teachers or dharma centers during this time. In a sense I feel that I could have dealt with this better, in another odd sense I however also sense some big breakthrough, some bigger understanding of many things.

Sorry for the boring personal stuff, just wanted to let you know where I've been, and that I'm back.

X


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
SpinyNorman said:
From a pan-Buddhist perspective claims of inferiority and superiority just look like sectarianism.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a Pan-Buddhist perspective.

SpinyNorman said:
I've been involved with all the main Buddhist schools over a period of 35 years, that's what I mean by a pan-Buddhist perspective.  I've seen too many claims of superiority over the years, frankly it's boring.

Malcolm wrote:
The question here is not really whether Theravada is superior or inferior. The question is whether it is fair to include Theravada among the schools counted as "Hinayāna" in Indian Mahāyāna polemical literature.

Caodmarte's contention is that it is anachronistic to make this claim because, according to him, Theravada did not exist to be a butt of those critiques. Of course, this contention is false, since the rise of Theravada coincides with the rise of Mahāyāna. The earliest self-conscious use of the term we know of is in the Dīpavamsa where Theravada is identified as one of the 18 schools.

There is a prevailing BC attitude where it is considered wrong to include Theravada among the other schools classically identified in Mahāyāna polemical writings as Hināyāna. My point is that this attitude is wrong. Anyone who belongs to any ordination lineage [of the three remaining] can be a Mahāyānist providing they reject certain points of view of the bodhisattva path which are shared among all eighteen schools, and accept the Mahāyāna account of the bodhisattva path in their stead since the two perspectives about this are mutually exclusive.

There are many different teachings for people of many different capacities in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 11th, 2016 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Music time
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche: Advice to three-year retreatant
Content:
kirtu said:
Many people have had DI and yet are habitually unkind and harm others (esp. verbally).  There is at least one great guru who actually seems to attract many people with this specific flaw.

Kirt

Virgo said:
Who would that be?

Kevin

Malcolm wrote:
I imagine that he is referring to Dzongsar Khyentse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Boomerang said:
Theravada Buddhists say that Mahayana Buddhists say that Theravada in an inferior vehicle, and that Theravadins are selfish or lacking in compassion. How well does this idea match the views of the Mahayana Buddhists on this forum? I don't feel like it's inferior; the best path is whatever you are drawn to. There may be Mahayana sutras which extravagantly expound that Hinayana is lesser, but I would be surprised and confused to go to a dharma talk and hear a Mahayana teacher give a whole lecture about how Mahayana is better than Theravada. There are also texts that say the Buddha cut off his flesh as a bodhisattva, but that doesn't mean Mahayanis like to cut off their flesh. So, when Theravada Buddhists say this I sort of feel like it's a sound bite and stereotype.

SpinyNorman said:
From a pan-Buddhist perspective claims of inferiority and superiority just look like sectarianism.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a Pan-Buddhist perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:


Caodemarte said:
Although phrased rather dramatically by Kalupahana (one of the giants of Buddhist studies), it is quite reasonable to argue that the ideas of the Mulamadhyamakakarika were in no way meant to be or seen to be revolutionary in any way, but were natural expressions of (or mild natural developments of) early Buddhist thought.  It is almost certain that Nagarjuna would not have thought of himself as a Mahayanist although claimed as such after his death (reminds me of the truism that Jesus was not a Christian), but rather as a Buddhist intellectual expounding the orthodox wisdom of his day against those whose views had strayed into heretical error inconsistent with Buddhist thought. Of course, it is very difficult, if not flat out impossible, to believe that Nagarjuna or later Theravada or Mahayana Buddhist thinkers would have said anything that they thought contradicted orthodox early Buddhist thought.

Malcolm wrote:
Clearly Nāgārjuna thought of himself as a Mahāyānist, just read the Mahāyāna Vimsika, the Ratnavali, or the Surhleka.

Just as clearly, Kalupahana's treatment of the MMK is severely flawed by his refusal to use the Indian commentarial tradition, and reading passages in direct opposition to what that maintains, breaking up the question and answer format of the MMK. For example, on egregious error DK makes is that he asserts that Nāgārjuna does not reject the four conditions outlined by the Sarvastivadins, the latter embraces them. There are many other interpretive mistakes that DK makes.

[
Caodemarte said:
Studies on comparative subjects like the Bodhisattva concept in Mahayana and in Theravada (yes, there is a bodhisattva concept in Theravada) have greatly increased our understanding of both Mahayana and Theravada as well as the deep connections between them.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is a bodhisattva concept in Theravada, just as there is one in all the Hinayāna schools. For example, the Abhidharmakosha narrates the career of the bodhisattva at the end of one chapter. It is exists in Hinayāna schools because Buddha was once a bodhisattva. But their concept could not be more different than the Mahāyāna ideal.

But this is not the issue before us. The issue is: is there anything which exempts Theravada from Mahāyāna polemics which were aimed at its forbears? The answer is no. There nothing doctrinally unique about Thervavada, as opposed to Sarvastivada, which renders it immune to inclusion among the Hinayāna schools.

There is however these days a BC (Buddhist Correctness) movement to try and pretend that Theravada does not belong to the Hinayāna schools based on some putative idea that since it was outside the main stream developments in India, it is also somehow outside these criticisms. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very ideas put forth in the Abhidhammapitika, the realism of the Visuddhimagga, etc., are exactly the targets of Mahāyāna theoretical polemicists like Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?n s
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Are you saying that any non-Mahayanist is by definition a Hinayanist?

Malcolm wrote:
One, Hinayāna schools are defined by ordination lineage. Second, any person of any ordination lineage may adopt Mahāyāna, but all the eighteen schools and their offshoots are by definition Hinayāna schools because they favor pursuit of the arhat path over pursuit of full Buddhahood.

I already gave my definition of a Hinayāna practitioner above, i.e., someone who chooses arhatship over full Buddhahood. There are a number of other criteria, but the latter is the most important.

For example, while many people make much noise about the fact that indeed one can adopt the bodhisattva path in Theravada (as well as the rest of the Nikāya/Agamic schools), the barriers to doing so are no different than the barriers and conditions laid down in the Abhidharmakosha for someone who wishes to take up the bodhisattva path (must be male, must have been predicted by the Buddha during his lifetime, etc.). Such people are further barred from stream entry, etc. In other words, while compassion may not be lacking in the Theravada path, bodhicitta is.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
I doubt anyone would claim Theravada was immune from criticism. However, there is no evidence that Theravada was one of the traditional 18 schools (or the 17 to 19 if you count differently).

It is often claimed by non-scholars in Theravada countries (Sri Lankans seem big on this) that Theravada is a direct descendant of Sthaviravada (both names mean the same thing). However, when you probe this it comes down to at best, "inspired" by Sthaviravada. Theravadins assume that Sthaviravada was the oldest Buddhist school and therefore assume it must be the most correct and therefore must have taught Theravada  since Theravada is correct (all this may be true but is hardly an historical or convincing argument to non-Theravadins) . It is akin to the claim that Theravada started at the 1st Council. Since this is impossible the claim becomes the more historical idea that the 1st council and what Theravada "reformers" thought was taught served as a distant inspiration, apparently primarily because  the Theravada "reformers" had an  interpretation of what happened which agreed with Theravadin theories!

"There is no historical evidence that the Theravada school arose until around two centuries after the Great Schism which occurred at the Council of Pataliputra" (Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism, 2003). To claim that they are the descendants of Sthaviravada is similar to claims you occasionally read that Sri Lanka has always been a Theravada country (which is true if you ignore the Tantric monuments and other obvious historical evidence!). But even that date is controversial and is probably too early.

So if you want to criticize Theravada (a school with many traditions, but let's treat it as a more or less coherent unit for our purposes) as a Hinayana school using your definition of what that means  you will first have to understand what a Theravadin would describe as Theravadin goals and what is meant by "arhathood" and Buddhahood by the tradition. This is an immense task, but you simply can't claim with intellectual honesty that they believe what a far-distant critic or a 19th Century Western scholar outside the tradition with no direct knowledge asserts they believe unless we are doing simple sect bashing.   Then you can see how they contrast or share points with the Mahayana. For example, you have written  they were "influenced by Nāgārjuna." Although I don't think  Kalupahana would quite agree on who influenced who when, he argues that the Mahayana concept of emptiness and the Theravadin no-self, no substance are extremely similar, if not developments of the same idea in different language. There has been a lot of fascinating recent work on this topic.

Malcolm wrote:
You should read more carefully. I said that some modern Theravadins have been very influenced by Nāgārjuna.

That aside, Thervada subscribes to a Nikāya model of Buddhadharma. This makes them a Hinayāna school by definition.

From a Mahāyāna point of view, the Theravada claims about the nature of Buddhahood and the nature of Arhatship really are no different than what can be found in the Pali Canon's Katthavatthu, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
...yet the Dharmakaya is the Dharmakaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here, Jundo admits that he really has no idea what he is talking about...

jundo cohen said:
Well, it is a Koan, but one I believe I know the solution to. As the Buddha arguably pointed out in some of his writings (where he begged off answering certain types of questions), he was fully enlightened in key aspects, with insight into great matters, but I would not ask him to tune my car or predict tomorrow's stock market ('probably beyond his expertise as a man of Iron Age India). As well, one can fully pierce some transcendent mysteries, be mistaken in the details. Again, Just a belief and I am not the last word in Buddhism (fortunately), nor do I fail to honor the possible truth of anyone else's beliefs on these matters.

Malcolm wrote:
When in doubt, rinse and repeat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Although there are varying definitions, it is clear that the term was very definitely applied to schools as a criticism, 17 to 19 specific schools by name,if memory serves.  Theravada was not among the targeted schools as it did not exist at the time. In modern times Theravada has been misidentified  being one of these specific schools or incorrectly categorized as holding the beliefs, as defined by ancient Mahayana critics, of one or another of the extinct schools. The question as to how Theravada as a school is fundamentally different in goals or philosophical beliefs from Mahayana in other than lineage and history is a surprisingly difficult and subtle question as Kalupahana and others kept and keep pointing out.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, this is not correct. Theravada is the descendent of Sthaviravādas, which itself is a descendent of Vibhayavādins.

The positions that modern day Theravadins hold, apart from where they are influenced by Nāgārjuna, are not significantly different than the positions held in the Katthavattu and so on. Claiming therefore that Theravadins are exempt from Mahāyana criticisms is flaw in thinking. In reality, Theravadins are one of the so called eighteen schools, as they count their ordination lineage from Upali.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Chatral Rinpoche's passing
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Letter from Yangsi Dudjom Rinpoche Sangye Pema Zhepa:
http://www.vajrayana.org/media/files/box/3a87ed38/Yangsi_Rinpoche_on_Chatral_Rinpoche_s_parinirvana.pdf

Letter from Lama Sonam Rinpoche:
http://www.vajrayana.org/files/556/


Malcolm wrote:
I like his last testament:
First, do not search for a reincarnation after I have passed. Second, all of you must not be sad.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 10th, 2016 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Theravada an inferior and selfish vehicle?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
So the the short answer is no. You or I can certainly be inferior or selfish. But then we would not be good practitioners of any form of Buddhism!

This all probably comes from the misidentification of the Theravada with Hinayana. Hinayana comes the early polemical wars in early Indian Buddhism and was a put down by Mahayanists of an attitude or a whole sect. The schools it was used against died out as did the polemics  before Theravada came to be and I don't believe it was ever applied to (what became) Theravada in India.  Western scholars originally thought Theravada was one of the old, extinct schools  and that is  how why introduced Theravada to the West (and to Japan) as Hinayana Buddhism in modern times. A lot of that got channeled back to Theravada countries and early modern Thai Buddhist writers would say we must be Hinayana. No one believes that now and Hinayana is applied to an attitude, regardless of sect, and not to a contemporary group.

Malcolm wrote:
Hinayāna applies specifically to the goal of attaining an Arhat's cessation, rather than a school. So you do the math. What is the primary goal of a Theravadin? If it is not full Buddhahood, than that practitioner has a Hinayāna motivation.

By inference, schools which do not advocate the attainment of full Buddhahood as a goal are Hinayāna no matter when they existed or in what country.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A Buddhas appearances are wisdom.

tomamundsen said:
Sure. But I thought appearances have ended for Buddhas, no?

Malcolm wrote:
No. What has ended for a Buddha are impure appearances.


tomamundsen said:
I thought that "appearance" implies a duality between the wisdom itself and the appearance of that wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
That is true only below the 13th bhumi. The difference between a buddha on the thirteenth bhumi and the eleventh and twelfth bhumi is that buddhas on the thirteenth bhumi experience appearances as their own wisdom, whereas the lower two stages of buddhahood experience wisdom and the appearances as distinct.


tomamundsen said:
Or are these "path appearances" something asserted by everyone aside from the guy on the path of Buddhahood himself? I'm having a hard time adding that one up too though, because I didn't think Dharmakaya is "seen" by anyone but a Buddha. Hmmm.

Malcolm wrote:
The path of Buddhahood is called "the path of no further training. " Hence Buddhahood is also a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Not a vegetarian debate!
Content:
Saoshun said:
In samadhi you are beyond skandhas in your experience.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am afraid this is a wrong idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Was Kongtrul of lesser intelligence?

Malcolm wrote:
I was merely citing what Longchenpa stated, and his statement echoes what the Buddha says about tathāgatagarbha in the Lanka-avatara sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


smcj said:
This principle is the pinnacle of all views of the vehicle of causal characteristics.
"Vehicle of causal characteristics" modifies the statement somewhat.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, and gzhan stong belongs to that vehicle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
conebeckham said:
Can one say it is a "result appearance?" as well?

Or, perhaps, it's more appropriate to say that the moment "it appears" then there are no more "appearances."

Hmmm...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a path appearance, the path of buddhahood spans three to six bhumis, depending on the system.

tomamundsen said:
Does "appearance" here mean the same thing it normally does? I am a little perplexed if so. How can a Buddha be said to perceive appearances? Don't appearances end when non-dual wisdom is completely realized? I thought that appearance implies a duality from wisdom itself and that Buddhas have eliminated that.

Malcolm wrote:
A Buddhas appearances are wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Matt J said:
Actually, Malcolm's critiques are more or less in line with those of Ju Mipham, who was a student of Kongtrul. Mipham rejects affirming negations and considers Longchenpa a Prasangika who likewise upholds the supremacy of non-affirming negations. Mipham's critiques are often squarely leveled at how Dolpopa constructs and separates his two truths, and not just the three natures. Mipham is no slouch, so I don't think he was just wiping away the distinction, but arrived at his conclusions carefully.

sherabpa said:
I finally took a look at Brunnholzl's book, the one originally referenced in this thread, and was pleased to see a translation of Kongtrul's 'Vajra Moon' there.  You can see on p832 where he references Longchenpa, and Brunnholzl's note 2661.

Don't take anyone else's word for Kongtrul's opinions on this or any matter.  Look for yourselves.  If I have misrepresented him, you can see it for yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is indeed Kongtrul's opinion, no one disputed that this was his opinion. What is under dispute is whether his opinion about Longchenpa is correct. I don't think that it is, and I think there is ample internal evidence in Longchenpa's writings that he was not a gzhan stong pa. As we have already seen, he identifies Candrakirtī has the one who holds the definitive view of Madhyamaka on page 798 of the grub mtha' mdzod. He declares on pg. 821, in the section devoted to explicating Candrakīrti's perspective:
This principle is the pinnacle of all views of the vehicle of causal characteristics.
It is simply inconsistent to maintain that someone who clearly articulates that the pinnacle of cause vehicles views is Prasangika belongs to the gzhan stong persuasion. Longchenpa does state on page 900 that:

In response to including the needs of those of lower intelligence, this garbha is empty because it is empty of faults, conditioning and so on, but it is not an emptiness that discards the phenomena of its qualities, as already mentioned:
The characteristic of distinction is
is that the element is empty of the temporary [afflictions],
the characteristic of the absence of distinction
is not being empty of unsurpassed phenomena.
The pure element that has the nature of the limit of reality is unconditioned like space. The happiness and suffering of samsara (supported on karma and affliction) appear like clouds. Moreover, the suffering because of improper afflicted mental activity is like a cloud. Since karma appears without any nature, it is like the aspect of a dream. The aggregates generated by karma and affliction are explained to be like illusions and clouds to remedy the grasping to one extreme of clinging to self. After that, since there arise five faults of clinging to the reifications of grasping to extremes in emptiness, in order to remove that, the tathagātagarba is explained...."

But frankly, the above statement by Longchenpa is simply not sufficient to place him in the gzhan stong camp, especially with reference to his declaration of the definitive Mahāyana view above, and in light of the fact that he clearly indicates the purpose of the tathagatagarbha view is to make the Mahāyāna path acceptable to those of lesser intelligence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Matt J said:
Actually, Malcolm's critiques are more or less in line with those of Ju Mipham, who was a student of Kongtrul. Mipham rejects affirming negations and considers Longchenpa a Prasangika who likewise upholds the supremacy of non-affirming negations. Mipham's critiques are often squarely leveled at how Dolpopa constructs and separates his two truths, and not just the three natures. Mipham is no slouch, so I don't think he was just wiping away the distinction, but arrived at his conclusions carefully.

sherabpa said:
I finally took a look at Brunnholzl's book, the one originally referenced in this thread, and was pleased to see a translation of Kongtrul's 'Vajra Moon' there.  You can see on p832 where he references Longchenpa, and Brunnholzl's note 2661.

Don't take anyone else's word for Kongtrul's opinions on this or any matter.  Look for yourselves.  If I have misrepresented him, you can see it for yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is indeed Kongtrul's opinion, no one disputed that this was his opinion. What is under dispute is whether his opinion is correct. I don't think that it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
What's the difference between the Nirmanakaya (a physical buddha) and Sambogakaya (a non-physical buddha)? Physicality.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, actually, the external sambhogakāya, the one in Akanistha, has a physical body, composed of very subtle matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
If some guy reads this on the internet and then goes and kicks one of your teachers because they are "only path appearances", what would you think is lacking in their understanding? Or would you think their understanding is correct and approve?

Malcolm wrote:
I think the person who wrote the question lacks some understanding of the principle involved.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here, Jundo admits that he really has no idea what he is talking about...

boda said:
If the Buddha was fully realized (no longer ignorant), how could he have been wrong about so many core teachings?

jundo cohen said:
Yes, he was fully realized. That is a Koan, is it not? Fully realized, yet how could he have been possibly wrong about a few core teachings (I assume he taught them, which he likely did).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
Is the Nirmanakaya expedient means? Is the Dharmakaya expedient means? If not, then why single out the Sambogakaya for any other reason that it raises issues about faith that are uncomfortable for us.

Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are just path appearances.

smcj said:
If some guy reads this on the internet and then goes and kicks one of your teachers because they are "only expedient means", what would you think is lacking in their understanding? Or would you think their understanding is correct and approve?

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say they were expedient means. I said they were path appearances. So your question is actually a non sequitur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
conebeckham said:
Can one say it is a "result appearance?" as well?

Or, perhaps, it's more appropriate to say that the moment "it appears" then there are no more "appearances."

Hmmm...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a path appearance, the path of buddhahood spans three to six bhumis, depending on the system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
Is the Nirmanakaya expedient means? Is the Dharmakaya expedient means? If not, then why single out the Sambogakaya for any other reason that it raises issues about faith that are uncomfortable for us.

Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are just path appearances.

conebeckham said:
The Dharmakaya is a "path appearance?"

No dispute regarding the form kayas, but......

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, dharmakāya is also a path appearance. It appears on the path of buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Kilung Rinpoche - Practical Advice on Dzogchen Meditatio
Content:
Nosta said:
Nice instructions!

Should I get any transmission/empowermente whatever before doing that meditation? The instructions are simple and direct, so, can I try it without any empowerment?


Malcolm wrote:
No direct introduction, no Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 9th, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
Is the Nirmanakaya expedient means? Is the Dharmakaya expedient means? If not, then why single out the Sambogakaya for any other reason that it raises issues about faith that are uncomfortable for us.

Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are just path appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
Until then it is just our eagerness to fit Dharma into our comfort zones by negating the issue of faith...

Malcolm wrote:
Did you ever consider that your obsession with [other poeples'] faith is just a way of fitting Dharma into your own comfort zone?

smcj said:
The way my teacher have taught me, and they themselves practice, is what I consider Dharma. Since the purpose of this website is to discuss Mahayana and Vajrayana, it is appropriate to put forward the idea that there might be a problem with some of the interpretations expressed here that contradict the way I have been taught.

