﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 19th, 2015 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change: Caused by human activi
Content:
WeiHan said:
I am the only one that vote NO. There is no global warming. It is a hoax created by corrupted politicians and quack scientists so that they can leverage more tax money to support their further corruption.

The plot of the average earth temperature with that of the activities of the Sun shows that it swing up and down in phase with the activities of the sun. In other words, temperature of earth moves in cycle and corelates more with the cycle of the activities of the Sun than anything else.

Malcolm wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming is the scientific consensus, whether you like it or not.

WeiHan said:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Malcolm wrote:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Here is a list of the all the scientific organizations that consent to that position:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

So you are really going to go out on a limb and say that all of these scientific organizations made up of "quacks?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 19th, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Dropping Jesus
Content:
Queequeg said:
Are means which draw a person closer to total awakening yet not completely, not upaya?

Malcolm wrote:
The question you ought to asking yourself is whether the two worldly traditions you have identified as "upāya" will draw a person anywhere even within the vicinity of total awakening, let alone near it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 19th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Dropping Jesus
Content:
Queequeg said:
Jesus?

Upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not an upāya, either for his followers, nor for Buddhists who do not have any need for Jesus.


Queequeg said:
Mohamed?

Upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not an upāya, either for his followers, nor for Buddhists who do not have any need for Muhammed.

Queequeg said:
Buddha?

Not upaya?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha is the definitive meaning for Buddhists, so no, again, not an upāya.

Queequeg said:
Upaya. All upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Not everything is an upāya.

Queequeg said:
How do you define upaya?

Malcolm wrote:
A means used to bring people to the definitive meaning which is the Buddha, i.e. the state of total awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Maintaining Motivation
Content:


Anders said:
How would one go about regulating this element to address such a disorder then?

Malcolm wrote:
Yantra yoga, prāṇayāma, eating a vata pacifying diet and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So should Buddhists avoid sacrificed meat?
Meaning, that one should not be present at a sacrifice or a festival celebrating such a sacrifice and partake of that meat.

Urgyen Dorje said:
Thanks for the clarification.  I hear what you're saying and appreciate it.

For me, I don't see the difference between the ritual sacrifice of Eid al-Adha and ritual sacrifice of dabihah (making halal meat).  I don't think a Buddhist should be present at either, or partake of the meat of either.

Malcolm wrote:
So then in that case you, as a Vajrayāna practitioner, are condemning that animal to further samsara by refusing to partake of its meat at all. It is one thing to refuse lobster mistakenly killed for you by a host. The purpose of this is to make it clear that it is not an honor to slaughter animals for guests in order to prevent the idea that Buddhist monks in particular will be partial to those who kill their best animals in return for prayers and so on. It is quite another thing, if one is a meat eater, to refuse a kosher frank on the grounds that is was slaughtered according to a religious custom in which one played no part and refuse to consume it according to criteria laid out for the beneficial consumption of meat by lamas like ChNN and Kunzang Dechen Lingpa. Ironically, virtually all of the meat eaten by Tibetans in Lhasa in the past, and these days in, India is Halal. There have been some very blatantly racist attempts by Tibetans in Tibet to get Tibetans to stop eating in Muslim resturants (such as the story that they gather the lice that feed on country people, the resulting human blood from which makes their food more tasty, or that they use the foot washing water of Imams to somehow magically convert people to Islam), but nevertheless, Tibetans continue to frequent Muslim restaurants and eat halal meat everywhere they are.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Interview with Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje on the Nyingmapa V
Content:
DENZONG said:
To whom does the Taktse Nyingma Institute, Gangtok, Sikkim. Belong to, who is the owner of the property?

Malcolm wrote:
Khenchen Rigzin Dorje, who graduated from the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath, and is actually very learned.

http://nyingmainstitutemartam.org/Institute.aspx


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
MiphamFan said:
What's incoherent?

He said yes, Buddhists should avoid halal/kosher meat. Sounds coherent to me.

Urgyen Dorje said:
I was responding to an earlier post, where Malcolm said this:
I did not say that Buddhists ought not eat halal/kosher meat, I said they should not attend such festivals, in the same way they should not attend the sacrificial pujas at Dakshin-kali in Nepal, or animal sacrifices in Africa and so on.
Before I submitted that response, he clarified, in response to your question actually, and said Buddhists shouldn't eat halal or kosher meat.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that actually. As far as I am concerned it is fine, as long as you don't order the animal killed yourself, see it killed, etc.


I answered this question:
So should Buddhists avoid sacrificed meat?
Meaning, that one should not be present at a sacrifice or a festival celebrating such a sacrifice and partake of that meat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Dropping Jesus
Content:
Queequeg said:
Jesus?

Upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not an upāya, either for his followers, nor for Buddhists who do not have any need for Jesus.


Queequeg said:
Mohamed?

Upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not an upāya, either for his followers, nor for Buddhists who do not have any need for Muhammed.

Queequeg said:
Buddha?

Not upaya?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha is the definitive meaning for Buddhists, so no, again, not an upāya.

Queequeg said:
Upaya. All upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Not everything is an upāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Malcolm...

It is an incoherent argument to suggest that Buddhists should not attend Eid al-Adha (agreed) but that Buddhists eating halal or koshet meat is fine.  If you look at it closely, dabihah, ritual slaughter of animals for halal meat, is effectively ritual sacrifice as Allah's name must be evoked, the animal's head turn to the qibla, the direction of prayer, towards Mecca, the Qaaba, and so on.

The other aspect is that halal slaughter maximizes the suffering of the animal, so it is no different than Eid al-Adha.  The animals are not stunned before theyir throats are slit.

Even if a Buddhist eats meat through the three purities and so on, unless halal is given as alms or as a gift fron a host, I would think a Buddhist would avoid halal like contagion.

But that's just me.

MiphamFan said:
What's incoherent?

He said yes, Buddhists should avoid halal/kosher meat. Sounds coherent to me.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I did not say one should avoid either. Once the animal is dead, it is dead and there is no further suffering one is causing by going to a Middle Eastern Restaurant, for example, run by Muslims and ordering the lamb kabob. Same with a Kosher frank.

The problem lies in supporting a religious activity predicated on ignorance, not in eating meat itself.

The question of meat eating is separate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Malcolm...

It is an incoherent argument to suggest that Buddhists should not attend Eid al-Adha (agreed) but that Buddhists eating halal or koshet meat is fine.  If you look at it closely, dabihah, ritual slaughter of animals for halal meat, is effectively ritual sacrifice as Allah's name must be evoked, the animal's head turn to the qibla, the direction of prayer, towards Mecca, the Qaaba, and so on.

The other aspect is that halal slaughter maximizes the suffering of the animal, so it is no different than Eid al-Adha.  The animals are not stunned before theyir throats are slit.

Even if a Buddhist eats meat through the three purities and so on, unless halal is given as alms or as a gift fron a host, I would think a Buddhist would avoid halal like contagion.

But that's just me.

Malcolm wrote:
Most people are not going to run into Halal meat in the US. In the rare instance they do, they probably won't know it. If you go to a Muslim country, most of the meat will be of that variety.

Eating food slaughtered with a prayer is not the same thing as attending a religious festival predicated on the ritual slaughter of millions of animals. I can see why some people think they are commensurate, but I do not. In the former case, you, as a practitioner, have a chance to benefit the animal with a mantra, no matter how it was slaughtered; in the latter case you are lending support to something which is done out of ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: "V"s in Sanskrit
Content:
MiphamFan said:
It's neither /w/ nor /v/.

It's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiodental_approximant. Sometimes it sounds more like /w/ or /v/ to your ears if you are unfamiliar with the sound.


Malcolm wrote:
That really clears things up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
How is sacrifice at Eid al-Adha different from halal/kosher animal slaughter?

Should Buddhists also avoid halal/kosher meat?
I did not say that Buddhists ought not eat halal/kosher meat, I said they should not attend such festivals, in the same way they should not attend the sacrificial pujas at Dakshin-kali in Nepal, or animal sacrifices in Africa and so on.

MiphamFan said:
I know you didn't say that, that's why I'm asking.

What's the difference between regular halal/kosher slaughter and the festivals? It's just a greater scale on a particular occasion isn't it? Ordinary halal/kosher slaughter also is in the name of Allah/YHWH, so it's also "sacrifice". So should Buddhists avoid sacrificed meat?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, yes, unless you are starving.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I'm curious how many people actually know muslims?  How many people have family, friends, or colleagues who are muslims?

I'm also curious how many people have actually participated in a muslim religious activity?  Gone to a mosque open house?  Gone to a prayer service or a wedding or funeral?  Attended an Islamic cultural event?  Attended an Eid banquet at the end of Ramadan?

Given everything going on in the world, it's natural that much is being said about muslims and Islam.  I guess that's good.  It's important to think and discuss things.  At the same time, I'm always curious where truth claims come from and  how they are formed.


Malcolm wrote:
Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, is one of the chief roots of the problems with Islam:
The sacrificed animals, called aḍḥiya (Arabic: أضحية‎, also known by its Persian term, Qurbāni), have to meet certain age and quality standards or else the animal is considered an unacceptable sacrifice. This tradition accounts for the slaughter of more than 100 million animals in only two days of Eid.
A Buddhist cannot and ought not attend such a feast.

The Ramadan feast, however does not present such problems.

MiphamFan said:
How is sacrifice at Eid al-Adha different from halal/kosher animal slaughter?

Should Buddhists also avoid halal/kosher meat?

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say that Buddhists ought not eat halal/kosher meat, I said they should not attend such festivals, in the same way they should not attend the sacrificial pujas at Dakshin-kali in Nepal, or animal sacrifices in Africa and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
tingdzin said:
Large, "successful" organizations with lots of "satisfied customers" does not mean authenticity by any means. Is the whole point of the thing to make people feel good while raking intheir money? If real teachers with something to offer don't have students, it may be because the marketing skills of charlatans have kept them in the shade.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, I have noted a process, repeated often in western organizations, where after building a student base (even if considered charlatans), said organizers are then granted full legitimacy by some Tibetan, sometimes famous, sometimes obscure.

The process runs as follows; build students, present them to a lineage teacher (with donations to favored charities of course), have the lineage teacher recognize you as the teacher of said group of students, eventually gain recognition as a reincarnation or an emanation (or failing that, just be titled Lama So and So) — boom, you have arrived. Now you can confidently get articles published in Buddhadharma, Shambhala Sun, Tricycle, and land that Harper-Collins book deal you have been craving so that you can crack into the "Barnes & Nobles" Buddhist scene.

In Tibetan Buddhism, as anywhere else, success is rewarded with accolade and failure is rewarded with obscurity, and it really has very little to do with puritan notions of authenticity, as much as we may wish it to be otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Not remotely qualified either but IMHO the kind response from Garchen Institute is not quite the whole story. Apologies all round if I am incorrect, but Rinpoche has made his own statement on this. I can't remember exactly where I read it, but it is out there somewhere. It was a carefully qualified statement.

Boomerang said:
His qualifications were that you need faith and the recording should be be necessity, not a convenience. You should only rely on recorded empowerments if you are unable to get them live. The whole reason he started doing this was that he felt bad for people who traveled long distances for empowerments. He also said that the power of the video comes from your faith and devotion to the dharma, so if you have no faith an empowerment won't work even if you are there live.

Malcolm wrote:
The reasoning is the same as the following "If one has sufficient faith in some tantra one wants to practice, one can receive the empowerment from the book." This reasoning is condemned by the Buddha in the tantras themselves. The Buddha teaches in the Mahāmudratilaka Tantra:
Without empowerment there is no siddhi,
just as pressing sand yields no oil. 
If someone reveals the tantras and agamas with pride
to those who lack empowerment,
as soon as [both] master and disciple die
they go to hell even if they obtained siddhi.
The commentary to this tantra, the Śrīguhyārthaprakāśamahādbhūta-nāma, states:
...the disciple upon whom the empowerment is correctly bestowed becomes a suitable vessel for the topics of the profound intimate instructions of the body and so on. Without that however, if the meaning of the tantras is revealed to one who lacks empowerment, it is said the master and the disciple have a root downfall.
One should be very aware of the faults of not receiving empowerment. For example, The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva Tantra states:
Where will accomplishment be without relying on the empowerments of secret mantra? For example, like a boatman without a paddle, how will one be able to cross to the other side?
The Self-arisen Vidyā Tantra states:
The faults of not obtaining the empowerment are as follows: in the bardo one is alarmed, panicked, exhausted, impeded, and also one can lose consciousness. 
While one has not left the body of traces, migrating beings will not see one as worthy of respect. One’s merit will be small, one’s life short, one’s enjoyments of living will be few, one will be powerless and many obstacles will occur. Nothing will be accomplished. Those are the faults of not obtaining the empowerment for the practice of Secret Mantra.
So people who are interested in Vajrayāna should think very carefully about what is valid and what is not valid, one's path depends on it. In this respective, a conservative approach will never harm one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Maintaining Motivation
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Wayfarer,
I am older as well (53) We all have problems with motivation from time to time. I try to keep it simple. You are going to die...maybe an hour from now or maybe a couple of decades BUT it IS going to happen. When I have problems with motivation I try to bring this to the forefront in my mind..not as an intellectual idea or construct but the Reality of it, the Knowing of it.  So you have a choice...dying with Awareness and no fear or dying freaked out, confused and at the mercy of your past karma. Your practice is the ONLY thing that will get you through that process. I should clarify though..its not a matter of freaking yourself out and guilting yourself into doing practice..its about giving yourself a reality check....putting things into perspective...

Malcolm wrote:
As Guru Rinpoche said:
Having assembled here, you all must listen well. The minds of all these Buddhists of Tibet, for the most part, have never been prepared. So in all of their Dharma activity, thoughts of death and impermanence have not arisen in their minds. If it had arisen, this laziness and indolence would have never existed...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I don't disagree with you.  Animal sacrifice is some dark stuff.

I agree.  Animal sacrifice will draw and encourage all sorts of dark stuff.

I'm just pointing out that there is a long standing response within the Islamic tradition against animal sacrifice, including Eid al-Adha.  There is a tradition of scriptural interpretation that asserts it was Mohammed's intention that his followers be vegetarians and not sacrifice animals.  People of such a tradition see animal sacrifice, including Eid al-Adha, as haram, not hallal.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is the sacrifice of animals, not the eating of meat. It is the same with Jews in Israel. If anyone wonders why there is so much violence in these regions of the world, Africa, Middle East, South America, Mexico and so on, it is largely due to the practice of sacrificing animals.
Not enough of a response, for example, to stem the 3.4 billion US spent in Pakistan each year for Eid al-Adha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, is one of the chief roots of the problems with Islam:
The sacrificed animals, called aḍḥiya (Arabic: أضحية‎, also known by its Persian term, Qurbāni), have to meet certain age and quality standards or else the animal is considered an unacceptable sacrifice. This tradition accounts for the slaughter of more than 100 million animals in only two days of Eid.

Urgyen Dorje said:
And thus the genesis of a long tradition of muslim vegetarians who don't eat meat, much less observe the animal sacrifices of Eid al-Adha.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is the sacrifice of animals, not the eating of meat. It is the same with Jews in Israel. If anyone wonders why there is so much violence in these regions of the world, Africa, Middle East, South America, Mexico and so on, it is largely due to the practice of sacrificing animals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Myanmar monk's Islamophobia
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I'm curious how many people actually know muslims?  How many people have family, friends, or colleagues who are muslims?

I'm also curious how many people have actually participated in a muslim religious activity?  Gone to a mosque open house?  Gone to a prayer service or a wedding or funeral?  Attended an Islamic cultural event?  Attended an Eid banquet at the end of Ramadan?

Given everything going on in the world, it's natural that much is being said about muslims and Islam.  I guess that's good.  It's important to think and discuss things.  At the same time, I'm always curious where truth claims come from and  how they are formed.


Malcolm wrote:
Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, is one of the chief roots of the problems with Islam:
The sacrificed animals, called aḍḥiya (Arabic: أضحية‎, also known by its Persian term, Qurbāni), have to meet certain age and quality standards or else the animal is considered an unacceptable sacrifice. This tradition accounts for the slaughter of more than 100 million animals in only two days of Eid.
A Buddhist cannot and ought not attend such a feast.

The Ramadan feast, however does not present such problems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: HHDL advice: Westerners to take monk/nun as teacher
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is something stated in the Kālacakra tantra, actually. The best guru is a bhikṣu or bhikṣuni, the next best, a novice, the inferior guru is a householder.

Adamantine said:
What text was it that you quoted that said the best guru is a terton (who are mostly never bhiksus)?

Malcolm wrote:
No idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: HHDL advice: Westerners to take monk/nun as teacher
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is something stated in the Kālacakra tantra, actually. The best guru is a bhikṣu or bhikṣuni, the next best, a novice, the inferior guru is a householder.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Undifferentiated consciousness and non-duality
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
How can awareness have non-awareness as its cause, in the form of inert chemicals in a mass of flesh?

I mean, this conversation has been had a million times on DW, but it seems to come up every now and then anyway

undefineable said:
Actually, it might if there is something in the complexity of advanced physical systems that ignites awareness. But this is to bring 'mind' into "matter", which is known as animism

Herbie said:
From my perspective using the word "mind" and associating "animism" is just the effect of not knowing yet what science still has to find out about what I called "conscious events". The issue here is that language which is based on subject-object-dualism is "applied to something" (again language!) which actually is not "something" but the ideating subject expressing itself which is without that dualism. But there is no way out.
"A bulb is emitting light."
"A reaction of material chemicals is emitting heat or radioactive rays."
"A specific organisational structure of organic material is emitting conscious events."
Issue here is that the latter expression must fall short of linguistically expressing the transformation from subject-object to "non-dual subject" perspective. It always is fixed in linguistic subject-object-dualism merely through the fact that the expression has to be read (expression as object) and an idea synthesized which again mirrors subject-object-dualism of language. Therefore the meaning of "A specific organisational structure of organic material is emitting conscious events." rarely is understood appropriately. The same holds true with "every conscious event is just a representation of neuronal processes."

Malcolm wrote:
You really need to read Thomas Nagle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Dropping Jesus
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I recently encountered some rhetoric on this board that was so viscertally hateful of Christians and Christianity that it chilled my blood.  it is something so contrary to my dharma experience and training that I couldn't get my mind around it.  It kept me up at night.


Malcolm wrote:
As for myself, I am simply indifferent to Christianity. I find it weird the same way they find Buddhadharma weird. I cannot relate to a soul or a personal savior (or even an impersonal one at that). I can't relate to the Jesus myth on any level in a spiritual sense. It does not move me any more than any other story of humans being cruel to other humans, and in many respects, far less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Exorcism for a nation
Content:
Norwegian said:
I think there's just one stupa in Norway...

Malcolm,
Changchub Dorje had a terma for the construction of 108 special stupas to avert the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and these were never built. But could they be built outside of Tibet, and have a similar effect (on negativities)? Or do we need entirely new termas for this purpose, or are there specific stupas already existing that would be built according to how each location is (qualifications, properties, etc.)?

And while we're on the topic of stupas, how much does a stupa with its construction cost? I know it depends on size, type of stupa, how it's made, and so on, but does anybody have an estimate price from at least the lowest price possible while still having a fully qualified and effective stupa that fulfills its purpose, like for example the stupas of Changchub Dorje's stupa terma.


Malcolm wrote:
It was a time sensitive terma.

A proper stupa would cost at least $50,000. So one would need $5,400,000, not including the land, at minimum. That does not include zoning, permits, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Exorcism for a nation
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
How many are in the USA now; how many in Mexico now?

Malcolm wrote:
Not so many in Mexico.

62 that I can count one page. They missed the one at Dzogchen Community in MA, so 63. Then there is the little stupa complex of William Cassidy. So may another 9 or so.

kirtu said:
There are at least 69 (including some pagodas) and a few not counted.  But the Garden of 1000 Buddhas in Montana has at least 20-40 more right now.
But what we need is a stupa project, where the stupas are sited geomantically.
Which is quite different from what you said above ......

Malcolm wrote:
As would erecting 108 stupas in the US.

kirtu said:
placement wrt geomancy we probably do not have.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Right, my point was 108 erected as a deliberate project, not just random stupas here and there, along the lines of the 108 stupas erected by Songtsen Gampo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Maintaining Motivation
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I like this piece of advice from ChNN's "Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State": The Dzogchen teachings advise one never to force the condition of one's energy, but always to be aware of its limits in all the various circumstances one encounters. If at times one does not feel like sitting down to practice then one should avoid setting up a struggle against oneself. It could be that there is some problem of our energy that we don't know about behind our feeling like this. In such situations it is important to know how to relax, and how to give  oneself space, in order not to block the progress of one's practice. Problems of loneliness, of depression, of mental confusion and so on, also often derive from an unbalanced condition of our energy.

Malcolm wrote:
And here he is talking rlung, vata, the air element in our bodies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Exorcism for a nation
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
How many are in the USA now; how many in Mexico now?

Malcolm wrote:
Not so many in Mexico.

62 that I can count one page. They missed the one at Dzogchen Community in MA, so 63. Then there is the little stupa complex of William Cassidy. So may another 9 or so.

But what we need is a stupa project, where the stupas are sited geomantically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Exorcism for a nation
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Things are so bad that exorcists are trying to expel some of the demonic forces from the entire nation of Mexico.

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Americas.php?id=12235


Malcolm wrote:
While in Mexico, I suggested to some Mexicans they needed to erect 108 stupas in the country. This would definitely pacify all problems in Mexico. As would erecting 108 stupas in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Decreasing attention spans.
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I have some experience with that actually.  My first Tibetan teacher taught me to use the THDL translation tools.  That was sort of cool.  I could type in Wylie and get something I could try to gloss.  My subsequent teacher was a linguist instead of a anthropologist/historian and he'd have none of that and he'd show me why glosses with THDL were robbing me from learning the language.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, too many mistakes are perpetuated by using the Valby/Rangjung Yeshe dictionary.

kirtu said:
The Rangjung Yeshe dictionary is problematic?

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. It is at best a collection of terms earlier translators have used. I use it, but only in conjunction with Alak Kankar's Tibetan - Tibetan dictionary.

One cannot produce a reliable translation solely using the Valby/Rangjung Yeshe dictionary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Jikan said:
I was hoping to go back to Malcolm's important posts on Rawls and subsequent libertarian thought.  What differentiates Rawls from thinkers like Nozick, Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, or G Becker, and hacks like Ayn Rand, is a theory of justice--of freedom articulated as justice, and not just as brand preference or the will to power.  Here's a useful summary:
All social primary goods - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect - are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored.
much more here:

http://www.ohio.edu/people/piccard/entropy/rawls.html

Does this assume some means to guarantee the equal distribution of social goods to all?   Yes.  And interestingly enough, that is what differentiates conservatism (think Edmund Burke) and leftist thought on one side from liberal / neoliberal / libertarian thought on the other.  I mean to say that there are elements on the left and the right that agree on the fundamental problems with libertarian doctrine and practice, which goes right back to the poll that started this thread.  Speaking personally, I find it a lot easier to enjoy a conversation with a reader of William Buckley than a reader of Milton Friedman or a consumer of Atlas Shrugged.

Finally, on Nozick:  G.A. Cohen's persistent critiques of Nozick and other libertarian thinkers remain relevant, even twenty years later, because they haven't yet been adequately rebutted.  Start here if you're interested.

http://www.cambridge.org/US/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-theory/self-ownership-freedom-and-equality

Malcolm wrote:
I think that characterizing Nozick, and for the matter Hayek, as "libertarians" is short-sighted. Certainly libertarians who have misread these two guys have held them up as influences.

Hayek's main bugaboo is the planned economy, and his main observation is that a planned economy cannot fairly predict all needs, and therefore, it becomes defacto unethical favoritism; whereas in an unplanned economy, the chips fall where they may lay. However, it is not the case that Hayek was completely opposed to regulation, social programs and so on.

Nozick, it seems, was not very interested in defending his book on any level. Rawls and he were good friends, and I suspect that in Nozick's case, ASU was an intellectual exercise rather than a intellectual commitment. One interesting outcome of his book however, is that he asserts in ASU that we do not have the right to slaughter animals, and he apparently was himself a vegetarian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
But still you seem not to
have an understanding of the process of lung transmission,
so it is just that you believe and state something that you
don't understand, or I'm wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
You are wrong.

A "lung" happens when someone reads a text to you. It is a form of authorization to read a restricted text. It cannot be given by an inanimate object.

There is no "energy" or anything esoteric at all.

Sūtras, such as the Suvarnaprabhasa, do not require any transmission, reading or otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
Then it stands like your word 'vs' the words of Lama Zopa, HE Gyaltsab Rinpoche, Garchen Rinpoche, ...

But still there's no answer up here to my primary question - did
HE Gyaltsab Rinpoche really state that?


Malcolm wrote:
Sutras DO NOT REQUIRE A LUNG.

There is no way a recording can bestow transmission, and I don't care who asserts the opposite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Update: appears to be a common error, but I swore in the credits they were cast as the Vulvalini.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, you're off the hook.
BTW, I saw it yesterday and the credits do indeed say 'Vuvalini'. I would be surprised if the similarity to 'Vulvalini' was unintentional though.

Malcolm wrote:
And your other impressions?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Everything you wrote here...

Lobsang said:
But it is if I have a notion of lung
as a transmission of energy, ie. sound, ie. vibration onto an energy
system of a human or other being. In that conception I could think that just
hearing a complex of vibrations may 'initiate' my energies. So that makes it
complicated, that's why I asked you about a detailed description of lung, what it
is, and if it is necessary to project the energy to a certain part of the student's energy
system, or is it necessary to invoke Buddhas who in actuality then give you a lung, etcetera, etcetera...
As an inanimate sound of music can brake windows if it's too loud, as an inamite sound of music can
make my emotions different if it is in a certain 'proper' form, so I can think that a mantra recording
of a specific sound of a specific master can make my energy system different in a significant manner to
call it a lung. Or a master can have a siddhi to connect it with me, etcetera. Who knows; that's why I'm
asking.
Cheers.