Malcolm wrote:
The horror...

smcj said:
I have never heard any of my teachers say anything even remotely like, "…but you don't need take that seriously because it is expedient means." I have heard that from Westerners and Westerners only.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you probably just don't get out that much...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: The "four methods" that prove the existence of future li
Content:
Aemilius said:
What is the source for these four logical reasons for future reincarnation?
The first and second sound slightly dubious. In the Sutra of the Seedling of Rice Maitreya says that a small cause can give a large result, like from a small seed a great tree grows. Is this a cause of the similar type or not? A seed is not a tree.
In the process of Dependent Arising name and form are preceded by ignorance, karma formations and consciousness, which are very different in character from a material body.
Ignorance etc.. do not constitute a substantial cause.
There is no substantial cause in Buddhism, for the arising of Samsara, the Wheel of Life.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that wheat seeds only give rise to wheat sprouts, rice seeds only give rise to rice seedlings.

A "substantial" cause means that in this case the mind, which is defined as a dravya itself, like water, fire, air and earth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Samayasattva/Jnanasattva
Content:
smcj said:
Until then it is just our eagerness to fit Dharma into our comfort zones by negating the issue of faith...

Malcolm wrote:
Did you ever consider that your obsession with [other poeples'] faith is just a way of fitting Dharma into your own comfort zone?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Shakya Shri
Content:
gyamtsotrinle said:
Hii,

I would like to know if there is exists incarnation of great master Shakya Shri? And also is there still avalaible some of Shakya Shri´termas?
Thank you for answers
P


Malcolm wrote:
HIs termas still exist and are still transmitted.

heart said:
Who transmit them?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
You would have to go inquire among Drukpa Kagyus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Forgiveness
Content:
Malang said:
Easier said than, done, personally ive been trough some very hard to forgive things, i try but i cant genuinely forgive these things, but this does not feel good, but its beyond me, anyone know what i mean?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it means that you still carry anger and resentment. As Chokyi Nyima says, if you cannot forgive, then forget.

Malang said:
Do you mean conciously say ' im not gonna think about it ' ? I feel if you do this , then you have not uprooted the problem ,and the anger is below the surface , how do you for example forget if you are by neccesity forced to deal with daily those who have wronged you?

Malcolm wrote:
You just put it aside and move on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Adamantine said:
I'm assuming this is a relic of Bramhanic ideas of orthodox purity

Astus said:
The whole idea of 'contamination' seems like that. But it is quite possible that there is no actual connection, it's just that every culture has its own set of superstitions and taboos (e.g. in Japan women were not allowed on whole mountains because of fear of contaminating the holy places, like monasteries).


Malcolm wrote:
Hence the subaltern narrative of the charnel ground ḍākinī in the higher tantras as the fertile source of the Dharma, rather the sterile and male dominated environs of the monasteries...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Adamantine said:
Is there any reasoning to this, other than superstition? I can relate to the contamination from very negative people because after spending time with certain people or in certain places I have noticed
it's negative impact on my mind and subtle energetics-- just as being with a realized Lama or in a special pilgrimage place can have a powerful positive impact.

But menstruation I'm unclear about.. I suppose it's never been explained to me properly.. And I have no experiential corollary.

Malcolm wrote:
It is sexist bullshit.

Adamantine said:
Well that seems to be the take on it I've gotten from some western female Lamas
I know! But it's pretty ingrained in the dharma culture. I'm assuming this is a relic of Bramhanic
ideas of orthodox purity, despite Vajrayana supposedly blasting those to smithereens.

Malcolm wrote:
To put it bluntly — there are many Tibetan monks alive today who have no idea at all what female anatomy is and how it functions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Shakya Shri
Content:
gyamtsotrinle said:
Hii,

I would like to know if there is exists incarnation of great master Shakya Shri? And also is there still avalaible some of Shakya Shri´termas?
Thank you for answers
P


Malcolm wrote:
HIs termas still exist and are still transmitted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 8th, 2016 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Adamantine said:
Is there any reasoning to this, other than superstition? I can relate to the contamination from very negative people because after spending time with certain people or in certain places I have noticed
it's negative impact on my mind and subtle energetics-- just as being with a realized Lama or in a special pilgrimage place can have a powerful positive impact.

But menstruation I'm unclear about.. I suppose it's never been explained to me properly.. And I have no experiential corollary.

Malcolm wrote:
It is sexist bullshit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
These are more connected with the Tibetan cultural ideas than the Dharma.

Astus said:
East Asian countries have their own versions of such contaminations (e.g. the http://www.reed.edu/hellscrolls/scrolls/Aseries/A06/A06e.html ), as probably every culture.

Malcolm wrote:
Or the idea that menstruating women are impure and will for example contaminate and destroy the blessings of articles to be placed in sūpas and statues should the former come in contact with the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Forgiveness
Content:
Malang said:
Easier said than, done, personally ive been trough some very hard to forgive things, i try but i cant genuinely forgive these things, but this does not feel good, but its beyond me, anyone know what i mean?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it means that you still carry anger and resentment. As Chokyi Nyima says, if you cannot forgive, then forget.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here, the word is contamination [ 'grib ] rather than obscuration [ sgrib ].

Astus said:
And what does contamination stand for? The description given sounds like 'ritual impurity', that might be relevant in Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is connected with having an incorrect partner and a resultant decline in some abilities, for example, clairvoyance.

One can be "contaminated" by any number of things, such as someone else's clothes, an antique that has come into ones possession, and so on. These are more connected with the Tibetan cultural ideas than the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
That's why the practices don't work for us.

krodha said:
Since this seems to be a reoccurring theme in your posts as of late, I must ask, why would you assume that practices do not work for westerners?

smcj said:
A conversation I had with a Tibetan retreat master for western retreatants.

Malcolm wrote:
Your Tibetan friend, retreat master or not, has not met all Westerners.


smcj said:
Let us not forget that masters of the past who have expressed opinions on such subjects did so from the standpoint of first having actually done the practice and gained results. This is qualitatively quite a different thing from just reading however many scriptures and voicing one's own prejudices.
Hence my admonition to not take anything said here seriously, and to ask an authentic lineage lama--especially in this specific subject.

Malcolm wrote:
More sour grapes, as usual...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
In order for the practice to work you need to have faith in the wisdom being. That's assumed to be true by a Tibetan. It is rejected by Westerners. That's why the practices don't work for us.

Malcolm wrote:
Why do you keep saying this? All four of your statements are false.

1) You do not have to have "faith" in the wisdom being. You merely have to understand what it is.

2) Tibetans do not assume a wisdom being has some kind of external existence, or to be any other than the nature of the mind, cast in an embodied symbolic form.

3) Westerns do not reject something accepted by Tibetans.

4) Who says practices are not working for Westerners? You?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Klesas are Bodhi & dating 18 y/o girls.
Content:
Adamantine said:
from a Tibetan perspective there is also a view that one can take on residual obscurations (drip) from another, most especially through sexual union.

Astus said:
That very much contradicts the whole meaning of karma. Following that logic, hunger could be lost around well fed people. Afflictions reside in one's own mind, generated and maintained through one's own actions. One may agree with or imitate others' actions, but that's still not the same as obscuration-transmission.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he is not being clear. Here, the word is contamination [ 'grib ] rather than obscuration [ sgrib ].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, this really just means a fairly elaborate creation stage with an Atiyoga view.

Or, practicing a sadhana in Ati style we have to consider Anu-ati because though we are resting in Dzogchen view at the end, still we are practicing some sadhana with an aim to get somewhere. We somehow still have the idea that our state needs to be fixed. We have not recognized the nature of our mind and elevated our mind correspondingly. We are still suffering from "the illness of effort", as it is put in Sems sde.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Thanks, Malcolm. That was impeccably clear. That was actually what I meant about Mahayoga and I do know the difference from Kriya. I just botched my explanation. When I said that the deity is viewed as separate, I misspoke. I meant that you actually have you create the mandala and it's not primordially present. Of course when the mandala is created, one is a deity within that mandala. Seems to be congruent with what you said about viewing wisdom as something to be attained.

You've probably described all of this on this forum several times before. Thanks for your patience. I'm pretty confident  this doesn't actually contradict what my teacher said.

Malcolm wrote:
The view of Mahāyoga is that even though the mandala is primordially present, we need to practice reconstituting it, as it were, building it up and then plugging it in over and over again. In the view of Anuyoga, we don't have to keep plugging the mandala in, we plug it in once, and then just remember it when we want to. If we are practicing a sadhana Ati yoga style, we don't even bother visualizing anything, we recite the words, knowing that just thinking about the deity is sufficient, there is no need to meditate on it, and then we recite the mantra resting in our natural state, which is all the deity is anyway.

tomamundsen said:
Ah, interesting nuance. I had thought that was the Maha-Ati approach and not pure Mahayhoga. If you don't mind, now that you've explained Maha, Anu, and Ati, can you clarify what the Maha-Ati style is? Same as Atiyoga style view, but doing all the visualization like in Mahayoga?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this really just means a fairly elaborate creation stage with an Atiyoga view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Thanks, Malcolm. That was impeccably clear. That was actually what I meant about Mahayoga and I do know the difference from Kriya. I just botched my explanation. When I said that the deity is viewed as separate, I misspoke. I meant that you actually have you create the mandala and it's not primordially present. Of course when the mandala is created, one is a deity within that mandala. Seems to be congruent with what you said about viewing wisdom as something to be attained.

You've probably described all of this on this forum several times before. Thanks for your patience. I'm pretty confident  this doesn't actually contradict what my teacher said.

Malcolm wrote:
The view of Mahāyoga is that even though the mandala is primordially present, we need to practice reconstituting it, as it were, building it up and then plugging it in over and over again. In the view of Anuyoga, we don't have to keep plugging the mandala in, we plug it in once, and then just remember it when we want to. If we are practicing a sadhana Ati yoga style, we don't even bother visualizing anything, we recite the words, knowing that just thinking about the deity is sufficient, there is no need to meditate on it, and then we recite the mantra resting in our natural state, which is all the deity is anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
conebeckham said:
http://www.elizabethmattisnamgyel.com/tag/shentong/

Having a direct experience trumps all philosophical constructs.

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, many gzhan stong commentators state that the difference between so called gzhan stong and rang stong is not the experience of equipoise, which is free from all extremes, but in post-equipoise analytical interpretation. This is one of the many reasons why I think we should basically ditch all these novel Tibetan philosophical trips and get back to the basics, ala Khenpo Shenga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The view that wisdom being is a real being invoked into you from some other place is a stunningly wrong view which is not even the view of kriya tantra, let alone the view of Mahāyoga. It is a skillful means of Secret Mantra meant to remind you of the innate wisdom which you have always possessed since the beginning.

tomamundsen said:
OK, I wasn't being specific enough. It wasn't taught that there is a being that is "invoked into" oneself in some kind of physical sense. But it was taught that the wisdom being is real, at least as real as we are.

Malcolm wrote:
The wisdom being is real in so far as it is symbol of your own innate wisdom which was awoken through the process of the descent of the blessing in the first part of the empowerment rite.

tomamundsen said:
And that sadhana practice is merging the samaya being and wisdom being.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you create yourself in the form of deity X, and then you activate your own wisdom by summoning the wisdom being as a symbol of that innate wisdom that was pointed out to you during the empowerment. You are not summing deity X from outside to come into you in real sense.

tomamundsen said:
I don't think that necessarily means "invoked into" like what you're saying here. It would mean that one is training to view themselves as inseparable from the deity. And at some levels of practice, we start out from a view where the deity is separate from us and then transition toward the view of union.

Malcolm wrote:
The view that deity is separate from us is the view of kriya, where we practice with the deity before us and slightly higher than we are. Otherwise, the view of yoga tantra is that when we are finished with our practice, the wisdom being is dismissed since in post-equipoise we are engaging in impure activities. In higher tantra, since we are never separate from our innate wisdom, the nature of our minds, we remain in the form of the deity 24/7/365.

tomamundsen said:
From a higher view, there is no separation at all from the beginning and there would effectively be no "merging" at all.

Malcolm wrote:
In the practice of Mahāyoga, there is still a summoning of the wisdom being, because there is still an idea that wisdom, even though it is innate, is something to attain. In Anuyoga there is no summoning of the wisdom being because it is understood that the wisdom being and commitment being have always been inseparable as the basis and are nothing other than the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Even the summoning of the wisdom being into the commitment being is just a reminder that our real state has always been naturally perfected as a mandala, but there is no actual wisdom being that is summoned.
But my teacher just the other day taught that summoning the wisdom being is literally true. However, I believe that the view he was speaking from at the time was not the Atiyoga view. I think it would be a Mahayoga view. I could be wrong about this part, please correct me if so. Isn't it the case that both views are correct, depending on the capacity of the practitioner?

Malcolm wrote:
The view that wisdom being is a real being invoked into you from some other place is a stunningly wrong view which is not even the view of kriya tantra, let alone the view of Mahāyoga. It is a skillful means of Secret Mantra meant to remind you of the innate wisdom which you have always possessed since the beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
sherabpa said:
I'm saying that your knowledge of zhentong is autodidactic.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, in fact your presumption is as false as your dissembling is outrageous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
gzhan stong is merely concerned with explicating the teachings of the Uttaratantra

sherabpa said:
Something I never claimed.   The intensity of your bluster is increasing.  Whatever, I know the zhentong I received from my own teachers.  I don't need autodidacts to tell me what it is.  As Sapan rightly says:
A false nose, a purchased child, a borrowed ornament, wealth
gotten through stealing, and knowledge gained without a teacher.
Though you have such things, others do not regard these highly.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, it is really outrageous for you to claim that I "stole" my knowledge. Just who the hell do you think you are?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
It took me less than 15 seconds to find citations by various masters, like Jigme Lingpa etc. that supports Malcolm's statement. Read the relevant literature (like Malcolm says, sadhana commentaries mention this) and you'll see for yourself.
My recommendation was not to click on an internet page, but to seek out a traditional Tibetan lama and ask him--but making sure to ask the proper question. What you get from a teacher that can look into your eye and what you get from a printed page can be quite different.

tomamundsen said:
Right. I can confirm that just the other day (Monday, the 25th), my teacher explained the wisdom being and samaya being in the same way as you're advocating. I don't think it was meant to be Atiyoga view, maybe it was Mahayoga. Anyway, it was definitely taught that it can be viewed in that way on some level of practice. And commentaries don't really mean anything compared to the guru's pith instructions.

Malcolm wrote:
Your writing here is anything but clear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
khroda said:
There's no source for Longchenpa being a gzhan stong pa, since he championed Prasanga Madhyamaka to be the definitive sūtra view in numerous places.

smcj said:
That's why it would be interesting to see why Kongtrul thought differently--if he actually did.

sherabpa said:
Of course he did.  I didn't make it up.  The texts where he calls Longchenpa a zhentongpa are the ones previously mentioned on this thread - Rays of the Vajra Moon and Uttaratantra commentary.

Calling Longchenpa a zhentongpa would not be controversial at all except that what 'zhentong' nowadays has come to mean is Dolpopa's specific interpretation of the Three Natures theory in accordance with Vasubandhu's Brhattika.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, no. That is what gzhan stong has meant all along. I suggest starting with Dolbupa [14th century], moving onto Shakya Chogden [15th century], then onto Taranatha [16th century], then onto Rigzin Tsewang Norbu [18th Century] and then Situ Panchen, and see how your contention stacks up [it doesn't.]


What is novel is your idea that gzhan stong is merely concerned with explicating the teachings of the Uttaratantra, but this perspective is incredibly anachronistic and wrong headed as we can see from the historical progression of the master who gave gzhan stong its foundation [Dolbupa] and the various scholars who followed his lead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
FWIW, I point out the following passage from "The Crystal and the Way Of Light": There are eight principal classes of Guardians each with many subdivisions. Some are highly realized beings, others not realized at all. Every place - every continent, country, city, mountain, river, lake or forest - has its particular dominant energy, or Guardian, as have every year, hour and even minute: these are not highly evolved energies. The various teachings all have energies which have special relationships with them: these are more realized Guardians. These energies are iconographically portrayed as they were perceived when they manifested to masters who had contact with them, and their awesome power is represented by their terrifyingly ferocious forms, their many arms and heads, and their ornaments of the charnel ground. As with all the figures in tantric iconography, it is not correct to interpret the figures of the guardians as merely symbolic, as some Western writers have been tempted to do. Though the iconographic forms have been shaped by the perceptions and culture of those who saw the original manifestation and by the development of tradition, actual beings are represented.
(underlining added)

Malcolm wrote:
This has nothing to do with yidams.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
It took me less than 15 seconds to find citations by various masters, like Jigme Lingpa etc. that supports Malcolm's statement. Read the relevant literature (like Malcolm says, sadhana commentaries mention this) and you'll see for yourself.
My recommendation was not to click on an internet page, but to seek out a traditional Tibetan lama and ask him--but making sure to ask the proper question. What you get from a teacher that can look into your eye and what you get from a printed page can be quite different.

Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think our replies come from anyone other than traditionally trained Tibetan Lamas?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
Since you are the one who is confused, I think you are the one who needs to go and clarify this for yourself.
That sounds like you are worried about what a traditional lama would answer.

Malcolm wrote:
Why should I be? I have read hundreds of commentaries about this very issue. I know what they will say.

smcj said:
In a nutshell the question is: Does the ultimate nature of the deity negate its relative nature, and therefore make faith unnecessary?

Malcolm wrote:
This question is a non-sequitar. First of all, there is no ultimate "deity" — if it has hands, colors, eyes, legs, a torso, etc., it is something relative. If you are referring to the continuum of a bodhisattva like Mañjuśrī, it is not something which exists in one place that can be summoned to another place.

Secondly,  Mañjuśrī's continuum cannot displace your own, no matter how hard you try to practice divine pride. But with practice, your continuum can become the same as Mañjuśrī's continuum, and depending on your chosen vehicle, with more or less effort.

And, the higher up you go in the yānas, more and more emphasis is placed on personal experience and direct perception, and increasingly less is placed on testimony and inference.

My personal opinion is that since Ati yoga places the most emphasis on personal experience and direct perception it is the best vehicle for westerners, among all the available Vajrayāna options. But that is just my orientation. Other people like imagining themselves as this and so on



And that is all well and good, very excellent paths, very excellent practices, all practiced with full attention and carefully can result in Buddhahood in a single lifetime, but Dzogchen is still faster and more direct...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Even the summoning of the wisdom being into the commitment being is just a reminder that our real state has always been naturally perfected as a mandala, but there is no actual wisdom being that is summoned.

smcj said:
IMO, that is precisely the idea that defeats the practice of Westerners.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a statement that is repeated in hundreds of commentaries on sadhana practice.

smcj said:
I think it is worth encouraging people to go to the effort to ask a traditional Tibetan lama about it. Don't you agree?

Malcolm wrote:
Since you are the one who is confused, I think you are the one who needs to go and clarify this for yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahha, communing with nonhuman beings is the main point of Vajrayāna practice? What a joke. The main point of Vajrayāna practice is just the same as Mahāyāna practice, attaining buddhahood by eliminating the two obscurations, end of story.

Commune all you like, but if your afflictions and knowledge obscurations are not being reduced, you are wasting your time.

smcj said:
Do you think Manjushri is confused about emptiness? Do you think Chenrezi lacks compassion? If they were to merge with--or even displace your present awareness (as in having "divine pride"), do you think you obscurations would remain untouched?

Malcolm wrote:
Neither Mañjuśrī or Avalokiteśvara are concrete external entities at all in the context in which you mention them.

"Divine pride" is a temporary method belonging to the creation stage, and as such it is a conceptual meditation, prophylactic in nature, meant to replace our ordinary sense of self. But this is not the end of the path, in order to attain buddhahood, we still must depend on the direct perception of the nature of our minds that both Mañjuśrī or Avalokiteśvara symbolize. But there is no external Mañjuśrī or Avalokiteśvara that merges with our minds. To believe there are means that one has utterly missed the point of the teachings completely. Even the summoning of the wisdom being into the commitment being is just a reminder that our real state has always been naturally perfected as a mandala, but there is no actual wisdom being that is summoned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps the traditional way of teaching Tibetans is not suitable for Westerners. Have you thought of this?

smcj said:
In the year 2016 my thought is that the modernized way of teaching Westerners is ineffective, thus my pointing out the difference between a Western approach and a Tibetan approach.

Malcolm wrote:
What is the modernized way of teaching westerners, and who is teaching them this "ineffective" Dharma?



smcj said:
Which subject? Communicating with non-human beings being the main point of Vajrayāna practice?
Not "communicating". More like "communing".

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahha, communing with nonhuman beings is the main point of Vajrayāna practice? What a joke. The main point of Vajrayāna practice is just the same as Mahāyāna practice, attaining buddhahood by eliminating the two obscurations, end of story.

Commune all you like, but if your afflictions and knowledge obscurations are not being reduced, you are wasting your time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
Ray's particular point of view is informed by something of an obsession with shamanism. But Tibetan Buddhism is not shamanism and is not principally concerned with communicating with non-human beings in general. But this seems to have become important to you somehow, an article of faith.
Do you object to the idea that people should go and ask a traditional lama about this subject?

Malcolm wrote:
Which subject? Communicating with non-human beings being the main point of Vajrayāna practice? Perhaps the traditional way of teaching Tibetans is not suitable for Westerners. Have you thought of this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
What is missing here is the understanding that ritual is a way of communicating with beings who, on the relative plane, really are there and really are important to us. This lively and compelling sense of ritual is, at present, sometimes hard to come by in Western adaptations of Tibetan Buddhism.


Malcolm wrote:
No, the fact is that Vajrayāna rites seem dead to people because they have no understanding of Abhidharma at even a minimal level, and thus do not understand the process of mandala creation as being a means of ritually transforming one's continuum and its aggregates, elements and sense gates into a mandala of awakened beings. The process is entirely symbolic and is not magical or supernatural in anyway at all.

Ray's particular point of view is informed by something of an obsession with shamanism. But Tibetan Buddhism is not shamanism and is not principally concerned with communicating with non-human beings in general. But this seems to have become important to you somehow, an article of faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
smcj said:
So to be clear; when I say that faith is a fundamental element for Vajrayana practice in no sense do I believe that it prohibits the experience of enlightenment. It is a prerequisite for the practices to bear fruit, for us to experience things for ourselves. But we we discount or reject the issue of faith, so to paraphrase Yoda, "That is why we fail."

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, Ray is not an authority I would turn to.

Second, your definition of faith has nothing at all to with Vajrayāna practice. Faith here means simply that one has to be confident in the teacher and their teachings, thats all. It does not mean that one has to believe the sun shines from their keister. It is not a heavy emotional charge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 7th, 2016 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: What is faith?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Śraddha, which is often translated as faith, is defined in Abhidharma as the mental factor which brings clarity to the mind, and that is it. It is quite a bit different than the faith being extolled  here by smcj.

Śraddha is a path dharma [part of the 37 adjuncts to awakening], one of the five powers and the five strengths — in other words, it is only relevant to our confidence in the path, and it has nothing do with believing in ghosts, goblins, etc., including any and all supernatural powers of buddhas, bodhisattvas, siddhas, and dakinis. The existence or nonexistence of these phenomena are irrelevant to our progress on the path, and there is no way in which our belief or disbelief in them affects our path at all. The only "supernatural" things we need to accept are rebirth and karma, since without these, the path taught by the Buddha makes no sense at all.


Punya said:
Inspired by another thread, it would interesting to explore, in a respectful way, what faith means in a general buddhist sense and in the different traditions (leaving aside the specific topic of guru yoga). These dictionary definitions seem like a reasonable starting point:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

It seems like you would need some faith in the begining as a dharma student or is it just that you just need an open mind and an acceptance that you don't have a complete understanding yet? What does spiritual conviction mean?

And, if you accept the advice of teachers like HH the Dalai Lama about the complexity of karma, and you content yourself with a more basic understanding, is that just accepting it on faith. (There are more than enough threads here on karma so please confine the discussion to the faith aspect).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


smcj said:
None of that is "verifying knowledge". It is invalidating the erroneous beliefs of unawareness.

Malcolm wrote:
So it is a pure non-affirming negation?

smcj said:
Or, if you don't have a problem with faith, you can skip all that and proceed accordingly.

Malcolm wrote:
Faith has always been the problem that humans being face, because faith involves irrational attributions of authority, and once that starts, it plants the seeds of religious wars.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
But the Buddha never wanted anyone to merely have blind faith and leave it at that.
Right. That's why earlier I made the point that in Christianity the objective is faith and in Vajrayana the prerequisite is faith. The Path starts there, but you've got to follow up with practice. That is very different than dismissing faith entirely.
Buddha wanted people to see for themselves.
Yes. However in the Vajrayana, until such time as they can see for themselves they must initially rely on faith. With realization direct knowledge replaces any need for faith. Someone who has realized the Dharmakaya has no need for faith at all.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not at all true. The Buddha began all his teachings with something that everyone can see without having faith at all. Sarva dukkham, all is suffering.

In Buddhadharma we do not go from lack of knowledge to knowledge, we go from verifiable knowledge to verifiable knowledge.

The message of Dzogchen teachings is that one can have direct knowledge of one's primordial state, aka the basis, long before one can speak of realizing dharmakāya -- this direct knowledge is made into the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
So we agree that there is no ultimate refuge in the material world. And that until we realize the Dharmakaya ourselves we have take it on faith alone.

Right?

Malcolm wrote:
We don't need to fully realize the dharmakāya. We just need to have personal experience of the positive benefits of the Dharma, then we don't need "faith" because we have experience.

In any case, you are asking the wrong question; it is not about the material world, per se. It would seem to be about the conditioned vs. the unconditioned. However, we don't take refuge in space or cessation, so it is not a question of conditioned vs. the unconditioned.

In Dzogchen, for example, one goes for refuge in one's own knowledge, i.e., rang rig la skyab su mchi'o or something to this effect is very common in Anuyoga level sadhanas.

The real refuge is realization. When one begins to experience the positive effects of the Dharma in one's life, then one can have increased confidence in the Buddha's realization, and thus his Dharma. But the Buddha never wanted anyone to merely have blind faith and leave it at that. Buddha wanted people to see for themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... only the dharmakāya, or realization of a buddha, is a true refuge.

dzogchungpa said:
Is this not a statement of faith?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is perfectly reasonable deduction that can be made on the basis of understanding what the dharmakāya actually, is — one's own mind free from the two obscurations.

You might ask, well aren't you taking it on faith that the mind can be free of the two obscurations? No, because in my own lifetime I have observed a reduction in my obscurations through practicing the Dharma, which has resulted in a clearer appreciation of the things the Buddha has taught. Thus, I have come and seen for myself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
The whole point of the Madhyamaka is to convince us the seen world is unreliable.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean the Buddha's "seen world" is unreliable?

smcj said:
Can you show me a reliable refuge that is visible?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what level of refuge you mean, ultimate or relative?

If the former, no, since only the dharmakāya, or realization of a buddha, is a true refuge. As your favorite book, the Uttaratantra makes clear, neither the Dharma nor the Sangha are true refuges since they are impermanent and conditioned.

If the latter then there are all kinds of things that I can show you that are "true" refuges.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
The whole point of the Madhyamaka is to convince us the seen world is unreliable.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean the Buddha's "seen world" is unreliable?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
...his practice boiled down to a faith in things unseen.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense. The Sangha is not unseen, the Dharma is not unseen, and as the Buddha said, "Whoever sees the Dharma, sees me."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The ... Three Roots are unseen?

dzogchungpa said:
Well, the last 2 are, by me anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
After a number of years trying to have a perfect visualization of his yidam, Mipham when to see his root guru, Khyentse Wangpo, and explained his difficulties — Khyentse replied that in all of his years of practicing yidams, he never once notice that the nature of his mind had rosy blush colored cheeks, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
Vasana said:
This is a great thread. Very helpful.

In regards to Dzogchen, where is the best place to start with Mipham?

Malcolm wrote:
There is very little that is published out there.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
"The Uttaratantra" is full of analogies that use material objects to make its points: clouds covering the sun, gold in ore, a statue wrapped in rags, etc. It's one of the seminal texts for these kinds of ideas.

Malcolm wrote:
But if you take them literally, your view will be no better than the Hindu view of self, which is why they require interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 6th, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Vasana said:
sorry to butt-in and steer off-topic, but;

Even if your main practice and modality is Dharma, i still think there's space for the Christian /Abrahamic pantheon [aswell as  'extraterrestrials'] within Buddhist cosmology. If one can believe in Indra and the possibility of god and deva beings , the idea of Archangels doesn't seem so far-fetched.  Sure, they may also be embedded within samsara to some extent.

I suppose the cosmology of the 6 realms and the various kinds of beings your average practitioner has no perception of, may be one of those 'unseen' aspects that westerners reject in your view smcj?

Malcolm wrote:
SMCJ seems to be arguing for some emotive kind of faith, a bhakti approach, tears streaming, etc. While such descriptions are certainly to be found in every description of Guru Yoga in traditional manuals, reading them over and over again in a hundred manuals, one comes to understand that these are literary themes meant to instill the point that we should feel deep gratitude to our gurus. It certainly does not mean that everytime we think of our teacher we should be overwhelmed with emotions.

To illustrate my point further, most of the Tibetan teachers I have come into contact with deride the faith of simple Tibetans as being grounded in ignorance. They understand that kind of faith will never win with Western Buddhists who have a four hundred year history of the Enlightenment, and who, because of our vastly superior educational opportunities in the West, are never going to believe in Meru Cosmology merely because some teacher insists that we must.

We do not live in a world with a Christian worldview anymore, despite smcj's insistence that all problems Western Buddhists face is our rejection of Christianity [or in my case, an utter lack of interest and connection with it], we live in a world dominated by a scientific worldview, with all of the faults and qualities inherent to it.

Buddha's message is still "come and see for yourself." The further we get away from that message, the further away we get from the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Virgo said:
Buddhism in not a faith-based religion.

smcj said:
Some forms are, some forms aren't. If it is really a big deal for you, and you can't get over Christianity trauma, then avoid the ones that are.

Malcolm wrote:
There are those of us for whom Christianity is completely irrelevant, such as myself, never baptized, much less raised with any religion at all.

And still you have not defined what you mean by "faith," other than believing in things that are "unseen," which puts you in good company with the UFO conspiracy crowd.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
EXCEPT for the conclusion Westerners come to that we need not believe in things unseen and need not have unconditioned trust.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you find anywhere where the Buddha states we must have unconditioned trust in things unseen?

smcj said:
You mean besides the Pure Land teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha never says we must have unconditioned trust in Sukhavati, much less anything else. In fact, in quite a large number of places he says exactly the opposite.

smcj said:
In the Vajrayana simply "Taking Refuge" in the 3 Jewels and 3 Roots seems to cover that ground.

Malcolm wrote:
The Three Jewels and Three Roots are unseen?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: dharmapala vs yidam?
Content:
fckw said:
Can anyone knowledgeable explain me what the difference is between a dharmapala and a (don't know how to call it correctly: "full blown") yidam like, let's say, dorje drollo or hevajra? What's the qualitative difference, in other words why is it generally hold that one should not start a practice with the former if not already very advanced with the latter? I know that some dharmapalas are said to be not completely enlightened. With these, I understand that this could be potentially misleading at very subtle levels of mind. And there seem to be very worldly protectors or even demons. Yet other protectors are said to be completely enlightened. So, what would be the qualitative difference then to a yidam?


Malcolm wrote:
A dharmapāla is generally a bodhisattva in a wrathful, and usually non-human form, who has taken an oath to protect the Dharma.

A yidam on the other hand is a method of practicing the path based on a sambhogakāya manifestation of a buddha.

Some dharmapālas, such as Mahākāla also double as yidams, that is, they can be practiced as both depending on context and need.

Wisdom dharmapālas are considered dharmapālas who are on the pure bodhisattva stages. Worldly dharmapālās are those who are not on the bodhisattva stages at all. The latter are generally powerful beings of the preta class who have been bound to the Dharma as losers in a conflict with a mahāsiddha such as Padmasambhāva. They frequently need to be reminded of their vows.

conebeckham said:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but some Wisdom Dharmapalas are considered completely enlightened, i.e., Buddhas.   These are often "reflex" emanations of yidams like Samvara, Kalacakra, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Mahākala is one such.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Kuntu Zangpo
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Could you please explain the above a little more ?
Have difficulties with the understanding of imputing.

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
Once one does not recognize the display as ones own appearances, then one imputes duality: subject, object, self, other, etc., and dependent origination is set in motion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Kuntu Zangpo
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Samantabhadra never reified the display as other, his ignorance was merely neither knowing it nor not knowing it as self-display.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=37861#p37861

krodha said:
Going by Malcolm's definition in the thread you have linked, Samantabhadra did indeed initially mistake his own display as other.

The definition of innate ignorance:

Malcolm wrote:
When the basis arises out of the basis, i.e. when the five lights of wisdom are stirred by vāyu after the shell of the youthful vase body is rent there is a neutral awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan] that does not recognize itself. That simple non-recognition is the innate ignorance.

krodha said:
Samantabhadra possessed innate ignorance:

Malcolm wrote:
Most people do not realize that Samantabhadra initially possessed the first ignorance. He never possessed the second.
There are two systems: one with three ignorances and one with two. In the first system (Vima Nyinthig, Khandro Nyinthig, etc.), the three ignorances are the ignorance identical with the cause, innate and imputing; in the second system (Gongpa Zangthal, Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud, etc.) there are only the second two listed above. Samantabhadra never possesed imputing ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
EXCEPT for the conclusion Westerners come to that we need not believe in things unseen and need not have unconditioned trust.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you find anywhere where the Buddha states we must have unconditioned trust in things unseen?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, Buddha never said, "You must believe what I say without putting it to the test." Rather he said, "Ehipassiko," i.e., "Come and see for yourself." When one has seen for oneself, what is the role of faith?


Vasana said:
SMCJ , there are different kinds of faith.

"There are different levels of faith. First, “clear faith” refers to the joy and clarity and change in our perceptions that we experience when we hear about the qualities of the Three Jewels and the lives of the Buddha and the great teachers. “Longing faith” is experienced when we think about the latter and are filled with a great desire to know more about their qualities and to acquire these ourselves. “Confident faith” comes through practicing the Dharma, when we acquire complete confidence in the truth of the teachings and the enlightenment of the Buddha. Finally, when faith has become so much a part of ourselves that even if our lives were at risk we could never give it up, it has become “irreversible faith.” - Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche  from the book "The Excellent Path to Enlightenment: Oral Teachings on the Root Text of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo

Irreversible faith is more akin to complete confidence free of any doubts as apposed to any kind of blind-faith or unconditioned trust in something one has no personal certainty in.[ but holds faith in none-the-less]  When faith is irreversible, it's more akin to knowledge.

Devotion for the Guru can also arise in conjunction with confidence in the reasoning ,logic and direct-cognition of the dharma as one knows that the outer-guru is the living link for realizing the ultimate-guru. It can also be a method of practicing or emulating pure-perception which will in turn eventually leads to effortless and actual pure-perception/realization.

At this point it's not really the same as the devotion or 'clear-faith' we find at the beginning of the path before any direct-perception of one's nature has occurred.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


smcj said:
I really do not know what you mean by faith.
Sure you do, but you reject it.

IMO that's the problem.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I actually do not know what you mean by faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
I was going through some boxes in the garage and came across my own handwritten notes from a Deshung R. lecture. In my own handwriting I quoted Deshung R. as saying, "The reason we say that the Yidam is the same nature as your mind is because if we didn't the deity could become a demon." By that I assume he meant that having a direct experience of the deity can be so startling that it can precipitate a fear response if it is thought of as something other than one's own nature.

With that type of understanding you can see how saying that a deity is of the same nature as your own mind does not nullify the need for faith while doing deity practice.

Malcolm wrote:
I really do not know what you mean by faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Tulshuk Lingpa questions
Content:
Norwegian said:
Nosta,

Tulshuk Lingpa had the stamp of approval by both HH Dudjom Rinpoche, and Chatral Rinpoche. What else do you need when you have this?

As for the image of the footprint, it looks like how footprints in rock tend to look like, comparing it with other known instances of this phenomena. Here's the handprint of Guru Padmasambhava, above the entrance of a cave he did practice in: http://www.dharma-media.org/media/general/dwnld/photos/drigung/monkey_year_teachings_2004/20040221/DSCF0658.JPG

Malcolm wrote:
I can tell you that Guru P had very small hands...

Adamantine said:
And Milarepa was so small he fit into a yak horn. . . his hands must have been sooo tiny

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you get my point — I put my hand in that handprint, and my hands were much larger. All I am saying is that Guru P, physically, could not have been taller than 5' 4". He was a tiny guy by modern standards, though not by the standards of his day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 5th, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Sources
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
Don't mind quoting sources.

Not gonna chop it up though.

Malcolm wrote:
Uh huh, so out of your laziness, you are going to make more work for moderators?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Kuntu Zangpo
Content:
Vasana said:
The confusion is probably because there are two different Samantabhadras spoken of.

One as the Adi-Buddha within Dzogchen, and one as a Bodhisattva.

If the adi-buddha is spoken of as attaining enlightenment, it's probably taken out of context or as an expedient means of communicating some facet of realizing Samantabhadra for one's self.

The kunjed gyalpo tantra is a great resource for understanding Samantabhadra.

Malcolm wrote:
There are actually five "Samantabhadras" spoken of in Dzogchen tantras: Nature Samantabhadra, Ornament Samantabhadra, Teacher Samantabhadra, Vidyā Samantabhadra, and Realization Samantabhadra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Tulshuk Lingpa questions
Content:
Norwegian said:
Nosta,

Tulshuk Lingpa had the stamp of approval by both HH Dudjom Rinpoche, and Chatral Rinpoche. What else do you need when you have this?

As for the image of the footprint, it looks like how footprints in rock tend to look like, comparing it with other known instances of this phenomena. Here's the handprint of Guru Padmasambhava, above the entrance of a cave he did practice in: http://www.dharma-media.org/media/general/dwnld/photos/drigung/monkey_year_teachings_2004/20040221/DSCF0658.JPG

Malcolm wrote:
I can tell you that Guru P had very small hands...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: dharmapala vs yidam?
Content:
fckw said:
Can anyone knowledgeable explain me what the difference is between a dharmapala and a (don't know how to call it correctly: "full blown") yidam like, let's say, dorje drollo or hevajra? What's the qualitative difference, in other words why is it generally hold that one should not start a practice with the former if not already very advanced with the latter? I know that some dharmapalas are said to be not completely enlightened. With these, I understand that this could be potentially misleading at very subtle levels of mind. And there seem to be very worldly protectors or even demons. Yet other protectors are said to be completely enlightened. So, what would be the qualitative difference then to a yidam?


Malcolm wrote:
A dharmapāla is generally a bodhisattva in a wrathful, and usually non-human form, who has taken an oath to protect the Dharma.

A yidam on the other hand is a method of practicing the path based on a sambhogakāya manifestation of a buddha.

Some dharmapālas, such as Mahākāla also double as yidams, that is, they can be practiced as both depending on context and need.

Wisdom dharmapālas are considered dharmapālas who are on the pure bodhisattva stages. Worldly dharmapālās are those who are not on the bodhisattva stages at all. The latter are generally powerful beings of the preta class who have been bound to the Dharma as losers in a conflict with a mahāsiddha such as Padmasambhāva. They frequently need to be reminded of their vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
He doesn't, actually. He stresses "real knowledge of one's primordial state [aka the basis]."

smcj said:
Right. And when that isn't workable, his backup suggestion is to do….what?

Malcolm wrote:
Discover that knowledge for yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Coincidence vs Tendrel
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Is there any way to determine if there is an auspicious (karmic) connection from past lives, other than "feeling" said connection?  Deluded minds can invent all sorts of things, and it's not lost on me that apophenia occurs when we seek patterns/meaning.  Recent revelations have come to light that have me thinking about this topic.  Any scriptural basis or teachings from great masters that could help sort this out?

Malcolm wrote:
Mo, and perhaps calculation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Mahamudra and the Great Perfection are realized through direct perception, rather than devotion or the fabrications of the intellect.
-- Namdrol, Heart Treasure of Samantabhadra
I guess that is why ChNN stresses the development of devotion in the Guru Yoga, right?

Malcolm wrote:
He doesn't, actually. He stresses "real knowledge of one's primordial state [aka the basis]."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Just to be clear, my thesis is as Matt J said: On the other hand, the gzhan stongpas have a good explanation for how Buddhahood is both uncreated and "positive." If I'm understanding correctly, the gzhan stongpas would say that once the obscurations are removed, then the virtues of Buddhahood naturally manifest. So from that POV, compassion is natural while greed, hatred, and delusion are distortions based on ignorance. Once the distorting influences are removed, then compassion and so forth would come forth naturally and effortlessly.
Thus an intellectual understanding of Shentong can give the intellect an opportunity to let go of intellectuality.

Dilgo Khyentse, "The Heart Treasure of the Enlightened Ones" p. 76: The most profound of all teachings, the Mahamudra and the Great Perfection, are realized through devotion rather than through the fabrications of the intellect.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahamudra and the Great Perfection are realized through direct perception, rather than devotion or the fabrications of the intellect.
-- Namdrol, Heart Treasure of Samantabhadra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 4th, 2016 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


smcj said:
So I believe making an issue out of Shentong is important, not because it is important to have precision or orthodoxy about emptiness in the Vajrayana, but because it is necessary to get past intellectuality and proceed with faith...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is necessary to get past intellectualism and proceed with direct perception, that is the main point. There are two ways to approach that, the upāyamarga and mokṣamarga, i.e., the paths of method and liberation respectively. The former depends on  empowerment, and the two stages; the latter depends in direct introduction — but the main point is illustrated in the following way. In sūtra — and this applies to gzhan stong as much as anything else — the understanding of dharmatā is like a painting of a moon. The understanding of dharmatā in the path of method is like seeing a moon in the water. The understanding of dharmatā in the path of liberation is like looking at the moon directly from the start.