Malcolm wrote:
...is a lot of complicated conceptual proliferation that has no basis whatsoever in the texts.

So, I really do not have anything more to add other than what I stated above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Trolley car dilemma.  With no other knowledge, you save as many people as possible.

The environmental train-wreck upon us is a bit different.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, and it may be too late.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, you have a philosophical vantage point, but these issues are not easy.

For example, there is a train track and there is a split in the track. You are standing at the switch. There is a runaway train. On track A there is one person. On track B, a work crew. You have no time to alert either. If you do nothing, the work crew all die. If you save them, the person on track A dies.

What do you do?



dzogchungpa said:
Maybe these will help?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=8528
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/2014/01/05/the-trolley-car-dilemma/

Malcolm wrote:
It does not help at all, since Pandita frames the question in entirely Hinayāna terms. He claims that Buddhist values are absolute, and this just isn't so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Political ecology is something personal to me, so I apologize if I've contributed to the thread inappropriately.  From Malcolm's prompt, it seems I should have been having this discussion from a specific philosophical vantage point.  Maybe I'll get those books and read them.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, you have a philosophical vantage point, but these issues are not easy.

For example, there is a train track and there is a split in the track. You are standing at the switch. There is a runaway train. On track A there is one person. On track B, a work crew. You have no time to alert either. If you do nothing, the work crew all die. If you save them, the person on track A dies.

What do you do?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
that's not an explanation, that's
a statement. For example, what I asked is to
add 'an explanation' as in:
"It is not possible, because the lung is --- definition of lung here --- , and
since a recording does not fulfill that condition, then it is not possible. But not
to write 'it is not human, it doesn't have discrimination', since that is not enough.
For cooking a lunch you also need discrimination, but that doesn't make it equivalent
to a lung. So, what IS a Lung? What makes it possible ONLY by a human (and maybe some other being) and
not 'by sound waves'?
Without an explanation like that, we're still in the 'I know and you don't' sphere.

And also, this as an example:
http://fpmt.org/education/teachings/sutras/golden-light-sutra/#receivetransmission

Malcolm wrote:
A recording has no consciousness, it therefore has no will, it therefore cannot act, it therefore cannot give a lung. This is not a complicated principle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Simon E. said:
And in terms of Dharma, the result discussing these issues in a coherent manner would be....?

I believe I have may met the occasional Lama who was completely ignorant of Ayn Rand.

Malcolm wrote:
Ayn Rand was an idiot — barring that aside, these sorts of issues are secular, and in India, such texts written by Buddhist authors were rare, though not non-existent.

The point I am making is that these political categories (conservative, liberal, right, left) are erected without really having a detailed understanding of the competing philosophies underlying such discussions, a long conversation going to back to Socrates, Aristotle, and so on.

In modern secular ethics, Rawls and Nozick are two of the most important voices in this discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lhasa said:
Garchen Rinpoche recently deliberately recorded a transmission and said that one had received it by watching the recording and that one also could give that transmission.

Malcolm wrote:
No. You have misunderstood everything. Such a transmission is impossible. It is no more possible to give a lung via a recording than it is for the Buddhas to remove your suffering with their hands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Simon E. said:
Frankly I think the whole thread has degenerated into Pseuds Corner and pointedheaded one-upmanship. And the fact that it is being conducted on the pages of a Buddhist forum is merely incidental. It could have been lifted from any part of the internet where opining is the default activity.

No amount of analysis or displacement  or substitution is going to fix samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if people would read people like Rawls and Nozick, at least they would have some basis to discuss these issues in a coherent manner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In general, two books are required reading here: A Theory of Justice by Rawls, and the response to it, Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick.

The opening paragraph of the former books states:
Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.
RAWLS, John (2009-06-30). A THEORY OF JUSTICE (ORIG EDN) (Oxford Paperbacks 301 301) (pp. 3-4). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

In the concluding paragraph of the latter book, Nozick declares:
The minimal state treats us as inviolate individuals, who may not be used in certain ways by others as means or tools or instruments or resources; it treats us as persons having individual rights with the dignity this constitutes. Treating us with respect by respecting our rights, it allows us, individually or with whom we choose, to choose our life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the same dignity. How dare any state or group of individuals do more. Or less.
Nozick, Robert (2013-11-12). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 333-334). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Finally, an important question is asked by Rawl's Political Liberalism:
[H]ow is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? The most intractable struggles, political liberalism assumes, are confessedly for the sake of the highest things: for religion, for philosophical views of the world, and for different moral conceptions of the good.
Rawls, John (2011-02-10). Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (Columbia Classics in Philosophy) (p. 4). Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition.


Jikan said:
I'd like to flesh out that previous post a bit further, because now that I read it, I see that it's written in academese and I don't want to cause confusion.

Here's a useful blog post by a capable thinker on some of the problems with how the concept of "freedom" is articulated in contemporary libertarian discourse vis a vis the state.

https://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/07/fundamental-contradiction-of.html
As is well known, the core idea of libertarian philosophy is the preservation of the maximum amount of freedom possible. Though the concept seems, in practice, to be limited to the freedom of employers, we will give the libertarian the benefit of the doubt and assume he really does mean freedom for all; which is what immediately generates the fundamental and, as far as I can see, inescapable contradiction of the libertarian doctrine.

The crucial problem is that one simply cannot have freedom without limiting freedom. I know, it sounds like an oxymoron, but in fact libertarians themselves acknowledge its truth. Libertarians are not anarchists, and they understand that individual freedom is maximized only by the presence of a government that regulates the rules of engagement among people (otherwise we are back to a Hobbesian war of all against all). So, for instance, no libertarian would argue that the possibility of charges of murder are an impediment to your freedom to kill me. That’s because if you do kill me, my freedom is going to be (terminally, as it were) limited.

The same goes for your freedom to steel from me, obviously. So we already have two fundamental rights — to life and property — that do require government regulation, or our existence is going to be nasty, brutish, short and all the rest. Curiously, these also happen to be the only two kinds of freedom that libertarians acknowledge. But why? Our society recognizes additional freedoms that libertarians would find hard to object to in principle, and indeed, they strenuously defend when they perceive them to be threatened by government  action. Freedom of speech and of action (e.g., how, when and with whom to have sex), to name just a couple.

And that’s where the problem becomes obvious. Why, exactly, is it objectionable for the government to infringe on these liberties, but not for a private employer? In case you doubt — or, like most Americans, are simply unaware of — the fact that employers routinely do infringe in an entirely arbitrary manner on our personal freedom...
The rest of the post is very much worth reading.  For now, it suffices to point out that freedom is not equally distributed to all--far from it--and the state is not the reason why.  My employer articulates his freedom precisely by limiting and delimiting mine.  When a mayor or governor or Senator does that, I can mobilize the vote to get him or her out.  This is not typically possible in the workplace.  (and a kneejerk "get another job bozo!" is no counterargument to this.)

Put differently, "freedom" as defined by libertarians is often freedom's opposite.

I would like to know from our libertarian friends here at DW what they think freedom means in this context.  Again:  freedom for whom, and to do what?

it might also be worthwhile to explore the assumptions about the self in liberal / neoliberal / libertarian economic theory, and compare/contrast those with Buddhism 101.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
PadmeSamadhi said:
I do hope my post create some controversies here, since I am a libertarian I have no side, right or left.

Malcolm wrote:
You clearly have a "side". Just read your own post.

PadmeSamadhi said:
That's true, but my side it is not left or right.

This is the Nolan diagram

Malcolm wrote:
I see, you are an "upist" as opposed to a "downist", it is still a side though.

BTW, this is the original:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
PadmeSamadhi said:
I do hope my post create some controversies here, since I am a libertarian I have no side, right or left.

Malcolm wrote:
You clearly have a "side". Just read your own post.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
Why do you think it is like that? Could you
explain?
What's the logic behind it?

Thanks!


Malcolm wrote:
A recording is not a person. It has no mind and no discrimination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 7:51 PM
Title: Re: Undifferentiated consciousness and non-duality
Content:


Herbie said:
I understand that you want to elaborate and express your ideas my words do cause but really, all I have been saying is that "every conscious event is just a representation of neuronal processes."

Malcolm wrote:
Right, and that makes you a materialist and not a Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
Thanks,
but maybe HE thinks that it (to hear a recorded recitation) is enough,
so I am interested if that's true. Also,
Lama Zopa Rinpoche claimed similar for the Golden Light Sutra transmission
by help of a video recording of his personal transmission.

So, I am interested in that - if HE Gyaltsab Rinpoche really said
that, and if I agree with that or not, due to my understanding or nonunderstaning of
it is another topic...

Cheers!

Malcolm wrote:
Sutras do not require lungs at all.

You cannot receive a lung through a recording. It is not a matter of opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Decreasing attention spans.
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I have some experience with that actually.  My first Tibetan teacher taught me to use the THDL translation tools.  That was sort of cool.  I could type in Wylie and get something I could try to gloss.  My subsequent teacher was a linguist instead of a anthropologist/historian and he'd have none of that and he'd show me why glosses with THDL were robbing me from learning the language.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, too many mistakes are perpetuated by using the Valby/Rangjung Yeshe dictionary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
The main reasons for the poll are to try & get a little insight into the de-personalization of life in this polarized, media driven era.  So far, the 20 plus folks do get away from DW screen enough to have contacts with conservative people directly.


Malcolm wrote:
I am a conservative person, religiously speaking. Politically however, I am neither liberal nor conservative, since I think these are false and unhelpful divisions. Many so called conservatives that I know would radically eviscerate environmental protections and so on., and general speaking abandon the "status quo" in the favor of radical policies that benefit only the ultra wealthy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: New Zealand recognizes all animals as sentient beings
Content:
Simon E. said:
Well they can be as PC as all get out. But the exporting of lamb to be killed for halal meat will no doubt continue to be a big national income generator.


Malcolm wrote:
"New Zealand, where men are men and sheep are afraid....", as an old Kiwi room mate of mine was fond of repeating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:


Jikan said:
Fury Road would make a really stupid book.  It's a delightful action movie.  It's not great cinema.

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, it is great cinema. It is technically one of the most well-edited, well-shot, well-planned, well-executed movies of all time.

This is movie has raised the technical bar. Directors are no longer going to be able to get away with CGI everything.

450 hours of filming, 3000+ plus hours of editing, all boiled down into 120 minutes. This says it all:
Here five things I can’t believe Miller was allowed to do:

• Have Max be the sidekick in his own film.

• Hire Nicholas Hoult, one of Hollywood’s youngest, most attractive stars, then shave his head, paint him bone white, and have him play a character with disgusting chapped lips for the entire movie.

• Get rid of Max’s iconic car in the first few minutes of the flick.

• Ignore conventional action movie structure in order to present one giant, two-hour long car chase.

• Give the main villain a name that will confuse every one all the time, because they assume there’s been some kind of error and the character’s real name must be “Immortal Joe.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As someone who has primarily read science fiction for entertainment for the past 45 years, I should point out that movies are not books. They are an entirely different genre.

daverupa said:
Frank Herbert's Dune and then that... that hideous movie...

Mad Max: Arrakeen Road? Drive without rhythm...

Malcolm wrote:
Hideous indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Okay ... I am happy that you are enjoying it, whatever your reasons and whatever its qualities ...
BUT (some of you saw that coming, I hope ) (1) most of your comments have just reinforced my opinion that most of you don't read enough science fiction to be able to rate the depth or originality of the plot* and (2) it still doesn't sound like a movie I will ever choose to watch.



* that was a problem with Avatar, too. Visuals 4.5 stars out of 5, originality 0.5 stars, and hardly anyone noticed.

Malcolm wrote:
As someone who has primarily read science fiction for entertainment for the past 45 years, I should point out that movies are not books. They are an entirely different genre.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
seeker242 said:
I don't know how to vote because I don't know what "conservative" even means. For example, if a person is fiscally very conservative and socially very liberal, what are they?


Malcolm wrote:
Massachusetts Republican.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Simon E. said:
Well I suppose that's no better or worse than any other fantasy. But fantasy it is.( Urgyen Dorje ) You have picked the wrong species on the wrong planet and left out the nature of the way that dependant origination unfolds.

As I see it there are only two alternatives..we make capitalism work for the many..or we kiss our bums goodbye.

Malcolm wrote:
The present environmental disaster, 200 years in the making, was caused by industrial capitalism. Why would anyone think the cause is the solution? Our descendants are going to be dealing with this for another 1000 years.

There are things we are manufacturing today that will not decompose in many thousands of years, if at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Simon E. said:
But markets do not cause that environmental hell either..the biggest polluter on the planet is a socialist republic.

Malcolm wrote:
Capital markets are causing environmental hell around the world, that is precisely the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: POLL on knowing conservatives
Content:
Simon E. said:
This.

Life just aint black and white...I, for example am anti-capital punishment and have a pragmatic view of abortion. I think the west has a debt to its former colonies and a moral obligation to the third world..
But I also think that capitalism is the best of a number of bad ideologies.

Life is not simple and the world does not function by the logical , or by what is ' fair '..

Malcolm wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no market solutions to our environmental crisis, no market solutions to global warming, the extinction event, etc. Capitalism has failed us every bit as much as Socialism failed.

If we human beings do not get our collective shit together, our children will be living in an environmental hell of their parents making.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Vulvalini?

Malcolm wrote:
http://theladiesfinger.com/bechdel-testing-mad-max-fury-road/


dzogchungpa said:
Oh, I see, it's actually 'Vuvalini'. 'Vulvalini' would have been amusing, though.

http://time.com/3850323/mad-max-fury-road-eve-ensler-feminist/

Malcolm wrote:
No:
The plot leads us to the women and the two male allies finding the many mothers of Vulvalini (Vulva + Kundalini?), who once ran the green land. Due to the climate, the land has since been destroyed and only five of them have survived. They are bike-riding, gun-shooting old women who maintain a bag filled with various seeds that can be planted once they find the right patch of land. This is also where the film almost passes the Bechdel Test – the Keeper of the seeds and Dag have a conversation about the seeds and hope. Why almost? Because we never learn the name of the Keeper of the Seeds.
Update: appears to be a common error, but I swore in the credits they were cast as the Vulvalini.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 14th, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Vulvalini?

Malcolm wrote:
http://theladiesfinger.com/bechdel-testing-mad-max-fury-road/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 13th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
Jikan said:
I agree with Malcolm.

one detail, though:  it's not 160 miles across the salt flats, it's 160 DAYS across the salt flats.  What are those salt flats?  I can only guess they are what used to be the oceans.  they had resolved to ride, effectively, from Victoria, Australia to Peru or so (hence the long ride).

Malcolm wrote:
You are right, my bad.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 13th, 2015 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Mad Max: Fury Road — Spoilers
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
To paraphrase someone who worked on it, "If you want a great action movie, go see it. If you want anything more - like a good story, for instance - forget it."


Malcolm wrote:
The fundamental story is the overthrow of a mercantilist patriarchal triumvirate, setting the stage for the rise of a matriarchal seed-saving society in the Wasteland.

Foremost, it is quest movie. Second of all, it is a chase movie. Third of all, it is an action film. Overall, it is another chapter in Miller's stunning post-apocalyptic vision. While nothing could ever recapture the sheer purity of the Road Warrior, this movie stands on its own in every way.

While there was no script, there was a story. The movie itself was composed in over 3000 story boards, making a huge graphic novel. Not only is there a story for every actor, a back story, which each actor was filled in on; every car, truck, town and so on was given a backstory upon which set was constructed and upon which the actors improvised their dialogue, as minimal as dialogue is in this film. If you know anything of theater history, you will remember Antonine Artaud's "Theatre of Cruelty" with it's emphasis on mise en scène.

Also, Miller very cleverly divided up the three things that characterize modern economics; oil, weapons and agriculture into three communities, i.e. Gastown, the Bullet Farm and the Citadel. As someone concerned with the environment, Kim, you should understand this movie is very much about environmentalism and the consequences of not treating our planet well.

The actual movie itself — a quest to find The Green Place, Furiosa's home, from which she was kidnapped — is only a very small part of a much bigger story.

Furiosa escapes with Immortal Joe's wives to find the green place. There is a tremendous chase, but Max and Furiosa (having become allies) succeed in escaping Immortal Joe and his allies by losing them in a swamp, called the Place of Crows. After discovering some old biker women, the Vulvalini, who had turned to banditry in the Waste Land to survive, they inform Furiosa that the Green Place of her childhood had become tainted and vanished, turning into the place where they had lost Immortal Joe and his army, the Place of Crows. You should understand that Furiosa and her mother had been kidnapped from the Vulvalini and the Green Place when she was a small child by Immortal Joe. The Vulvalini had saved seeds, their most precious possession. Furiosa and the Vulvalini decide to try and cross the salt flats to find a new green place, but with Max's encouragement, they realize that they have no idea what they will find 160 miles across the salt flats, so they turn around to take on Immortal Joe and his minions, eventually taking over the citadel itself.

That is the story.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 13th, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Title: Mad Max: Fury Road
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Must. See.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 12th, 2015 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Shameless plug:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 12th, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Because they are emanations of Heruka.

WeiHan said:
Are we also taking refuge in them in general but not primarily?

Malcolm wrote:
We do not directly take refuge in them, but since they are activities of awakened beings, they can be included in the refuge field.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 12th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
WeiHan said:
Unfortunately, my curiousity leads to probe further and I find that Maharakta Ganapati is in the sakya Refuge tree.

As far as I know, unenlightened protectors or deities will never be included in the refuge tree but here he is there, lowest row of protector, leftmost

http://sakyamedia.jugiter.net/foto/Refugetree/index.html#

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and there are several other worldly protectors shown there as well, for example the Cittipatis.

WeiHan said:
Cittipatis is worldly?

My next question is that then why are they in the refuge tree?

Malcolm wrote:
Because they are emanations of Heruka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 11th, 2015 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
WeiHan said:
Unfortunately, my curiousity leads to probe further and I find that Maharakta Ganapati is in the sakya Refuge tree.

As far as I know, unenlightened protectors or deities will never be included in the refuge tree but here he is there, lowest row of protector, leftmost

http://sakyamedia.jugiter.net/foto/Refugetree/index.html#

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and there are several other worldly protectors shown there as well, for example the Cittipatis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Undifferentiated consciousness and non-duality
Content:
Herbie said:
Hmh ... Maybe you can explain why my expression "Because every conscious event is just a representation of neuronal processes." makes you associate an "ontological  thesis that 'everything is physical'" ?

Malcolm wrote:
Is there something that is not physical, in your view?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Historical relation of Dzogchen and Mahamudra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am of the personal opinion that Kagyu Mahāmudra as we know it today is largely the creation of Gampopa (following the opinion of the famed 13th century Drugpa Kagyu master, Yang gong pa).

sherabpa said:
It would be more correct to describe it as systematization than creation, i.e. he didn't just make it up: mahamudra is based on the sutras and tantras like everything else.  And like everything else, it has some controversial aspects to it.  People make a lot of fuss over them, but I can't see why.  Sapan said much more devastating things about Gampopa's Dorje Phakmo tradition but when do you hear about that?

Malcolm wrote:
His four yogas of Mahāmudra is completely his own innovation, according Yangongpa.

As far as the Vārāhī blessings in Kagyu, Sakyapas talk about it a lot. Kagyus, not so much since it is their system. The Kagyu defense is that the Vārāhī blessing is for those of sharper faculties. The Sakyapas don't buy this reasoning. Personally, I am neutral.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


WeiHan said:
Then why is it during the Jenang, 12 arms red Ganapati was introduced as an emanation of Avalokiteshvara?

Is it the official view in Sakya or is it that even in Sakya there are two differing views?

Malcolm wrote:
Shiva is also considered an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, still Shiva is a worldly protector.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Ex Machina (movie)
Content:
Jikan said:
Fair enough, but in terms of spectator entertainment (film, television, &c) events like mixed martial arts and professional wrestling are hugely popular among the gents, and the only thing more homoerotic than that on a screen is straight-ahead gay porn.


Malcolm wrote:
Which brings up the question — is Caitlyn Jenner a lesbian?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Jikan said:
Am I alone in seeing a particular subtext at work here?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
conebeckham said:
So, is the "Empowerment" really an empowerment, or more of a permission or entrustment.....??

Malcolm wrote:
It is a jenang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
But there are also Sadhana where one arises as the protector, for example, the famous Vajra Cliff Fortress practice of Mahakala in Sakya. IN general all enlightened protectors have self generation as well.

WeiHan said:
Yes. The point is that requirement for oneself to generate as another wisdom Yidam doesn't disqualify the front creation deity as an enlightened emanation.

Malcolm wrote:
The real point is that Ganapati is a worldly protector.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Ganesh in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
WeiHan said:
All the while, I have the understanding that any one practice in the Sakya 13 golden Dharmas can be taken alone as a sole path to enlightenment. and that include of course the 12 arms Maharakta Ganapati that has its source with Cakrasamvara Tantra.

Mr. G said:
Yes, it comes from the Cakrasamvara tantra, but Ganapati is a worldly deity.  Why do you think it can be relied upon as a sole path to enlightenment?  If it is a sole path to enlightenment, why does one generate oneself into an enlightened deity at the beginning of the practice?    Do you think the sole practice of any worldly deity leads to enlightenment?

WeiHan said:
There are quite a few enlightened deity practices which require one to generate as another enlightened Yidam but that doesn't mean the front creation deity isn't enlightened. An example will be Namtose, in some practice, it requires one to generate as Vajrapani for example.

In certain enlightened protectors sadhanas, such as Mahakala, Ekajati etc...it also require a self creation into a powerful enlightened Yidam so that these enlightened protectors will performed one's wished Dharma activities.

Malcolm wrote:
But there are also Sadhana where one arises as the protector, for example, the famous Vajra Cliff Fortress practice of Mahakala in Sakya. IN general all enlightened protectors have self generation as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 10th, 2015 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Historical relation of Dzogchen and Mahamudra
Content:
tingdzin said:
Thank you, Dzogchungpa; I've read the article. By the way, it calls to mind a difference in point of view between CNNR and Trungpa Rinpoche: The former insisted that sgra bla was the proper Tibetan spelling of "drala", and ties it in with the principle of sound (in "Drung, De'u and Bon"). CTR, after Mipham, says it's dgra bla, meaning "above the enemy".

Most Bonpo books agree with CNNR, while in most Buddhist sources, its spelled a third way: dgra lha.

Anyway, if you want to believe that most Gesar bards were Dzogchenpas, feel free. I just introduced the idea so that people could know there is more than one school of thought about the hand-to-the-ear gesture.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't necessarily believe that -- I just don't believe that Mila's posture lacks yogic significance, whether it is klong sde or vajra waves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Ex Machina (movie)
Content:
Jikan said:
I was at a conference last week where Jack Petranker (see below) presented an interesting analysis of this film.  I haven't seen it, so I can only go with what he gave here.  The gist of his argument is that Ex Machina gives a case study in how samsara reproduces itself.  Garbage In, Garbage Out:  the afflictions of the AI's maker are reproduced in the AI, and everyone suffers for it.  Even their attempts at freedom serve only to tighten the knot.  Important insight I think.

http://www.mangalamresearch.org/about-mrc/people/

Malcolm wrote:
And why is that lately A.I's are always cute girls? (Chappie being an exception)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect, David:
For example, leading Indologist Hajime Nakamura in his influential book, A History of Early Vedånta Philosophy, devotes forty pages to the question of  ̨a∫kara’s date.31 Before setting out his own theory that “he probably lived, roughly, 700-750 [C.E.],”
http://www.easterntradition.org/original%20sankaracarya.pdf

I myself read the text in question, but unfortunately, I cannot pull up the page number now from google books. However, in The Role of Divine Grace in the Soteriology of Śaṃkarācārya, on page two my assertion is confirmed. Moreover, Ingalls notes:
The dates A.D. 788-820, which have been widely accepted for `Sa^mkara in the past, must be pushed back. A detailed and scholarly treatment of the subject will be found in the first volume of Hajime Nakamura's Japanese work Shooki no Vedaanta Tetsugaku (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1950), pp 63-121. The early limit for `Sa^mkara is the date of Dharmakiirti, whom `Sa^mkara quotes in the Upade`sa-saahasrii, K.r.s.na `Saastrii Navare, ed. (Bombay: Jagadishvara Press, 1886), XVIII.142. Dharmakiirti rose to fame between the visits to India of Hsuan Tsang and I Ching, that is, between A.D. 634 and 673. The later limit is given by two sets of facts. (A) `Sa^mkara's pupil Sure`svara is quoted by Vidyaananda, who must have lived slightly before A.D. 800. See Pathak in "Bhart.rhari and Kumaarila," Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XVIII (1894), 225-229. (B) There must be at least two generations between `Sa^mkara and Vaacaspati Mi`sra, who wrote the Nyaaya-suucii-nibandha in A.D. 841. The generations, on Nakamura's showing (op. cit., p. 89 and p. 98, note 12), are: `Sa^mkara, `Sriivatsaa^nka. Bhaaskara, Vaacaspati. Nakamura bases this at least in part on Yamuna's Siddhi-traya. Chowkhamba Snaskrit Series Work No. 10(Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Book Depot, 1900), p. 6. One can prove the same result perhaps more surely by taking the following sequence: `Sa^mkara, Padmapaada, and Sure`svara, Bhaaskara, Vaacaspati. For evidence that Bhaaskara is later than `Sa^mkara's pupils Padmapaada and Sure`svara, see note 4 below.
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27155.htm

So, I gotta to stick to my guns. We know for a fact that Śāntarakṣita was present in Tibet by 773, Frauwallner gives Śāntarakṣita's dates as 725-788, and we know he spent the last fifteen years of his life in Tibet. Kamalaśīla (fl. 740–795) accompanied him. It is extremely likely then that the Tattvasamgraha commentary was composed in Tibet, if not the original text.


David Reigle said:
Śāntarakṣita devoted verses 171-327 of his Tattva-saṃgraha to a critique of a permanent, personal ātman held by five different Indian schools, typically an ātman that is a kartṛ, “doer,” and/or a bhoktṛ, “experiencer.” When he arrived at the Advaita [Vedānta] idea of the universal or non-dual ātman, his comments were few (verses 328-335), and respectful. Even there, the ātman that he refuted was the jñāna/vijñāna-ātman, a cognizer that is permanent, not the parama-ātman that Śaṅkarācārya would later teach. .

Malcolm wrote:
H. Nakamura holds that Śaṅkarācārya is earlier than Śāntarakṣita, that is, prior to 750 CE.

As far as your other statement goes, 1) Kamashila specifically identifies this as the position of the Advaitans [གཉིས་མེད་པར་ལྟ་བ], followers of the Upanishads [གསང་བ་པ་རྣམས], i.e. Vedantins.

There is no substantial difference with what is presented here and Śaṅkarā's thought:
Dakshinamurti-Stotra-With-Manasollasa.tiff
15. Consciousness is of two kinds: Nirvikalpaka or the
undifferentiated consciousness illumines the Thing itself,
while Savikalpa or the differentiated consciousness is
manifold as illumining the designations, etc.
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/dast/index.htm

Therefore, when Śāntarakṣita says their error is slight, he actually is saying their error is huge for proposing that consciousness, something impermanent, is permanent.

One can hardly read this text as any thing other than  refutation of the parama-ātma postulated by Śaṅkarā.

David Reigle said:
First, I would just note that the intent of my few posts here at Dharma Wheel is to give information, e.g., about a new book, or about what it says. I do not wish to engage in arguments, or to appear disrespectful, especially to Malcolm. For the last couple days I have been trying to figure out how to reply to this post, or even if to reply to it. I cannot see a good solution. I do not want to seem like an ungrateful guest to his hosts, or to seem like I am arguing. At the same time, I feel a certain responsibility to Hajime Nakamura. So I will merely make the following statement and bow out, hoping that it will not be inappropriate here.

Hajime Nakamura regarded Śāntarakṣita as prior to Śaṅkarācārya. In his book, A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, in the section on The Vedanta Philosophy Reported by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, pp. 221-257, he gives considerable evidence showing this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Daka and Dakini
Content:
waimengwan said:
Can people be reborn as a Daka or Dakini? If yes what is the cause for that?

Or that is only something tantrikas can learn about ?

Thanks

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, it's not a rebirth, it's a state of realisation. Dakas and Dakinis are male and female Tantric enlightened beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Not all ḍākas and ḍākinīs are realized. Like any class of beings, some are realized and some are not. So called lokaḍākinīs, worldly ḍākinīs, are not realized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: How effective are liberation-upon-seeing dharma doors?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
There is no magic no buddha god out there to make these liberation practices work.  The  dynamics that we are working on with buddhist practice are dynamics of the mind, right?  Does anyone disagree?


Malcolm wrote:
They function because dependent origination is profound. For example, the six syllables in my signature are in reality the phonemic manifestation of the 6 buddhas in the six realms. Whoever sees or hears them will have implanted a cause for liberation.

Jesse said:
They don't show up. I only see x's. Ppl need to either install the font your using or the webmaster has to install it on the fileserver.

An easier method would just be to make an image of it and uplod it then link the image.

Malcolm wrote:
Load tibetan machine web font


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But from a perspective outside this long dispute, both have something in common, such as the understanding of the 'eternal round of birth and death' within which beings are trapped due to avidya.

Malcolm wrote:
The concepts of reincarnation in Advaita and Buddhadharma could not be more different. The notion of what constitutes avidyā are also different.

Wayfarer said:
Whilst you can acknowledge that there are differences, the differences are here depicted as absolute, and the adversaries depicted (and belittled) as 'enemies' and 'idiots'.

Malcolm wrote:
" Frauds and idiots ", not enemies and idiots.

Wayfarer said:
I guess in the context of several millenia of debate, that is understandable, but I don't know if it makes sense in the context of 'the global village' that we are now obliged to live in.

Malcolm wrote:
There are room for debate and disagreement in the global village, at least I hope so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: How effective are liberation-upon-seeing dharma doors?
Content:
tomschwarz said:
There is no magic no buddha god out there to make these liberation practices work.  The  dynamics that we are working on with buddhist practice are dynamics of the mind, right?  Does anyone disagree?


Malcolm wrote:
They function because dependent origination is profound. For example, the six syllables in my signature are in reality the phonemic manifestation of the 6 buddhas in the six realms. Whoever sees or hears them will have implanted a cause for liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Historical relation of Dzogchen and Mahamudra
Content:
tingdzin said:
Well, Dzoki and Malcolm, what about the Gesar bards, then? Were they also all Dzogchenpas?

Malcolm wrote:
Did they have Gesar bards in the 12th century?

Now that you mention it, Dzogchen is pretty wrapped up in the Gesar tradition too...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Undifferentiated consciousness and non-duality
Content:
Herbie said:
Actually subject-object non-duality is an undeniable fact. Why? Because every conscious event is just a representation of neuronal processes.

Malcolm wrote:
So say the physicalists.

Herbie said:
Whatever that means...

Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism



Herbie said:
I'd prefer "scientists".

Malcolm wrote:
Daniel Dennet is not a scientist, though he claims to be. He is a philosopher.

Thomas Nagle's new book, Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false, gives people like Dennet, Dawkins and so on a very good run for their money.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Undifferentiated consciousness and non-duality
Content:
Herbie said:
Actually subject-object non-duality is an undeniable fact. Why? Because every conscious event is just a representation of neuronal processes.

Malcolm wrote:
So say the physicalists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Historical relation of Dzogchen and Mahamudra
Content:
Jikan said:
I know much of this history is shrouded in mystery, and may be laden with sectarian commitments, but I'm putting the question forward anyway with the hope that everyone may benefit from it.

What do we know of the historical relation of Dzogchen and Mahamudra before, say, the time of Milarepa?  I've heard conflicting claims on Milarepa specifically--that he was simultaneously a Mahamudra practitioner and a Dzogchenpa, or that he practiced Mahamudra but that Mahamudra itself has its origins in Dzogchen Semde, or that the Milarepa's realization of Mahamudra simply makes sense to Dzogchenpas while having nothing concrete to do with Dzogchen as such.  (These are not authoritative positions, merely things I've heard in conversation over the years.)

I assume Milarepa is a significant figure in his own right, of course, but also that these conflicting claims are representative of broader claims and convictions on the historical relation of Mahamudra and Dzogchen.

DharmaWheel, please help me make sense of this.  Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Milarepa says in one of his songs that he was stabbed in the chest by Mahāmudra, and stabbed in the back by Dzogchen.

I am of the personal opinion that Kagyu Mahāmudra as we know it today is largely the creation of Gampopa (following the opinion of the famed 13th century Drugpa Kagyu master, Yang gong pa).

As far as Longde goes, well, Dzeng Dharmabodhi lived in Lhodrak and had close connections with Kagyus living in that region. In terms of the famous posture of Milarepa, it could either be a Longde posture or the position used in the practice called "vajra waves."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I probably shouldn't have shared that aspect of my
personal history.

Malcolm wrote:
I was a skinhead. So what?

Urgyen Dorje said:
Ive caught a lot of grief in sanghas and social justice groups
for it.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, people freak out when I tell them I was a skinhead, they always assume skinhead = fascist. But in fact, I was just a dumbass kid who that thought punk rockers were hippies and I had already done that so...in it for the music and the laughs...



(Turns out the guy on the cover, Nicky Crane, a major National Front tough, later became a bouncer in gay nightclubs in London http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25142557 ).

...simultaneously I was into Industrial Music, Throbbing Gristle, etc., then PTV, then Crowley, then Buddhadharma...

To quote a band I dearly hate:

"What a long strange....trip its been...."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he says the tīrthikas recognized the value of the Buddha's system of two truths and claimed it for themselves, albeit, fraudulently. So he is not happy about this. He states in the following verse that one should not mistake the two systems, just as one should not mistake a gem composed of metal for a real jewel. He states in the Tarkajvālā [268/ab, (D 3856) dbu ma, dza 40b7-329b4]:
Just as someone claims "a gem made of metal resembles a precious gem", though it's surface is polished, that cannot withstand burning, scratching, grinding and so on. Since they are completely different, whoever is skilled in recognizing precious gems will generate the perception of which is precious. In the same way, since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different; the one who is skilled in recognizing reality generates the perception of which is reality. Therefore, it is like showing the tail of the deer to sell horse meat.
In other words, what Bhavaviveka is saying that the Advaitans fraudulently misrepresent the teaching of the Buddha, and worse, cast it to mean the opposite of what it actually means, using the example of a merchant who displays something of high value to pass off something of no value.

David Reigle said:
Thanks, Malcolm, for posting this criticism of Vedānta made by Bhavya. These criticisms are frequent in his text, and it is important for us to see an example of one. Just as Bhavya is straightforward in his criticisms of the Vedānta of his time, so he is fair in seeing what is good in it. A few verses after the ones I referred to in his Vedānta chapter, he writes, addressing the Vedāntins (verse 95, Lindtner Sanskrit edition): “If an ātman of such kind is also intended by you, sirs, there is no fault, because of the many similarities of name, etc. It is logically acceptable.” Bhavya is here referring to an ātman that is beyond thought and speech. Then, a few verses later, he says that an ātman is not tenable, because ātman and anātman are opposites (verses 100-101). Here, however, he specifies the ātman as a doer and an experiencer. So we have to be aware of what ātman he is referring to in any given statement. He does not make a blanket denial of the ātman.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a statement of acceptability. He is taunting the tīrthikas for being afraid. He says in the commentary:
Just as whatever is shown by the term "nonarising" (including its reasoning) will be free from fault, also if you assert [such] a self, the dispute will about a mere name. What conflict will there be with your so called "supreme self" and our "nonarising?"
But he immediately says:
Those terrified of selflessness still dwell in it even though they are terrified;
just as those who are terrified of space have no other place to dwell.
You can see very clearly he really thinks these tīrthikas are idiots for he says in the commentary:
Just as some fools are terrified of and frightened by space, they dwell in that space since no other place is seen [in which to dwell]. In the same way, also those terrified by selflessness, are supported on and dwell in that selflessness because there is no support other than that.
Honestly, it is really too much to believe that Bhavaviveka has a positive attitude towards these people. He thinks they are both frauds and fools.

He is basically saying, contrary to your perspective, that by adopting the two truths and adopting the terminology of nonarising, Advaitans are merely arguing themselves into a ridiculous corner where they have no choice but to abandon their concept of para atman. It is not we who are adopting their self, it is they who are adopting our reasoning about the two truths. This is why he earlier castigates them for stealing the teachings of the Tathāgatas and claiming it for themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
What Tibetan developments are you suggesting propose an impersonal universal principle?

smcj said:
Dolpopa.

Also Malcolm made the point with Khenpo Tsultrim in regards to his current presentation of Shentong.
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&p=102251&hilit=advaita+greg#p102251

I'm sure Malcolm finds the turn this thread has taken to be distressing. Just for the record, so do I.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. This thread has not taken any turn at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I probably shouldn't have shared that aspect of my
personal history.

Malcolm wrote:
I was a skinhead. So what?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
Bhavya did not try to deny the close similarities. Here he does not even say that the Vedāntins took these particular teachings from the Buddhists, .

Malcolm wrote:
He nevertheless does accuse them of fraudulent misrepresentation as I show above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
As a disclosure, I was brought up with Nazi ideology and the themes of Mein Kampf not as a German, but as an American who was indoctrinated into Nazi ideology.  As such, my perspective are these ideas as ideas, not the actual historical and cultural experience of a people who had to endure the real expression of these ideas.  I was introduced to these ideas as a medium of introducing extreme racism, hate, and nationalism.  For me, with some 35+ years of recovery from this nonsense, it was an interesting lesson in the nuances in political systems, and quite honestly, the guy was muddled.  More importantly exposure to this nonsense catalyzed my interest in dharma, peace, and nonviolence.


Malcolm wrote:
Fascism arose out of a reaction to the nationalist deficiencies of the international socialist movement, sure. This well documented, but it also went on to embrace typical right wings memes of god, country, family and so on - example, Mussolini.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 8th, 2015 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
Śāntarakṣita devoted verses 171-327 of his Tattva-saṃgraha to a critique of a permanent, personal ātman held by five different Indian schools, typically an ātman that is a kartṛ, “doer,” and/or a bhoktṛ, “experiencer.” When he arrived at the Advaita [Vedānta] idea of the universal or non-dual ātman, his comments were few (verses 328-335), and respectful. Even there, the ātman that he refuted was the jñāna/vijñāna-ātman, a cognizer that is permanent, not the parama-ātman that Śaṅkarācārya would later teach. .

Malcolm wrote:
H. Nakamura holds that Śaṅkarācārya is earlier than Śāntarakṣita, that is, prior to 750 CE.

As far as your other statement goes, 1) Kamashila specifically identifies this as the position of the Advaitans [གཉིས་མེད་པར་ལྟ་བ], followers of the Upanishads [གསང་བ་པ་རྣམས], i.e. Vedantins.

There is no substantial difference with what is presented here and Śaṅkarā's thought:
Dakshinamurti-Stotra-With-Manasollasa.tiff (66.63 KiB) Viewed 3674 times
15. Consciousness is of two kinds: Nirvikalpaka or the
undifferentiated consciousness illumines the Thing itself,
while Savikalpa or the differentiated consciousness is
manifold as illumining the designations, etc.
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/dast/index.htm

Therefore, when Śāntarakṣita says their error is slight, he actually is saying their error is huge for proposing that consciousness, something impermanent, is permanent.

One can hardly read this text as any thing other than  refutation of the parama-ātma postulated by Śaṅkarā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
On the one hand my mind is blown. My entire idea about the history of Dharma is challenged. I don't know what to think.

On the other hand my own position was. Based on more modern authority and commentary. So it is unaffected. By I really am stunned.

Malcolm wrote:
All of the faults of the personal atman accrue to this so called impersonal atman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: How effective are liberation-upon-seeing dharma doors?
Content:
Boomerang said:
There are a bunch of images and mantras and sutras that say you will be free of the lower realms forever just because you've seen or heard them. Does this really mean that if you hear Medicine Buddha's name or look at one of those little red and gold cards, you could become a serial killer and still never be reborn in the lower realms? If these things are really so powerful, you would think that everyone who has so much as heard HH The Dalai Lama's name or the mani mantra will never be reborn in the lower realms—a very large percentage of the Earth's population.

Is it really that easy to never be reborn in the lower realms? If it is, it would follow that every teaching about the lower realms is just a skillful means for generating compassion toward beings not of this world. You could chant the Akshobhya mantra to somebody, murder them, and rest assured that neither of you will suffer in the lower realms and always move toward Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that you have planted a cause of inevitable liberation. It does not mean that you can expect never to be reborn in lower realms if you are a nonvirtuous person.

For example, if you are wearing a liberation through wearing amulet and you engage in misdeeds, it intensifies the misdeeds. So I was warned by my teacher to never wear such things and engage in misdeeds. If you wear them for practice however, they can aid your practice a lot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hitler was a fascist, like the Italian Fascists. Socialism does not always means 'left'. There are right wing socialist ideologies as well. Hitler was just following the lead of Action française.

Urgyen Dorje said:
The phenomenon of nazism, in itself, really illustrates how tired and limited this right-left dicotomy is.

If you read Mein Kampf, Hitler simultaneously attacks both right wing and left wing political ideologies. He asserts that capitalism has run its course, and holds that capitalism damages nationalism because of international finances and the egotism inherent in capitalism.  The national socialism created to support this was also anti-communist, as Marxist communism was not only seen as a Jewish creation, but because it threatened the middle class and eliminated prive property.

The economics of Nazism falls off the right-left capitalism-communism continuua, because it's rooted in different values.  It aimed to create an alternative to both freemarket capitalism and Marixst communism through something akin to a proleteriat revolution, the revolution of the Volksgemeinschaft, the people's commuity, which had a racial and nationalistic identity. But it was also against the concept of class struggle, which has an inherent value of class equality.  So in many ways it' is very socialist in feel.

On the flip side, the anticapitalist vibe of this national socialism alienated industrialists who were central to the nationalist project of war in Europe, so Hitler made any number of quid pro quo's with them.  While Hitler's Nazism theoretically was pro-merchantile while being anti-multinational corp, companies such as Krups, VW, Siemens, were left unmolested as long as they supported the party and the war.

So sure, we can put a pin in a chart and identify Hitler as far right, but on other continuua, we could identify him as right, left, middle, or N/A and off the continuum.

In my mid it's important to put him off these right-left capitalist-communism continuua because of the value systems involved.  Here is an economic system that is, at least nominally, based on values other than the production and distribution of capital.  There is a hiddeous and grotesque nationalistic and racial project at hand as well.

I think this is important to look at that, as other economic models based on more than just capital are thus possible.  Instead of grotesque nationalistic and racist interests, there could be environmental interests or what not.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm...Hitler was right wing, anti communist, etc, supported Franco, if you you will recall. Hitler was  a facsist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:


Tom said:
Yes, this gets into the oral instructions on the verse which actually relate to how correct clarity (luminosity) is discerned from faulty clarity - not really appropriate for board discussion. Still, luminosity here is being related to clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
Your assertion was that in this verse, od sal = gsal ba; a one to one identity. I disagreed before. I still disagree.

The line concerns what we might call the "fundamental mind of clear light" in Gelug terms. In Sakyapa terms, it would be the luminosity found in between two moments of mind. However we decide to parse it, it concerns the luminosity which is the basis from which arise the three consciousnesses, ref. Jnānavajrasamuccaya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


David Reigle said:
Likewise earlier, Bhavya devoted most of his critiques of the ātman in his Madhyamaka-hṛdaya to the permanent, personal ātman as held in the Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika schools, and even in the Vedānta school of his time. When in his Vedānta chapter (chapter 8) he did refer to the universal or non-dual ātman, he refuted it when it was also held to be a doer or an experiencer or a cognizer, but accepted it when it was held to be beyond thought and speech. In fact, he said that this latter idea was taken by the Vedāntins from the Buddhists (verses 84-86, Lindtner Sanskrit edition).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he says the tīrthikas recognized the value of the Buddha's system of two truths and claimed it for themselves, albeit, fraudulently. So he is not happy about this. He states in the following verse that one should not mistake the two systems, just as one should not mistake a gem composed of metal for a real jewel. He states in the Tarkajvālā [268/ab, (D 3856) dbu ma, dza 40b7-329b4]:
Just as someone claims "a gem made of metal resembles a precious gem", though it's surface is polished, that cannot withstand burning, scratching, grinding and so on. Since they are completely different, whoever is skilled in recognizing precious gems will generate the perception of which is precious. In the same way, since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different; the one who is skilled in recognizing reality generates the perception of which is reality. Therefore, it is like showing the tail of the deer to sell horse meat.
In other words, what Bhavaviveka is saying that the Advaitans fraudulently misrepresent the teaching of the Buddha, and worse, cast it to mean the opposite of what it actually means, using the example of a merchant who displays something of high value to pass off something of no value.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:


Tom said:
Your translation is improved now that you have dropped "featureless apprehension." However, in my translation it is more clear that མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི with its genitive ending is modifying འོད་གསལ. Your new translation makes it seem like you are translating མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པ ར.

This quibble aside, I think it is pretty clear that luminosity here is signifying clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, sometimes "kyi" does not function as a genitive in the sense that we understand it in Latinate grammatical terminology. Here it does not, it sets off a clause.

Anyway, here 'od gsal is not a gloss for clarity anymore than bde chen is a gloss for bde ba.

It is a play on words.

The normal sequence is bde ba, gsal ba, mi rtog pa, not bde chen, 'od 'gsal, mi rtog pa.

Bde chen, great bliss, is something at the ulimate level, just like 'od gsal, not the level of transient experience like simple bde ba. And mi rtog pa can be either.

So I still don't agree with you, patronizing comments aside.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Tom said:
This thread was linked to in another thread which prompted a late reply…

Malcolm wrote:
These are experiences of a mind, not a cognizer itself, that should be obvious to you from the text.

Tom said:
I'm aware of this and mentioned that they were experiences (nyam) above.

I'm simply giving an example of the word luminosity ( ‘od gsa l) standing in for the word clarity ( gsal ).

Malcolm wrote:
On the other, hand, if it is as you say, this is still not the rang bzhin 'od gsal, since that is clearly ultimate, and not a fleeting experience, the attachment to which results in a form realm rebirth.

Tom said:
Yes, and Situ Rinpoche supports my reading and comments on this line that attachment here will result in a form realm rebirth. Again, my point is only that here we have an example of the word luminosity standing in for the word clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
You elided rig in rang rig in your translation, in response I elided 'dzin pa.

Tom said:
This is a ridiculous response and why I initially thought not to bother to continue with the discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps what it should read is "the unobscured luminosity of a featureless apprehension."

Tom said:
No, that would again be an incorrect translation. My original translation is accurate.

Malcolm wrote:
No, "luminosity without grasping" is not correct.

If you read it, "not grasping signs, luminosity is free from covering obscurations..." then it would be correct, likewise for the line above it and below.


ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Without clinging, great bliss is uninterrupted.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Without grasping signs, luminosity is free from covering obscurations.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Beyond mind, nonconceptuality is effortless —
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག
may effortless experience be uninterrupted!

As for whether here we can take "' od gsal " as being a pure gloss for gsal ba to fill in the lines of the verse — I have my doubts.

And you did elide the rig in rang rig.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
As the token conservative around here, I suppose leftists would never admit that 'liberal' notions have anything to do with the totalitarian core of leftism.

Malcolm wrote:
Just as rightists will never admit that many of their notions have anything to do with the totalitarian core of "rightism."

Frankly, "left" totalitarianism and "right" totalitarianism are structurally indistinguishable. The only difference is rhetoric:

Left: people, democracy, universal rights
Right: god, family, country.

They are both equally ruthless.

Nicholas Weeks said:
Nonsense, at least in the 20th century.  The 'bad' righties like Franco & Pinochet could not carry water for the murderous lefties such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm...Hitler was right wing, anti communist, etc, supported Franco, if you you will recall. Hitler was  a facsist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
M.G. said:
I'm sure there are abuses of hypersensitivity in some classrooms, but I never found any viewpoints squashed at the quite liberal university I went to.

Malcolm wrote:
And yet they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
As the token conservative around here, I suppose leftists would never admit that 'liberal' notions have anything to do with the totalitarian core of leftism.

Malcolm wrote:
Just as rightists will never admit that many of their notions have anything to do with the totalitarian core of "rightism."

Frankly, "left" totalitarianism and "right" totalitarianism are structurally indistinguishable. The only difference is rhetoric:

Left: people, democracy, universal rights
Right: god, family, country.

They are both equally ruthless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:


tingdzin said:
This attitude shows up a lot on this forum, too, if people haven't noticed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
tingdzin said:
I recently read an article (by Sherrock , in "Bayon: New Perspectives") that proposed that the main images of the famous Bayon temple in Angkor Wat represent Vajrasattva.


Malcolm wrote:
Cambodian Vajrasattva, 11th century:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Have I Ever Taken Refuge?
Content:


Urgyen Dorje said:
But when crisis comes-- what happens?  Do I hope the doctor fixes my wound, or do I just leave it with the Three Jewels?

Malcolm wrote:
You go to a doctor. When you are afflicted with the illness of hunger, do you eat, or just leave it to the three Jewels?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Article - "I'm a liberal professor..."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The most salient point:
No one can rebut feelings, and so the only thing left to do is shut down the things that cause distress — no argument, no discussion, just hit the mute button and pretend eliminating discomfort is the same as effecting actual change.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
bryandavis said:
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/1.2001/

From the above link.


This work is a three-dimensional mandala, or cosmic diagram, of Hevajra, who is the chief deity of the Tantric (Vajrayana) Buddhist path to enlightenment. Unlike Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, the Tantric school believed that, with serious application and the guidance of a religious teacher, an initiate could achieve enlightenment in this life. The main exercise was meditation. While meditating, the practitioner focused all his mental energy on a deity, in this case Hevajra, thereby transferring to himself the characteristics of the deity. The cult of Hevajra flourished in Cambodia between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Here Hevajra stands in the centre on an eight-petalled lotus surrounded by dakhinis, minor female divinities in Tantric Buddhism, and one unidentified other figure.

Asian Art Department, AGNSW, May 2011

Kim O'Hara said:
Thanks for that link, bryandavis.
I don't know if you posted it in response to my request to Caodemarte and Malcolm for links and references. If so, it's not very strong support since Buddhism existed in SE Asia for roughly a thousand years before the dates mentioned in relation to this mandala.
Caodemarte? Malcolm?


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
This summarizes the history of Buddhism in Cambodia.

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

Long and short of it, the Theravada period in Cambodia dates from the 13th century onward. Prior to this Mahāyāna (including Vajrayāna) was the dominant form of Buddhism in this region.

This summarizes the history of Buddhism in Thailand.

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

Long and short of it, the Theravada period in Thailand dates from the 13th century onward. Prior to this Mahāyāna (including Vajrayāna) was the dominant form of Buddhism in this region.

This summarizes the history of Buddhism in Burma:

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

Long and short of it, the Theravada period in Burma dates from the 11th century onward. Prior to this Mahāyāna (including Vajrayāna) was the dominant form of Buddhism in this region.

In all three instances, the rise of Theravada is linked to the collapse of Buddhism in Mainland India. Without the great Mahāyāna Universities to produce missionaries, a vacuum opened up which was filled by missionaries from Shri Lanka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


cloudburst said:
And what is the difference between "a reality dependent on conventional designation" and "dependent existence?"