Since gzhan stong is principally a sūtrayāna tenet, it requires a lot more faith. The teaching of sugatagarbha,for example, exists to remove five faults, it does not however mean that faith in sugatagarbha constitutes entering the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The first Tibetan to use the term was Kawa Paltseg, ninth century, and he used it refer to the Madhyamaka that was based on freedom from all extremes. More or less everyone had this usage until Dolbupa gummed up the works in the 14th century with his brand new "Uma chenpo."

Because of the popularity of Trungpa, when he introduced the gzhan stong/rang stong distinction in his seminaries, the term "Great Madhyamaka" became associated in western minds with gzhan stong. This was further reinforced by Hookham's book and by the Big Red Book, accompanied by a fairly aggressive campaign to promulgate gzhan stong as an alternative to Gelug Madhyamaka.

smcj said:
So therefore if one is discussing the writings of Kawa Paltseg, one will understand the term "Great Madhyamaka" to mean freedom from extremes. If one is discussing Dolpopa, one will understand "Great Madhyamaka" to mean Shentong, specifically his flavor of Shentong to be exact. If one is discussing Dudjom R.'s writing one will understand "Great Madhyamaka" to mean as per "The Big Red Book", etc.

As long as the context is explained the usage will be clearly understood, right?

Malcolm wrote:
The term is kind of meaningless at this point, since so many people claim it in their writings from so many different schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
And as I have pointed out so many times, every single school of Madhyamaka in Tibet considers their view "Great Madhyamaka."
This, in order to use the term properly, clearly, and  without confusion, one must attribute the context of which school and author's usage you are talking about. As such it is 100% valid to use the term when if it is explained to be as used by a major author such as Dudjom R. In his "Big Red Book",

Right?

Malcolm wrote:
The first Tibetan to use the term was Kawa Paltseg, ninth century, and he used it refer to the Madhyamaka that was based on freedom from all extremes. More or less everyone had this usage until Dolbupa gummed up the works in the 14th century with his brand new "Uma chenpo."

Because of the popularity of Trungpa, when he introduced the gzhan stong/rang stong distinction in his seminaries, the term "Great Madhyamaka" became associated in western minds with gzhan stong. This was further reinforced by Hookham's book and by the Big Red Book, accompanied by a fairly aggressive campaign to promulgate gzhan stong as an alternative to Gelug Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
I am not arguing that the view of Dzogchen is gzhan-stong, or that there is little difference between them. Rather it seems to me that Dzogchenpas have really little regard for anything like philosophical consistency; they appear to use whatever is available at hand to deliver the One Thing Needful, with worrying about consistency or analytical rigour.

I don't mind in the least, btw.

Malcolm wrote:
You are assuming that Longchenpa's views and Mipham's views are monolithic, cut from the same mold. They aren't. You can't just paste them up side by side without taking into account the vast differences in environment that produced them.

Longchenpa is writing in a fairly polemic free environment, a full 100 years before the major controversies raised by Tsongkhapa and his opponents. He was mainly writing in an environment where Nyingma teachings in general were being somewhat neglected and provided a basis in scholarship for many of the teachings of Dzogchen. That being said, Longchenpa's writings also seem to have been neglected for quite a long while, perhaps because during this period Nyingma was institutionally weak.

Mipham is writing at the end of 400 years of trenchant polemics between Gelugpas and everyone else. The vast majority of his critiques in the Original Mind Trilogy are being leveled at Gelugpas who presume to interpret Dzogchen through the lens of their own educational background. For example, the main recipient of criticism of MIpham is a guy named Jawa Dö ngag, who was a student of Zhabkar and Paltrul, who also had a Gelug background.

The whole of the Original Mind series is a recording of Mipham's oral teachings in response to that fellow's interpretation of Dzogchen. Indeed, we can see a great deal of similarity between the ideas about Dzogchen that are being rejected by Mipham and some ideas about Dzogchen advanced today by HH Dalai Lama.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Along the same lines Dudjom R. has said that when speaking about emptiness from an intellectual understanding Madhyamaka is best, but when speaking about it from an experiential perspective Great Madhyamaka (Shentong) is best.

krodha said:
Gzhan stong is not "Great Madhyamaka", really wish you would listen to what people say and stop referring to it as such.

anjali said:
In the for what it's worth department, calling Great Madhayamaka zhentong (rightly or wrongly) has historical precedent. For example,
Taranatha in The Essence of Zhentong, p. 9 said:
In Tibet, the Great Madhyamaka is the Madhyamaka of discerning cognition and is known as “zhentong.”

Malcolm wrote:
And as I have pointed out so many times, every single school of Madhyamaka in Tibet considers their view "Great Madhyamaka."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Duckworth then provides lots and lots of Longchenpa to substantiate the claim that in Dzogchen pontentiality manifests Buddha qualities. One of such snippets is as follows:

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the qualities exist as potentials in the basis,  but not as fully manifest. The manifestation of the potentiality of the qualities of the basis occurs because of realization. We  see Mipham defining the presence of qualities based on a subjective criteria:
While maintaining the position, “This purification of any obscurations is the feature of the time of path. This total purification of obscurations is the feature of the time of the result,” is in accord with the mode of appearance of sentient beings, from the perspective of the mode of existence of dharmatā, it is not possible to move even slightly away from abiding in state of uniformity which lacks any divisions of dualistic phenomena such as division by three times, division into pure and impure, sentient beings and buddhas, and so on. Therefore, the unfixed mode of appearance (of not realizing the basis just as it) is not defined as if the basis was the time of the sentient beings, and the path was the phase of a bodhisattva. The extremely pure result is the dhātu of the basis that has always been free of obscuration in the sight of the Buddha, because that seer who sees the qualities as having always been perfect is the pristine consciousness that sees ultimate reality in which existence and appearance totally correspond. 

From the perspective of seeing that ultimate sight of the ultimate, since this assertion by the treatises of the Great Perfection that all phenomena have always been buddhahood in the essence of the buddhahood of the result is proven with reasoning of ultimate investigation. it cannot be refuted by anyone as not being so. Therefore, since it is similar with the teaching in the Mahāyāna sūtras that the sugatagarbha has always been endowed with the qualities such as the ten powers and so on, it is also definitive in meaning.
He also points out:
Therefore, similarly,  since there is no proliferation of any kind in the dharmatā of the mind, the naturally luminous self-originated pristine consciousness, the conventions of dualistic dharmas such as whether that is newly realized or not do not exist. Realization and nonrealization are dualities in the mind. Therefore, that dharmatā of the mind, the object to be realized with the path, is the suchness that has always been present. The realizer of that is the mind (blo), which is the wisdom of hearing, reflection and meditation. That is the mind (yid) at the occasions of the unceasing concepts of hearing and so on. When that mind (yid) is introduced to that dharmatā, the mind itself is also realized in the state of that dharmatā, and there is no difference between the subject and the object. Therefore, though the convention of realization and nonrealization do not exist in the dharmatā of the basis, this convention of realization and nonrealization is to be understood to be from the perspective of the mind of the sentient being that arises from the state of dharmatā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 3rd, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Casket Seal Dharani Sutra
Content:
conebeckham said:
Sutra Dharanis do not require empowerment, but secret mantra vehicle methods require transmission from a qualified guru to a qualified student.  Ray, you're free to believe and practice whatever you want, but to deny this point is contrary to the tradition, and counterproductive for yourself and others.

Malcolm wrote:
You are wasting your breath.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Not in Dzogchen, Lamdre, etc.

Anders said:
Why not? Wouldn't the alternative be then that you and I should be able to make use of omniscience in this moment?

Malcolm wrote:
The point of view of both Dzogchen and Lamdre is that qualities are present in the basis in the form of a potential, but are not present as fully expressed. The latter is the gzhan stong perspective, which you can read about in Mountain Doctrine and other places.

The difference is pretty well established in this way: in Dzogchen, the qualities are expressed by realizing the nature of the basis. Those qualities do not exist prior to realization.

In gzhan stong, the qualities already exist, and are revealed merely through the removal of afflictions.

In Dzogchen, afflictions become the five wisdoms through the process of realization; in gzhan stong the afflictions are absolutely different than the five wisdoms, the removal of the former reveals the latter.

Moreover, the gzhan stong pas, the basis and result are undifferentiable. Mountain Doctrine, ppg. 89 states, "These say that this which is the body of attributes, matrix-of-one-done-to-bliss, element of attributes, omnipresent in all three states, is the very perfection of wisdom, the undifferentiable entity of the basis and fruit, the buddha lineage, and say that it exists at all times and the basis of all phenomena..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:


Ray Rudha said:
Or am I just making that up.

Malcolm wrote:
You are just making it up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:


Ray Rudha said:
The first turning deals mostly with establishing the practice and presence of Bodhisattvas, and miraculous compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the first turning concerns the four noble truths, etc., as the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra very clearly states:
At first, since the Bhagavan demonstrated the aspects of the four noble truths to those correctly participating in the vehicle in the deer park called Ṛṣivadanam, the amazing Dharma wheel he turned first was amazing, a corresponding Dharma had not been turned in the past by any deva nor any human. However, that Dharma wheel that the Bhagavan turned was surpassable, contextual, of provisional meaning, and a basis for contention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The statement below refers to when a ārya bodhisattva is in equipoise. But only Buddhas are in equipoise 24/7/365.


Ray Rudha said:
The Lankavatara sutra clearly explains that the Bodhisattva is an illusion, only realizing his own illusory nature on the higher Bhumis, and thus realizing the Buddha nature itself.

...

You have no wisdom. None at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Coming from you, this is compliment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is this:

"The fully established true nature (parinispanna), nondual gnosis, the buddha-body of reality, and so forth, are real and existent."

Which means that the ten powers and so on are fully developed within sentient beings at present.

treehuggingoctopus said:
You can say that nondual gnosis and its Buddha qualities are fully developed but not fully manifest (in the sense of not fully cognised by those on the path) yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in Dzogchen, Lamdre, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
Yet you specifically mentioned the Lankavatara, which is higher than all these sutras that the quote is from,

Malcolm wrote:
Says, who? You? You are an authority on Mahāyāna sūtras, capable of telling us which is higher and which is lower? Ridiculous.

Ray Rudha said:
and I showed you all the applicable quotes from the Lankavatara, and they are a much higher level and more powerful discussion of the wisdom play of imageless bliss of Mind.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not address the fact that the Buddha taught in sūtra that buddhahood takes three incalculable eons.

Ray Rudha said:
And I could easily bring Prajnaparamita into the discussion, which doesn't even deal with kalpas, at it is the pure wisdom path.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it does. For example, the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā states:
Those bodhisattva mahāsattva attained actual buddhahood in unsurpassed true perfect awakening after immeasurable countless eons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You need empowerment to enter Vajrayāna. If someone wishes to attain buddhahood in this lifetime, then they need Vajrayāna teachings, end of story.

Unknown said:
And there is the VAJRAVIDARANA SUTRA, which is called a SUTRA, and which states that the Vajravidarana dharani is the root of all tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
The text specifies it is a guhyamantra, this means it requires empowerment because it belongs to the Vajra family and should be kept secret.


Once again, this text, Ārya-mahābala-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, though titled a "sūtra," clearly indicates it belongs to secret mantra, details the methods of granting the empowerment into the mandala, saying for example, "If one receives the empowerment into this, one will be free from all inauspiciousness, there will be glorious blessings...." and so on.

Thus, even your contention that if some dhāraṇi or mantra comes from sūtra, no empowerment is required is proven false:
Because one receives empowerment into this sūtra,
hundreds and thousands of buddhas go there.

Unknown said:
And that's just the short mantra. The Dharanis are infinitely more powerful. But almost nobody around here even realizes that you can practice dharanis internally and gain samadhi with them, they are just like mantra, only longer, more powerful and more difficult.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of Vajrayāna is that its methods are easy and rapid, and for the more intelligent compared to methods in sūtra; but if you wish to adhere to the difficult and slow, that is your choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
Where exactly are the three eons mentioned?

Malcolm wrote:
The Ārya-surataparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
In order for sentient beings to completely ripen into awakening,
they must practice for three incalculable eons.

Ray Rudha said:
The play of the Bhumis is a play of an illusory body, the Bodhisattva, being embraced by the Buddhas in all directions, by Buddha nature, and realizing the imageless nature of Mind. The play itself is imageless and timeless, allegory, where the accumulation of time is an internal process which cannot be said to be an actual thing called time.

Malcolm wrote:
The Ārya-saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna states:
Very briefly, having known the suffering of samsara, once one attains omniscience by through arduous practice on the six perfections for three incalculable eons, there is parinirvana.

Ray Rudha said:
Anyone with true wisdom practice understands this. Also, a Bodhisattva gaining samadhi with a dharani instantly cuts through endless eons, internally and externally.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha states in the Ārya-gośṛṅgavyākaraṇa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
I demonstrated arduous practice for three incalculable eons.
The Buddhabhagavānaṣṭaśata-nāma-dhāraṇī states
Alas, the great qualities of buddhahood 
are accumulated for three incalculable eons.
Nāgārajuna write in the Aṣṭamahāsthānacaityastotra:
Having first generated the mind for supreme awakening, 
then gathered accumulations for three incalculable eons,
buddhahood was attained on the bodhimaṇḍa, and Māra was tamed,
homage to the Mahābodhi Caitya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Trungram Gyaltrul incarnation/lineage?
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Does anyone know about Trungram Gyaltrul Rinpoche and his lineage?

Malcolm wrote:
He is on the Shamar side of the things...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 2nd, 2016 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
Actually in the Lankavatara he teaches non-discrimination attainment of Mind, and how to reach his own stage.

Now, you may believe that takes three incalculable eons, or you may practice mantra and wisdom.

Either way, the Buddha taught the dharani and mantra gate in sutra, and spoke of its incalculable benefits.

Which do not require empowerment.

The empowerment of the 10th Bhumi Bodhisattva is automatic.

In fact, the Treasure Chest Seal sutra, discussed here recently, speaks of receiving the empowerment of all Buddhas through that very dharani.

You are trying to reduce an incredibly complex sutra to a self-serving point that tries to elude the simple matter discussed here.

Sutra mantras do not require empowerment, and somehow people are making it sound different.

It's not.

Malcolm wrote:
The empowerment of tenth stage bodhisattvas occurs at the end of three incalcuable eons, dhāraṇis and all.

There is no method taught in any sūtra of going from the stage of a beginner to a fully awakened buddha in a single lifetime. That kind of teaching belongs to Vajrayāna alone. In order to practice Vajrayāna, one must receive empowerment. In order to receive empowerment, one must have a guru. There is no other way.

There is nothing at all wrong with reciting dhāraṇis, but reciting them will not lead a beginner to fully awakening in this life.

Ray Rudha said:
The methods are many.

Malcolm wrote:
None of those methods in sūtra lead to Buddhahood in a single lifetime. There are very many reasons for this, but receiving empowerment is at the root of them all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Matt J said:
I would bet that Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche is a gzhan stongpa given that his root teacher is Khenpo Tsultrum Gyamtso Rinpoche and he is a lineage holder in both Dzogchen and Mahamudra, so I'm not convinced that Dzogchen is necessarily inconsistent with gzhan stong in all its formulations.

Malcolm wrote:
In Mantra, it is possible for people have a conceptual sūtrayāna view which is not consistent with how they practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Can I choose an enlightentened deity as a protector?
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
You do not need anything to practice the mantras of the Great Bodhisattvas, as well as countless Buddha mantras which are available. It is always strange to hear people talking about needing empowerment for mantras found in sutras. If the mantra is in the sutra, that is your empowerment. The sutra itself is the matrix of all Buddhas. What other empowerment?

Just get samadhi with the mantra, that is the ultimate empowerment.

Need extra empowerment? Read a long dharani every day. Far more powerful than a human.

https://medium.com/@johnutah/vajrapani-98d2fbb7d37c#.qvxyir414

https://medium.com/@johnutah/ksitigarbha-majestic-earth-king-of-vajra-freedom-57024e217e97

Also, Avalokiteshvara, Cundi, the various mantras from the Golden Light sutra, and so on and so forth.


Johnny Dangerous said:
It's really irresponsible to hand out advice like this, you are (ironically) putting yourself in the place of a teacher.

In Vajrayana, many things require empowerment, and your own little theories on the matter are of little import, you're not in any position to be disputing what some people are taught by their teachers, while of course you're welcome to your own practice.

Some traditions of course have practices that require no empowerment, however, I wonder how many would say "sure just get it off the internet and start with no instruction". I'm sure there are a few (maybe pureland works like that?), but i'd imagine that it'd still be recommended to make some kind of connection, and get a walkthrough.

Ray Rudha said:
[Removed post]

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtras do not require empowerment, but becoming a Buddha does. One can either wait for three incalculable eons to attain the tenth bhumi and receive empowerment, as Buddha has taught in the Lankāvatara and other sūtras, or one can find a qualified guru and receive proper empowerment and attain buddhahood in this life as the Buddha has taught in many tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Have you read Stearns' book on Dolpopa, Malcolm? If Stearns is correct (i.e., if his translations of Dolpopa are accurate), then Dolpopa's version of gzhan-stong is indeed quite incompatible with Dzogchen -- but for entirely different reasons that the supposed inherent existence of intrinsic Buddha qualities:

Stearns' Dolpopa, in Buddha from Dolpo, 103 said:
Buddhahood is stated to be the buddha-body of gnosis, and the incidental impurities are stated to be the groups of consciousness. In that way gnosis and consciousness are stated to be extremely different, like light and dark, or nectar and poison. Nevertheless, the differentiation of those two is very rare. These days the majority maintains that this very mind-as-such is the buddha-body of reality, self-arisen gnosis, and the Great Seal, and many maintain that concepts are the buddha-body of reality, the afflicting emotions are gnosis, samsara and nirvana are indivisible, these appearances and sounds are the three buddha-bodies or the four buddha-bodies, and so forth.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Stearns' commentary is as follows:

Stearns, Buddha from Dolpo, 104 said:
For Dolpopa appearances cannot be the manifestation or self-presencing of gnosis (ye shes rang snang), or the buddha-body of reality, because ordinary appearances are completely fictitious, imaginary (parikalpita) and dependent (paratantra) phenomena, which are both actually nonexistent. The fully established true nature (parinispanna), nondual gnosis, the buddha-body of reality, and so forth, are real and existent.

treehuggingoctopus said:
That would indeed make gzhan-stong starkly different from Dzogchen. But the rest of the passage expresses the same understanding that Hookham champions:

Malcolm wrote:
The point is this:

"The fully established true nature (parinispanna), nondual gnosis, the buddha-body of reality, and so forth, are real and existent."

Which means that the ten powers and so on are fully developed within sentient beings at present.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Western Tulku and adequate training.
Content:
kirtu said:
Even now we only have few structured Dharma educational activities (not even actual institutions with a couple of exceptions) available.  So shedras in some form do have to be build out.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Studying at a Shedra might be a viable career choice for a Tibetan, but not for a westerner, unless it is accompanied by western academic credentials. Even then, the idea that a westerner is going to be able to make one's living as a professional Dharma educator is slim at best.

It is a vocation, and one that generally does not reward well.

kirtu said:
The structure of the traditional shedra has to be modified.  There might possibly be some degree of accreditation in a western sense.  But the primary thing is that the course of study should be available up to the geshe and equivalent level, esp. for monks and nuns but also for laypeople.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, just keep your day job.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Western Tulku and adequate training.
Content:
kirtu said:
Even now we only have few structured Dharma educational activities (not even actual institutions with a couple of exceptions) available.  So shedras in some form do have to be build out.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Studying at a Shedra might be a viable career choice for a Tibetan, but not for a westerner, unless it is accompanied by western academic credentials. Even then, the idea that a westerner is going to be able to make one's living as a professional Dharma educator is slim at best.

It is a vocation, and one that generally does not reward well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: This is why you need a teacher!
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
The ultimate teacher is mantra.

Malcolm wrote:
No teacher, no mantra. Dhāraṇis are not mantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: This is why you need a teacher!
Content:
Ray Rudha said:
Mantra does NOT depend on a teacher. That is an absolute wrong view. Mantra is the essence of Vajra, and the continuity of Buddha, Dharma, Sangha is always just Buddha nature, so to say mantra depends on a human element lacks wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it does, the necessity of reliance on a teacher is taught in great detail in the tantras of Mantrayāna. It is sheer ignorance to pretend it is otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Not according to Shenpen Hookham...