Malcolm wrote:
The first has no underlying Sanskrit term. But in simple terms it means the imputation of something as real, a fact, and so on, a conventionality because in our everyday perception world this or that seems to function properly. As Madhyamakas, we accept what people say about the world as long as that is not analyzed. We define relative truth fundamentally as a the object of a pre-analytic perception. Ultimate truth, at least the nominal ultimate, is an object of a post-analytic perception, in other words, whatever remains in our perception after analysis is taken to be true, real, irreducible and ultimate.

Dependent or extrinsic existence (parabhāva) is defined by Nāgārjuna as a species of svabhāva, a deferred svabhāva. Nāgārjuna is observing that there no existence (bhāva) not included in either svabh̄ava or parabhāva. That being the case, when inherent existence is not established, neither is existence and nonexistence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
I would assume that Vajrajana was the main form of Buddhism in Thailand as it was in Burma  and Cambodia before Theravada. If do, some parts it may have survived as part of Theravada in Thailand.

Kim O'Hara said:
Hi, Caodemarte,
Why on earth would you assume that? And what is your evidence for Vajrayana before Theravada in Burma and Cambodia?
Can you supply sources and references?


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
The archaeological record confirms this very well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence is common to all three vehicles, but it is not profound.

cloudburst said:
Can you please clarify, according to your understanding, the difference between existence and inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
There is none, as Nagārjuna states, "Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence? If inherent existence is established, existence is established." and "Those who have a view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence or nonexistence have not understood the teaching of the Buddha."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
So here suffering is said to be unreal,  because it's 'not inherent' and only things with 'inherent reality' are real.

I interpreted that as emptiness = non-existence. Was I mistaken in that?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I explained that to you many times now. Mahāyāna emptiness = freedom from existence, nonexistence, both existence and nonexistence and neither. This is the profound emptiness of Mahāyāna. The emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence is common to all three vehicles, but it is not profound.

Saying there is no reality means that when one has examined phenomena, one finds they cannot be found to be real in any sense at all.
One cannot find they are 'real' in the sense implicit in the debate in Indian philosophy. That isn't 'cultural relativism': it is an observation about the background of the debate, the broader 'theory of meaning' that underlies the question itself. But in the modern context, the many discoveries about the nature of matter (like for instance discovery of the periodic table) are discoveries about things and principles that exist. I can't see the point in denying that.
These are no less conventions than the atoms perceived by ancient yogis in their meditation.

But then, I agree in the sense that material phenomena have been shown to have no irreducible component or basis.  That is why the search for the 'atom' has developed into speculation on parallel worlds and the like. So I understand how phenomena are not ultimately real, i.e. empty of own-being, groundless, dependent. I think I get that. But I think you can recognize the emptiness of phenomena without saying they are utterly unreal.
If phenomena are not ultimately real, they are not real. There are no gradations of real, unreal, somewhat real, more real than not real, and so on. Things are either real or they are not. The only kind of reality things may be said to have is a reality dependent on conventional designation, and that is all, and when those conventional designations are examined they are found to be baseless, and therefore, the reality of that which they designate evaporates like dew hit by sunlight.

No one has said that we are confronted with the unreality of phenomena at the get go. No one says that we should be content to merely say "Everything is unreal" and leave it at the level of concept. One must discover the unreality of phenomena. I would suggest that in your case, you have not extended your analysis far enough.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna does not have a position from the tetralemma. He uses it to eliminate all positions. For example, in the Lokātītastava he writes:
An existing thing does not arise, nor does a nonexisting thing, nor does something both existing and nonexisting.
There is no arising from self, nor from other; without both how can there be arising?
It is reasonable for an existent to exist, but it is not reasonable for it to perish. 
Since it is reasonable that a nonexistent does not exist, it will never perish. 
It is not reasonable that there is a result from some perished cause,
and there is [no result] from [a cause] that has not perished, therefore...

...you [the Buddha] have asserted that arising is like a dream. [/list]

srivijaya said:
Brilliant! Buddha did indeed state arising is like a dream.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, things are like dreams. When we are in a dream, we believe what we are experiencing is real. When we wake up, we understand it was never real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the body does not transform, it reverts back into its real nature as wisdom light.

tomamundsen said:
What's the fundamental difference between 'transforming' and 'reverting'? At first glance, I can't see a difference.

Malcolm wrote:
In the first case, one thing turns into another thing; in the second case, one thing goes back to the way it was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 6th, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is really no such thing as an immortal nirmanakayā because the rūpakāya always arises out of the dharmakāya, and therefore, the issue of mortal/immortal never arises for a buddha. If you can achieve buddhahood by a given path, then you realize dharmakāya, and if you realize dharmakāya, you can always generate rūpakāya, which you do so in response to the needs of sentient beings.

Tenso said:
When the body transforms into the five wisdom lights aka rainbow body, you are saying that it is the dharmakaya that is generating a rupakaya? I've read somewhere that the rainbow body is already present in each and every sentient being so would using the word "generate" be an incorrect word to use?  How do you "generate" something that is already there?

Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the body does not transform, it reverts back into its real nature as wisdom light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
The sutra stated "The Dharma taught by the tathāgatas is free of the four extremes" - sounds good to me. Now if that means that it contains a position from within the tetralemma, please point it out. I don't see any. Nothing there equates to Nagarjuna's subsequent take on it.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna does not have a position from the tetralemma. He uses it to eliminate all positions. For example, in the Lokātītastava he writes:
An existing thing does not arise, nor does a nonexisting thing, nor does something both existing and nonexisting.
There is no arising from self, nor from other; without both how can there be arising?
It is reasonable for an existent to exist, but it is not reasonable for it to perish. 
Since it is reasonable that a nonexistent does not exist, it will never perish. 
It is not reasonable that there is a result from some perished cause,
and there is [no result] from [a cause] that has not perished, therefore, you [the Buddha] have asserted that arising is like a dream.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
Compare this with what Nagarjuna claims that the Buddha said: "55. Everything is real and is not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
This is Lord Buddha’s teaching.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
I was waiting for someone to bring up the positive tetralemma. Just when I thought I got it now I'm confused again.

Malcolm wrote:
No need to be confused. For example, the Buddha says in the Ārya-śraddhā-balādhānāvatāra-mudrā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Mañjuśrī, furthermore, there are five acquisitions of solace in the purification of the first stage (bhumi) of the bodhisattvas. If it is asked what are the five, they are as follows. There is the acquisition of the solace of "I abide in the knowledge of the middle way inseparable with extremes. I will also place others in the knowledge of middle way inseparable with the extremes. In that regard, the middle way inseparable with extremes is that which is the nature of the extremes because there is no other middle way apart from the nature of the extremes. Since there is no middle way apart from the nature of extremes, the nature of extremes itself is the middle way. Since one knows the middle way of the nature of extremes, all phenomena are the middle way."

There is the acquisition of the solace of "I abide in the knowledge of the space inseparable with the nonbeing of space. I will also place others in the knowledge of space inseparable with the nonbeing of space. In that regard, space inseparable with the nonbeing of space is that which is the nature of the nonbeing of space. If it is asked why that is so, it is because space does not exist apart from the nature of the nonbeing of space. Since there is no space apart from the nature of the nonbeing of space, the nature of the nonbeing of space itself is space. Since one knows space of the nature of nonbeing of space, all phenomena are like space."

There is the acquisition of the solace of "I abide in the knowledge of the child of a barren woman inseparable with the nonbeing of the child of a barren women. I will also place others in the knowledge of the child of a barren woman inseparable with the nonbeing of the child of a barren women. In that regard, the child of a barren woman inseparable with the nonbeing of the child of a barren women is that which is the nature of the nonbeing of child of a barren women. If it is asked why that is so, it is because the child of a barren woman does not exist apart from the nonbeing of the child of a barren woman. Since there is no child of a barren woman apart from the nature of the nonbeing of the child of a barren woman, the nature of the nonbeing of the child of a barren woman itself is the child of a barren woman. Since one knows the child of a barren woman of the nature of the nonbeing of the child of a barren woman, all phenomena are equivalent with child of a barren woman."

There is the acquisition of the solace of "I abide in the knowledge of a mirage inseparable with the nonbeing of the mirage. I will also place others in the knowledge of a mirage inseparable with the nonbeing of the mirage. In that regard, the mirage inseparable with the nonbeing of the mirage is that which is the nature of the nonbeing of the mirage. If it is asked why that is so, it is because the mirage does not exist apart from the nonbeing of the mirage. Since there is no mirage apart from the nature of the nonbeing of the mirage, the nature of the nonbeing of the mirage itself is the mirage. Since one knows the mirage of the nature of the nonbeing of the mirage, all phenomena are like a mirage."

There is the acquisition of the solace of "I abide in the knowledge of right view inseparable with wrong view. I will also place others in the knowledge of right view inseparable with wrong view. In that regard, right view inseparable with wrong view is that which is the nature of wrong view. If it is asked why that is so, it is because right view does not exist apart from nature of wrong view. Since there is no right view apart from the nature of wrong view, the nature of the wrong view itself is right view. Since one knows that right view that is the nature of wrong view, all phenomena are right view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Ayu said:
Please take any "fight" you want to have, via PM! It is off topic here

Malcolm wrote:
No one is fighting.

Ayu said:
Very good. Then Simon E. will read that for sure. I quoted his word: "fight".

Malcolm wrote:
He was using an idiomatic expression in English: "I have no dog in this fight at all," which means " I have no personal stake in this issue." Similar expressions, "I don't have a horse in this race", etc. It does not mean that there is a "fight".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
[
The idea that there is 'no tantra in Theravada' is similarly undermined by the reality of religious practice in SE Asia. Bhante Gavesako started a long thread about it on the other Wheel a few years ago - see http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=10503 if you're curious.

Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Magical practices, creation of amulets and charms and so on, is not "Tantra" per se.

Vajrayāna is a very specific path, with a very specific understanding of the five paths and ten stages taught by the Buddha in Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Ayu said:
Please take any "fight" you want to have, via PM! It is off topic here

Malcolm wrote:
No one is fighting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Ayu said:
This is how you think, but you've put your informations in a wrong way together.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm no, I haven't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Dan74 said:
9 self identified Zen Buddhists responded and an even split. If we take this as representative of the membership, then only 1/3 seem to actually like the proximity to other traditions. This might be indicative of minority feelings. Whereas a lot more if the other Buddhists would prefer to keep the forum in its current form.

Not sure how representative this is of broader membership but maybe some food for thought...

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot count the three who responded as negatives, a third responded that they don't care either way.

Anyway, fragmentation is normal in internet forums. Vajracakra, for example, exists because people became unhappy here and so they left. Some of them still no longer post here. Some of them bounce back and forth.

Personally, I go where there are conversations that are of interest to me to participate in, such as the one Astus and I were having in the Mahāyāna thread that spawned this absurd poll.

Frankly, Dan, if you want to have another Zen forum that is not dominated by Nonin, you should. It is not hard. It is easy. It will not actually cause people to stop participating here. Then you can limit conversations to those you find palatable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
retrofuturist said:
Greetings,

Malcolm wrote:
This poll is just sour grapes.

retrofuturist said:
No - this is governance based on something other than self-styled autocratic leadership.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is sour grapes based on an interaction that Dan and I had which he found troublesome and frustrating, which is resulted in yet another untenable TOS resolution (like the one about metadiscussions).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
All I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that emptiness  = non-existence.

Malcolm wrote:
I never asserted that emptiness = nonexistence. I did not make any assertions at all about existence or nonexistence. I objected to your claim that things were "real" as well as "merely existent" when you responded to my statement "gnas lugs med pa", i.e., there is no reality, no gnas lugs, bhutatā, etc. Saying there is no reality means that when one has examined phenomena, one finds they cannot be found to be real in any sense at all. Phenomena are found to be empty imputations, illusions, dreams, mirages, etc. Haribhadra, the famed 7th century commentator to the Abhisamayālaṃkara stated that everything is illusory, the paths, stages and even buddhahood.

It may have escaped you, but you are actually arguing that things are not empty. And if you assert that things are merely empty of inherent existence, then what you are arguing is that the ultimate is a nonexistence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
Buddha flatly refused to engage with speculation on the four extremes. He neither confirmed nor denied them. He had no position.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not true at all.

srivijaya said:
It is.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not, as the sūtra I cited quite clearly indicates.



srivijaya said:
In regards to the tetralemma which Vacchagotta was keen to draw the Buddha on: "Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

" A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
Why did he dissociate himself from these positions? Because they do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, and in the negation of the four extremes, one has eliminated all positions.

srivijaya said:
So he does not use the stick of logic and reasoning to poke the hornet's nest of distinctions in order to release a swarm of views.

Compare this with what Nagarjuna claims that the Buddha said: "55. Everything is real and is not real,
Both real and not real,
Neither real nor not real.
This is Lord Buddha’s teaching.
That which Buddha tossed into the dirt, others subsequently picked up and dusted off. The distinction of the two truths is the third option on the tetralemma.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that depends on whether you accept the Mahāyāna sūtras as the Buddha's teaching, and if you don't, than I cannot understand why you are posting here.

srivijaya said:
Still, there's much in the Mahayana which goes way beyond this. The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

This in no way exceeds Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
t is meaningless to say something is real in anything other than an ultimate sense.

Wayfarer said:
That is where I disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
You can say that things are "conventionally real", but this does not help you. Why? Because once again, "conventionally real" amounts to nothing more than the assertion that something is "real" because two sentient beings beings agree on the identity of a shared appearance. And that also does not match now the term is used in English. "Real" in the OED means, "...actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" or as it is used in Philosophy, "...relating to something as it is, not merely as it may be described or distinguished."

In reality, a thing that is a conventional truth is true only in so far as it is functional. For, there is no "car" in a car. We use a number of parts, assemble them and create something we call a "car", using those parts to perform a function. But when we analyze those parts, we can find no car in them, nor separate from them. The "car" as such does not exist apart from our imputation of a car upon some parts, just as there is no person in the aggregates or separate from them. "Car" and "Malcolm" are imputations of an on a collection of parts and have no reality other than as an imputation. This means that the reality of cars and malcolm's is strictly conventional.

This why conventional truths are relative truths, "concealer truths" if we follow the etymology of samvṛtti, because their real nature is concealed by our deluded perceptions of things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
Buddha flatly refused to engage with speculation on the four extremes. He neither confirmed nor denied them. He had no position.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not true at all. For example, the Buddha states to Mahāmati in the Lankāvatara:
The Dharma taught by the tathāgatas is free of the four extremes as follows: not identical, not different, not both or neither; free of being existent, nonexistent, not existent, not nonexistent, permanent and impermanent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We are not denying conventional reality, we are merely saying that it appears without any existence.

Wayfarer said:
You don't have to be a scholar of Tibetan and Sanskrit texts to spot the problem with this sentence. It actually doesn't make sense. How can something 'exist without existing'?

Malcolm wrote:
I did not write that sentence. Cone did.
You are essentially asserting that 'the only reality is absolute' - as you have said elsewhere in this thread. For instance: I am sorry to say that if suffering were real, there would be no possibility of a path and no possibility of a result. Why? To say that something is real is much worse that saying that something exists. Why? To say that something is real is to say it is inherent.
To a suffering being - that's all of us, to all intents - you can't simply say 'look here, your suffering is really the result of deluded cognitions'.
But that is precisely the point of the Buddha's teaching, in toto: i.e., one's suffering is a result of deluded cognitions.
Now, it might actually be the result of deluded cognition - but to overcome this state of delusion is the point of the entire Buddhist teaching. That is why there is a path in the first place, so to deny that there is suffering, comes perilously close to denying the first truth of Buddhism.
I no more deny there is suffering than there is an appearance of illusion. I merely pointed out that neither are real.
So I object that to say 'something is real' is to say it is has ultimate or inherent existence, or, in other words, that only the ultimate is real and that phenomena are unreal.
But that is precisely the point of Nāgārjuna's statement that existents must be included in either inherent exisence or dependent existence. If inherent existence is established, then existents are established.
Every phenomenon can be understood as a result of causes and conditions, and in that sense, it has no inherent reality; that is the ground of the identity of Śūnyatā and dependent origination.  But it is real in an empirical sense, even if not an ultimate sense.
It is meaningless to say something is real in anything other than an ultimate sense.
It is the reality of the existence for us unenlightened beings. It is the task of Madhyamika to demonstrate that the presumed solidity and independent reality of the objects of conventional experience is in fact empty. But that doesn't say they're non-existent, and to say that they are non-existent is nihilistic.
Madhyamaka indeed removes claims that existents exist. It is not annihilationist because Madhyamaka does not propose the existence of something to become non-existent. Your assertion of nihilism is unwarranted and out of place. I could care less what old fascist philosophers like Heidegger have to say about anything.
As far as 'deluded cognition' is concerned, an apple is still an apple, whether for the sage or for the ordinary worldly being.
I don't think so. For example, take the example of a liquid in the six realms, it is water for a human is molten iron for a hell being, pus and blood for a preta, nectar for a deva, etc. For a human being the perception of water is conventionally true, perception of molten iron, and so on are conventionally false . It is equally so in the rest of the six realms, for example, a hell being's perception of molten iron is conventionally true in the hell realms, but the perception of water in that realm conventionally would be delusion.
I think the problem I am having with your statements on this matter is that they are not taking into account the facts of existence - they are rather scholastic arguments, based on a scholastic tradition within they have a particular meaning.
Right, I am employing those arguments within the context of a tradition to which I am an actual heir, having been trained in those arguments in the traditional manner.
I'm actually interested in philosophy, Buddhist and otherwise, as a practical skill, and that has to accept the fact that suffering, objects of cognition, and the rest, do exist, even whilst they're ultimately empty.
Relatives truths are objects of false cognitions. They are identified as such so that one will known how to discern ultimate truth, the understanding and realization of which leads to nirvana.

However, the extent to which you believe that so called "mere existence" is immune to analysis is the extent to which your view contains grasping to existents and falls far short of Madhyamaka view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


srivijaya said:
Hi Malcolm,
I see that you place emphasis on the deluded cognition here, rather than the object. Still, Wayfarer has a valid point. The Mahayana proposition rests on the revelation that such deluded cognitions perceive objects as existing inherently, whereas they are in fact empty (Two Truths). Direct experience of this is essential for liberation. If you remove this, then the whole premise is undermined wouldn't you say?

Malcolm wrote:
Truths are cognitions of objects, so yes, the emphasis is on the cognition, nevertheless, the definition is incomplete without including the object.

For example, a mirage is the object of a deluded cognition of the presence of water in the distance. The perceived object does not exist, and yet it still appears; when that appearance of investigated, no water is found which corresponds to that appearance.

"...such deluded cognitions perceive objects as existing inherently, whereas they are in fact empty..."

Such a distinction is not made by a worldly person. Worldly people do not think in terms of "inherent existence."

The problem with Wayfarer's perspective is that he believes that there is something in phenomena that can survive analysis, which he calls "mere existence." In reality, nothing can survive ultimate analysis, not even buddhahood.

Relatives truths are by definition cognitions of objects which have not been subjected to ultimate analysis. The cognition of any object which can survive ultimate analysis is an ultimate truth.

The real point is that whatever arises from causes and conditions is cannot survive ultimate analysis. For example, in the Hinayāna presentation of two truths the cognition of a vase is relative truth; when this is shattered with a hammer, the cognition of the shards and so on are ultimate truths. Likewise, the cognition of water is a relative truth; but the cognition of coolness, wetness and limpidity are ultimate truths.

When this is brought to the level of Madhyamaka, we can see that all things that arise from cause and conditions are equivalent with mirages, dreams, illusions and so on. Just as in a puppet show a bunch of rocks, sticks and paper is made to appear as elephants, warriors and so on through the "mantra" of the illusionist (meaning his narrative), likewise are phenomena appearing through causes and conditions. So too when the it is understood that the illusion is a mere spell cast through skilled manipulation of bits and pieces of rocks, wood, string and so on, one understands that the illusion are unreal, and phenomena are also like this. When the basis of the illusions are investigated, they too are found to arise from causes and conditions and therefore are essentially unreal. There is no end to such analysis because there is no end to deceptive appearances.

I can't continue since I have to go out of town for a day or so, but I will leave you with this: whatever arises from causes and conditions does not exist in those causes and conditions nor separate from them, just as a self does not exist in the aggregates nor separate from them. Nevertheless, just as things are designated dependent on causes and conditions without really being there, selves are designated dependent on the aggregates without really being there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are aware then that relative truths such as cars, houses, diseases and the like are all objects of deluded cognitions, correct?

Wayfarer said:
I don't accept that the objects of everyday experience are simply 'deluded cognitions'. That is the exact problem: you're denying convetional reality, saying that is simply non-existent or illusory. That is what I am saying is nihilist.

Malcolm wrote:
Please reread my statement carefully. You did not read it correctly, as your statement above shows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Experiences with crazy wisdom?
Content:
smcj said:
Buddhist masters can become senile. Their bodies are made of the five elements, just like the rest of us, and sometimes this means they can experience acute mental decline as a result of aging, despite whatever realization they may have attained.
That's interesting. I personally have not had the experience of a master mentally declining with age. But then my sample pooling is limited.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan masters are typically killed by a sedentary lifestyle, too much tea and bad food. They don't usually live long enough to be at risk for senile dementia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Experiences with crazy wisdom?
Content:


ReasonAndRhyme said:
So, if I'm getting you right, you're saying that Chhimed Rigdzin was not a Buddhist master but just a senile old man, and I'm delusional? OK, I've reported your post and this is the last time I've communicated with you.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think he said any of the three things you attributed to him. Simon did not say that Chimed Rigzin Rinpoche was just senile old man, he did not say that Chimed Rigzin Rinpoche  was not a Buddhist master, and he did not say you were delusional. What he said was that someone he knew who has some expertise in gerontology thought that Chimed Rigzin Rinpoche was showing signs of senile dementia.

Buddhist masters can become senile. Their bodies are made of the five elements, just like the rest of us, and sometimes this means they can experience acute mental decline as a result of aging, despite whatever realization they may have attained. It does not mean that the fruit of their realization vanishes into thin air. It means their bodies are worn out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Protectors: Why Did China Invade Tibet?
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I personally find the "when the iron birds fly" narrative revolting.  The subtext is that the Tibetan genocide was sort of OK because the dharma was spread across the world.  It's like telling a woman that it was sort of OK that she was gange raped because she had such a beautiful child.

Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, the land of the red face people refers to Tibet and it is ultimately from a narrative about how the Tibetans conquered Khotan, and the spread of the Dharma into Tibet much later on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
conebeckham said:
[
Such Wisdom is nowhere near a Universal Atman, though, despite comments in the Uttaratantrashastra and elsewhere regarding the Paramitas of Permanence and Self.  For one thing, it is said to be "personally experienced."  It's not universal.

Malcolm wrote:
It [wisdom] is also relative since it is a cognition and is not a permanent cognition [apart from a buddha's wisdom] and also comes about through causes [which is also true in the case of a buddha's wisdom].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
things, whether compounded or uncompounded, either exist inherently or they exist conventionally. Apart from these two kinds of existence, there is no third kind of existence.

Wayfarer said:
I was referring to conventional existence. There are things that exists, like cars, houses, diseases, and things that don't, like unicorns and the square root of two.

Malcolm wrote:
You are aware then that relative truths such as cars, houses, diseases and the like are all objects of deluded cognitions, correct?


I am sorry to say that if suffering were real, there would be no possibility of a path and no possibility of a result. Why? To say that something is real is much worse that saying that something exists. Why? To say that something is real is to say it is inherent.
Not necessarily.

I have some points in common with what you're saying but I don't think you're acknowledging the reality of existence. It is unreal from the point of view of the 'gone beyond' but for those who are in it, it is undeniably real.
It is deniably real, if it were undeniably real, then it would follow that there would be no escape.


....
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/SecondBuddha_Nagarjuna_Loy.html
This citation does not help your point. Nāgārjuna says, as I stated above, if there something non-empty, there would be something to be empty; but as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?
...Emptiness, as articulated by Nāgārjuna, Tsongkhapa argues, is the absence of this kind of existence or property.
http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/docs/garfield_nihilism.pdf, Jay L Garfield
You are doubtless aware that Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka is a minority view, one that is hotly contested and refuted? I don't agree with Tsongkhapa on many details of his presentation of Madhyamaka, his presentation of the tetralemma in particular. It has become the dominant voice among Western Academics, but it is not the only, nor even the best presentation amongst Tibetan Madhyamakas.
Those quotes represent how it was taught to me.
Yes, I understand. The problem with the way you were taught is that you were taught to accept a residuum, called "mere existence," which accounts for your crypto-realism on the one hand, and you were taught to negate something other than the thing before you, which amounts to subtle nihilism because the way you were taught Madhyamaka maintains that an absence is ultimate [the famous non-affirming negation], the absence of inherent existence, i.e., the emptiness which is the absence of the true existence of things, on the other hand.

Gorampa for example, critiques in detail the subtle nihilism present in the Gelugpa view that you follow, as does Mipham. You should read them both.

I was taught old timey Madhyamaka that was not corrupted with those new-fangled fifteenth century innovations delivered by a "Mañjuśrī" channeler (Lama Umapa).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
I'm staring to see Malcolm's position that this debate doesn't really matter. Rangtong vs shentong - maybe just a matter of emphasis between "not something" and "not nothing". All just skillful means.


Malcolm wrote:
As Āryadeva states:
Even though they wait for a long while,
no one can offer a reply 
to one who do not have [these] positions:
"[It] exists", "[It] does not exist" and "[It] exists and does not exist."
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As Sapan famously quips, "If there is something beyond the freedom from extremes, that is an extreme."

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Mind blown. Right.

Even the "middle" is an extreme. It has to be by definition.

Malcolm wrote:
The Samputa Tantra states:
Neither empty nor not-empty, 
there is nothing to perceive in the middle.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
In fact, the one single thing we cannot negate in an affirmative manner is the object of all four extremes itself.

... Which is, in fact, everything.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
I think the argument is that since all negations are nominal whether affirming or non-affirming it is just as legitimate to nominally affirm the ultimate as it is to negate.

Otherwise we are just stuck on the first of Nagarjuna's extreme's, i.e. not-x. I think smcj is just arguing the second extreme, i.e. not not-x.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not stuck on the first extreme, I am not asserting non-existence is the ultimate. The point is that absence of the four extremes, which is ultimate, is not arrived at through a mere assertion, it is arrived at through examination. It is a conclusion, a result of analysis, not a hypothesis about the ultimate (unlike smcj's perspective, which is just a proposition, an proffered theory). It is not an idea you hold in your mind, "Oh the ultimate is free from four extremes." Why? Because when you turn your analysis to the ultimate, no ultimate can be found which is itself free from the four extremes. At the point, your proliferations should cease. As Sapan famously quips, "If there is something beyond the freedom from extremes, that is an extreme."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
If you argue that there is nothing established to either affirm or negate in the first place then that argues both ways - you may as well state that nominally the negation is affirming as non-affirming.

Otherwise the whole strategy of the four extremes falls down, since all of them are negations. Since the four extremes are negations there has to - at least nominally - be something to negate. If that isn't the case, Nagarjuna's whole argument goes out the window and you are left with pure nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is nominally something to negate, appearances. Nāgārjuna's arguments run in three phases: first, self-arising is negated; then, arising from others is negated; and finally causeless negation is negated. Of these three types of arising, the second is what we conventionally term "arising."

This is why, at the conclusion of the first chapter, Buddhapalita notes:
Because results, conditions, and nonconditions do not exist, descriptions for arising are merely conventional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
The translation is not a literal translation of the words but a translation of the meaning, .

Malcolm wrote:
We disagree. It does not translate meaning of the verse, nor the words.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
I personally am not using the term "Shentong" rigorously. Shentong, as a view utilizes the three natures paradigm taken from the Yogacara. I use it as a shorthand for talking about emptiness as an affirming negation, or "empty-of-other". I don't really see a need to elaborate on how that Reality might be characterized, although there is plenty of literature that tries to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
In order for there to be something empty of something else, that something has to be established in the first place. It is not established in the first place, what is the use of talking about either intrinsic or extrinsic emptiness.

The whole gzhan stong trip is a flimsy house of cards.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
PK lays it all out here: http://www.pemakhandro.org/emptiness-madhyamaka/

Malcolm wrote:
It is incorrect to identify the approach of Candarkīrti (aka prasangika) as rang stong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Simon E. said:
' Transcendent ' ? What does it transcend ?

dzogchungpa said:
As Adriano Clemente says in his foreword to "The Supreme Source": In all the gnostic traditions, the absolute is the equivalent of the ineffable, of that which transcends word and thought.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth is inexpressible, but not "The Ineffable."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
M: "To say that something is real is to say it is inherent."

Not necessarily, if by meaning or definition, real = inherent, then fine.  But experientially, 'real' is ineffable.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that something is real means that it actually exists.

Experiences come and go.

Nicholas Weeks said:
Reality is not some thing; so I will redo as:  Experientially, reality is ineffable, permanent suchness.


Malcolm wrote:
Suchness is not established. The Ārya-varmavyūhanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
The dhamadhātu is difficult to imagine,
it does not come or go, 
the dharmadhātu is not the aggregates,
nor the elements or sense bases.
Since there is no place to abandon,
it is unmoving.
The suchness of the dharmadhātu,
it's natural purity, does not exist.
In the same vein, the Mahāsiddha Virupa concludes his Doha:
...the two truths don’t exist in the dharmadhātu, the dharmadhātu does not exist.
Indeed, the Ārya-ghanavyūha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra says:
The suchness of all phenomena
arises through power of mutual relation,
the yogins seeing in that way
clearly see it as suchness. 
The perfected nature 
is the dharmatā of phenomena;
all phenomena do not arise
as the substantial entities of the imputed:
empty, insubstantial,
beyond the the extremes of existence and nonexistence, 
similar with illusions and dreams,
like fairy castles,
like opthalmia and like mirages.
In other words, suchness, here described as the perfected nature, the dharmatā of dharmas, cannot be established apart from those very dharmas. If those very dharmas are not established, how can their suchness be established? When the relative is not found, what ultimate can be said to be established? The two truths are only established from the perspective of we ignorant fools.

This tendency to reify the ultimate is very pernicious. For this reason, Nāgārjuna clear states in the Sixty Verses of Reasoning:
This pair, samsara and nirvana, does not exist.
Thorough knowledge of samsara is said to be nirvana.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
M: "To say that something is real is to say it is inherent."

Not necessarily, if by meaning or definition, real = inherent, then fine.  But experientially, 'real' is ineffable.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that something is real means that it actually exists.

Experiences come and go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
It's very difficult to explain what the deities are from a Madhyamaka perspective. It's very easy to do so from a Shentong perspective. If the deities are not "empty-of-other" then we are all wasting our time.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite easy to explain what "deities" are from a Madhyamaka perspective: they are a method, a path to realize a result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Unknown said:
Sure something is real. Suffering is real, and the path is real. Those who understand and follow the path, find a way out of suffering that is real. Can that be disputed?

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry to say that if suffering were real, there would be no possibility of a path and no possibility of a result. Why? To say that something is real is much worse that saying that something exists. Why? To say that something is real is to say it is inherent. On the other hand to say that something exists allows for the possibility that is may not exist. When it comes to the use of the term "real," it is not possible to say that the real can become unreal — these are contradictions in terms. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable in common language to say "That which existed then no longer exists now." Hence, to say that "suffering is real" is to condemn all sentient beings in the six realms to endless torment.


Unknown said:
In all the billions of ways that billions of things exist.

Malcolm wrote:
That is no kind of answer: but to provide the proper answer, things, whether compounded or uncompounded, either exist inherently or they exist conventionally. Apart from these two kinds of existence, there is no third kind of existence.

The question then should be be, "What is the conventional existence of things?"

Unknown said:
Nagarjuna's intention is to show that compound things are not inherently real. He does not say  that 'nothing exists', and to say that nothing exists is nihilistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna's intent, first and foremost, is to represent the intention of the Prajñāpāramitā, defend Mahāyāna and show that the realism pervasive in Hinayāna schools is not the intent of the Buddha.

Secondly, he shows quite clearly that attempts to demonstrate that things have anything other than conventional existence are incoherent. And he also shows that when conventional things are examined, they are found to lack any reality at all.

Unknown said:
Anyway, Nagarjuna's statements about 'existence' and 'arising' were made in the context of a philosophical or cultural milieu within which such terminology had specific meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in his milieu, bhāva meant "to exist," much as "to exist" means to exist" to us today. Your attempt to avoid the issue of dealing with Nāgārjuna statements through a form of philosophical/cultural relativism is weak dodge. How can you expect me to take this seriously?

Unknown said:
As I said, many claim that Buddhism is nihilistic. Do you think it is? If it isn't, how isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
I already stated this before: when one does not propose something as existent, one cannot be accused of being an annihilationist. I have not proposed any claims of non-existent, I have merely removed claims for existing existents, as Buddhapalita remarks in his comments on chapter 5 of the MMK
We do not claim aggregates, sense bases and elements are nonexistent, but we do eliminate the claim that existents exists.
He also remarks at the end of chapter five:
In order to prove an unknown topic with a known topic: most worldly people say that space does not exist in any way. Thus, partisans claim "All of those proliferations are like space." The intent of such as statement is "All of those are nothing at all." For that reason, it is proven that space is emptiness in order to elucidate the example, "The remaining five elements [dhātus] are equivalent with space."
In other words, in MMK:5 (the analysis of the dhātus), of the six dhātus — earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness — only space is actually subject to analysis. Why? Since Nāgārjuna shows:
Therefor space is not existent,
it is not non-existent, is not the characterized,
is not a characteristic.
The remaining five elements [dhātus] are equivalent with space
Buddhapalita discusses this passage:
Why is that so? When investigated, the characterized and the characteristic does not exist, and also there is no other existent not included in the characterized and the characteristic. If the existent does not exist, also the non-existent does not exist. Therefor, although space is not existent, it is also not non-existent, although the characterized does not exist, also the characteristic does not exist. Thus, if even a subtle thing called ‘space’ came to be, when counting whether anything in those four [alternatives] is valid, because those four [alternatives] are not [valid], therefor space does not exist.
For this reason, characterizing the Madhyamaka position that "there is no reality" as annihilationist is inappropriate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I say the view that 'there is no reality' is a nihilist view. 'Nihilism' means that nothing is real, or that everything is illusory, or that nothing has any ultimate meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
In order to the statement "no reality" to be annihilationist, it would be necessary to propose that there was something that was real. For example, Nāgārjuna states very clearly:
If were anything all that was not empty, there would something to be empty;
but since there is nothing at all that is not empty, where is there something to be empty?

Wayfarer said:
My view is, I think there is 'an ultimate', but that this is not something that can properly be named or designated as such. So as soon as you assert 'an ultimate' and get into a debate about it, it's already a lost argument, because you're trying to talk about or gesture towards something that is over the horizon of discursive reasoning. But I don't accept the interpretation of Śūnyatā as meaning that 'things really don't exist', tout courte. Things are empty of own-being, meaning that no determinate entity contains its own origin or cause, and in fact nothing in the phenonenal realm does. That is demonstrably true, even in scientific terms. But it *doesn't* mean, 'nothing is real'.

Malcolm wrote:
You have just shunted off inherent existence onto something else, a so called dependent existence, which is refuted quite handily by Nāgārjuna in the chapter 15 of the MMK.

In other words, your view holds that things are real. But how? In what way can things exist? You propose things are not self-sufficient, but when examined, even this dependency cannot be found. Why? Causes do not exist at the same time as their effects, but they also cannot exist apart from the time of their effects. As Nāgārjuna states:
Existents do not arise from existents, 
existents do not arise from non-existents;
nonexistents do not arise from existents,
nonexistents do not arise from nonexistents:
where then is there arising?
In the end, so called "mere existence" is just a convention, and is not real since such conventions will not bear analysis. If you imagine that there are some existents that can bear analysis, you have not really understood the Buddha's intention.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
This non-conceptual Wisdom Mind is not the object of the conceptualizing process and so is not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it can be said to be the only thing that has absolute and true existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, actually, "This non-conceptual Wisdom Mind" it is both negated by Madhyamaka reasoning and is nothing but a product of the conceptualizing process.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
...and that is inexpressible.
I cannot see having an actual disagreement about the right way to characterize something that we agree is inconceivable and inexpressae.

Malcolm wrote:
It is how you get there that counts...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
What does "the ultimate" mean?

Malcolm wrote:
don dam pa, parmārtha, highest goal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
> Since nothing in the relative is found to be free of the four extremes, nothing can be found in the ultimate that is free of the four extremes.

This is exactly what is disputed. This doesn't follow, neither does the converse statement.


Malcolm wrote:
It was mis-stated, my bad. What I should have said, is that since one cannot find anything in the relative according to any of the four extremes, there is nothing in the ultimate that can be said to be free from the four extremes. In other words, since the four extremes do not exist in the relative, also there is no ultimate free from extremes, and is that is inexpressible.

The best thing you can say is 'gnas lugs med pa", there is no reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Since nothing in the relative is found to be free of the four extremes, nothing can be found in the ultimate that is free of the four extremes. You are claiming that there is something which is free from the four extremes in the ultimate, but such a claim is incoherent.
Since the Shentong position is that the ultimate is beyond conceptuality, and therefore not subject to such criticisms, I have absolutely no qualms about it being incoherent. This approach to emptiness is not supposed to be accessible by the intellect, but is approached instead by faith.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is, that one cannot say anything about the ultimate that is free from extremes, much less assert that it is immune to Madhyamaka analysis. The moment you make a proposition about the ultimate, you have fallen into an extreme. If you claim the ultimate is atman, that is an extreme; if you claim the ultimate is a nonaffirming negation, that is an extreme; if you claim the ultimate is an affirming negation, that is an extreme.

When you understand that the ultimate is free from all extremes, then you understand that it is not only beyond mind, it is also inexpressible. The problem with the gzhan stong pas as well as the Gelugpas is that they sound like a couple of kids bickering, "Is so!", "Is not!", ad nauseam.

Since nothing can be found to exist by any of the four extremes in the relative, nothing can be ascertained in the ultimate according to any of the four extremes, and that is inexpressible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Visualization Training
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
So basically you are saying that I do not need to have completed ngondro before beginning the Kriya forms of Chenrezig, Manjushri, etc.

Is that the case even if I have not received at least a jenang?

Malcolm wrote:
If you have not received any initiation, you are not even practicing Kriya yoga, technically speaking.

And yes, you do not need to have even started ngondro, let alone completed it to meditate on any deity for which you have received the proper transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Depending on your exact definition of "real", in a word, yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually exists...

smcj said:
No. That is suggestive of something manifest and therefore subject to the tetralemma.
...is ultimate, irreducible, cannot be analyzed further, is unconditioned, etc.
Yes.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that something is ultimate, irreducible, cannot be analyzed further, is unconditioned, etc. is precisely the same thing as saying "actually exists."

Since nothing in the relative is found to be free of the four extremes, nothing can be found in the ultimate that is free of the four extremes. You are claiming that there is something which is free from the four extremes in the ultimate, but such a claim is incoherent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: TNH's new translation of the Heart Sutra
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...simplified translations.

Malcolm wrote:
it is not a translation, it is crib, a gloss, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Depending on your exact definition of "real", in a word, yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually exists, is ultimate, irreducible, cannot be analyzed further, is unconditioned, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:52 AM
Title: Re: Visualization Training
Content:
tingdzin said:
"Really, though, one shouldn't be doing deity practices until one completes ngondro,

Malcolm wrote:
Total nonsense. This is a modern fiction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: TNH's new translation of the Heart Sutra
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Not sure which you're talking about,

Malcolm wrote:
The rup̄a skandha includes five things: the five sense organs and the five sense objects which are all composed of the four elements.

There is a rhythm in reciting, "there is no eye, no ear, no nose..." etc., which is missing from this gloss entirely.

Personally, I think it is entirely clumsy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:35 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So you are saying that there is something real that cannot be known in any way?

smcj said:
Cannot be known dualistically. It can be known without a subject/object dichotomy.

Malcolm wrote:
So basically, you are suggesting that consciousness is ultimately real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Compared to what? That doesn't avoid nihilism - that is nihilism. The task is to awaken to the real, which is distinguishable from the merely existent, those things that are compound, transient, and subject to decay.

Malcolm wrote:
There is something real? What's that?

smcj said:
Nothing that can be taken as an object of consciousness in a dualistic way.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are saying that there is something real that cannot be known in any way?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:12 AM
Title: Re: TNH's new translation of the Heart Sutra
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I really like this translation.

This and Red Pine's feel like the smoothest i've read.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with translation rūpa skandha as "body" is that it excludes the five objects of the senses, which are also part of the rūpa skandha.

There are other problems with it as well. It is at best a gloss on the Heart Sūtra and not a translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Compared to what? That doesn't avoid nihilism - that is nihilism. The task is to awaken to the real, which is distinguishable from the merely existent, those things that are compound, transient, and subject to decay.

Malcolm wrote:
There is something real? What's that?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Zen sees itself as superior to other Sutra traditions by virtue of being a direct path outside of scripture.

Malcolm wrote:
All paths are outside scriptures. There are two kinds of Dharma, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
how to avoid nihilism, then?

Malcolm wrote:
One can only be an annihilationist if one first proposes that something exists which later gets utterly destroyed.

If one checks one's bank balance and finds one's account is empty, is one a thief merely because one discovers one is broke?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
anjali said:
It's the understanding of the nature of the experience where Hindu and Buddhist yogis differ.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.

anjali said:
Where's the beef?

Malcolm wrote:
There isn't any beef, that is the whole point. The cow (and everything else) is totally illusory, and there is nothing else to discover apart from that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
...because tathāgatagarbha is nothing other than natural luminosity of one's mind, which is to say that one's mind has always been innately pure from the start.
So a buddha's mind expressing it's natural luminosity can be said to be "empty-of-(anything)-other" than that expression, right?
Even Buddhas are not ultimately real, so how can their qualities be ultimately real?
Funny, but that is exactly how I've heard Karmapa VIII's position portrayed in a Guy Newland YouTube video; "Self-empty by nature but other-empty by expression."

Lots and lots of ways to skin that cat.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess the point is that in this context, this "other emptiness" is trivial and not at all profound. It's like saying, my clean white shirt is empty of stains, but it is not empty of being clean.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This poll is just sour grapes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


smcj said:
Although I self identify as a "Shentongpa" I'm not particularly attached to the 3 Natures paradigm.

Malcolm wrote:
The whole point of the term "gzhan stong" is to prove, via the (incorrect) use of the three natures that the ultimate truth is empty of the relative truth, but not empty of itself through the assertion that the perfected nature [ yongs grub ] is empty of the dependent [ gzhan dbang ] and the imagined natures [ kun brtags ].



smcj said:
I don't have any objections to it particularly, I think it is a side issue. I'm more an advocate for some form of "empty-of-other" idea, of which there are quite a few. Once I get through "When Clouds Part" (Brunnholzl) I'll have a better idea of which one I feel most comfortable with. As of now I'm uncommitted about that.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite trivial to say that tathāgatagarbha is not empty of qualities but is empty of faults, because tathāgatagarbha is nothing other than natural luminosity of one's mind, which is to say that one's mind has always been innately pure from the start. This however does not mean that those famous qualities are real, established, ultimately exist and so on. Even Buddhas are not ultimately real, so how can their qualities be ultimately real?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Unknown said:
"Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?"

Malcolm wrote:
MN 38


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
You are the one that keeps on bringing it up.

Malcolm wrote:
Look, I don't go out of my way to negate gzhan stong, but as I have made clear, AFAIC, gzhan stong does not = tathagatagarbha doctrine.

Gzhan stong is a Tibetan attempt, of several, to try and reconcile the Yogacara treatises of Maitreyanatha with Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka.

It is not the case that this type of reconciliation was not attempted by Indians, it was, notably in Ratnakārashanti's Madhamaka-alaṃkara.

The problem is how the Tibetans in the gzhan stong school went about it, not that they tried it. Ratnakārashanti, Dharmapāla before him, also tried to reconcile the two approaches, but they did not do so by overwriting the Yogacara treatises themselves. They did so within the constraints of the classical Yogacara system. What I specifically find fault with in the gzhan stong system is the incorrect way they apply the three natures to the two truths, that is really the essence of my disagreement with their tenet system and what causes them all the problems they face with other Tibetan scholars. Longchenpa does not do this, and this is why his treatment of tathāgatagarbha is generally considered more acceptable overall, as is Rangjung Dorje's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Point conceded. Full stop. The interpretation I side with is of the Cittamtra texts that are of a later Tibetan re-interpretation. Hence my consistent and valid characterization of making a distinction between the classical Indian commentaries and the later Tibetan commentaries.

Malcolm wrote:
A later Tibetan interpretation which based on a misunderstanding of those very same classical Indian commentaries themselves. It would be like you pointing to the west, and saying "go that way", while I insist on saying "Oh, you mean go east."

smcj said:
Ok, attention everybody that is following this (and similar) threads!

Is it clear now that Malcolm does not accept many of the later Tibetan interpretations of the classical Indian texts to which I subscribe? We really need to get this behind us. I've been challenged on it too many times and it is getting annoying.

*********************************************************************************************************

BTW, as I've said before, I appreciate and even admire his position. I find no fault with it. However he finds fault with mine, therefore discussion. That's 100% ok. What else can generate so much discussion about Dharma on the internet!

Malcolm wrote:
You are the one that keeps on bringing it up. You did not need to bring this issue up in this thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
anjali said:
If we accept that he had the experience, how is one to explain it from a Buddhist perspective?

Malcolm wrote:
He mistook the clarity aspect [gsal cha] of his mind as a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
Point conceded. Full stop. The interpretation I side with is of the Cittamtra texts that are of a later Tibetan re-interpretation. Hence my consistent and valid characterization of making a distinction between the classical Indian commentaries and the later Tibetan commentaries.

Malcolm wrote:
A later Tibetan interpretation which based on a misunderstanding of those very same classical Indian commentaries themselves. It would be like you pointing to the west, and saying "go that way", while I insist on saying "Oh, you mean go east."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
Positing a self at any level (even a subtle level) would then lead to clinging and grasping at that level.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. For this reason, Vaibhāṣika, Sautrantika and Yogacara are considered the three realist Buddhist tenet systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


smcj said:
KB?


Malcolm wrote:
Karl Brunnholz


smcj said:
Khenpo Tsultrim isn't a modern Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
There are plenty of other modern Tibetans who do not share KTG's affection for gzhan stong. His views are not particularly modern, BTW.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
I side on the more modern (and Tibetan) perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
No you don't, you side with an understanding of the Cittamatra texts that even KB admits has no basis in those very texts themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
The calculus doesn't add up. How can the Buddha have so clearly refuted this, and yet:

1) taught an unborn, undying knower

Malcolm wrote:
Like Kapila, Buddha was a pluralist, accepting that "knowers" were unique and separate. Unlike Kapila, he did not that teach that there was a purusha separate from the aggregates; further he rejected the idea that phenomena were transformations of a single substance (prakriti), and likewise rejected the idea that there was one universal knower.
Code: #
or alayavijnana or bhavanga citta, which is very similar to the Advaita atman?
How is the ālayavijñā, the bearer of karmic imprints (vasanas, bijas), something conditioned and contaminated, similar to the Advaita atman, something unconditioned and uncontaminated?

Matt J said:
2) established a set of teachings that led to the rise of the Chittamatra, which (under some interpretations anyway) seems very similar to to Advaita vedanta?

Malcolm wrote:
Cittamatra is not at all like Advaita. Were you not aware that Vasubandhu argues forcibly for the existence of individual mindstreams?

Matt J said:
3) established a set of teachings that a leading Buddhist teacher was unable to separate the shentong Buddhist view from Advaita according to a dharma scholar and eyewitness?

Malcolm wrote:
There is merely a structural similarity with how the two truths are dealt with, not a substantive similarity.

Matt J said:
Now I'm not saying that the Buddha was an Advaitin (if anything, it seems that the Advaitins adopted many Buddhist views), but to say that the refutation is so clear doesn't add up.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does, once the fog of confusing this tenet system with that tenet system is removed from the brain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 31st, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Matt J said:
Which seems to be close to the alaya vijnana discussed here:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=19679&p=284748&hilit=alaya#p284748

Malcolm wrote:
The ālayavijñāna is exclusive personal, and it is not a self at all, as the Samdhinirmocana sūtra states:
The appropriating consciousness is profound and subtle,
in which all seeds flow like a river,
I do not teach it to the immature,
as it is said "It is not proper to conceive it as a self."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
So the Buddha did not refute the transcendental Atman-Brahman, only the caricatured thumb sized, reified Atman spoken of by some but not all the Upanishads, and certainly not as later developed by Gaudapada and Shankara. So for example, the Chandyoga Chapter 14:
2—3. He who consists of the mind, whose body is subtle, whose form is light, whose thoughts are true, whose nature is like the akasa, whose creation in this universe, who cherishes all righteous desires, who contains all pleasant odours, who is endowed with all tastes, who embraces all this, who never speaks and who is without longing— He is my Self within the heart, smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet; He is my Self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the mid—region, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha definitely refuted this, which is why this whole conversation is completely inane.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
What is all this fussing about Shankara?

Was not Brahman-Atman, the one self-existent impersonal Spirit plainly described as such in some of the Upanishads, irrespective of any commentary and long before Adi Shankara or any of the others?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as a personal self the size of a mustard seed, or a thumb, and so on in the body...this idea was definitely refuted by the Buddha.

anjali said:
Yes, the personal atman is traditionally located in the heart-center with the size of a mustard sees or thumb. But the atman was certainly considered more than just personal.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, nevertheless it is refuted in the Nirvana sūtra.



Tenzen Wangyal, from [i]Healing with Form, Energy, and Light[/i], p. 115 said:
Conceptually, this is not different than, for example, the role that the heart plays in togal teachings in dzogchen: Although rigpa is not actually localized, many practitioners can most easily recognize it through a connection to the heart center. The Six Lamps specifically discusses this in terms of the space inside the physical heart. Westerners often find this strange, but it's similar to what we mean when we say that "in" each being is the nature of mind. The nature of mind is not individual and not localized. It is truer to say that we exist in the nature of mind than to say the nature of mind is in us. But in our experience it is easier to recognize the nature of mind if we go "in" to the deepest place in ourselves, the heart. This is why we say that the rigpa resides in the heart, and why the heart is the center of the life-force prana and why love is always connected to the heart. Thus we talk about the "light of the heart".

Malcolm wrote:
This thumb-sized self is refuted in the Dzogchen tantras as well.

With regard to TW's concepts around so called "khyab rig", this has been extensively refuted by John Luc Achard.

https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/06/khyab-rig-pervading-knowledge-and-its.html
https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/07/khyab-rig-final-word-from-drenpa-namkha.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
What is all this fussing about Shankara?

Was not Brahman-Atman, the one self-existent impersonal Spirit plainly described as such in some of the Upanishads, irrespective of any commentary and long before Adi Shankara or any of the others?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as a personal self the size of a mustard seed, or a thumb, and so on in the body...this idea was definitely refuted by the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: What are sentient beings?
Content:


Vasana said:
But there is still a dynamic interplay of energy, even if Buddhas and beings are both equally empty. Maybe it's my question i need to readdress.
I'll check out the tantra mentioned too, thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there is no dynamic interplay of "energy"; there are two states; one in which consciousness recognizes itself, called rigpa, and one in which consciousness does not recognize itself, called marigpa. A being who has fully integrated that recognition at the deepest level is called a 'Buddha"; the rest are sentient beings.