Malcolm wrote:
According to Dolbupa. And it is for this reason that ChNN has explained many times that gzhan stong view is not actually compatible with Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
incidentally, it may seem like I care deeply about this topic, but I don't. All of this stuff is sūtrayāna. If one is a Vajrayāna practitioner, it does not really matter much what view one holds conceptually, since that is not and never will be the real view. The real view is the view introduced by the guru, either in a formal empowerment or as a intimate instruction, and personally known for oneself.

MiphamFan said:
Malcolm, so how much of all this study is necessary for a practitioner who is not really interested in becoming a teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
Not much.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Bön as the 5th Tibetan Tradition.
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek DW members and Admin / Mods,

What do you think, is Bön the fifth Tibetan Tradition?

I guess the Administrator of DW, did made a mistake when he did set up the Bön sub forum.

One can see here aboard, that Bön is the fifth Tibetan Tradition, that is a big mistake historical seen.
Bön was and is the first Tibetan tradition before the Indian Buddhism was imported in Tibet.

Maybe it would be great to change the text into: Bön the first Tibetan Tradition or only the name Bön without explanation.

KY


Malcolm wrote:
However, Bon, as an institutional entity, is rather late, with Menri being founded in the15th century in response to the fact that most Bonpo lineages were in serious danger of being interrupted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Matt J said:
On the other hand, the gzhan stongpas have a good explanation for how Buddhahood is both uncreated and "positive." If I'm understanding correctly, the gzhan stongpas would say that once the obscurations are removed, then the virtues of Buddhahood naturally manifest. So from that POV, compassion is natural while greed, hatred, and delusion are distortions based on ignorance. Once the distorting influences are removed, then compassion and so forth would come forth naturally and effortlessly.

How is this handled from in Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
gzhan stong pas claim that the qualities of the result are fully manifested in sentient beings, from the beginning.

This is how Mipham characterizes it:
From the perspective of the mode of appearance, the basis itself never ripens as the result, and since that non-ripening is not the actual dharmakāya, since this present basis is not the buddhahood that manifest the ten powers from the mere cause of the dharmakāya, it may be considered that “dharmakāya of the basis” is not "the actual one.” Nevertheless, from the perspective of the just the time of the original basis, since the conventions of liberation and nornliberation do not exist, while there are no sentient beings, there are also no buddhas because liberation and delusion are totally impossible [in the basis]. 

When the appearance of the basis arises from that, there are two paths, liberation and delusion, that are produced from this appearance of the basis. Liberation arises from realizing the basis just as it is. Delusion arises from not realizing the basis. When the appearance of the basis arise, when one arrives at the liberation of the initial state of original purity, since realization is manifest buddhahood, the ten powers are actualized. Therefore, though the qualities of nirvana such as the ten powers and so on that do not exist in the basis exist as a primordial endowment, other than those who have reached the ultimate realization, buddhas, when even the bodhisattvas of the tenth bhumi cannot see the manifestation of all qualities, what need is there to mention ordinary sentient beings [being able to see them]? That being so, the difference between all the qualities of the basis being manifestly apparent or nonapparent is not from perspective of just the basis. [4/a] It is necessary to make a distinction in dependence on the appearances of a buddha, one who realizes the basis just as it is, and a sentient being, the one who does not realize that.
Hence we can see there is truly a great chasm between the view of gzhan stong and the view of Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
In the same way the result is present in the path in all the yanas...

Malcolm wrote:
If the result is already present, there is no need for the path; this is precisely the place where gzhan stong gets into trouble and Dzogchen does not.

smcj said:
A while back you yourself had as you signature something to the effect that "all practices can be done from the Dzogchen perspective". I have simply restated the same in different language.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, all practices can be done from a Dzogchen point of view, but this does not mean that the result is present at the time of the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 1st, 2016 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
In the same way the result is present in the path in all the yanas...

Malcolm wrote:
If the result is already present, there is no need for the path; this is precisely the place where gzhan stong gets into trouble and Dzogchen does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 31st, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
The basis, path and result are not simultaneous in Dzogchen? I thought you said it was not gradual at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the basis, path and result are not simultaneous for Dzogchen. If they were, there would be no need for a path. Dzogchen is not gradual in the sense that it is a path where one gathers the two accumulations.




smcj said:
The basis is the basis because of non realization.
Exactly. But regardless of non-realization we are discussing things from the realized perspective (the "one yana perspective").

An enlightened being sees things the way things actually are as well as understanding how their appearances are mistaken by the unaware. That same level of enlightenment that teaches Dzogchen and Mahamudra also teaches all the yanas. There is no difference from the enlightened being's perspective, except for the degree of unawareness of the sentient being(s) in question.

Malcolm wrote:
This is like saying that because there is no difference in the teacher's perspective, there is no difference between kindergarten and a Phd program.

smcj said:
My assertion is that there is no such thing as a causal vehicle.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is, just as there is a resultant vehicle [general mantra], and a vehicle beyond causes and results [Dzogchen]

smcj said:
That is simply a presentation for that accommodates the level of unawareness of the practitioner. There is in actuality only one vehicle from the "one yana" perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what yāna means, conveyance, etc. Thus, when we say there is one vehicle, it means that regardless of whatever path we choose to follow, rapid or slow, the overall goal is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 31st, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
And the Dzogchen idea that the basis, path and result are all present simultaneously is also understood to be true for all 9 yanas. There is no such thing as a "causal vehicle". That is upaya for the benefit of the appearance bound.

Malcolm wrote:
This not a Dzogchen idea. The basis is the basis because of non realization.

The cause yāna exists because some people think that one needs to accumulate causes to achieve buddhahood. This is a characteristic assertion of the cause vehicle, for example, the lam rim perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 31st, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: European Supplier of Vimala?
Content:
philji said:
On the Himalayan remedies website it says to take 1-2  pellets per day.. On the Siddhi energetically  bottle it says 2.... Not sure if quality is different. Any advice???

Malcolm wrote:
I also sell Vimala, and will ship to Europe. Standard dosage is 2 pills. Himalayan Remedies sources their herbs from the same supplier I do.

go to http://www.bhaisajya.guru

Price to ship to Europe is higher than within the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 31st, 2015 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Matt J said:
Which is also how Dolpopa describes his "Great Middle Way".

Malcolm wrote:
...intrinsic awareness and everything that arises within it are free from all extremes
There cannot be something free from extremes.

Dolbupa's great middle way avoids extremes precisely in reverse of the way Tsongkhapa has it. For him freedom from extremes is arrived at in the following way. He tries to avoid eternalism by asserting that relative phenomena are never held to exist more than conventionally, being intrinsically empty; and he tries to avoid nihilism by asserting that ultimate phenomena are held to have always existed, being extrinsically empty.

Here, what Longchenpa is referring to is the standard four fold negation of the extremes found every in sūtra on up to to the Dzogchen tantras, like the Realms and Dimensions of Sound Tantra [ sgra thal 'gyur ]:

The amazing, miraculous pristine consciousness
did not exist before, does not exist later, has not existed from the start;
is at present beyond all conceptual objects, 
having the nature of the emptiness that is free from extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 31st, 2015 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Matt J said:
Maybe it's quotes like this:
Dzogpa Chenpo's view is freedom from extremes is similar to Prasangika-Madhyamka's for the most part. [The main difference] is that the important basic view of Madhyamaka is of a spacelike empty aspect, while the principal basic view of [Dzogpa Chenpo] is of primordially pure and naked intrinsic awareness [ rig pa ] which is ineffable and unceasing. According to Dzogpa Chenpo, intrinsic awareness and everything that arises within it are free from all extremes, like the [nonexistence] of the limits to space.
Ch'os dbyings mdzod kyi 'grel ha Lung gi gter mdzod, by Longchen Rabjam, translated by Richard Barron in A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, page x.

So if I were more Gelug minded (which I'm not), I might say this goes beyond the non-affirming negation of emptiness by positing something, namely rig pa which has the nature of clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not an affirming negation, since Longchenpa states:
...intrinsic awareness and everything that arises within it are free from all extremes


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
sherabpa said:
Except that for Kongtrul, Rangjung Dorje was a zhentongpa, as well as others including Longchenpa, and I believe he was not unaware that their views were not entirely identical in all aspects.

Malcolm wrote:
I am aware of this, and I find no solid backing for Kongtrul's views regarding Longchenpa in particular.

As for Rangjung Dorje, he had an interesting approach to the three natures, but I don't really see how his writings show the same approach to the three natures as Dolbupa's and Tshan Khawoche. He also never uses the term 'gzhan stong" himself. The fact that in a 16th century commentary on the zab mo nang don one can read a defense of the Karmapa III as being a gzhan stong pa merely shows that this appellation is subject to doubt since it is not clear in his own writings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that there is only one vehicle, not many.

smcj said:
That's why I object to yana snobbery. All authentic teachings come from unsurpassed enlightenment, the ultimate perspective. It's not as if the lower yanas were taught from a lower level of realization. And every generation of realized masters, seeing things from that perspective, reaffirms the appropriateness of the entire path with all the yanas. Hence I consider the 4 Thoughts to be not different than Mahamudra. They come from Mahamudra.

Malcolm wrote:
Each Yāna is a self contained path. The difference is length, not outcome.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words, in sūtra, it very much matters whether one's post-equipoise view is in line with one's actual view in equipoise. In Mantra, it does not matter that much.

Anders said:
What makes the post-equipoise view more relevant in sutrayana?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the analytical view is used in meditation. If that analysis is not correct, one's meditation will not be correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
You should read the parable of the burning house in the Lotus Sutra...
I prefer Blofeld's "Bodhisattva of Compassion".

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that there is only one vehicle, not many.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
You guys are a little Dzogchen/Mahamudra fixated. For me as a lower yana practitioner it's a whole lot simpler if I have an "empty-of-other" view. There's something that's a "higher power", to borrow from 12 step terminology.


Malcolm wrote:
You should read the parable of the burning house in the Lotus Sutra...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:


florin said:
I dont really understand this quote.
I think it needs some work.

Malcolm wrote:
Damn autocorrect....


All Mipham is saying is that there are two perspectives, how things are and how things appear. From the perspective of how things are, "it is necessary to propose that the universe and beings are primordial buddhahood and meditate in that way."

From the point of view of how things appear, the basis, path and result are divvied up by wisdom according their features: the basis concerns proving the validity of buddhahood. This is why, for example, we have the account of Samantabhadra's buddhahood and the account of the delusion of sentient beings. There is also a practice, and also the culmination of the purification of the delusion which gave rise to sentient beings in the first place. Since only deluded people are concerned with liberation, the path of Dzogchen is very much concerned with correcting the delusion that arises from ignorance [ ma rig pa ] by remaining in the knowledge [ rig pa ] of how things actually are, i.e. that the universe and beings are primordial buddhahood.

We are not approaching practice from the point of view of accepting something that is not true, i.e., that the universe and beings are impure, etc. But we must acquiesce that this is indeed how things appear to us, and that as long as things appear in this way to us, we are under the influence of the two obscurations, which while temporary and not innate, conceal from us our actual state.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Alright, cheers for your time Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
A snippet of Mipham for you:
Apart from that pristine consciousness of emptiness that is distinguished by great bliss, any other analysis of Madhyamaka is unnecessary because that [pristine consciousness of emptiness that is distinguished by great bliss] is the actual nonconceptual pristine consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, tenets are analyzed in Dzogchen and Mantra in general since these conceptual views prevent people from appreciating and experiencing the real view.

Mother's Lap said:
Therefore shentong and Gelugpa madhyamaka can be called wrong views, but helpful wrong views (for secret mantra practitioners); aka masters do teach it for the benefit of beings and not out of faulty realisation.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I am not so sure they are helpful views at all; many argue that gzhan stong presents a distortion of the Yogacara school, and many argue that Gelug Madhyamaka presents a distortion of the Madhyamaka school. I don't think it is necessary at all to get involved with these Tibetan presentations of sūtrayāna tenets, especially because they involve issues that are never seen in the Indian milieu. It is really sufficient to practice Secret Mantra alone, since in any case its presentation of emptiness is superior to that of sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Ultimate analysis is irrelevant if shentong and Gelugpa madhyamaka are a-okay to Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Whether one's view is eternalistic [like the gzhan stong pas, etc.], or annihilationistic [like the Gelugpas, etc.], as long as one is following the methods of Secret Mantra, it does not matter very much. But this does not mean as a consequence that people can feel free to disregard the consequences of conventional analysis, since then it would make no sense for Dzogchen tantras to exhaustively analyze various views for their deficiencies.

In other words, in sūtra, it very much matters whether one's post-equipoise view is in line with one's actual view in equipoise. In Mantra, it does not matter that much. Nevertheless, tenets are analyzed in Dzogchen and Mantra in general since these conceptual views prevent people from appreciating and experiencing the real view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Then it is absolutely kosher for Dzogchen masters to speak of Samantabhadra, in the analytical relative of course, as satcitananda.

Malcolm wrote:
No, because analytically, neither the sat, the cit nor the ananda can bear analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Are shentong and Gelugpa madhyamaka cognitive obscurations?

Malcolm wrote:
All analytical views are conceptual, including the view of freedom from extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
incidentally, it may seem like I care deeply about this topic, but I don't. All of this stuff is sūtrayāna. If one is a Vajrayāna practitioner, it does not really matter much what view one holds conceptually, since that is not and never will be the real view. The real view is the view introduced by the guru, either in a formal empowerment or as a intimate instruction, and personally known for oneself.

Mother's Lap said:
And apparently this introduced view has an inherent existent quality. Or not.

How come aryas can't get away with it but vidyadharas can?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the view does not have an inherent quality, apart from the fact that it is based on one's own experience, rather than an intellectual analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


sherabpa said:
You mean Kunga Drolchok's gzhan stong lta khrid, which outlines Tshan Kawoche's views on the Three Natures and precisely this objectionable point about their relation to relative and ultimate.  There are perhaps differences between Jonang and Kagyu in relation to the emphasis on the Uttaratantra in what Kongtrul calls 'zhentong'.  I had forgotten until now that whole discussion about the Three Natures in Stearns' 'The Buddha from Dolpo'.

If anyone has a link to Loppon Malcolm's earlier discussion, I would be grateful.  Primarily I just want to read it, I am happy to leave the discussion as it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the summary by Jonang Kunga Drolchok, taken from Tsan Khawoche's book.

Also, it is very important to remember that the Palpung version of gzhan stong was drawn from Jonang, via the Kathok master, Rigzin Tsewang, who then conferred the teaching on Situ Panchen, and it is this direct lineage that Kongtrul is heir.

The whole gzhan stong project, beginning with Tshan Khawoche, was to reconcile the teachings of the three own natures with the the two truths of Madhyamaka, with a view towards proving that the former illuminated the latter with respect to the notion that buddha qualities are inherent and not newly developed on the path.

incidentally, it may seem like I care deeply about this topic, but I don't. All of this stuff is sūtrayāna. If one is a Vajrayāna practitioner, it does not really matter much what view one holds conceptually, since that is not and never will be the real view. The real view is the view introduced by the guru, either in a formal empowerment or as a intimate instruction, and personally known for oneself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus, florin and krodha are both correct. Florin is correct from the point of view of mode of reality [ gnas tshul ], kyle is correct from the point of view of the mode of appearances [ snang tshul ] for sentient beings.

krodha said:
Thanks. Although I suppose my gripe is that I'm willing to (and strive to) account for both sides of the equation (mode of reality and appearances) whereas Florin is solely clinging to the mode of reality and declaring that the mode of appearances is irrelevant and "not Dzogchen", which is essentially nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
The so called "primordial state" aka the original basis is called "the basis" because it has not been realized. When that is realized, it is given the name, "the result." "The path" is just the method of realizing that, which in the case of the Great Perfection, is the intimate instructions of the direct introduction and their application.

Florin's point of view is influenced very much by "sems sde", which is primarily about the basis. Your point of view is more influenced by man ngag sde, which is more concerned with the methods of realizing that basis.

Another useful snippet from Mipham:
According to that principle, though from the perspective of ultimate reality it is necessary to propose that the universe and beings are primordial buddhahood and meditate in that way, from the perspective of the conventions of the mode of appearances, the differentiation by wisdom into three — the basis, the reasoning that buddhahood is valid; the path, the time of practice; and the result, the culmination of purification — are asserted up to the Great Perfection. Also the treatises of the Great Perfection purpose buddhahood once the fives paths of trekchö and the four visions of thögal are finished, but in terms of the mode of appearances, they never assert the accomplishment of buddhahood without finishing the path. When these two are differentiated, after the darkness of doubt about the topics that any of the vehicles of the cause and result have difficulty realizing, since there arises the appearance of confidence knowledge that cannot be diverted, this differentiation is very important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Bugs or People? from War in Buddhism
Content:
boda said:
Don't worry Jundo, I'm just pulling your leg. We all know you could never do anything wrong.

jundo cohen said:
Of course I could and sometimes do. And no none of us can and never shall.

I am surprised that Mahayana folks seem to struggle with that.

Gassho,  J

Malcolm wrote:
It is the usual dissonance between the way things appears and the way things are. The former is a result of our karma and afflictions, then latter has nothing to with karma and afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Obscuration in Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty straightfoward according to Mipham:
In the realization of the Great Perfection that the three times are not time, there are no phenomena of the ten directions and three times that are not perfect. Therefore, this is the dharmakāya at the time of the basis, but because the temporary afflictions have not been purified it has not ripened into the nature of the result.

While maintaining the position, “This purification of any obscurations is the feature of the time of path. This total purification of obscurations is the feature of the time of the result,” is in accord with the mode of appearance of sentient beings, from the perspective of the mode of existence of dharmatā, it is not possible to move even slightly away from abiding in state of uniformity which lacks any divisions of dualistic phenomena such as division by three times, division into pure and impure, sentient beings and buddhas, and so on.
Thus, florin and krodha are both correct. Florin is correct from the point of view of mode of reality [ gnas tshul ], kyle is correct from the point of view of the mode of appearances [ snang tshul ] for sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Bugs or People? from War in Buddhism
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Fortunately, from that other non-perspective perspective, there is not you or I, termites and families, aliens or earthlings (or earth), not life or death, no space or place to fall.

Malcolm wrote:
Got to love the pretty words...

dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, don't you get it? A Jundoless Jundo can kill all the termiteless termites he wantlessly wants.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, while the Jundoed Jundo can't kill any of the termited termites he wantonly wants. Good thing Jundo is Jundoless, for his families sake. A Jundoed Jundo would only benefit termites.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Bugs or People? from War in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[

That is not a koan either, that is just prajñāpāramitā rhetoric used to justify one's own self interest.

jundo cohen said:
I agree with you. I want to kill the termites because I do not want the house falling on my and my family's heads.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't want your house falling on you or your families head either.

jundo cohen said:
Completely selfish on my part, so good that the termites are not allowed to vote on it. Were it not that I live in an earthquake zone (and recognizing too my selfish refusal not to move to an all cement structure), I would be very happy to share the rafters with the termites.

Malcolm wrote:
Unlikely.

jundo cohen said:
When the space aliens come someday, they may exterminate us earthlings in much the same way, as the inconvenience of a less intelligent life form.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, like in Childhood's End.

jundo cohen said:
Fortunately, from that other non-perspective perspective, there is not you or I, termites and families, aliens or earthlings (or earth), not life or death, no space or place to fall.

Malcolm wrote:
Got to love the pretty words...

The characteristic of conditioned element and ultimate
is the characteristic of freedom from being the same or different;
whoever conceives them as being the same or different, 
they have entered in improper view.
-- Samdhinirmocana Sūtra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Bugs or People? from War in Buddhism
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Well, the Koany aspect is that one might also know that there where no termites to kill from the start, nor separate Jundo to kill them. Nonetheless, we seek to avoid killing.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a koan either, that is just prajñāpāramitā rhetoric used to justify one's own self interest.

jundo cohen said:
As one drives down the highway leaving roadkill (although we try to avoid that as much as possible), we also know there is no coming or going.

Malcolm wrote:
It is easier to say that when one is doing the driving and the killing...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: having a drink
Content:
smcj said:
The way I understand how the Pratimoksha Vows define "no drinking alcohol" is "not even as much as a dewdrop on a single blade of grass." If someone takes the vow and breaks it, they break the vow.

Indrajala said:
My point is that you understand them as 'vows' whereas in Chinese, Sanskrit or Tibetan they might be understood differently. Remember that your definitions in English are not necessarily reflective of the meanings in other languages.