Vasana said:
What are you currently translating Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
Stay tuned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
daverupa said:
It's an argument from silence that won't grow out of being a fallacy, and it's getting pretty ad nauseam.

David Reigle said:
The argument from silence, of course, cuts both ways. It is just as much an assumption to assume that the universal ātman is the ātman that the Buddha denied, as to assume that it is not the universal ātman that the Buddha denied. Ergo, if it is a fallacy to hold that the Buddha did not deny the universal ātman, then it is equally a fallacy to hold that the Buddha did deny the universal ātman.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, there is the fact that Śāntarakṣita did refute Advaita can give you an indication of the general impression of Advaita in Buddhist circles, not least of which was the fact that  Śaṅkarācārya was an enemy of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: WOMPT & Sex
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you are a lay tantric practitioner you need to practice the yoga of passion, perceving yourself as a heruka and your partner as a dakini (for example, Kalacakra and Vishvamata). The yoga of passion is not connected with the completion stage, it is connected with the creation stage, so there is no need to worry about losing semen and so on.

As far as which orifice, etc., this is mainly a sutrayāna affair. There are no restrictions for a practitioner practicing the yoga of passion. The body of a deity is completely pure.


N

frankc said:
But Gampopa speaks of three types of sexual misconduct in the Jewel Ornament Of Liberation which includes wrong parts of the body. Wasn't he a tantric practitioner? I don't understand.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a sūtra text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


David Reigle said:
True. Kamaleswar Bhattacharya’s thesis has two parts: (1) that the Buddha did not deny the universal ātman; (2) that in denying the ātman in a person the Buddha thereby indirectly affirmed the universal ātman. The first part is, I think, demonstrable. Pali scholars agree that the Buddha does not specifically deny the existence of the attā anywhere in the Pāli canon, nor do the Sanskrit Buddhist texts deny the non-dual universal ātman. The second part is not demonstrable, on the basis of the great majority of Buddhist texts. It is so only if we accept the tathāgata-garbha sūtras that teach the perfection of ātman (ātma-pāramitā), and accept that these represent the Buddha’s final teachings, as the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra represents itself to be.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not certain. Again, you would be projecting backward, asserting that intention of the Buddha in the  Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is commensurate with Śaṅkarācārya's intention 1200 years later, or 700 years later if you assume the sūtra was composed in the first century CE.

I don't think that Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra teaches a universal atman of the type Śaṅkarācārya advocates. I think it is impossible to demonstrate that it does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is only a difference in the coarseness or subtlety of the mind that apprehends suchness.

Astus said:
And what does that stand for? How can non-abiding be coarse or subtle? There is nothing to grasp or apprehend in suchness.

Malcolm wrote:
The nature of reality is what is termed "non-abiding"; the mind that apprehends suchness can be coarse or subtle. The sūtras in general place emphasis on the object side. The tantras emphasize the subject side.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't see that passage as pointing out the nonconceptual wisdom of a bodhisattva and a tathāgata are the same.
It is not actually a very common term in the sūtras, occurring in only three sūtras in the bka' 'gyur.

Astus said:
Nirvikalpajnana (無分別智) should be a fairly common term in sutrayana, at least in yogacara and tathagatagarbha works.

Malcolm wrote:
Rnam par mi rtog pa'i ye shes, nirvikalpa-jñāna is more common the commentaries. It is not that common in the sūtras themselves. It's occurrence in the bka' 'gyur is restricted to the sūtras I referenced.


Astus said:
According to the Cheng Weishi Lun, this is what a bodhisattva gets at the path of seeing, what a bodhisattva practises with on the path of meditation, and it is the great mirror wisdom's perception of suchness.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, correct. A first stage bodhisattva enters a nonconceptual wisdom on the path of seeing.

Astus said:
The difference between the nonconceptual wisdom of bodhisattvas of one stage and another, as well as buddhas, is the degree to which they have developed sarvakārajñāna.
However, I still don't see how can there be any difference between not abiding anywhere for a bodhisattva and a buddha.

Thanks for the recommendation of Aryadeva's Lamp.

Malcolm wrote:
There is only a difference in the coarseness or subtlety of the mind that apprehends suchness.

Sure, it is necessary for understanding much of Vajrayāna thinking around these issues. It is perhaps one of the most important theoretical commentaries on Vajrayāna, and its influence is much more widespread than the Arya tradition of Guhyasamaja.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, one difference I see is the translation of this passage you refer to seems to be an abbreviation when compared with the same passage as translated into Tibetan:

Astus said:
What about the difference regarding non-conceptual wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, one difference I see is the translation of this passage you refer to seems to be an abbreviation when compared with the same passage as translated into Tibetan:

Astus said:
What about the difference regarding non-conceptual wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see that passage as pointing out the nonconceptual wisdom of a bodhisattva and a tathāgata are the same.

It is not actually a very common term in the sūtras, occurring in only three sūtras in the bka' 'gyur.

For example the term occurs only once in the whole the Prajñāpāramitā corpus, in the Ārya-candragarbha-prajñāpāramitā-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Son of a good family, in that respect, the inexhaustible perfection of discerning wisdom is the nonconceptual wisdom of the of path of seeing. Because that wisdom is free from all concepts, it is therefore nonconceptual.
It also occurs in the Ārya-avikalpa-praveśa-nāma-dhāraṇī and the Ārya-gośṛṅgavyākaraṇa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra.

By contrast, it occurs in six tantras. Anyway, this is a besides the point. The real point is that the wisdom of bodhisattvas for example, cannot perceive tathāgatagarbha, even tenth stage bodhisattvas perceive only a generic approximation of it. The difference between the nonconceptual wisdom of bodhisattvas of one stage and another, as well as buddhas, is the degree to which they have developed sarvakārajñāna.

When it comes to the difference between minds in sūtra and tantra, there are no means taught in the sūtras to quell coarse minds. For example, Caryāmelāpakapradīpa points out:
As such, the Mahāyāna sūtras explain that the nature of consciousness that is without color, signs or shape is self-knowing wisdom. On the other hand, without entering the mahāyoga tantras of Vajrayāna, such as Guhyasamaja and so on, one will not be able to understand one's mind just as it truly for all the eons equal with the sands of the Ganges river and will not see relative truth. Therefore, one may know just how the three consciousness truly are from the kindness of the guru through following the Śrī Jñānavajrasammucaya tantra.
If you wish to understand more about the distinction between the coarse mind taught in sūtra, and the subtle mind taught in the tantras, you should study Āryadeva's Lamp that Integrates the Practices, Wedemeyer, Columbia, 2007.

This, incidentally, is among the reasons sūtrayāna takes so damn long, i.e., outside of Vajrayāna, there are no methods access the most subtle mind and use it in practice. That at least is the point of view of Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So as far as you are concerned the non-conceptual wisdom of a first stage bodhisattva and the non-conceptual wisdom of a buddha is exactly alike?

Astus said:
Yes. What difference do you see?

"a Bodhisattva gives alms in the same way as would a Tathāgata, without any difference. This is how a Bodhisattva takes Bodhisattva actions. Likewise a Bodhisattva observes the precepts, endures adversity, makes energetic progress, does meditation, and develops wisdom in the same way as would a Tathāgata, without any difference. This is how a Bodhisattva takes Bodhisattva actions."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra46.html )

Malcolm wrote:
Well, one difference I see is the translation of this passage you refer to seems to be an abbreviation when compared with the same passage as translated into Tibetan:
“Mañjuśrī, how does a bodhisattva practice within the conduct of a bodhisattva? [F.298.b] Mañjuśrī, a bodhisattva does not think of destruction, arising, non-destruction, non-arising, and the utter destruction of destruction; nor is he disturbed by utter non-arising. It is in this way, Mañjuśrī, that he practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva. Furthermore, Mañjuśrī, a bodhisattva does not practice by thinking, ‘The past mind is destroyed;’ he does not practice by thinking, ‘The future mind has yet to be obtained;’ he does not practice by thinking, ‘The present mind abides.’ He is not stuck in the past, future, or present mind. As he practices in this way, Mañjuśrī, a bodhisattva practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva. [136]

“Mañjuśrī, giving, awakening, and sentient beings and, on the other hand, the Tathāgata: these are non-dual, they are not divided into two.41 Practicing in this way, a bodhisattva practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva. Mañjuśrī, discipline, awakening, and sentient beings and, on the other hand, the Tathāgata: these are non-dual, they are not divided into two. Practicing in this way, a bodhisattva practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva.
“It is the same way with forbearance, awakening, and sentient beings, and, on the other hand, the Tathāgata; diligence, awakening, and sentient beings, and, on the other hand, the Tathāgata; concentration, awakening, and sentient beings, and, on the other hand, the Tathāgata; and similarly, wisdom, awakening, and sentient beings, and, on the other hand, the Tathāgata. These are non-dual, they are not divided into two. Practicing in this way, a bodhisattva practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva.

“Mañjuśrī, a bodhisattva may practice thinking that ‘form is not empty’ and also ‘not non-empty.’ Practicing in this way, Mañjuśrī, that bodhisattva practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva. And why? He thinks, ‘Form itself is empty of the essence of form. In the same way, [F.299.a] feeling, notion, co-producing factors, and consciousness are empty.’ He practices thinking in this way and also thinking that ‘they are not non-empty.’ Practicing in this way, Mañjuśrī, a bodhisattva practices within the conduct of a bodhisattva. And why? Because mind, mentality, and consciousness are not perceived.
http://read.84000.co/#!ReadingRoom/UT22084-047-002/36


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Don't you distinguish between the nonconceptual wisdom of a first stage bodhisattva and a tenth stage bodhisattva? The object is the same, but the degree of subtlety is not.

Astus said:
There can be only one state that deserves the name non-conceptual wisdom, in other words, non-abiding awareness. Anything else would be conceptual, would be abiding somewhere. What do you mean by difference in subtlety?

Malcolm wrote:
So as far as you are concerned the non-conceptual wisdom of a first stage bodhisattva and the non-conceptual wisdom of a buddha is exactly alike?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Protectors: Why Did China Invade Tibet?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No teachings are ever destroyed.

Jikan said:
Texts were destroyed.  Temples were destroyed.  Stupas were destroyed.  Worst of all, people were destroyed.  These are vessels of the teaching.

Is it not fair to say that the teachings--or the transmission of the teachings--was disrupted?

Malcolm wrote:
All these things, while regrettable, did not and cannot disrupt the Dharma or its transmission.

In  order for the teachings to be disrupted, the source of the teachings would have to be disrupted. And that is just not possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Corporate "Mindfulness".
Content:
MrBlueSKY said:
To make sense of the future in regard to this corporate mindfulness ....No ?

Malcolm wrote:
No, mindfulness is not Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Protectors: Why Did China Invade Tibet?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharmapālas protect the Dharma, not people.

ClearblueSky said:
Exactly, but due to teachings getting destroyed someone could make the argument they "didn't protect the Dharma". Or the opposite argument, based on Vajrayana teachings spreading more widely than ever. One can't say for sure, unless you could compare it side-by-side to a 2015 where Tibet was not invaded (and even then it'd be hard to).

Malcolm wrote:
No teachings are ever destroyed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Protectors: Why Did China Invade Tibet?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharmapālas protect the Dharma, not people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is the same nature, the mind that recognizes it however is much more subtle.

Astus said:
How can non-conceptual wisdom have levels?

Malcolm wrote:
Don't you distinguish between the nonconceptual wisdom of a first stage bodhisattva and a tenth stage bodhisattva? The object is the same, but the degree of subtlety is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is pointing out the nature of mind even in Hinayāna.

Astus said:
Is one directly introduced to a different nature than what is pointed out? ( http://www.khenposodargye.org/2013/11/attaining-buddhahood-by-revealing-the-nature-of-reality-and-attaining-buddhahood-in-a-single-life/ seems to say no.)

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same nature, the mind that recognizes it however is much more subtle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes. And that is just an an eye blink in time.

Astus said:
I'm curious, what is the source for that number?
Chan lacks the direct introduction found exclusively in Vajrayāna
Do you mean empowerment here? How about pointing out the nature of mind?

Malcolm wrote:
There is pointing out the nature of mind even in Hinayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
1 x 10(56), i.e. 1 followed by 56 zeros.

Astus said:
That is, the minimal time to complete the entire bodhisattva path is 3×10^56 years?

zengen said:
To the best of my knowledge, It's 3x10^56 Maha-Kalpas, not human years.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Vasana said:
How does the notion of time and emptiness come in to play here ?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a buddha, for you there is no time since for you there are no objects, and for you there are no thoughts, no concepts, etc., and therefore, no time.

But if you are not a buddha, even if you are a tenth stage bodhisattvas, for you there are objects, for you there are thoughts, concepts. and therefore, there is time.

Vasana said:
Yeah, this is true.

On a side note, aren't the 10 stages 'absent' in Vajrayana /Mahamudra/Dzogchen or replaced with another frame of reference ?
You probably know more about this, not a topic i've looked in to deeply yet.

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna, no the ten stages are not absent. There are instead thirteen stages.

In Kagyu Mahāmudra, the stages are not taken as seriously, also in Dzogchen they are not taken as seriously, but then again, these are systems belonging to Vajrayāna, an in each of these systems there are clear indications of how far along the path one is.

In Kagyu Mahāmudra, there are various schemes, but the first two yogas are generally held to correspond to the two mundane paths and the path of seeing, the third yoga is the path of cultivation, and the fourth yoga, nonmeditation is equivalent to buddhahood.

Likewise, in Dzogchen, the first two visions are below the path of seeing, the second two visions cover the path of seeing and beyond.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Vasana said:
And again from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Mañjuśrīparivarta Sūtra
The Buddha told Mañjuśrī : If a person is able to hear this teaching without fear, then the seeds of good roots have not only been planted with thousands of buddhas, but good roots have truly been planted with hundreds of thousands of myriads of buddhas. Therefore, one is able to be be without alarm and fear of the extremely profound Prajñāpāramitā.”
http://lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka/T0232_LL_manjusri_prajnaparamita

Is it not true that realization 'exists' outside (but not separate from) time and space?

How does the notion of time and emptiness come in to play here ?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a buddha, for you there is no time since for you there are no objects, and for you there are no thoughts, no concepts, etc., and therefore, no time.

But if you are not a buddha, even if you are a tenth stage bodhisattvas, for you there are objects, for you there are thoughts, concepts. and therefore, there is time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
1 x 10(56), i.e. 1 followed by 56 zeros.

Astus said:
That is, the minimal time to complete the entire bodhisattva path is 3×10^56 years?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. And that is just an an eye blink in time.



Astus said:
Vajrayānists, including Indian Vajrayānists, consider everything that is not Vajrayāna part of common Mahāyāna. Huayen. Tientai, etc., are all schools based in Mahāyāna sūtra.
Just like those schools have their own classification systems. For instance, from a Huayan perspective Vajrayana would fall into the category of Final Mahayana, that is above Madhyamaka and Yogacara but below the Sudden Enlightenment teaching. And from the Chan view Tantra is still a gradual path based on temporary skilful means.

Malcolm wrote:
These historical interpretations of the Buddha's career have no relevance at all to Vajrayāna. The idea of dividing up the career of the Buddha into distinct epochs is a uniquely Chinese historiographical idea. The Indian Mahāyānis certainly didn't care about such interpretations and never made them, in fact they rejected them.

As to the Chan point of view, this is addressed by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. Chan lacks the direct introduction found exclusively in Vajrayāna, this is why he ranks Chan below Mahāyoga.

As far as I am concerned, Chan sudden enlightenment is mere rhetoric and cannot be taken seriously. But I am sure if I were a Chan or a Zen practitioner, I would feel differently about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Maenla & Orgyen Maenla
Content:


Urgyen Dorje said:
I believe my Gelug teachers said that Maenla comes from the sutra tradition, and as such it doesn't have wang, but rather a jenang associated with the practice.  There we had the sadhana of the seven Medicine Buddha brothers.

Malcolm wrote:
This practice was introduced to Tibetan by Shantarakshita in the 8th. This was the main practice of Tibetan kings for many generations. It is part of kriya tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is that to attain full buddhahood it takes three asaṃkhyakalpas (asaṃkhya does not really mean incalculable, it is the name of a large number). The point of knowing where one is on the path is to know that, for example, if one is not yet on the path of seeing, one has a long way to go in common Mahāyāna terms. Even if one is on the path of seeing, one has a  long way to go in common Mahāyāna terms.

For example, when it is says that bodhisattvas can attain full buddhahood in seven lifetimes, this is not referring to bodhisattva on the path of accumulation, it is referring to bodhisattvas on the eighth bhumi, etc.

Astus said:
What number asamkhya is?

Malcolm wrote:
1 x 10(56), i.e. 1 followed by 56 zeros.

Astus said:
Schools like Huayan, Tiantai and Chan do not consider themselves common Mahayana, and they don't fit the system Tibetan's use.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayānists, including Indian Vajrayānists, consider everything that is not Vajrayāna part of common Mahāyāna. Huayen. Tientai, etc., are all schools based in Mahāyāna sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the above refers to a thought that bodhisattva has, not an actual fact of his or her saving anyone

Astus said:
I did not intend anything else with it, just to demonstrate what I have referred to.
You left out the next passage
It's part of the whole point. Even encountering the Dharma is a sign of previous good karma. Thus it fits Dan's remark: "Maybe we've already been on it for incalculable kalpas minus one lifetime!"

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that to attain full buddhahood it takes three asaṃkhyakalpas (asaṃkhya does not really mean incalculable, it is the name of a large number). The point of knowing where one is on the path is to know that, for example, if one is not yet on the path of seeing, one has a long way to go in common Mahāyāna terms. Even if one is on the path of seeing, one has a  long way to go in common Mahāyāna terms.

For example, when it is says that bodhisattvas can attain full buddhahood in seven lifetimes, this is not referring to bodhisattva on the path of accumulation, it is referring to bodhisattvas on the eighth bhumi, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Dan74 said:
Perhaps it is holding to the notion of stages that makes the path take aeons and aeons? Sounds like the good old polishing the brick into a mirror story...

Astus said:
The sutras themselves give some indication on one's state.

“If good men and good women, having heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā, can come to resoluteness in their minds, not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, know that they stand on the Ground of No Regress. If those who have heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā are not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, but believe, accept, appreciate, and listen tirelessly, they have in effect achieved dāna-pāramitā, śīla-pāramitā, kṣānti-pāramitā, vīrya-pāramitā, dhyāna-pāramitā, and prajñā-pāramitā. Moreover, they can reveal and explicate [the teachings] to others and can have them train accordingly.”
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html )

Malcolm wrote:
You left out the next passage:
The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, “In your opinion, what is meant by attaining anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi and by abiding in anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi?”
    Mañjuśrī replied, “I have no anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi to attain, nor do I abide in the Buddha Vehicle. Then how should I attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi? What I describe is only the appearance of bodhi.”
    The Buddha praised Mañjuśrī, “Very good! Very good! You have so skillfully explained the meaning of this profound Dharma. You have long planted your roots of goodness under past Buddhas, training with purity in the Brahma way of life according to the dharma of no appearance.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So you mean, you are not responsible for your own liberation? When someone first stage bodhisattva sees your emptiness, you are liberated.
Were it so easy...

Astus said:
That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

All the different types of sentient beings, whether they be born from eggs, born from a womb, born from moisture or born spontaneously; whether or not they have form; whether they abide in perceptions or no perceptions; or without either perceptions or non-perceptions, I save them by causing them to enter nirvana without remainder. And when these immeasurable, countless, infinite number of sentient beings have been liberated, in actuality, no sentient being has attained liberation. Why is this so? Subhūti, If a bodhisattva abides in the signs of self, person, sentient being, or life-span, she or he is not a bodhisattva.”
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 3)

Malcolm wrote:
You left out an important part: "The bodhisattvas and mahāsattvas should subdue their thoughts like this...."

The Tibetan and Sanskrit make it more clear, the above refers to a thought that bodhisattva has, not an actual fact of his or her saving anyone.
Subhuti, here, the one who has correctly entered into the bodhisattvayāna thinks in this way, "However many sentient beings there are, included in egg-birth, womb-birth, heat and moisture-birth and apparitional birth, with form, without form, with perception, without perception or without perception and non-perception, as many sentient beings as are designated sentient beings, all of them I will free through total nirvana in the state [dhātu] of nirvana without remaining aggregates. As such, though limitless sentient beings have been freed through total nirvana, no sentient beings will have been freed through parinivana." Thus that one should generate this thought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


cloudburst said:
I am more interested in your idea

Malcolm wrote:
You can find my idea in thub pa'i dgongs gsal, concerning the five paths, specifically the path of preparation and seeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
conebeckham said:
The first two lines are clear--there are two truths, Relative and Absolute.   The third line indicates that the Absolute is not an object of the intellect.  "Intellect," in this case, is a fairly specific word, in Tibetan, blos., which stands for an aspect of conceptual mind. "Intellect" is a good translation, IMO.  Malcolm translated it as "Mind," and that is okay, but it's a more specific aspect of the mental continuum, in my opinion, and "Intellect" is more precise.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhi:  the power of forming and retaining conceptions and general notions , intelligence , reason , intellect , mind , discernment


conebeckham said:
Even more precise, thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
The issues is that the terms "mind", "consciousness", "intellect" and so on are at best ambiguously distinct from one another in English . The other word that blos translates is mati, which this case bears the connotations of the mind , perception , understanding , intelligence , sense , judgment...{mind}.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
conebeckham said:
The first two lines are clear--there are two truths, Relative and Absolute.   The third line indicates that the Absolute is not an object of the intellect.  "Intellect," in this case, is a fairly specific word, in Tibetan, blos., which stands for an aspect of conceptual mind. "Intellect" is a good translation, IMO.  Malcolm translated it as "Mind," and that is okay, but it's a more specific aspect of the mental continuum, in my opinion, and "Intellect" is more precise.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhi:  the power of forming and retaining conceptions and general notions , intelligence , reason , intellect , mind , discernment


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Granted, there is a certain tendency to do this, but one reason why I rarely cite Tibetan scholars about anything anymore is that there is too much sectarianism in their work.

cloudburst said:
For me, generally speaking, these discussions form the body of my education about the views of other Buddhist traditions (in the Tibetan lineages, I have never had any interest whatsoever in Zen or Chinese Buddhisms. Theravadins are cool but incomplete imho) as they are lived and understood by modern westerners.

I also have an opportunity to refine my views regarding my own school by having them challenged. For me this is edifying. (I find it interesting that some of the characters that go at it tooth and claw here are probably share more in view with each other's than with nearly anyone on planet earth.)

In any case, I find the discussions here increase my faith in my own tradition, and help me understand the traditions of others. I see that as a good and worthwhile thing.

I plan to press you on your unwillingness/inability to give a coherent account of how one passes from the path of preparation to the path of seeing, but due to such things as having a job etc. that will have to wait until another day.

Cheers all, sorry to be annoying.

Malcolm wrote:
Present your your idea. Then we will see how it adds up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


cloudburst said:
All Tibetan Buddhists regard the Indian founders as authoritative...

Malcolm wrote:
Except western Gelugpas and their derivatives, who often give the appearance of believing that no one understood Buddhism, let alone realized anything, until Tsongkhapa came along.

cloudburst said:
I think this is mainly an internet phenomenon. I have been reading and posting here and on esangha for years and years, and have seen this ridiculous triumphalist tone regarding the works of their founders, from jonang, kagyu, sakya, nyingma, western dzogchenpa with Tibetan names etc etc as well as Gelug derivatives and the like.

I have been guilty of it myself. As far as I know, no-one is immune, and it's unpleasant wherever you see it.

Generally speaking I think they are just excited because they have met the best thing that ever happened to them and they have a feeling of certainty that they want to share. Often they have met a person that is wise and kind to them, and they finally feel like they have something to crow about.

It passes.

Malcolm wrote:
Granted, there is a certain tendency to do this, but one reason why I rarely cite Tibetan scholars about anything anymore is that there is too much sectarianism in their work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Kelwin said:
Malcolm, this is an old post, but could you elaborate a bit? As far as I know Pramoha is part of the Shitro mandala, and usually not considered a local protector? Is there anywhere I can find more about her being related to Europe?

Thank you!

Malcolm wrote:
It is a name for Dorje Yudronma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


cloudburst said:
All Tibetan Buddhists regard the Indian founders as authoritative...

Malcolm wrote:
Except western Gelugpas and their derivatives, who often give the appearance of believing that no one understood Buddhism, let alone realized anything, until Tsongkhapa came along.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


cloudburst said:
As you yourself just experienced, when Malcolm refers to "Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu commentaries," this does not change your view. Why? You do not regard these as authoritative.

Malcolm wrote:
He does not even regard Indian authorities, including the Buddha, as authoritative, and thinks they are in need of repair.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Astus said:
A bodhisattva sees that there are no beings to liberate, that is how all beings are liberated.]

Malcolm wrote:
So you mean, you are not responsible for your own liberation? When someone first stage bodhisattva sees your emptiness, you are liberated.

Were it so easy...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:


Dan74 said:
Are they literal? In which case how far along are we? Maybe we've already been on it for incalculable kalpas minus one lifetime!

Malcolm wrote:
This is why it is important to understand the paths and stages, so we can know where we are on the path.

Then we will have an idea of how much longer we need to continue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
conebeckham said:
Direct, non-conceptual experience of emptiness occurs in equipoise, but lower-level Bodhisattvas have (conceptual) mind and subject/object dualism in post-meditation.
A couple verses in translation, this time from Geshe Tenzin Zopa of Sera Je Monastery:

And another version of verse 2:

Relative and absolute,
These the two truths are declared to be.
The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,
For intellect is grounded in the relative.

TsongKhapaFan, you can see that even a Gelukpa Geshe's translation is more in line with the actual words.  You should compare this to your version.

Tsongkhapafan said:
This translation is very poor. There are no absolute things because there is nothing that does not depend and nothing that is not relative. Ultimate truth is not absolute.

Even though it is a bad translation, the meaning is in line with my understanding - a direct realisation of emptiness, that is, a non-conceptual realisation, is not possible with a conceptual mind (badly rendered as 'intellect' here). This is Shantideva's intention. It is absurd to assert that the mind cannot know emptiness because the mind is a conventional truth, which was Malcolm's original and incorrect assertion. It is only the mind that knows anything, and if the mind doesn't know it, how else is it possible to perceive and realise emptiness?

Your intepretation is clearly not what Shantideva is saying at all, but you're free to believe whatever you want.

Malcolm wrote:
One, you are not qualified to judge any translations, since you a) do not know Tibetan b) do not know Sanskrit.

Second, what Shantideva states is the folllowing:
When existents and nonexistents
do not remain before the mind, 
then, since there is no other aspect,
[the mind] is pacified because there is nothing to perceive.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
This is a literal translation of his words, not his intended meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the verse you cited is a completely corrupt and invalid rendering, and has nothing to do with Shantideva's intended meaning. My translation is affirmed by all the Indian commentaries on this text, of which there are ten, not to mention numerous Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu commentaries.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Then they all misinterpreted Shantideva's words. It's important to know the meaning, not just the words.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that you do not know the meaning, and neither does the person who translated the citation you provided.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
This is a literal translation of his words, not his intended meaning. This is often the problem in Buddhism - literalism. His intended meaning is given in the verse I quoted above.

conebeckham said:
First you claim that "Shantideva doesn't say this at all," then we provide reliable translations of what Shantideva actually says, and you claim that his intended meaning is other than his words.  So, in your view, what Shantideva says is actually not what he says, but what someone else asserts is his "intention."   This is tortured explication, indeed, and far from the intent of the author.


Malcolm wrote:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
I have now finished reading Bhavya’s Vedānta chapter and other chapters of his Madhyamaka-hṛdaya. I found it interesting that even in this chapter, like in his refutations of the ātman in previous chapters, the ātman he refutes is a kartṛ, “doer” or “agent,” and a bhoktṛ, “enjoyer” or “experiencer.” This confirms Kamaleswar Bhattacharya’s thesis that the ātman refuted in Buddhism was not the universal ātman. Bhavya, like Vasubandhu before him, and like Śāntarakṣita after him, understood the ātman that Buddhists refute to be a permanent personal ātman that can act and experience. It was not until a couple centuries after Bhavya that Śaṅkarācārya formulated the Advaita Vedānta view of the ātman, on the basis of passages found in the Upaniṣads, and promulgated it widely. This idea of a non-dual universal ātman that, as such, cannot be an agent or an experiencer, has dominated Indian thought ever since. But this was not the idea of the ātman that Buddhists refuted, as their texts show, and it is incorrect to project this idea backwards onto the ātman that they refuted.

Malcolm wrote:
All that you have stated is that the concept of a universal atman is specifically Śaṅkarācārya's point of view. It is also equally incorrect therefore to project this idea backward and infer that this universal atman is one that is implicitly affirmed by the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Dharma protectors and samaya
Content:
Adamantine said:
I believe this same question came up in some other thread and the original link is now broken, but I recall that this woman's quoted post preceded Kali Ma's name change to Pema Khandro. She started out teaching as Kali Ma, then "Troma Rinpoche" and finally shifted to Pema Khandro. Pema Khandro was a rather late name for her, in her ongoing name-transformations. I may have missed a couple. So chronologically it doesn't map out for it to be the same woman, according to my own memory.


Malcolm wrote:
Unless it was a personal nick she was using at the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
frankc said:
Is anyone discouraged that it's said to take aeons and aeons and aeons to achieve Buddhahood? Why practice?

Malcolm wrote:
For the benefit of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
This is a literal translation of his words, not his intended meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the verse you cited is a completely corrupt and invalid rendering, and has nothing to do with Shantideva's intended meaning. My translation is affirmed by all the Indian commentaries on this text, of which there are ten, not to mention numerous Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu commentaries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But if you meditate with a conceptual mind you are not meditating on the ultimate, since the ultimate, according to Shantideva, is not within the range of the mind, the mind being relative.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Shantideva doesn't say this at all. He says that the ultimate cannot be realised directly by a mind that has dualistic appearance:

(2) The two truths are explained as conventional truths and ultimate truths.
Ultimate truth, emptiness, is a non­affirming negative phenomenon
That cannot be realized directly by a mind that has dualistic appearance,
For such minds are conventional, and thus mistaken awareness.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure he does: saṃvṛtiḥ paramārthaśca satyadvayamidaṃ matam|
buddheragocarastattvaṃ buddhiḥ saṃvṛtirucyate
saṃvṛtiḥ paramārthaśca
ཀུན་རྫོབ་དང་ནི་དོན་དམ་སྟེ།

Relative and ultimate,

satyadvayamidaṃ matam|
།འདི་ནི་བདེན་པ་གཉིས་སུ་འདོད།

this is asserted as the two truths.

buddheragocarastattvaṃ
།དོན་དམ་བློ་ཡི་སྤྱོད་ཡུལ་མིན།

The ultimate is not [within] the range [gocara, spyod yul] of the mind;

buddhiḥ saṃvṛtirucyate
།བློ་ནི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཡིན་པར་བརྗོད།

The mind is said to be relative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
cloudburst said:
Can you please explain the development, from a conceptual mind on the path of preparation, of a mind to which neither object or nor non-object appears?

Malcolm wrote:
All grasping to signs ceases, that is the path of seeing. The path of seeing is a (temporary) cessation of the conceptual mind, not a transformation of a conceptual mind into a nonconceptual mind.
When neither an object or a non-object remain before the mind, since there is other alternative, that time the mind is pacified.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:


cloudburst said:
the issue here is that if you are a person who has not entered the path of seeing, if you are not meditating with a conceptual mind you are not meditating on the ultimate, since you cannot meditate on the ultimate with a non-conceptual mind because if you could you would be on the path of seeing

Malcolm wrote:
But if you meditate with a conceptual mind you are not meditating on the ultimate, since the ultimate, according to Shantideva, is not within the range of the mind, the mind being relative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, heat on the path of preparation/application is a conceptual mind, it is a samadhi on an inferential emptiness.

cloudburst said:
so how do you then explain that one goes from the path of preparation, a conceptual mind, to the path of seeing, a non-conceptual mind? If you insist on using only your specific terminology/ translation style, could you explain how one goes from the path of preparation, a conceptual mind, to the path of seeing, a non-conceptual wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
To paraphrase Shantideva:
When neither an object or a non-object remain before the mind, since there is other alternative, that time the mind is pacified.
This is also the intent of the siddha Kotalipa:
Do not meditate on non-existents,
also do not meditate on existents...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This means that having completed one's analysis one simply rests in the nature of the mind as one finds it, without modifying it in anyway.

cloudburst said:
Is this your understanding of how to meditate on the ultimate? So a person on the path of preparation analyses and then, conceptually understanding reality free from extremes, he or she drops the conclusion and meditates on the conventional nature of the mind?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that you have no further need of analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: What are sentient beings?
Content:
Vasana said:
Able to point to any relevant places where the complexities may have been explained?

I'm still trying to frame the question from the perspective of the totality, the Dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmadhātu is just the emptiness of all phenomena.

Vasana said:
Beyond beings and buddhas, what is bound and what is unbinding?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing at all.

My upcoming translation explains this all from a Dzogchen perspective. This is also explained in the Jñānāvajrasamuccaya tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
jmlee369 said:
It's seems like someone in Chinese media did a terrible job of doing research. The second article posted by Malcolm focuses on Shirley Kwan who revealed the identity of her son's father. Looking through the original Chinese article, there are a series of photos of the lama who is said to be the father of the child. There is a screenshot of an instagram page with the lama's picture and a caption describing the relationship. The lama pictured is clearly NOT Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche. While the instagram account sh3rylk is no longer there, one of the screenshots names the lama as Zuri Rinpoche from Bhutan. Somehow, the authors of the more recent article in the OP must have thought there was only one Bhutanese tulku in existence, or did not bother to look up pictures of Khyentse Rinpoche.

Another problem with this kind of article is that it does not make explicit in Chinese that lamas like Ponlop Rinpoche and Khyentse Rinpoche are not ordained monks. In the eyes of the Chinese, they are monks, leading to a great number of misunderstandings, as evidenced by the comments section in the Chinese article.


Malcolm wrote:
Thanks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
bryandavis said:
I dont really care one way or the other


Malcolm wrote:
Me either...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 9:40 AM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
Jikan said:
Malcolm, did you get the sense that the Tibetans who are discussing this article actually take its claims at face value, or at least as plausible?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Malcolm, may I use your post to start a new discussion? I don't want to derail this one.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Isn't this moving buddhahood further and further away from the capacities of ordinary sentient beings?

Malcolm wrote:
Ordinary sentient beings cannot attain buddhahood, only tenth stage bodhisattvas can attain buddhahood. The question is, what is the fastest, most effective way to become a tenth stage bodhisattva? Another way to put it, there are five paths: two are mundane, three are transcendent. Ordinary sentient beings are on the path of accumulation and preparation while noble beings are on the paths of seeing, cultivation and no more training.

In Mahāyāna the path requires at minimum three incalculable eons. In Vajrayāna, the path can be reduced to one, three, seven or at most sixteen lifetimes. The paths and stages however are the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 26th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And since when was this ever in question?

Astus said:
No, it wasn't. Although since I have started from the beginning with stating that arhats are free from the aggregates, the counter-arguments toward their being still bound by various things did not actually apply to the arhats that are free, simply because the Mahayana-type arhat is not free from the beginning.

Malcolm wrote:
There are three kinds of arhats: śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddha arhats and buddha arhats. The first two have traces, even though they are free from the afflictions which cause rebirth in the three realms. Secondly, the first two have nonafflictive ignorance, since they a) lack knowledge of the buddha dharmas and b) since the lack the knowledge of the paths which would otherwise enable them to eradicate those traces and c) since they still have beliefs in subject and object, subjects, and so on, i.e., even though they are free from the view of the self of persons, they are not free of the view of the self of phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Astus said:
And from this it is clear that the interpretation of arhatship is quite different in the two doctrines.

Malcolm wrote:
And since when was this ever in question?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the point is that, according to the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras, arhats have not abandoned "a lingering residuum", i.e. the traces I mentioned in a previous post. Also here it is clear that distinction between the noble disciple with these lingering residuums is precisely the difference between equipoise and post equipoise, as I also stated above, the idea being that arhats in this instance have nothing left to remove so that whether they are in equipoise or not is a matter of preference, not of liberation.

Astus said:
I don't really understand what is a matter of preference here.

Malcolm wrote:
The matter of preference is the enjoyment of equipoise. Buddhas are never not in equipoise, 24/7/365.

Astus said:
As for the other part, do you mean that from a Mahayana perspective it is fine to say that arhats have not actually gave up all clinging to the aggregates? So, the very assumption that arhats are completely free from grasping the skandhas is not true in the Great Vehicle?

Malcolm wrote:
They are not free of all traces of affliction and have no path to realize complete freedom from all traces of affliction because they do not possess sarvakārajñāna, knowledge of all aspects. And, according to AA, they "take a stand" in nirvana, believing it to be real.

Nirvana, incidentally, is not part of the aggregates, since it is unconditioned. It is part of the dharmadhātu, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus there is the contradiction in your thinking that I mentioned before. Arhats abandon ten fetters, but as the view of self is the one of the three lower fetters, it is abandoned only once, at stream entry, and at that time, it is abandoned totally.

Astus said:
Knowing that there is no self, that is, obtaining correct view, and abandoning all clinging to the aggregates are not the same. A stream-enterer is convinced of the four noble truths, an arhat has completely realised the four noble truths. See also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.053.than.html.

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html )

"My friend, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended. It's as if there were a well along a road in a desert, with neither rope nor water bucket. A man would come along overcome by heat, oppressed by the heat, exhausted, dehydrated, & thirsty. He would look into the well and would have knowledge of 'water,' but he would not dwell touching it with his body. In the same way, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.068.than.html )

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the point is that, according to the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras, arhats have not abandoned "a lingering residuum", i.e. the traces I mentioned in a previous post. Also here it is clear that distinction between the noble disciple with these lingering residuums is precisely the difference between equipoise and post equipoise, as I also stated above, the idea being that arhats in this instance have nothing left to remove so that whether they are in equipoise or not is a matter of preference, not of liberation.

So the point is, to repeat my earlier citation, the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā states:
...because they have not attained knowledge of all aspects, there is the obscuration of not abandoning all afflictions connected with traces, the śravakas and prayekabuddhas endowed with [traces of] afflictions do not have a path by which those may be abandoned.
So the choice is really simple, you can either accept the Buddha's Mahāyāna teaching in this instance or you can ignore it. It is clear from Mahāyāna accounts that arhats and pratyekabuddas, along with bodhisattvas, have not abandoned all traces. And it is because of this that arhats and pratyekabuddhas are "woken" from their samadhis of cessation to continue on the bodhisattva path to attain full buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... the more interesting allegation:
Liu is not the only female celebrity to marry and have a child with a Rinpoche. Hong Kong singer Shirley Kwan admitted in 2014 that her son's biological father is Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, also known as Khyentse Norbu.

ReasonAndRhyme said:
Is that an allegation (in the sense of accusation)? Is DJKR a fully ordained monk with all these vows, including chastity? I always assumed he was not.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an allegation in the sense that DKR has not, apparently, recognized the child or validated the claim. DKR is not a monk.

A Tibetan brought this to my attention. Apparently in the Tibetan Community, this article is something of a big deal and there is considerable gossip about it.

There is a barely readable further account here, that must be a google translation of a chinese gossip column from last year.

http://www.iduobo.com/2015/05/14/secret-living-buddha-rinpoche-i-have-been-with-actress-shirley-birth-to-son-38411.html

Original link here:

http://ent.163.com/15/0514/08/APIHK5I800031H2L.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: What are sentient beings?
Content:


Vasana said:
--
Feel free to correct me if any of this is off the mark, i still think there's probably a more concise way of saying it

Malcolm wrote:
The way this is explained in tantra is a little complicated to explain, but simply put, sentient beings arise from beginningless traces which come about from not recognizing their own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:


Astus said:
Stream-entrants are convinced that the Buddha's teaching is true, but they have not yet abandoned grasping at the aggregates. This section illustrates the difference ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.035.than.html ):

Malcolm wrote:
They have eliminated the fetter of grasping a self, along with two other fetters:
"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: self-identity view, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

Thus there is the contradiction in your thinking that I mentioned before. Arhats abandon ten fetters, but as the view of self is the one of the three lower fetters, it is abandoned only once, at stream entry, and at that time, it is abandoned totally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: The one who doesn't die. An equivalent in Tibetan Buddhi
Content:
monktastic said:
I've always been confused by this. The Thai Forest masters place a lot of emphasis on citta:
It was apparent to him that “arahant” referred to the citta that had been purified of defilements.
As we begin eliminating the kilesas, we catch a glimpse of the mind’s true essence, what we call the citta.
Until, finally, when we realize the nature of the citta completely, the attachment to the world entirely disappears. There is no need to make an effort to give up things because at that stage giving up is automatic. This is the true aim of the Buddha’s teaching.
Could you really replace "citta" with "alayavijnana" in the above?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
conebeckham said:
Since when is someone with $10k in the "U.S. Middle Class?"

Malcolm wrote:
Since Credit Suisse said so? BTW, it is not the US middle class, but US$10,000.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
conebeckham said:
Ridiculous.  To even suggest Ponlop Rinpoche is a fake.....they are pathetically transparent propaganda

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think they were suggesting he was fake. But this is the more interesting allegation:
Liu is not the only female celebrity to marry and have a child with a Rinpoche. Hong Kong singer Shirley Kwan admitted in 2014 that her son's biological father is Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, also known as Khyentse Norbu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Fake Lamas flourish as China's middle class grows
Content:
Ayu said:
I was wondering: "Who is china.org.cn ?"
Found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Information_Center
The wiki-article suggests to "See also": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency

Doesn't that mean, it is a newspaper authorized by the Chinese government?
Also this page looks like Chinese government speaking trumpet: http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/index.htm
What do you think?
(I think, independent press looks different, and this brings up the next question: Why do they report about Buddhist Lamas in China? What is their main intention?)

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is official Chinese media.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I was going to mention it, but I forgot, but Bryan Davis's post elsewhere prompted my memory — according to you, there is no difference between stream entrants and buddhas, since even stream entrants are free from a view of self in the aggregates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Title: Chinese Press:Fake Lamas flourish as middleclass grows
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2015-05/21/content_35623634.htm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
While arhats do not grasp the aggregates as a self, that is not mutually exclusive with still believing in ultimate atoms, subject and object, etc.

Astus said:
Believing in any view is itself contrary to not identifying with the aggregates. Like establishing a duality of subject and object when it is perfectly clear for an arhat that there is no subject to establish anywhere.


Malcolm wrote:
According to PP and AA, arhats view nirvana as real. Moreover, there is no contradiction between understanding there is no self in the aggregates, and nevertheless, regarding the twelve āyatanas as real.

In this case, the subject is not a self, it is simple a consciousness which cognizes an entity, which is nevertheless, not a "self" or an identity. Arhats regard that consciousness and its object as real, pratyekabuddhas only regard the subject as real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: The one who doesn't die. An equivalent in Tibetan Buddhi
Content:
zengen said:
That's pretty interesting. Never knew Theravada recognizes the Alaya.

Malcolm wrote:
They generally call it Bhavanga citta, "linking consciousness".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Where does it say that arhats are free from all grasping?

Astus said:
All that can be grasped are included in the aggregates. Arhats do not grasp the aggregates.

Malcolm wrote:
While arhats do not grasp the aggregates as a self, that is not mutually exclusive with still believing in ultimate atoms, subject and object, etc.

Anyway, it is very clear that the Buddha has taught in the PP and other sūtras that Arhats etc., are not completely free of all traces of affliction. And why? Because they do not have all-knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: The one who doesn't die. An equivalent in Tibetan Buddhi
Content:
frankc said:
Some Thai forest masters in Theravada describe a stable reality completely outside the five khandas that doesn't have the three characteristics. They call it the citta. It isn't born, doesn't die, and when you get to nirvana it merges with nirvana and goes home. It is the unchanging reality, the unchanging knower. It occupies a neutral position between dualities like happiness and suffering. It simply knows them. No English equal of this word exists so it is difficult to translate from Pali into English and in fact the citta can't even be expressed properly in words or concepts so it doesn't really matter. It is usually translated as mind but this is incorrect because what we generally refer to as mind is just a bunch of transient things that arise and fall away. This isn't the citta. The citta exists entirely without reference to time and space. It does not arise or fall away. It is the creator, it creates the five aggregates of body and mind. It is the very foundation of samsara. It is the essence of being that wanders from birth to birth. The Citta is naturally pure but it's the mental defilements infiltrating the citta that cause it to experience happiness and suffering but the true nature of the citta has none of these qualities. I can go on and on but basically I'm just looking to find out if there's anything similar to this in Mahayana, Vajrayana, Tibetan Buddhism, maybe even Bon, etc. And any Theravada Buddhists that might be passing through that have no idea what I'm talking about you can read Ajahn Pannavaddho's book uncommon wisdom online for free, he has an entire section on the citta. Things like Merging with nirvana and going home are not things I made up.

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna it would be called the ālaya. In Mahāyāna, the ālayavijñāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not a problem, as has been explained to you now several times: arhats, pratyekabuddhas as well as bodhisattvas on the bhumis are subject to varying degrees of conceptuality when not in equipoise. And in the Agamas/NIkayas it is recognized that the knowledge of arhats is in no way equal to that of a Buddha.

The two obscurations are mentioned in the Āryāṣṭasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-=sūtra.

Astus said:
How is an arhat subject to conceptualisation if there is no grasping of mental dharmas? This is the question not answered yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Where does it say that arhats are free from all grasping?


Astus said:
Although the Great Prajnaparamita Sutra in the Chinese canon (Taisho 220) is not necessarily the same, but that is the only one to contain the term "two hindrances" (二障) among the prajnaparamita texts, and even there it is just one section repeated at three different places where the qualities of the bodhi of great bodhisattvas are described, and contains no explanation what the afflictive and cognitive hindrances (煩惱所知二障) mean. It is also noteworthy that it was translated by Xuanzang, who brought many Yogacara works to China.

Malcolm wrote:
The Āryāṣṭasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-=sūtra states:
Bhagavān, the prajñāpāramitā, for the purpose of abandoning the obscurations of affliction, knowledge and all related traces, does not generate all phenomena.
The Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā mentions afflictive obscurations: in response to the question of whether or not sravakas and pratyekabuddhas abandon the obscuration of traces of affliction it also answers in the negative :
...because they have not attained knowledge of all aspects, there is the obscuration of not abandoning all afflictions connected with traces, the śravakas and prayekabuddhas endowed with [traces of] afflictions do not have a path by which those may be abandoned
So, according to the Prajñāpāramitā, not only do śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddha arhats not realize the knowledge of all aspects, they do not have a path where they can abandon all traces of affliction.

The Prajñāpāramitā in general mentions three kinds of obscurations: karma, affliction and view. It also clarifies that though śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddha arhats do abandon afflictions, there are left over traces which do not adhere to the tathāgata:
Though all the śravakas and prayekabuddhas abandon afflictions, there are changes of the body, but the tathāgata does not possess such [changes], that is called "the tathāgata's total abandonment of the obscuration of traces."
So not only are three obscurations mentioned in the PP, but also the fact that arhats and pratyekabuddhas have traces of affliction for which they lack of path for abandoning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 23rd, 2015 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:


Astus said:
Once it's been introduced in Mahayana that there are two kinds of hindrances, primarily in the mind-only sutras, it is not any more just the accumulated merits that count but the level of wisdom as well. And that's where the problem raised here arises, that if arhats are free from the aggregates then there is nothing else left to let go of.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a problem, as has been explained to you now several times: arhats, pratyekabuddhas as well as bodhisattvas on the bhumis are subject to varying degrees of conceptuality when not in equipoise. And in the Agamas/NIkayas it is recognized that the knowledge of arhats is in no way equal to that of a Buddha.

The two obscurations are mentioned in the Āryāṣṭasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-=sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 23rd, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
So, using a given Mahayana text to ascertain the earlier Scholastic & pre-sectarian context is wholly anachronistic, and makes little sense to me.

Malcolm wrote:
That text, the AA, was authored by Maitreya Bodhisattva.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 23rd, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:


daverupa said:
The historical Buddha didn't even speak about a Bodhisattva Path.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course he did, the record of that discussion is the subject of the Mahāyāna sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 23rd, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
But of course an arahant is not a Buddha. The Buddha never taught people how to become Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course he did. This is the subject matter of the Mahāyāna sūtras in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 23rd, 2015 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Notice, Astus, that you did not answer the question. The answer is of course that only buddhas are in equipoise on reality 24/7/365, this is because they free of all obscurationNs.

Arhats are at a stage of a kind of no more training, but whoever said they were at the level of non-meditation? Only a buddha is at that stage.

Astus said:
With the complete elimination of conceptualisation there is no grasping at subject or object. That is the level of non-meditation (e.g. Direct Path to the Buddha Within, p 385-386). Since an arhat does not grasp any mental dharma how could there be distraction from the perfect view? That's why I started with saying that an arhat has nothing more to train in, there is nothing more to be free from, and at the same time does not fall back to attaching to phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
Arhats have no more training with regard to being free from the afflictions and fetters which cause rebirth in the three realms. This does not however mean that they are free from all conceptual grasping, let along concepts. Arhats have concepts, Astus. So to pratyekabuddhas. The latter has grasping to phenomena as well as a subject, the former has grasping to the subject.

You can either accept what Buddha taught about this in the Prajñāpāramitā, Lanka and so on or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Astus said:
As noted before, the superior qualities of a buddha can be explained if we consider them the results of merit accumulation, and that is the model found in both Theravada and basic Mahayana. But once the tathagatagarbha is introduced, the doctrine fundamental to later Mahayana whence the still living traditions of Tiantai, Chan, and Tantra come from, buddhahood becomes available in this life exactly because all the buddha-powers are readily available in every being's mind, and one just needs to be free from the obscurations to reach it. That's where emptiness is inseparable from compassion, so even an arhat must have compassion if s/he has wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
Even with the tathāgatagarbha theory, full buddhahood takes at minimum three incalculable eons in Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Article by John Horgan Why Buddhism Wasn't For Him
Content:
cjdevries said:
I just read this article by John Horgan:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html

Malcolm wrote:
Filled with inaccuracies and misunderstandings...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, let me ask you a question: are arhats in a state of equipoise 24/7/365? Are pratyekabuddhas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365? Are bodhisattvas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365?  Are buddhas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365?

The answer to those four questions is your answer to how someone can be liberated from rebirth in the three realms and yet, still have some nonafflictive ignorance, conceptuality about subject and object and so on.

Astus said:
Arhats have cut all bonds, so they cannot fall back from being unfettered by the aggregates. Bodhisattvas, on the other hand, are still in training, and only with the attainment of buddhahood are they eternally free. So, both arhats and buddhas have the stage of non-meditation, while bodhisattvas are still working on reaching that.

As noted before, the superior qualities of a buddha can be explained if we consider them the results of merit accumulation, and that is the model found in both Theravada and basic Mahayana. But once the tathagatagarbha is introduced, the doctrine fundamental to later Mahayana whence the still living traditions of Tiantai, Chan, and Tantra come from, buddhahood becomes available in this life exactly because all the buddha-powers are readily available in every being's mind, and one just needs to be free from the obscurations to reach it. That's where emptiness is inseparable from compassion, so even an arhat must have compassion if s/he has wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
Notice, Astus, that you did not answer the question. The answer is of course that only buddhas are in equipoise on reality 24/7/365, this is because they free of all obscurationNs.