Malcolm wrote:
In Tibetan, they are sdom pa, ( samvara ) i.e., restraints.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Bugs or People? from War in Buddhism
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I really feel the weight of having to kill those termites ... but somehow, whenever there is an earthquake and the heavy roof timbers start shaking over my family's heads ... I know it was necessary. That is the Koan.

boda said:
The koan is: if you really cared then why didn't you just move?


Malcolm wrote:
It is no koan; Jundo recognized that his self interest outweighed his interest in termite wellbeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Right, but in every single presentation of gzhan stong, the distinguishing explanation is based on a presentation of the three natures basically unique to the gzhan stong school.

sherabpa said:
is demonstrably false, which it is.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not false. For example, Tshan Kawoche's gzhan stong lta khrid in the gdams ngag mdzod is exclusively concerned with a presentation of the three natures.


Since we are repeating ourselves, and since I lost a longer post somehow, I am leaving it here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 28th, 2015 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
it is completely disingenuous for you to claim that his presentation of gzhan stong excludes mention of the three natures.

sherabpa said:
Bluster.  What I said was his text 'Rays of the Vajra Moon' excludes mention of the three natures, which is true.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it mentions the imputing nature, as I pointed out to you. Secondly, it does not rate as a major text of the gzhan stong tradition, not by any stretch of the imagination.

sherabpa said:
The fact that he once uses the term kun btags hardly refutes my main point, which is that one of the primary texts of the zhentongpas is the Uttaratantra.

Malcolm wrote:
I never disputed that Uttaratantra was an important text to gzhan stong traditon. What I dispute is your claim that the gshan stong tradition is built upon the Uttaratantra alone.

sherabpa said:
It is a gross simplification to regard zhentong as a kind of monolithic philosophy the essence of which is a divergent interpretation of the three natures.



Malcolm wrote:
It is a far grosser simplification to regard gzhan stong as kind of monolithic philosophy solely concerned with the teachings of the Uttaratantra.

sherabpa said:
Zhentong involves not just the three natures but also the Uttaratantra shastra and all of the five dharmas, and the Tathagatagarbha sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, the major point of deficiency for which gzhan stong is roundly and rightly criticized is its employment of the three natures doctrine which come from three of the five treatises of Maitreya.

sherabpa said:
However, in the lineage histories, preeminence is given to the transmission of Uttaratantrashastra from Maitripa into Tibet via Tsen Khawoche.

Malcolm wrote:
That is perfectly fine, and has nothing to do with the substance of my main point.

sherabpa said:
This explains why Kongtrul is able to say Rangjung Dorje and Longchenpa are zhentongpas, but you have to deny that.

Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa clearly identifies Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view in several places, not only one, even so far as saying in the lung gyi gter mdzod that it accorded with the view of the Great Perfection — and he was mostly certainly aware of Dolbupa. But according to gzhan stong, Prasanga is so called "rang stong," a deficient view.

sherabpa said:
His is a broad conception of a transmission lineage with a number of family resemblance features.

Malcolm wrote:
He does not overlook the novel gzhan stong presentation of the three natures; he, like all other gzhan stong authors, in fact spends quite a bit of time explicating them. Shakya Chogden, for example, wrote many hundreds of pages on the subject, as did Taranatha, and so on.

sherabpa said:
It is also why, in order to refute it, zhentong has to be narrowed down to one objectionable point concerning the three natures and most of the actual teachings have to be ignored.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are, like Dolbupa, etc., going to claim a) claim that all five treatises of Maitreya are definitive and b) present a version of the doctrines contained in three of those source texts which is at great odds with the very source texts you claim to follow, it is quite likely that you are going to be taken to task for your exegetical excesses. When this is noticed, you cannot fault the person who is noticing this. That would be similar to blaming a reader for a spelling error in your own composition merely because he or she noticed you made a mistake. The main point is that the three own natures are used by gzhan stong to try and prove the ultimate is empty of the relative (a key doctrine of the gzhan stong view) and so on, deforming both Madhyamaka and Yogacara simultaneously.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 28th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: War in Buddhism
Content:


boda said:
Ridiculous. We know that just by walking around every day that we kill countless insects. That being the case, our bad karma would continuously increase.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the point of view of the Jains, not the Buddha. They believe that karma is not related to volition. The Buddha however taught that karma is a synonym for volition.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 28th, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
What Namdrol is laying out is completely bog standard mahayana - I don't know a single school or lineage that doesn't follow this line of reasoning as a matter of course. It's not even a little equivocal.
Lol, I've lost any idea of what it is we are discussing...

Malcolm wrote:
Luminosity vs. clarity at this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 28th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I looked into this a little, and it appears that the practice of the  "stroke of Ashe" is indeed new.

Malcolm wrote:
What's new about it? (Yes, I know what Ashe practice is).

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I actually don't know much about it, so I will defer to your greater knowledge. It's basically like a kind of calligraphy practice, I think. Are there similiar practices in previous termas?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is borrowed from Zen, hence, it is not new. It is a kind of integration practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 28th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I am really looking forward to reading your translation, Malcolm. The text does seem (to the ignoramus that I am, in any case) very important -- and, if Hopkins had decided to leave some core twilight language terms untranslated, it would be rather clear.

Btw, what does he mean by the 'Buddha body'?

Malcolm wrote:
This is how he is translated kāya [ sku ].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Except that Mipham, for example, devotes much energy to rejecting the idea that the so called fundamental or original mind [ gnyug sems ] is momentary. Just saying...

treehuggingoctopus said:
I have just stumbled upon it in Fundamental Mind.

Btw, Hopkins' translation is a bit of a nightmare... made worse by the fact that the glossary is incomplete. Without the Internet such terms as 'body of attributes' or 'mode of subsistence' would be a total enigma...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, his translation is certainly challenging.

I hope at some point to bring out a new translation of this this text, as well as the second of the trilogy, An Investigation into the Meaning of the Luminous Original Mind, the Differentiation of the Basis, Path and Result of the Great Perfection entitled Illuminating Wisdom.

The first text, which Hopkins translated, is very citation heavy; this text is very argument heavy, with not so many citations. The third text is a dated collection of various comments made over the years by Mipham on the subject, gathered into a single text. It is my hope to comb through that third text and present illuminating passages, perhaps as footnotes, which expand the topics in the first two texts. This is my present side project. I think that the gnyug sems skor gsum, aka the Trilogy on Original Mind, is a very important series of texts. In it, Mipham corrects many misconceptions about Dzogchen. One thing he especially attacks at length is the idea that the so-called "original mind" is a subtle mind, rather than what it actually is, the nature of the mind, whether that mind is subtle or coarse.

BTW, however challenging Hopkin's translations may be, he is to be highly commended for being the first to bring this into English, as well as Mountain Dharma by Dolbupa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Matt J said:
Thus, in the Highest Yoga Tantra system of the New Translation Schools, the fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all the phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also sometimes called the “clear light” (abhasvara, ’od gsal) and “uncompounded” (asamskrta, ’dus ma byas). In Nyingma it is called the “mind-vajra”... This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and of unbreakable continuum like a vajra [or diamond]. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nyingma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered “permanent” in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is not interrupted—this being analogous to the statement in Maitreya’s Ornament for Clear Realization that a Buddha’s exalted activities are considered permanent in that they are inexhaustible. It is also non-produced in the sense that it is not adventitiously and newly produced by causes and conditions [since its continuum has always existed].
Dalai Lama, trans. by Jeffrey Hopkins, Kindness, Clarity and Insight, p. 239

Malcolm wrote:
Except that Mipham, for example, devotes much energy to rejecting the idea that the so called fundamental or original mind [ gnyug sems ] is momentary. Just saying...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 1:14 PM
Title: Re: War in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
However HHDL remains a pacifist to this day.
.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not a pacifist. He has at times supported military actions against this or that group.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
In all seriousness, isn't the Shambhala stuff considered to be terma? There must be new material in there.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? What new could there possibly be that is not already included in creation stage and completion stage, etc.?

dzogchungpa said:
I looked into this a little, and it appears that the practice of the  "stroke of Ashe" is indeed new.

Malcolm wrote:
What's new about it? (Yes, I know what Ashe practice is).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
So it seems that the Yogacara facet of the Yogacara/Tathagatagarbha synthesis is still prominent in current Karma Kagyu presentation of Shentong.

anjali said:
See Traleg Rinpoche's book, https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Yogacara-Mahamudra-Traleg-Kyabgon-ebook/dp/B00WAK0KT4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451166859&sr=8-1&keywords=influence+of+yogacara+on+mahamudra.


Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahaha:
A unique and interesting look at how Yogacara philosophy influenced tantra and mahamudra. Developed by Asanga and Vasubandhu as a reaction to over-theorization, Yogacara emphasizes that everything comes back to one’s own practice and to one’s own experience.
This is very funnny. Yogacara is much more theoretically complicated than Madhyamaka. Just try giving the Madhyāntavibhanga a try, or the Mahayānasamgraha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not so long ago, my grandmother would kill a chicken for Sunday. I am pretty sure that if everyone in the family would have say to her: we won't eat the chicken, she wouldn't have killed it. Conversely, since no one told her that when it was possible to do it, each of the family member has a moral responsability in the killing of the chicken.
It is not permissible for a follower of the Dharma to take the meat of an animal that has been expressly killed for them.

jerraj said:
My point exactly. To me there is no difference between my grandmother killing a chicken for her Sunday family gathering and the butcher.

Even though the butcher doesn't kill all the animals having specific clients in mind, when one is buying meat it is like taking meat expressly killed for this person. Why so?
Because if the butcher doesn't have the specific piece of meat the client is looking for, the client will ask for it, complain about the absence of meat. Therefore, in the very act of buying meat-even already prepared, there is the actualization of an order placed implicitely and that reveals itself in plain words when the clients complains in case his favourite piece of meat is lacking in the store. In the economic field,  it is duly called 'demand', and there is a reason for that it seems to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Unknown said:
Not so long ago, my grandmother would kill a chicken for Sunday. I am pretty sure that if everyone in the family would have say to her: we won't eat the chicken, she wouldn't have killed it. Conversely, since no one told her that when it was possible to do it, each of the family member has a moral responsability in the killing of the chicken.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not permissible for a follower of the Dharma to take the meat of an animal that has been expressly killed for them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
sherabpa said:
As for Brunnholzl, I'm not sure what the point is, if any, of saying 'zhentong = yogachara + tathagatagarbha'.  Why not just say its a lineage of the Five Dharmas of Maitreya?

smcj said:
Because that would just be Tathagatagarbha doctrine.
Shentong - Yoga Cara = Tathagatagarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
No, only one of the five dharmas is on tathāgatagarbha doctrine, the Uttaratantra; three are on cittamatra, one is on Prajñāpāramita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


sherabpa said:
That is definitely what Malcolm is saying.  He notes a number of zhentong texts, including Kongtrul's Treasury of Knowledge, which delineate the three natures as a part of zhentong.  It is interesting to note these chittamatra doctrines which Kongtrul says are free of the errors of chittamatra.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the way the gzhan stong pas use the three nature theory is not at all consistent with the way they are used by Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu, etc. Not only does Tsongkhapa, Gorampa, Rongton and many others note this polemically, but even Khenpo Karl notes:
Though most followers of gzhan stong accept Vasubandhu’s Yogācāra texts in general as belonging to the gzhan stong view, in light of his always using model (1), the frequent explanation in gzhan stong texts that model (1) is characteristic for sems tsam, while model (2) represents one of the most crucial features that distinguishes gzhan stong from sems tsam, then appears to be problematic not only with regard to Vasubandhu’s works. This equally applies to the texts of Maitreya and Asaṅga (held to be the principal forefathers of gzhan stong) and all other Indian Yogācāras, since they all use model (1). In addition, Tibetan gzhan stong pas differ as to which ones among those Yogācāras they consider to be proponents of gzhan stong and which ones they merely regard as sems tsam pas.
http://wordpress.tsadra.org/?p=1215

Kongtrul falls into the same trap as all the other gzhan stong pas who preceded him when he tries to differentiate sems tsam and gzhan stong through the difference in the way they use the three natures.

sherabpa said:
Why deny this.

Malcolm wrote:
Because it is eminently deniable.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Lamas and Monks that Drink and Smoke - Is it Normal?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Not trying to equate those with smoking, I've just always found it odd that people make these assumptions about teachers that imply they are beyond cutting loose a little bit, not all Buddhist teachers are renunciates, and not all participation in the world indicates that someone is hooked by desire.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's true that not all Buddhist Teachers are renunciates, but they must at least be aspiring renunciates because renunciation is the essential meaning of all Buddha's teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: 70% of American Buddhists believe in God?
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
This should read "70% of American Buddhists dont know what Buddhists believe"...

Malcolm wrote:
It comes from poll's question, "do you believe in God or a universal spirit?"

I think, phrased this way, many people who self-identify as Buddhist would answer yes to the universal spirit part of the question, especially uneducated ethnic Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The fact that he recounts different transmission lineages, for example, differentiating Ngog's from Zu, does not make his over all presentation gzhan stong, despite his own obvious preferences.

sherabpa said:
You are demonstrably wrong about Kongtrul's treatment of the Uttaratantrashastra not being zhentong.  For example, in his text 'The rays of the vajra moon, a guide to the zhentong madhyamaka view', he says:
....
He refers again and again to the Uttaratantra in this text and does not mention the three natures.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, while it is true in this text of instructions on how to meditate gzhan stong view that he takes his primary scheme as the impure, partially pure and impure and the pure, derived from Uttaratantra, it is completely disingenuous for you to claim that his presentation of gzhan stong excludes mention of the three natures. For example, even in this text, he resorts to the use of the term parikalpita, kun btags, on page 599, vol 8 of the Palpung blockprint of the text in question.

More to the point, in his formal presentation of the gzhan stong view in the Treasury of Knowledge, Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy, ppg. 249-269, he devotes a good two pages to outlining the three natures as a key doctrine in this system, but in fact, the use of the three natures pervades his explanation of the system in the twenty or so pages he devotes to it.

So while it may be the case that in this meditation manual you bring up there is no full explication of the three natures, in fact the three natures are vital feature of gzhan stong theory that cannot be ignored. As I pointed out, this one difference between Longchenpa, who, while a huge fan of the Uttaratantra, happily consigns the three yogacara treatises of Maitreya to Yogacara-cittamatra; and Dolbupa, who believes that all five treatises of Maitreya have the same intention and that they cannot be placed on a scale.

Indeed, this is a key ingredient to understanding gzhan stong thought, for not only are its exponenents willing to try and understand all the treatises of Maitreya as definitive in meaning, not only do they interpret the three natures in a way substantially different than Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu, but they also, unfortunately, adhere to a historical interpretation of the three turnings of the wheel that does not even come from India, but rather, Korea [i.e. Won'chuk's Three Volume Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra], widely popularized by Buton in his history of Dharma.

sherabpa said:
So you should not keep telling yourself and everyone else that zhentong is essentially or primarily about the three natures, notwithstanding a few apposite comments by Rangjung Dorje.

Malcolm wrote:
I think I shall, since it is demonstrable.

sherabpa said:
Essentially your 'zhentong' is a straw man.  It was no more refuted by Nagarjuna than the Uttaratantrashastra was refuted by Nagarjuna, since it does not go beyond what was taught by Maitreya.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have a problem with the Uttaratantra. I accept it as a definitive summary of the Buddha's teaching in sūtra, just as I accept Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka as the definitive statement of Sūtra Mahāyāna Buddhist view. There is no contradiction between them.

What I can't accept is 1) any hermeneutic based upon the so called three turnings of the wheel interpreted as historical epochs in the life of the Buddha, since this hermeneutic is directly contradicted by Maitryeanatha in the Sutralaṃkara 2.1, and thus is a still born hermeneutic; 2) I cannot accept the gzhan stong presentation of the three natures which is demonstrably distorted and incorrect. In other words, I do not accept the basic groundwork upon which the gzhan stong view is erected.

To enlarge on the first point, there is no Indian source, none at all, for any of the various schemes to bracket this or that Mahāyāna sūtra into the second two turnings mentioned in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. Therefore, to say that the "Yogacara" sūtras belong the third turning, or the "Prajñāpāramita" Sūtras belong to the second, or the "Tathagātagarbha" Sūtras to the third etc., is entirely speculative. All we can say is that the Agamas belong to the first, and Mahāyāna sūtras belong to the second and third; but of the latter, we have no inkling of what sūtras are to be included in the second and third turnings, since as Maitreyanatha points out in the Sutrālaṃkara 2.1.a:
Not previously predicted, arising simultaneously...
And that is where we stand.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 27th, 2015 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Luminosity is not equivalent to mere clarity. Luminosity is the ultimate nature of the mind, according to the Perfection of Wisdom tradition, which you accept as definitive.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra does not say that luminosity is the ultimate nature of mind. The mind being clear light is not dealt with in Buddha's Sutra teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
You are quite wrong. According the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra in 8,000, not only is the nature of the mind luminous [clear light, 'od gsal ba ], everything is luminous, from the material aggregate all the way on up to omniscience. Luminosity pervades everything, but the clarity [ gsal ba ] of the mind does not.

For example, the Play of Noble Mañjūśrī Sūtra states:
Afflictions are temporary, they cannot simultaneous with the realization of emptiness; they cannot simultaneous with the knowledge of the absence of characteristics and the absence of aspiration; they cannot simultaneous with natural luminosity.
Or for example, the Ornamental Illumination of Pristine Consciousness that Enters the Domain of the Noble Buddhas Sūtra states:
Awakening [bodhi] is the natural luminosity of the natural luminosity of the mind. If it is asked why [bodhi] called luminosity, whatever is natural, that is without affliction, equal with space, possessing the nature of space, properly included within space and like space, because it is very luminous by nature.
Here we have a very clear equivalence: bodhi = clear light/luminosity.

Further, the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra states:
All phenomena nonabiding, because they are naturally isolated. Because they are nonabiding, they are called nonabiding; since all phenomena are naturally luminous, they are not entities.
The Pratyutpanna Sūtra states:
Because all these phenomena are naturally luminous, they are equivalent with nirvana.
The Vajra Essence Dhārani Sūtra states:
Mañjuśrī, the absence of afflction is awakening, natural luminosity is always nonarising.
The Sūtra that Explains The Manifestation Into the Domain the Method of Of the Sphere of Bodhisattvas states
The mind for unsurpassed true perfect awakening is the mind without afflictions because the turmoil of afflictions has been removed; is the mind of luminosity because it is luminous by nature...
The Sūtra of The Definitive Explanation of the Compassion of the Tathāgata states:
Because the mind is naturally luminous, awakening is naturally luminous. If it is asked for what reason it is naturally luminous, what is natural, that without afflictions, equivalent with space, the nature of space, remains equal with space, is even because it is even with space. That nature is very luminous. Since childish ordinary people do not comprehend natural luminosity, they are afflicted by temporary afflictions. The tathāgatas engage sentient beings with compassion, thinking, "They should comprehend natural luminosity."
The Sūtra of the Intimate Instructions of Mahāyana state:
Due to all sentient beings being like illusions and all sentient beings being naturally luminous, because one's mind is the same, comprehend that the minds of all sentient beings are the same.
In fact the tantras use the same terminology as the above to describe natural luminosity.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Even in the Tantras where the ultimate nature of phenomena is asserted as the union of bliss and emptiness a distinction is made between mind and its emptiness - they are not one and the same.

Malcolm wrote:
U huh, so for you, the nature of one thing is inserted into another thing. Like stuffing an olive with pimento. For you, things are not empty, they just have to have emptiness inserted into them.



Tsongkhapafan said:
Mind cannot be emptiness because then there would be no union of the two truths - there would be only one truth.

Malcolm wrote:
If mind is not emptiness, there is no union of the two truths.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The fourth profundity of the aggregate of form is:

Emptiness is not other than form; form also is not other than emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
"Not other than" means "is the same."

Tsongkhapafan said:
In relation to mind we can read this as "Emptiness is not other than mind; mind also is not other than emptiness"

But that does not mean that they are the same thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it does, just as wetness and water are the same thing, heat and fire are the same thing.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Mind cannot be emptiness - why not? Because there would be no union of the two truths and mind could not function because emptiness is unconditioned and, as I said, there is no valid cognition of an unconditioned mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you are in trouble then.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is such a thing as unconditioned pristine consciousness or wisdom [jñāna]. You certainly accept, as the Perfection of Wisdom sutra states:
The original nature of the mind is luminosity.
The Nirvana Sūtra states very simply:
Luminosity is pristine consciousness [aka wisdom].
In the Bhavyakīrti's commentary on Aryādeva's  Clear Lamp states:
"Freedom from arising and ceasing" is luminosity, because it is unconditioned.
M

Tsongkhapafan said:
Let's examine these quotes.

'the original nature of the mind is luminosity' - if luminosity is equivalent to clarity, this statement is true. The original (conventional) nature of mind is luminosity, but this is not its ultimate nature. The luminosity of mind is therefore not unconditioned.

Malcolm wrote:
Luminosity is not equivalent to mere clarity. Luminosity is the ultimate nature of the mind, according to the Perfection of Wisdom tradition, which you accept as definitive.

Tsongkhapafan said:
'Luminosity is pristine consciousness' - this statement alone doesn't prove that consciousness is unconditioned because the meaning of 'pristine' needs to be defined. It could mean conventionally devoid of obstructions which doesn't prove that it's unconditioned. Also, not all statements made in Sutra is definitive, some are interpretative.

Malcolm wrote:
The term is ye shes, you normally would see it translated as "wisdom."

Tsongkhapafan said:
"Freedom from arising and ceasing" is luminosity, because it is unconditioned." - this is not definitive. Bhavyakīrti was a Chittamatrin and the Chittamatrin view is not definitive because it derives from the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma which is not definitive. The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras are definitive.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact he was not a Cittamatrin. He was a follower of Candrakīrti, and the text I cited was his sub commentary on Candrakīrti's Explanation of [Aryadeva's] Clear Lamp.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Regardless of what the scriptures say, it's impossible for consciousness to be unconditioned for reasons I have explained. Unconditioned consciousness has never been an object of valid cognition.

Malcolm wrote:
The Samadhirāja states:
The eye, nose and ear are not authorities,
the tongue, body and mind are not authorities,
if these sense organs were authoritative
of what use is the noble path?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Actually Jesse, as Malcolm and I pointed out...a big chunk of your list are actually results of sexism which affect both men and women, so seeing it as some kind of 'contest' where women have 'won' due to some of these things is flawed. Both sexes suffer due to many of the things you mentioned. In my example, the idea that raising children is exclusively women's job contributes to the idea that men being involved with their children is "creepy" or unmanly, which let me tell you is a very pervasive attitude in middle class America. Of course, it isn't even a consideration at all as you go down the rung, since men are often absent or nearly so.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what happens when you a) watch Fox News too much b) read paranoid conservative web sites:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:


Jesse said:
I have demonstrated female privilege pretty well.

Malcolm wrote:
I think not.



Jesse said:
No, it points out that when men make similar claims the general opinion is 'men can't be raped, men would just enjoy being raped, you can't rape the willing, women can't rape men'

Malcolm wrote:
When a man is raped, it is usually, though not always by other men. Rape cases against women generally involve statutory rape charges. Not forceful sexual assaults.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:


Jesse said:
One right women have is deciding the fate of the child in any relationship. Men have no real input ultimately, it's totally up to the female, and if the relationship ends with the woman giving birth men are always liable to pay child support, even if the guy didn't want to have a child. Basically it's a consequence without being able to change anything, except to not have sex at all. While females ultimately do get to choose.

Malcolm wrote:
This is so far removed from reality, it is not even funny. Women do not have this right — when a couple decides to get a divorce, what happens is that they lose the right to decide for themselves how to treat their children. They give this right to the courts. Now, it is true, based on a long, sexist precedent that the women's work of raising children is beneath men, and so therefore, custody of children in contentious divorces are often, but not always awarded to mothers. But this state of affairs actually arises from a sexist attitude towards the work of raising children.

Jesse said:
Sexism also ends up working in women's favor occasionally, namely men being polite to women, opening doors for them.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahaha, this is so lame dude. We do not live in a society where men open doors for women anymore.

Jesse said:
They occasionally do get jobs, and college acceptances because institutions need to fill quotas.

Malcolm wrote:
We, in the US, do not have gender quotas for employment, it violates anti-discrimination laws here.

https://www.littler.com/publication-press/press/gender-diversity-european-quotas-and-us-law


Jesse said:
Think of the stereotypes men face, they should be strong, unemotional, not cry or whine about circumstances, they shouldn't display feminine traits, boys who like pink or act like girls are most definitely discriminated against.

Malcolm wrote:
Because of male sexist attitudes about women!!! Really, this should be obvious to you.

Jesse said:
Gay white men are still white men, and nobody would argue they face discrimination, and the simple fact they are gay would instantly counteract any benefits from there white maleness.

Malcolm wrote:
Gay men, whether white or not, still experience a great deal of discrimination. And the discrimination they face is a result, principally, of sexist attitudes towards women.

Jesse said:
Mentally ill people are still discriminated against no matter what color, ethnicity or gender they are, and when discrimination occurs Nobody would defend them like people jump to defend feminism or females.

Malcolm wrote:
Mentally ill people are not 51% of the population. That said, discrimination against mentally ill people is a crime and where it happens, it should be remedied.

Jesse said:
The same goes for fat people, people these days think discriminating against fat people is a GOOD thing. After all they are costing us money in healthcare, they don't take care of themselves, there lazy, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote][/quote]

Same as for the above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
I've stayed home with my kids (due mainly to childcare cost) for a number of years while I work on my education/career change. I get a lot of shit from other men (though none will ever say so to my face, only online etc.) about "woman's work" (like caring for your kids is only woman's work), surprisingly though, I also have caught a ton of flack from women/Moms...many of whom seem to belief that a man who likes kids is somehow creepy - this kind of attitude is pervasive enough for me to agree that this is an area where there is definitely some sexism directed towards men. I also agree that the default attitude towards men in the legal system is often problematic.

The difference of course....it is basically *my choice* whether or not to do this, that is not so for women, and the amount to which it ceases to be a choice increases the further you go down the socioeconomic ladder.

Malcolm wrote:
But this is not female privilege, this is an example of male sexism towards women, such that you get criticized for doing "women's work." So you are experiencing sexism from men based on the fact that they devalue their mother's own job. How sick is that?

Moreover, the default attitude towards men in the justice system is based on the high incidence of men in the legal system being there because assault and rape are perpetrated by men on women. That being said, according to the Bureau of Justice itself, between 2006 and 2010 65 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults go unreported. In general, nearly half of all violent crimes in this period went unreported.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Jesse said:
1. Female privilege is being able to walk down the street at night without people crossing the street because they’re automatically afraid of you.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, not being regarded as a threat is a privilege? Since when?

Jesse said:
2. Female privilege is being able to approach someone and ask them out without being labeled “creepy.”

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm, I have been hit on by some creepy women. Nope.

Jesse said:
3. Female privilege is being able to get drunk and have sex without being considered a rapist. Female privilege is being able to engage in the same action as another person but be considered the innocent party by default.

Malcolm wrote:
When someone gets drunk and forces his penis into someone's mouth, rectum, or vagina, this is rightly considered rape, whether the women involved is drunk or not.

Jesse said:
4. Female privilege is being able to turn on the TV and see yourself represented in a positive way. Female privilege is shows like King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond where women are portrayed as attractive, competent people while men are shown as ugly, lazy slobs.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are leaving out a lot of other stereotypes of women. Anyway, nothing you have brought up illustrates female privilege.

Jesse said:
5. Female privilege is the idea that women and children should be the first rescued from any sort of emergency situation. Female privilege is saving yourself before you save others and not being viewed as a monster.

Malcolm wrote:
So now you are including children as part of female privilege? Anyway, this does not fly. The women and children who get rescued first are the women and children of white men, always, in every emergency.

Jesse said:
6. Female privilege is being able to decide not to have a child.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree, their body, their privilege.

Jesse said:
7. Female privilege is not having to support a child financially for 18 years when you didn’t want to have it in the first place.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? What do you mean?

Jesse said:
8. Female privilege is never being told to “take it like a man” or “man up.”

Malcolm wrote:
Huh?

Jesse said:
9. Female privilege is knowing that people would take it as a gravely serious issue if someone raped you. Female privilege is being able to laugh at a “prison rape” joke.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so if someone commits a crime against you, and this is taken seriously, this is a "privilege," rather than a right to be free from assault?

Jesse said:
10. Female privilege is being able to divorce your spouse when your marriage is no longer working because you know you will most likely be granted custody of your children.

Malcolm wrote:
You do understand that when men and women divorce, it used to be the case that the standard of living for divorced women with children declines 37% while a man's improved. This has changed in the last decade or so because of improvements in pay equity. These days both men and women can expect a decrease of about 25% in standard of living following a divorce. Some privilege.

Jesse said:
11. Female privilege is being able to call the police in a domestic dispute knowing they will take your side. Female privilege is not having your gender work against where police are involved.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a privilege, this based on the fact that men beat women and children. It is a preventative measure which prevents a great number of assaults and murders. So, not a privilege.

Jesse said:
12. Female privilege is being able to be caring or empathetic without people being surprised.

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, you are really reaching on this one.

Jesse said:
13. Female privilege is not having to take your career seriously because you can depend on marrying someone who makes more money than you do. Female privilege is being able to be a “stay at home mom” and not seem like a loser.

Malcolm wrote:
This is so wrong on so many levels. This is not reflected in today's economy on any level.

Jesse said:
14. Female privilege is being able to cry your way out of a speeding ticket.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, no, this is a result of male sexism.

Jesse said:
15. Female privilege is being favored by teachers in elementary, middle and high school. Female privilege is graduating high school more often, being accepted to more colleges, and generally being encouraged and supported along the way.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is really nonsense.

Jesse said:
16. Female privilege being able to have an opinion without someone tell you you’re just Misogynist .”

Malcolm wrote:
No, they just get, "Why are you being such a bitch?"

Jesse said:
17. Female privilege is being able to talk about sexism without appearing self-serving.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is a result of the fact that there is sexism against women, it is pervasive, and it is damaging to the people who experience it and perpetrate it, both.

Jesse said:
18. Female privilege is arrogantly believing that sexism only applies to women.

Malcolm wrote:
You have yet to demonstrate any so called female privilege at all.  A women's right to her own body is a right, not a privilege. Since the legal definition of life begins in the second trimester, in this country women have the right to choose. I support the right to choose, but not abortion itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:


Jesse said:
I don't know any feminists. The only experience I have with them is online. Like I said if there are more moderate feminists, I have never heard from them. I thought feminism was a good idea until I started reading articles written by them, because they do indeed reek of an anti-men sentiment, entitlement, and pure generalized judging of all 'white men'. Which I find it incredibly stupid.

There was an article not too long ago where a group of feminists wanted their school principle to be fired unless he made a public announcement at his school acknowledging and apologizing for his 'white male privilege', etc.

Malcolm wrote:
But there is such a thing as white male privilege.

Jesse said:
There forums are filled with questions on how to 'educate' men in their lives of how privileged they are etc. If you go and point out the ways in which women are privileged, you'll instantly be cast a misogynist, verbally attacked and usually quickly banned.

Malcolm wrote:
White women are privileged with respect to their race, but not their gender.

Jesse said:
Women also have privileges in society which men do not. I'm sure everyone can think of at least a few.

Malcolm wrote:
For example?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:


Jesse said:
There is no such thing as systematic sexism against women...

Malcolm wrote:
There absolutely such systematic sexism against women:
In a different vein, Professor Marsha Freeman notes with regard to the constitution of the United States of America: “The US constitution, 14th Amendment, has been read to prohibit discrimination against women, but the test is not as rigorous as it is with respect to race discrimination-that is, women’s protection is to a lesser standard.” She later asserts: “The effort to expand the constitutional protection died a generation ago.”348 Other shortcomings were identified in the shadow report submitted to the Human Rights Committee prior to its consideration of the second and third reports of
the United States of America:

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provision has not been consistently interpreted as protecting women from sex discrimination, and it has not been interpreted to require strict scrutiny of sex-based classifications. Instead, the standard ranges from requiring a ‘rational basis’ for sex-based distinctions to requiring an ‘exceedingly persuasive’ justification. The Fourteenth Amendment has not been] interpreted to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. Nor does it protect women from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth. Further, the amendment has been interpreted to require a demonstration of discriminatory intent; it is not sufficient that a law or policy has a disproportionate impact on one sex.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf

This is why we still need an equal rights amendment [ERA].

Jesse said:
There are plenty of women who disagree with feminism.

Malcolm wrote:
Generally conservative, generally white Christian, who have generally thrown in their lot with defense of patriarchy.



Jesse said:
As I recall there were numerous points made, not a single one.


Malcolm wrote:
In general all of the points raised were a result of sexist policies promulgated by men, and not women.

Jesse said:
The only feminism I see anymore is extremist feminism as shown in the first two links in the OP. IF there are more moderate feminists out there it's rare to hear from them, and most feminists would call them 'fake feminists' anyways.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to get out more.

Jesse said:
Men experience similar sexism from society.

Malcolm wrote:
Only as a Fox News anti-feminist talking point. Otherwise, this idea is plain nonsense.

Jesse said:
Yet men are seen to have no right to question feminist principles without being ostracized, judged, and called misogynists. Equality means equal, it doesn't mean women get more rights than men, or women get to do things men can't do.

Malcolm wrote:
Women have same rights as men, but experience discrimination because of their gender. Men do not experience discrimination because of their gender, even though some of them may wish to believe it is so.

Jesse said:
men aren't discriminated against, you are generalizing and discriminating.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote][/quote]

Men certainly experience discrimination, but not because of their gender.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Jesse said:
[

Women point out sexism towards them = hero's, victims, deserve sympathy.
Males point out sexism towards them = Misogynist, racists, deserves condemnation

Any criticism of feminism automatically makes you prejudiced, and racist, and deluded. There's no need to examine facts, or counterarguments because the forgone conclusion is that anyone who challenges feminism is bad and in need of correction.

Malcolm wrote:
Sexism and racism are a function of power differentials. Sexism is not just biases like "A women's place is in the kitchen." That is too simplistic.

Gender disparity includes all kinds of issues, like unrecognized household work, the fact that there are very few women in STEM occupations, which are 90% men; that professions where women dominate are sorely underpaid, and even then, women in these positions make less than their make counterparts.

In order to prove that there is systematic sexism against men in our society, you would have to also demonstrate the power differentials through which such disparities happen. Claiming for example that most military casualties are male, for example, is a clear result of barring women from active combat duty until just a couple of weeks ago.

There is no sexism against white men. There are consequences for white men, such as a diminishing power differential in our society that causes some white men to feel discriminated against, but anyone who thinks that there is sufficient gender parity in this society to make the claim that there is a serious problem of discrimination against men is just laughable, the sort of ignorant silliness one sees on Fox and Friends.

And yes, there is a connection between racism and sexism, both are a result of patriarchy, so indeed sexism and racism do go hand in hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Taco_Rice said:
I commented on the past lives of Feminists and stated that these ideologues exploit four things in men to maintain their political power:


Malcolm wrote:
hahahahahahaha. Political power?

Congress is only 20% women, in other words, there are only 2 women for every 8 men in the House and the Senate, yet they are the majority population in the US. So please...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think the entire usage of the three own natures is entirely problematical, and even though they interpret it differently than Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu, it still causes their doctrine to be involved in internal contradictions. Longchenpa avoids these problems by adhering both to Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view and the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras the definitive sūtras.


sherabpa said:
I accept this, but I do not take the incorporation of the 3 natures as the sine qua non of zhentong.  It is a transmission lineage focussing on certain sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
You can call it that if you want, I call it a distorted presentation of the three natures theory.
The other problem I have with gzhan stong is their overly dogmatic adherence to a historical scheme of the three turnings, a scheme which is not derived from Indian Buddhism at all, but rather from Wonho's vast commentary on the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra. There is absolutely no evidence that the tathāgatagarbha sūtras should be considered part of that turning at all. The only people who make this claim are Tibetans. I have done a lot of research in the canon on three turnings, and the way it is used by Buton on down basically is without any Indian precedent.
Very interesting!  But if we agree the BN sutras are definitive, it is a moot point.
It is not a moot point at all, since it is the way these sūtras are interpreted defines whether they are definitive or provisional.

Kongtrul's commentary is basically just a rewrite of Rongton Sheja Kunrig's, and cannot be considered a gzhan stong presentation, despite Shenphan Hookham's best attempt to force it into one.
Except for his direct quoting of Mikyo Dorje's Zhentong text, and Dolpopa, and the first Karma Thinleypa, as well as his detailed lineage history in the introduction, i.e the transmission from Maitripa to Zu and Tsen, which he explicitly calls zhentong.
The fact that he recounts different transmission lineages, for example, differentiating Ngog's from Zu, does not make his over all presentation gzhan stong, despite his own obvious preferences. Likewise, Dolbupa's commentary on the Uttaratantra is pretty disappointing if you are looking for some defining gzhan stong feature in it, which it utterly lacks.

The rangtong-zhentong dichotomy was invented by gzhan stong pas themselves, decades before Tsongkhapa wrote a single word. Rang stong is straw man invented by the gzhan stong pas.  Nobody accepts that the distinction actually exists apart from gzhan stong pas.
The distinction between affirming and non-affirming negation obviously exists, only the terminology is in dispute.  If you think it is not useful at the present time, that is another matter.  My (Kagyu) teachers think it is useful.
[/quote]

These negations are not necessarily understood the same way by everyone. But it has become fashionable to assume that the Gelug definition of a non-affirming negation is the one that is universally meant. For example, Rongzom clearly defines the affirming negation as a proof of your own position, whereas a non-affirming negation is the rejection of another's position. So for him, the Madhyamaka only uses the non-affirming negation, they do not use an affirming negation at all since they have no position to prove, viz existence or nonexistence. {He criticizes Madhyamaka however, also, for other reasons].

Basically both rang stong and gzhan stong are easily refuted just by looking at the MMK. The refutation of rang stong is:
If there were something subtle that was not empty there would be something subtle to be empty;
but as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?
The refutation of gzhan stong is:
Since arising, abiding and ceasing are are not established, the conditioned is not established, 
if the conditioned is not established, how can the unconditioned be established?
There is no object of refutation not included in these two stanzas of the MMK, and they are unassailable. Simply put, gzhan stong is a view more crude than real Madhyamaka. It can be a stepping stone to a more subtle view, but it is not itself that subtle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Jesse said:
5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die
http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Malcolm wrote:
Written by a conservative shill.

Jesse said:
No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

Malcolm wrote:
Written by the same conservative shill

Jesse said:
5 Ways Society Discriminates Against Men
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/08/5-ways-society-discriminates-against-men/

Malcolm wrote:
And for this one, well:
Bloomfield, A Voice for Men’s “Director of Social Media,” was recently booted from Twitter (again) for “targeted abuse” — evidently her harassment of feminist writer Jessica Valenti, which included making up inflammatory fake quotations and attributing them to her.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/01/01/janet-judgybitch-bloomfield-tries-to-lie-her-way-out-of-a-twitter-suspension-heres-proof-of-her-targeted-abuse/

Jesse said:
http://www.realsexism.com/

Malcolm wrote:
None of these statistics are a result of sexism of women towards men. All of these stats are a result sexism of men towards women.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Right, but in every single presentation of gzhan stong, the distinguishing explanation is based on a presentation of the three natures basically unique to the gzhan stong school.

sherabpa said:
Not so, e.g. Kongtrul's commentary on the Uttaratantrashastra.

Malcolm wrote:
Kongtrul's commentary is basically just a rewrite of Rongton Sheja Kunrig's, and cannot be considered a gzhan stong presentation, despite Shenphan Hookham's best attempt to force it into one.



There is no reason to consider oneself a gzhan stong pa, even if one accepts the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras definitive.

sherabpa said:
Except that our lineage masters styled it this way.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean Kagyus?


sherabpa said:
You have pointed out that, apart from the 3 natures, there is nothing very distinctive about this view.  This is correct.  However, place that view in the context of hundreds of years of the Ganden non-affirming negation hegemony, and the rangtong-zhentong dichotomy and vocabulary starts to look quite appealing.

Malcolm wrote:
The rangtong-zhentong dichotomy was invented by gzhan stong pas themselves, decades before Tsongkhapa wrote a single word. Rang stong is straw man invented by the gzhan stong pas.  Nobody accepts that the distinction actually exists apart from gzhan stong pas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it is really, really accurate. For example, Longchenpa regards the ten tathāgatagarbha sūtras as definitive, but no where in his explanation of tathāgatagarbha does he resort to the use of the three own natures to explain tathāgatagarbha theory with respect to the two truths.

sherabpa said:
Is this an aspect of Zhentong you have a problem with?  I can think of only a couple of times where the three natures are mentioned in Zhentong texts, i.e. Rangjung Dorje mentions them in the Zabmo Nangdon and the Nyingpo Tenpa.  As I recall you don't accept Rangjung Dorje as a Zhentongpa anyway, so is there a problem?

Malcolm wrote:
I think the entire usage of the three own natures is entirely problematical, and even though they interpret it differently than Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu, it still causes their doctrine to be involved in internal contradictions. Longchenpa avoids these problems by adhering both to Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view and the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras the definitive sūtras.

I would not really consider Rangjung Dorje a gzhan stong pa. But he was one of the first Tibetans to use the three own natures novel ways in his texts.

The other problem I have with gzhan stong is their overly dogmatic adherence to a historical scheme of the three turnings, a scheme which is not derived from Indian Buddhism at all, but rather from Wonho's vast commentary on the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra. There is absolutely no evidence that the tathāgatagarbha sūtras should be considered part of that turning at all. The only people who make this claim are Tibetans. I have done a lot of research in the canon on three turnings, and the way it is used by Buton on down basically is without any Indian precedent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
So it seems to me that as of this posting the Tathagatagarbha should be considered a "view" in its own right. I personally am not so attached to the 3 natures paradigm for instance.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, but in every single presentation of gzhan stong, the distinguishing explanation is based on a presentation of the three natures basically unique to the gzhan stong school.

There is no reason to consider oneself a gzhan stong pa, even if one accepts the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras definitive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
smcj said:
Brunnholzl does include how things developed historically to support his thesis, including what he calls Indian writers who were precursors to the later Tibetan writers. His view seems credible to me. However I've not heard a detailed presentation to the contrary.

sherabpa said:
Jamgon Kongtrul gives a lineage in his introduction to the Uttaratantrashastra.  I'm sure Brunnholzl is quite correct in his tracing of the lineage.  I'm just stressing for Zhentongpas the origins are the sutras on the Buddha nature, as well as Maitreya's 5 shastras, especially the Uttaratantrashastra.  So to say it is a combination of yogacara - which normally means the teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu - and tathagatagarbha, is not really accurate.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is really, really accurate. For example, Longchenpa regards the ten tathāgatagarbha sūtras as definitive, but no where in his explanation of tathāgatagarbha does he resort to the use of the three own natures to explain tathāgatagarbha theory with respect to the two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Lamas and Monks that Drink and Smoke - Is it Normal?
Content:
Ayu said:
The worst thing about tobacco smoking is it's addictive power.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the worst thing about tobacco is that it takes up the radioactive isotope Polonium 210, which is why habitual smoking of tobacco causes lung cancer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Jesse said:
All men are violent, anti-feminist, misogynists, racists, rapists, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not all, just the ones that are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:


Jesse said:
Sorry, you're full of it, and so are these women. Women are pretty damned equal.

Malcolm wrote:
Educate yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariel-smilowitz/for-us-women-inequality-takes-many-forms_b_7064348.html


Jesse said:
Common complaints are 'white male privilege' don't make me laugh. As if every single white male is somehow automatically treated better then women. In fact women have it much easier than men in many areas. Women in general are treated better than men.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously, what planet do you live on? Generally speaking, white men have it easy in this country. I am one.

Jesse said:
Men who feel the need to defend the honor of uptight, spoiled egocentric women need to have their heads examined, honesty.

Malcolm wrote:
This a pretty sexist remark, which itself is telling. I don't need to defend the "honor" of any women, as if somehow we are discussing someone's chastity which needs defending. No, I am pointing out the bare fact that women have not achieved parity in our society, not by a long shot.




Jesse said:
I'm not threatened by feminism. Hypocrisy, idiocy and entitlement piss me off. I have no problem pointing it out.

Malcolm wrote:
I suppose you are against affirmative action as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Male victimhood....yawn.

Jesse said:
Same thing I think every-time I read feminist rants.

Malcolm wrote:
The reality is that women do deal with discrimination all the time. They make 30 percent less than men in the same exact jobs, on average; they are discriminated against still in so many areas of society. Anyone who does not think we do not live in a patriarchal society where women are severely disadvantaged at every turn needs to wake up.

Those men who find themselves threatened by feminism need to have their heads examined.

Jesse said:
It's all nothing but hypocrisy.

Malcolm wrote:
This kind of totalizing dismissal is exactly the problem women face everyday.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 26th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Medicine Buddha Sutra in Tibetan
Content:
kirtu said:
I did have links to the ACIP material but either their server is down or they reorganized the links (I'll check later today).
ACIP is in the process of moving their Tibetan texts to the Red Hat Cloud.  And they are unavailable during this process.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
They are all here:

http://tibetan.works/etext/

And the Tengyur interface is here:

http://www.aciparchive.org/ace/#col%28tendg%29


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: 70% of American Buddhists believe in God?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Merry Christmas everyone, it's a wonderful day to celebrate
the precious human rebirth of Jesus / Isaa, since it seems quite likely
he was a Buddhist yogi and his references to God had the same connotations as the American Buddhists here  : http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html

Malcolm wrote:
Very unlikely he was a Buddhist of any stripe at all, and there is absolutely no credible evidence for any of the Jesus in Indian legends. Jeez, you are starting to sound like Michael Roach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: What is wrong with feminists these days?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Male victimhood....yawn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 11:07 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
AFAIK

Yogacara:
Imputed Nature - False
Dependent Nature - True
Perfected Nature - True

Shentong:
Imputed Nature - False
Dependent Nature - False
Perfected Nature - True

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 11:07 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
sherabpa said:
Also, if you are bothered by the fact that Maitreya doesn't mention 3 natures of 8 consciousnesses in the Uttaratantrashastra, consider equally why these are mentioned by Buddha in the Sandhinirmochana or Lankavatara sutra but not in the sutras of the second turning.  The 84,000 teachings of Buddha are given for different capacities and inclinations, it is that simple.

Malcolm wrote:
Maitreyanatha mentions both in the Sūtrālaṃkara, which is his grand synthesis of the three main strands of Mahāyāna sūtra: Prajñāpāramita, Yogacara and Tathāgatagarbha. Uttaratantra is solely focused on explicating tathāgatagarbha sūtras; the two vibhangas are focused on Yogacara, and the Abhisamayālaṃkara is focused on explicating the Prajñāpāramita sūtras. It is that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


sherabpa said:
Shentong has some of the same sources as yogacara and the tathagatagarbha 'doctrine'.  This does not mean Shentong is a combination of yogacara and tathagatagarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Lamas and Monks that Drink and Smoke - Is it Normal?
Content:
Nosta said:
Is it aceptable for a Lama or a Monk to get drunk?

Malcolm wrote:
It is never acceptable to get drunk such that one loses mindfulnesses. That being said, most of the Lamas I have known over the years have been lay people, and most of them drink moderately.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 25th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha's mind is the Dharmakaya. If the Dharmakaya is unconditioned, Buddha is inert, and his merit is therefore inert, but he produces emanations?

Malcolm wrote:
You are making a false equivalency, i.e., unconditioned = insentience. What is the basis for such a claim?

Tsongkhapafan said:
There's no such thing as an unconditioned mind...

Malcolm wrote:
There is such a thing as unconditioned pristine consciousness or wisdom [jñāna]. You certainly accept, as the Perfection of Wisdom sutra states:
The original nature of the mind is luminosity.
The Nirvana Sūtra states very simply:
Luminosity is pristine consciousness [aka wisdom].
In the Bhavyakīrti's commentary on Aryādeva's  Clear Lamp states:
"Freedom from arising and ceasing" is luminosity, because it is unconditioned.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha's mind is the Dharmakaya. If the Dharmakaya is unconditioned, Buddha is inert, and his merit is therefore inert, but he produces emanations?

Malcolm wrote:
You are making a false equivalency, i.e., unconditioned = insentience. What is the basis for such a claim?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Yale Students sign petition to repeal 1st amendment
Content:
Tenso said:
Very disgusting to see what academia has become. Nothing but left leaning brain washing institutions run by washed up hippies from the 60s.

Malcolm wrote:
You really are out of it. Universities in the US have swerved right since the late 70's. This idea that American universities are filled with hippy professors is complete and total nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


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

cloudburst said:
Gyaltsab Je indicates that it has three characteristics, pure, clear and luminous.

The Seventh Dalai Lama says that tathagatagarba is the union of clarity and emptiness.

Even Sakyas like Deshung Rinpoche and Khyentse Wangchuck say that the tathagatagarbha is clear light, conditioned and conventional.

All phenomena have two natures.

Malcolm wrote:
The Sakya position, at least as outlined by Gorampa, is that neither clarity nor emptiness can be considered suitable basis for tathāgatagarbha, i.e. a suitable basis for liberation. It can't be clarity, because in the Sakya system, clarity is considered conditioned; it can't be emptiness, because that would be the same as an arhat's cessation. The union of clarity and emptiness can be considered tathāgatagarbha because that union itself is unconditioned. But Gorampa would never admit that tathāgatagarbha is conditioned. To claim so is to contradict the Buddha directly. Why? For the simple reason that the tagāthagarbha is a just a name for dharmakāya encased in afflictions; but that dharmakāya is always unconditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I thought you said there was some new stuff in the Khandro Nyingthig?

Malcolm wrote:
There appears to be some instructions in the KN which are shared with the Five Stages of Ghantapāda. Other than that, nothing "new."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
In all seriousness, isn't the Shambhala stuff considered to be terma? There must be new material in there.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? What new could there possibly be that is not already included in creation stage and completion stage, etc.?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:


cloudburst said:
Am I not remembering correctly that last year around this time you lamented that the blessings of the Guhyagharba were lost due to the publication of some new translation?

Malcolm wrote:
Not me.

cloudburst said:
To clarify, you think it is ok for someone who has not received, let's say a particular transmission and empowerment, to read a sealed text? For example, if someone had received Guhyasamaja empowerment in sarma, could they read a restricted commentary on the khandro nyingthig, without fearing adverse consequences?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not my job to decide what is ok and what is not ok for individuals. If they were to follow my example, they would seriously try and get the transmission for whatever interested them. On the other hand, do I think that some dharmapāla is going to split open the head of someone who reads it, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no doubt termas are important, but not because of the information contained in the texts. They are important because of the shortness of the lineage. Such revelations actually contain nothing new or different than what has come before and is older.

dzogchungpa said:
I'm curious, would you be able to hazard a guess as to the last time new information was actually revealed, if ever?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, 11th-12th century or so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Problems in a lineage come when a) the guru is not a qualified one, b) students fight with each other.

Mother's Lap said:
Say Terton A passes down his terma down through to the seventh generation lineage holder. All these lineage holders were perfect in practice and commitments, and only they gave empowerments out to various disciples. All the 'branch' disciples were bad apples without exception. Does the terma continue to have blessings considering it has a 'white trunk' but the branches are all rotten, if that makes sense?

Malcolm wrote:
I have no idea and don't want to speculate.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are no secrets anymore.

kirtu said:
Sure there are.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there really aren't, not of any substance. Some apotropaic practices may be secret, but they hardly represent the main point of the teachings.

Things have changed. In 1990, many things were secret. Now everything has been published.


kirtu said:
However, pertaining to the original question, in the mid-late 1000's, Sherab Tsultrim started* the Sakya lineage over exactly this issue.  Prior to this period the Khön family had been Nyingma.  But after some tantric practices were demonstrated publicly as if they were an athletic contest, he said that the blessings had left and told his younger brother, Khön Konchok Gyalpo, to study the Sarma tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
Specifically it was Mamo dances performed at a harvest festival. Nevertheless, to this day the main practice of the Khon remains Nyingma. The reason for this is that once Khon Khonchog Gyalpo buried all these Nyingma teachings in a stupa, he had a dream where the protectors told him to remove Kilaya and Yangdag from concealment and to maintain the practice in the Khon family in perpetuity. The main eight deity Sakya protectors also come from terma lineages, as witnessed by their inclusion in the Rinchen Terzö. \

So are we going to maintain that all of these formerly secret practices that have now been published, such as Mahamudra, Lamdre, Dzogchen, Kalacakra, Lama Chopa, etc., are all finished because their details can be found in any major library? I think not. The teachings of the Dharma do not not become ineffective because they are disseminated. They become ineffective, if, like medicine, they are not taken.

In any case, what causes problems in the lineage is not publishing books, that is the least of it. Problems in a lineage come when a) the guru is not a qualified one, b) students fight with each other.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 24th, 2015 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
tingdzin said:
This may also be the reason that, as Dudjom Rinpoche said, these days Nyingmapa practice is especially dependent on the tertons, as tertons go to the source as it were, and get a fresh start.  Frequently termas are referred to as "still having the warm breath of the dakinis attached to them".

Malcolm wrote:
There is no doubt termas are important, but not because of the information contained in the texts. They are important because of the shortness of the lineage. Such revelations actually contain nothing new or different than what has come before and is older. And we should keep in mind what Nyangral Nyima Ozer writes in his catalogue for the Dharma of the Great Ḍākinī [ Mkha 'gro chen mo'i chos ]:
In the future, there will be very many Treasure Dharmas with little blessing.

tingdzin said:
And yes, there are still some secrets. I have a friend who has been trying for years to get certain transmissions, but even the most generous lamas refuse to give them.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not mean the contents of those teachings are actually "secret" in the sense that the information in them is not contained in a hundred different texts. It just means that the lamas in question value the integrity of the lineage to a certain degree and wish to give it only to a few disciples. An example of this is the Sde gsum teachings of the Choling Tersar. Lineage is regarded as more important than the actual information in the body of the teachings, upadeshas are favored over tantras, etc.

tingdzin said:
Probably at least in part because they know that these teachings would show up on the internet within a month if they gave them to a Westerner...

Malcolm wrote:
Rather than getting down on westerners, we should remember that it is Tibetans who have published all these "secret" teachings openly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: At what age is it appropriate to discuss Emptiness/No-Se
Content:


Techno Yogi said:
This article discusses emptiness from a Madhamikya perspective, and uses a concrete example (growing carrots) to explain it:

If phenomena don’t independently exist than how do they exist? The Middle Way tells us that they dependently exist in three fundamental ways. First, phenomena exist dependent upon causes and conditions. For example, carrots depend upon soil, sunlight, moisture, freedom from rodents, and so forth. Second, phenomena depend upon the whole and its parts. Carrots depend upon its greens, stem, root hairs, and so on and the totality of all these parts. Third, and most profoundly, phenomena depend upon mental imputation, attribution, or designation. From the rich panoply of experience, I collect the sense qualities, personal associations, and psychological reactions to carrots together, and name them or designate them as "carrot." The mind’s proper functioning is to construct its world, the only world we can know. The error enters because along with naming comes the false attribution of inherent existence, that foundation for desire and aversion.

For the Middle Way, dependent arising is a complementary way of describing emptiness. We can understand them as two different views of the same truth. Therefore, contrary to our untutored beliefs, the ultimate nature of phenomena is its dependency and relatedness, not isolated existence and independence.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a completely incorrect explanation of the Madhyamaka. There is no such thing as "dependent existence" in Madhyamaka teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Yale Students sign petition to repeal 1st amendment
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Part of the problem is that no one can write today, 20 years ago my writing skills were c+, these days they earn me automatic A's.

Malcolm wrote:
No one has been able to write since the 1970's. For example, the first thing I did when I went to school [Harvard Extension] was take a mandatory year of grammar and focused on writing intensive courses. I literally could not write effectively until then.

The problem does not begin in high school, it begins in grade 1.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Yale Students sign petition to repeal 1st amendment
Content:


Paul said:
Time for a moratorium on non-STEM courses in western universities. Give it ten years and then we can start up the liberal arts courses again, hopefully without all the Marxist nonsense that's embedded itself in academia for decades.

Malcolm wrote:
Ahh....the right wing myth of Marxism dominating Academia. That has not been true in the US Academy for at least thirty years.

Paul said:
Well that's me convinced.

Malcolm wrote:
Be informed:
Although we would not contest the claim that professors are one of the most liberal occupational groups in American society, or that the professoriate is a Democratic stronghold, we have shown that there is a sizable, and often ignored, center/center-left contingent within the faculty; that on several important attitude domains – and in terms of overall political orientation – moderatism appears to be on the upswing; that, according to several measures, it is liberal arts colleges, and not elite, PhD granting institutions that house the most liberal faculty; and that there is much disagreement among professors about the role that politics should play in teaching and research.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.6141&rep=rep1&type=pdf


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Yale Students sign petition to repeal 1st amendment
Content:


Paul said:
Time for a moratorium on non-STEM courses in western universities. Give it ten years and then we can start up the liberal arts courses again, hopefully without all the Marxist nonsense that's embedded itself in academia for decades.

Malcolm wrote:
Ahh....the right wing myth of Marxism dominating Academia. That has not been true in the US Academy for at least thirty years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't. Dharmakāya is realized for one's own benefit. The two rūpakāyas are realized for the benefit of others.

Tenso said:
Sambhogakaya is also for one's own personal benefit, no? If not then why is it called the body of bliss/enjoyment?

Malcolm wrote:
It is realized for the benefit of ārya trainees on the eighth bhumi and beyond. Sambhoga means "enjoying together." Enjoying what? The Mahāyāna Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Yale Students sign petition to repeal 1st amendment
Content:
Jesse said:
This has to be about the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Yale students are totally for repealing the first amendment in order to 'create a safespace' where no one's feelings get hurt. What the hell is wrong with kids these days?

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:
You do realize that Ami Horowitz is a right wing satirist?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
There are two parts to the Dharmakaya - the Wisdom Truth Body and the Nature Body, which correspond to the functioning omniscient mind of Buddha and the emptiness of that mind respectively. The Nature Body is unconditioned because it's an ultimate truth and the ultimate true cessation.

Malcolm wrote:
This is according to the interpretation of Haribhadra. This is not actually found in the sūtras, per se.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Can you please explain to me how an unconditioned Dharmakaya functions to benefit sentient beings?

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't. Dharmakāya is realized for one's own benefit. The two rūpakāyas are realized for the benefit of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:


pemachophel said:
In any case, I live in a place where there is a very large Tibetan Buddhist community and has been for 40 years. Sorry to say, I don't get much of a sense of accomplishment from many really long-time practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
Unless one is clairvoyant, one's sense of the progress of other practitioners is bound to be sheathed in misconceptions. Anyway, all that really matters is that one wakes up in the bardo of dharmatā. Exhibiting signs of realization in this life is just not that important. And if one has received proper instruction in Dzogchen teachings, waking up in the bardo is a certainty, not a guess or an aspiration.

Happy Solstice!!!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
pemachophel said:
The way many Tibetan Lamas teach Vajra Armor, They make it sound (at least to me) that one can expect results in a single retreat.

Malcolm wrote:
The original text revealed by Dorje Lingpa specifies a short retreat of a few days. I know many practitioners who have undertaken the Dorje Gotrab retreat and experienced positive benefits from using this mantra, myself included. It is a Dzogchen related practice, so there is no particular visualization and so on that one needs to do.

There are also later revelations of Dorje Gotrab that are more related to Anuyoga, with visualizations and so on. But the root text is strictly a Dzogchen practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Deleting of Samayas
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek DW members,


Maybe a strange thing, but how can we delete some taken Tantric Samayas ?
We all know how to maintain Samayas and how to restore these commitments, but how to delete them to the roots, that is to me not so known.

KY

Malcolm wrote:
If you break your root samayas, you delete them from the root. But this is really hard to do.

Basically, there only real samaya is being committed to liberation, one's own and all others. If you abandon this commitment, you abandon the rest. If you keep this commitment, you keep the rest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Do tantras lose their power when they're exposed publicl
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This might be an issue with some of the more ritually oriented tantras, but not Dzogchen tantras, in general. After all, what harm can one inflict with the nature of the mind?

tingdzin said:
Well, we are talking about tantras in general here.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I addressed these concerns as well. There is also other factors — why, for example, do we need to keep information like the function of the five or ten vāyus, channels and cakras secret, when they are basically open for discussion in Yoga and so on, as well as Ayurveda and Tibetan medicine? It does not make any sense at all.

The fact is the cat is out of the bag (was it ever in?). Yidams are on tshirts. Mantras are on bumperstickers. Many of the major tantras are in English translation, available on Amazon. If you want to go have a dip in Tantric Exoticism, just go to the Rubin in NYC, buy a glass of bubbly, and wander the exhibits where the transgressive art of Genesis Bryer P-Orridge rubs shoulders with ancient masterpieces of Tibet.

There are no secrets anymore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 22nd, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, The Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
The real is the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata; the unconditioned is the parinirvana...
The Avatamska Sūtra states:
The dharmakāya is the kāya that never comes nor goes, it is the indestructible kāya because it is unconditioned.
Abhakaragupta states in his Moonrays commentary on Perfection of Wisdom in 18,000 lines:
The dharmakāya is the unconditioned ultimate of the bhagavans.
Or Jñānacandra's commentary on Nāgārjuna's Praise to the Three Kāyas states:
The dharmakāya is exclusively permanent by nature, and because of that, it is therefore unconditioned.
Advayavajra writes in his Five Natures:
The unconditioned mind is dharmakāya,
permanence is the characteristics of the sambhogakāya,
diversity itself is the nirmanakāya,
the original state is the nature of everything.