Arhats are at a stage of a kind of no more training, but whoever said they were at the level of non-meditation? Only a buddha is at that stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
zengen said:
Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas do still have obstructions to omniscience. This is known in Mahayana. In Theravada, this is not taught.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is, otherwise, Bhikkhu Bodhi could not have said what he said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, you really do seem to miss the point here — arhats etc, do not have bodhicitta to become buddhas, they do not have knowledge necessary to teach the whole path, they do not know the entire path, this is what is meant by non-afflictive ignorance, they have subject-object conceptuality and so on.

Astus said:
I'm clear about that list. What is missing for me is that all that non-afflictive ignorance must be there because of some clinging, but there is nothing else to cling to but the five aggregates.

Malcolm wrote:
But none of this means they do not realize the emptiness of persons. It simply means their realization of emptiness is not sufficient for buddhahood, but only for liberation.

Astus said:
The realisation of the emptiness of persons means that whatever phenomena is experienced by an arhat it is not grasped, whether it is a bodily or a mental dharma. Although in Mahayana there is the teaching of the emptiness of dharmas, practically it means not grasping at, not relying on dharmas. So what is it that arhats still hold on to?

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, let me ask you a question: are arhats in a state of equipoise 24/7/365? Are pratyekabuddhas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365? Are bodhisattvas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365?  Are buddhas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365?

The answer to those four questions is your answer to how someone can be liberated from rebirth in the three realms and yet, still have some nonafflictive ignorance, conceptuality about subject and object and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Upādana means "to take again."
Hence, we have craving, addiction, etc. We are addicted to the aggregates, hence they are "addictive aggregates."

Astus said:
In any case, it is clinging to / taking up / relying on / identifying with / grasping at the aggregates that one is bound and deluded, while relinquishing that hold is being free from all that one can be free from. So this does not seem to solve the problem.

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, you really do seem to miss the point here — arhats etc, do not have bodhicitta to become buddhas, they do not have knowledge necessary to teach the whole path, they do not know the entire path, this is what is meant by non-afflictive ignorance, they have subject-object conceptuality and so on.

But none of this means they do not realize the emptiness of persons. It simply means their realization of emptiness is not sufficient for buddhahood, but only for liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣyaṭīkātattvārtha by Sthiramati cites an Agamic sūtra...

daverupa said:
Which Agama, again? Where in the Taisho can this be located?

Must be in an Agama we don't have anymore, otherwise...

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure that someone can find this who knows Chinese. It is sufficient that it is cited by Sthiramati.

The fact is that there are limits on the knowledge of arhats that are not imposed on the Buddha's knowledge. You may not think this is important, but these limits are what consitute the non-afflictive ignorance mentioned by Vasubandhu and Maitreyanatha.

This is just not a controversial point — everyone accepts that compared to a Buddha, the knowledge of a śrāvaka arhat has limitations. For example, Bhikkhu Bodhi has this to say:
Other arahants can certainly teach, and many do teach groups of disciples. Nevertheless, as teachers they do not compare with the Buddha. This is so in at least two respects: First, the Dhamma they teach others is one that comes from the Buddha, and thus ultimately the Buddha is the source of their wisdom; and second, their skills in teaching never match in all respects the skills of the Buddha, who is the only one who knows the path in its entirety.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

And indeed, that is the whole point of the AA, i.e., to detail the path of a bodhisattva and how it leads to such omniscience regarding the path, as it is concealed with the Prajñāpāramita sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Upādāna means "addiction", not attachment.

Astus said:
I have not seen that kind of translation yet.

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:3973.pali (nt.) [fr. upa + ā + dā] -- (lit. that (material) substratum by means of which an active process is kept alive or going), fuel, supply, provision

http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/4365/upadana is the common rendering for upādāna, though 'grasping' would come closer to the literal meaning of it, which is 'uptake'; s. Three Cardinal Discourses ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html ), p.19.

http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/indexes/term-sa-u.html of it include: 取 (take, receive, obtain), 受 (receive, accept, get), 依 (rely on, be set in), 執 (hold in hand; keep)

Malcolm wrote:
Upādana means "to take again."

Hence, we have craving, addiction, etc. We are addicted to the aggregates, hence they are "addictive aggregates."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
The arahant is asekha; the training is complete; the arahant has done what needed to be done. This later sort of slander is intriguing, but not worth tying yourself in knots over, Astus.

Astus said:
As Malcolm said, even sravakayana teachings talk about non-afflictive ignorance in case of arhats, although I'm not aware if Theravada has anything to say about it.

daverupa said:
Let's have a cite, and not a bald assertion, nor a Mahayana text. Let's have a Nikaya or an Agama or even some pre-Commentarial Abhidhamma or Abhidharma someplace - that is, a relatively early sravakayana text - that speaks about non-afflictive ignorance.

---

"The title got demoted in Mahayana" is a succinct way to summarize it, pointing at the historical developments nutrifying this result.

Malcolm wrote:
The Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣyaṭīkātattvārtha by Sthiramati cites an Agamic sūtra to the following effect:

In sūtra it is said, "Śāriputra, do you know the Tathāgata's aggregate of discipline, aggregate of samadhi, aggregate of liberation, or aggregate of wisdom of liberation?"
"No, Bhagavan" he replied."

Therefore, the knowledge of others apart from buddhas cannot engage the [18 unshared] dharmas of the buddha, and therefore, it is said "The śrāvakas and so on possess a non-afflictive ignorance about the dharmas of a buddha."
Then Yasomitra gives the example of Maudgalyāyana not knowing where his mother had taken rebirth, and so on.

These statements are completely non-controversial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What Sanskrit term to you mean by "attachment"?
I think the problem lies with your definitions.

Astus said:
I think upadana is very appropriate here, like in pancopadanaskandha.

Malcolm wrote:
Upādāna means "addiction", not attachment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, arhats have subject-object conceptualization and pratyekabuddhas have subject conceptualization. Buddhas, of course, have neither subject nor object conceptualization and so their awakening is superior to that of the former pair.

Astus said:
This kind of conceptualisation is what I don't see how can be there while there is no attachment to the aggregates. Where does that conceptualisation reside, what does it come from, what keeps it going on? It cannot be the aggregates, but there is no conceptualisation outside them either.

Malcolm wrote:
What Sanskrit term to you mean by "attachment"?

I think the problem lies with your definitions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Different Kinds of Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://imgflip.com/i/lt00c https://imgflip.com/memegenerator


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think however, this is not how the Tibetan translators and their Indian informants split the term to come up with clear light ['od gsal]. I am fairly certain they split it the way I mentioned, taking svara as "clear":, from its primary meaning as tone, and prabhās meaning "light", hence the reason in Buddhist literature the frequent references to voices as "clear" in tone indicate by the alternate translation of prabhāsvara as gsal (prabhā) dbyangs (svara) translation of prabhāsvara.

We always have to keep in mind that Buddhist authors often depart from Paninian standards when etymologizing terms.

David Reigle said:
I was not familiar with gsal dbyangs as a translation of prabhāsvara.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāvyutpatti entry 451.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Absence of attachment does not equal knowledge.

Astus said:
In one way, that is very true and spot on. On the other hand though, the obscurations in question are hindrances to knowledge and not lack of knowledge. Not seeing the emptiness of dharmas means being attached to dharmas...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we have already seen two things: arhats and pratyekabuddhas have non-afflictive ignorance, both are free from affliction and both are liberated [meaning they have nothing left do with regards to liberation, but much left to do with regards to the attainment of full buddhahood]. Nevertheless, arhats have subject-object conceptualization and pratyekabuddhas have subject conceptualization. Buddhas, of course, have neither subject nor object conceptualization and so their awakening is superior to that of the former pair.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Definition(s) of "non-dual"
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
In Dzogchen it's used in the sense that you stay in "instant presence" or in your nature. When you're distracted it's important to return to that state of instant presence or at least remain aware. When you're not present or aware you often can and do experience "dualism vision" so this would be, for the sake of semantics, the opposite of "non dual" presence/awareness or remaining in your nature. A dualistic state is described as your mind constantly "thinking" and "judging" and also potentially creating problems, especially in the sense of being agitated (emotions) and becoming unaware (loss of presence & awareness) which leads to more creation of Samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, "nondual" is used in all three sense mentioned above, depending on context.

T. Chokyi said:
I didn't say otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
The arahant is asekha; the training is complete; the arahant has done what needed to be done. This later sort of slander is intriguing, but not worth tying yourself in knots over, Astus.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not slander.

Vasubandhu, a Sautrantika, asserts that both arhats and pratyekabuddhas have a nonafflictive obscuration of ignorance. Maitreya expands upon what that means in terms of the fact that both arhats and pratyekabuddhas eventually must continue on to full buddhahood as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus, it is as I already explained to you. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas have an species of non-afflictive ignorance. There are other differences, but this is the main one.

Astus said:
And that non-afflictive ignorance has been taken up before. What does that ignorance consist of? It is the mentioned 108 types of cognitive hindrance, that is basically the ignorance about the emptiness of dharmas and the delusion of apprehender and apprehended. So the question: how can there be such an ignorance if an arhat has no attachment to mental phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
Absence of attachment does not equal knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"The knowledge of the paths of bodhisattvas does not totally eliminate cankers"...etc., and so on.

Astus said:
"The enhancing factor is to have the nature of not relinquishing the afflictions that are the causes for rebirth in [samsaric] existence for the sake of accomplishing the welfare of others." (Gone Beyond, vol 1, p 332)

I thought you meant difference between those two works, not differences between the paths. As for the differences between arhats and others, http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=284151#p284151, and that's when you directed me to check the Indian commentaries, but so far you have not answered how can there be something left for arhats to be attached to.

Malcolm wrote:
I told you to look in the AA and Indian commentaries, for example, Haribhadra states, in Vol. 2, pg.  73-75:
Listeners already free from attachments and their counterparts must also cultivate the knowledge of the paths to reach Buddhahood...great listeners who have cutt off the cankers and stopped the cause that is the root of further rebirth cannot produced that sort of precious resultant thought...etc.
There is the citation of Nāgārjuna on page 77:
"Later the Buddha awakens them to remove undefiled ignorance, and they equip themselves with the accumulations for enlightenment..."
Thus, it is as I already explained to you. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas have an species of non-afflictive ignorance. There are other differences, but this is the main one.

You have to read carefully, and not merely skim for key words.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just on page four alone there is a significant difference. Also, Gone Beyond has the benefit of being a compilation of later Tibetan exegesis; however that is also its defect.

Astus said:
What significant difference do you mean?

Malcolm wrote:
"The knowledge of the paths of bodhisattvas does not totally eliminate cankers"...etc., and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: What Practice have you Personally Found Most Helpful?
Content:
Nosta said:
I need to practice that indeed, but I was thinking more on practices that could make me feel real joy. DO you think that the 4 Brahma Viharas are useful for that?

Malcolm wrote:
They are the best for that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Definition(s) of "non-dual"
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
In Dzogchen it's used in the sense that you stay in "instant presence" or in your nature. When you're distracted it's important to return to that state of instant presence or at least remain aware. When you're not present or aware you often can and do experience "dualism vision" so this would be, for the sake of semantics, the opposite of "non dual" presence/awareness or remaining in your nature. A dualistic state is described as your mind constantly "thinking" and "judging" and also potentially creating problems, especially in the sense of being agitated (emotions) and becoming unaware (loss of presence & awareness) which leads to more creation of Samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, "nondual" is used in all three sense mentioned above, depending on context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The differences are principally described in chapter two, and somewhat and three. I am afraid you are going to have to slog through it because it cannot be simply summarized.
But for example, Pratyekabuddhas do not relinquish the subjective, but do relinquish objective entities.
There are many differences related to the path.

Astus said:
I've read through the chapters discussing the paths of sravakas, pratyekas and bodhisattvas (vol 2, p 4-18, 51-55, 82-135), and also searched for key words, but found nothing new and relevant. In fact, so far the Gone Beyond seems significantly more informative and extensive than Vimuktisena and Haribhadra.

Malcolm wrote:
Just on page four alone there is a significant difference. Also, Gone Beyond has the benefit of being a compilation of later Tibetan exegesis; however that is also its defect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: What Practice have you Personally Found Most Helpful?
Content:
Nosta said:
I would like to practice something that could help me achieve more positive emotions.

Malcolm wrote:
Practice the four brahma viharas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The differences are principally described in chapter two, and somewhat and three. I am afraid you are going to have to slog through it because it cannot be simply summarized.

But for example, Pratyekabuddhas do not relinquish the subjective, but do relinquish objective entities.

There are many differences related to the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Definition(s) of "non-dual"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nondual has three main uses: Yogacara, Madhyamaka and Vajrayāna.

In Yogacara is generally means the absence of subject and object.
In Madhyamaka it generally means the absence of existence and nonexistence.
In Vajrayāna it can also mean nondual conduct, where purity and impurity are disregarded, in addition to the both of the former two meanings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are making the mistake of assuming that liberation = buddhahood. It doesn't.

Astus said:
They don't have to be. The question is, where is the difference? The Abhisamayalamkara (or at least what is in Gone Beyond, haven't checked other works) follows the Yogacara interpretation, that with the complete transformation of the basis cognitive obscurations are completely removed and thus buddhahood is attained. Since the hindrance to knowledge is a set of attachments to concepts, basically various forms of subject-object duality, and that should no longer exist for an arhat who does not identify with any aggregate, there should be no difference.

Malcolm wrote:
And yet there is a difference.

Astus said:
What could make a difference - if it is accepted that an arhat has no clinging at all - is just the time spent with accumulating merit that generates the karmic force for the buddha attributes. But then there cannot be a tathagatagarbha. Or if we want there to be buddha-nature, then there is the Lotus Sutra model where arhats don't actually reach nirvana, only a temporary stay in nothingness, therefore they are not totally free from the aggregates, but that's contrary to some other teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
You might be better off securing Sparham's four volume translation of Vimuktesena and Haribhadra's text.

However, it is mostly covered in chapter two and three the AA and its commentaries.

This issue is deep and not easy to understand, it certainly cannot be summarized in internet sound bites.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: What Practice have you Personally Found Most Helpful?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The three trainings: śīla, samadhi and prajñā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
An eighth stage bodhisattva has eliminated all afflictive obscurations, like an arhat, but they have not eliminated all knowledge obscurations, like an arhat.

As I said, time to get out the old Abhisamaya-alaṃkara so you can understand the difference between the abhisamaya of a śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha and a buddha.

Astus said:
It seems that what bodhisattvas need to eliminate as cognitive obscurations are basically the conceptions of apprehender and apprehended, in other words, realising the emptiness of self and phenomena. The difference between the stages they go through is only a matter of depth of that realisation. Since it all ultimately depends on attachment to concepts assuming real phenomena, through relinquishing the identification with the mental aggregates arhats should be completely free as well.

Malcolm wrote:
You are making the mistake of assuming that liberation = buddhahood. It doesn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
First stage bodhisattvas realize two-fold emptiness, and yet still have to eliminated the two obscurations. I guess you better study Abhisamaya-alaṃkara.

Astus said:
A bodhisattva's realisation is not completely stable until buddhahood, thus their attachments are not totally cut, unlike an arhat.

Malcolm wrote:
An eighth stage bodhisattva has eliminated all afflictive obscurations, like an arhat, but they have not eliminated all knowledge obscurations, like an arhat.

As I said, time to get out the old Abhisamaya-alaṃkara so you can understand the difference between the abhisamaya of a śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha and a buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, I just noticed that David Reigle, who posts here from time to time has an interesting article on just this very topic. He says:
The Sanskrit word prabhāsvara was translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, meaning literally “clear (gsal) light (’od).” Thus, thanks to the many translations of Buddhist texts from Tibetan into English in recent decades, prabhāsvara has come to be known in English as “clear light” via its Tibetan translation ’od gsal. Translators working directly from the Sanskrit texts have usually preferred to translate prabhāsvara with words such as “luminosity” or “luminous,” for a couple of reasons. In standard Sanskrit, prabhāsvara was only known as an adjective, defined by Monier-Williams as “shining forth, shining brightly, brilliant,” and by V. S. Apte as “brilliant, bright, shining.” As we can see, the Tibetan translation ’od gsal, “clear light,” is a noun. It is hard to make “clear light” into an adjective if needed (although not impossible), while “luminosity” can easily be made into the adjective, “luminous.” Another reason would be that prabhāsvara is not a compound term in Sanskrit, like “clear (gsal) light (’od)” is in Tibetan. It consists of the main part, bhāsvara, which by itself means the same as prabhāsvara, plus the prefix pra. While prefixes such as pra obviously add something to the meaning of a word, what they add, more often than not, is not enough to require an additional word in the translation.

How, then, did prabhāsvara come to be translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, “clear light”? One of the many meanings of the prefix pra when added to nouns, according to the Gaṇa-ratna-mahodadhi by Vardhamāna as cited by Vaman Shivaram Apte in The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, is “purity,” giving the example, prasannaṃ jalam, which means “pure water” or “clear water.” This shows us why ’od gsal, “clear light,” was chosen long ago as the standardized Tibetan translation of prabhāsvara, rather than just ’od, “light.” Yet the related Sanskrit word prabhā was translated into Tibetan as just ’od, “light,” even though it has the prefix pra. In prabhā, as is more usual, the prefix pra does not change the meaning from “light” to “clear light.” An example of an actual compound term in Sanskrit is the title Vimala-prabhā, meaning “stainless (vimala) light (prabhā).” It seems, then, that the addition of gsal, “clear,” to ’od, “light,” serves to distinguish ’od gsal, “clear light,” as a technical term. So there is good reason to translate prabhāsvara either as “clear light” or as “luminosity.” A translator must choose one or the other, and the choice may come down to nothing more than indicating whether the translation was made from the Sanskrit directly or from a Tibetan translation.
http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/prabhasvara-in-the-canonical-texts-and-in-cosmogony/

David Reigle said:
First, thank you Malcolm, for finding and translating and posting all those passages on prabhāsvara. This type of research is very helpful. As you say, “Natural luminosity [rang bzhin gyis od gsal ba], as very clearly stated in the citations above, is a description of the purity of all phenomena.”

In the paragraphs quoted from me, I see that I did not give the full etymology of prabhāsvara. After noting that prabhāsvara is not a compound term, I only spoke of the prefix pra and the main part bhāsvara. For those who may be interested, the word bhāsvara is built from the root bhās, meaning “shine,” plus the suffix vara. This vara is not the word vara, but rather is the primary affix vara. There is a rule for it in the great Sanskrit grammar by Pāṇini, 3.2.175, saying that it is used with five roots including bhās. According to the translation by Śrīśa Chandra Vasu, it has the sense of “the agents having such a habit, etc.” According to the translation by Sumitra M. Katre, it is used “to denote the agent’s habitual disposition, duty or excellence” (the meaning is carried down from 3.2.134). Two more of these five words are common, and will help to show this meaning: sthāvara, “stationary, immovable,” from sthā, “stand, remain”; and īśvara, “ruler, lord,” from īś, “rule.”

For words like prabhāsvara, whose etymology is not obvious, here is a little trick that is helpful to people like me who are not Pāṇini specialists. The very old Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Horace Hayman Wilson (has been reprinted in India), unlike the later ones by Monier-Williams and V. S. Apte that are currently in use, gives traditional Pāṇinian etymologies. It gives them using Pāṇini’s technical terms, so that you may still need a dictionary of these technical terms in order to determine the etymology (A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, K. V. Abhyankar and J. M. Shukla, or Dictionary of Pāṇini, S. M. Katre). Wilson does not list prabhāsvara, but he does list bhāsvara, the same word without the prefix pra. There he gives for the etymology: bhās, to shine, varac, affix. The final “c” on varac is a code letter used by Pāṇini. Looking up varac, the reference books then point you to Pāṇini’s sūtra 3.2.175.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi David,

I think however, this is not how the Tibetan translators and their Indian informants split the term to come up with clear light ['od gsal]. I am fairly certain they split it the way I mentioned, taking svara as "clear":, from its primary meaning as tone, and prabhās meaning "light", hence the reason in Buddhist literature the frequent references to voices as "clear" in tone indicate by the alternate translation of prabhāsvara as gsal (prabhā) dbyangs (svara) translation of prabhāsvara.

We always have to keep in mind that Buddhist authors often depart from Paninian standards when etymologizing terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Hinayānista, then yes. If you are Mahāyānista, then no.

Astus said:
If it is the conclusion you have a problem with, what else would you add where an arhat is still deluded?

daverupa said:
Well, except (1) isn't accurate & (3) should probably be unpacked... and, (2) goes without saying -anything will be within the All, not outside of it.

Astus said:
How is (1) inaccurate? (conceptualisation - vikalpa, prapanca)
That arhats are free from the aggregates means that they have no attachment, no identification with the skandhas. They have realised that whatever occurs (whatever aggregate it is), it is impermanent, suffering and without a self.


Malcolm wrote:
First stage bodhisattvas realize two-fold emptiness, and yet still have to eliminated the two obscurations. I guess you better study Abhisamaya-alaṃkara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Backyard Gardening
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Alas, the sycamore is far too young for pruning. I am afraid I will have to go for the gory option and use the ladybugs, and come March start spraying the plants with mint oil, well before any aphids try reappearing.

Malcolm wrote:
Neem oil is more effective...

treehuggingoctopus said:
It sounds truly gruesome: http://www.discoverneem.com/neem-oil-insecticide.html
Alas, the sycamore is far too young for pruning. I am afraid I will have to go for the gory option and use the ladybugs, and come March start spraying the plants with mint oil, well before any aphids try reappearing.

Ayu said:
Maybe you can think about how the ladybugs are bound to die, if they do not eat. Noone can make them vegetarians.
I think, it is helpful to think in wider circles. That's the wheel of life.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Well... the idea was not to feed the poor starving ladybugs (which do have plenty to eat where they are right now, i.e. in my willows) but to save the sycamore -- which means getting rid of the aphids with the help of the aforementioned ladybugs. So while everything is very much what you refer to as the wheel of life, no easy way out for me here, I am afraid.

Malcolm wrote:
It is like giving them heroin. Not like gassing them with Sarin, or setting the dogs on them (ladybugs).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Astus said:
Premises:
1. The root of all hindrances and ignorance is conceptualisation.
2. Concepts fall within the area of the aggregates.
3. Arhats are free from the aggregates.
Conclusion:
4. Arhats attain complete enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Hinayānista, then yes. If you are Mahāyānista, then no.

daverupa said:
Well, except (1) isn't accurate & (3) should probably be unpacked... and, (2) goes without saying -anything will be within the All, not outside of it.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, I was aiming at four.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, what are you talking about? The emptiness of persons or the emptiness of phenomena? They are not the same thing.

Astus said:
This is just one of my thought experiments.

Premises:
1. The root of all hindrances and ignorance is conceptualisation.
2. Concepts fall within the area of the aggregates.
3. Arhats are free from the aggregates.
Conclusion:
4. Arhats attain complete enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Hinayānista, then yes. If you are Mahāyānista, then no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I stopped by their booth at the Himalayan Fair in Berkeley yesterday.  They seem like nice, normal folks.  I didn't interrogate them, though, LOL.


Malcolm wrote:
You mean you didn't go all Ferguson on them:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Backyard Gardening
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Alas, the sycamore is far too young for pruning. I am afraid I will have to go for the gory option and use the ladybugs, and come March start spraying the plants with mint oil, well before any aphids try reappearing.

Malcolm wrote:
Neem oil is more effective...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: John Perks, Celtic Buddhism
Content:
not1not2 said:
Recently heard of his site and view. Not particularly drawn to it being a "Pure Lander." But am currently on quite a reading jag about Celts and Celtic mythology given my roots. This appears to be a syncretic approach. But what do others think about his "Celtic Buddhism?" thanks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:


Kunga Lhadzom said:
Also, Adi Buddha (not a creator God), is considered the Primordial Buddha, or Originator of all phenomena, this can be confusing, as a God is also considered an Originator of all things.   But, a GOD is supposedly not permanent or eternal, whereas the Primordial Buddha is.....so I would call the Primordial Buddha....The REAL God !!!!

Malcolm wrote:
The so called adibuddha has an origin. He is called the adibuddha (first buddha) because he is the first sapient being to attain buddhahood in this world cycle, not because there is some primordial buddha who hangs out in eternal time without a beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:


daverupa said:
The liberation is the same.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Liberation is a result of the destruction of the afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one "set them up." They are there unless or until you can dwell in direct perception of ultimate truth 24/7/365.

Astus said:
If both are removed at the same time when freed from identification with the aggregates, then one cannot be free from afflictions but still limited by concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, what are you talking about? The emptiness of persons or the emptiness of phenomena? They are not the same thing.

Arhats realize the emptiness of the person, and have no identification with the aggregates. Whether or not they realize the two fold emptiness is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, they are persons who are free from identification with the aggregates. What have you been smoking today? Or did you hit your head?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Medicine Master Sutra
Content:
cjdevries said:
I think this is something my teacher addressed a few months ago in a lecture.  He said that when we read things like "if you print this mantra in gold you will be reborn in a pure land for 1000 kalpas" it is not meant literally.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So you disagree with Tsongkhapa when he asserts that the realization of emptiness in Hinayāna and Mahāyana is the same?

Astus said:
I'm rather questioning if there is a point in setting up two kinds of hindrances, as by not identifying with any of the aggregates there is no basis for any of them.


Malcolm wrote:
No one "set them up." They are there unless or until you can dwell in direct perception of ultimate truth 24/7/365.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Westerners are really in love with God, and nothing, it seems, will prevent them from importing God into Dharma.


Kunga Lhadzom said:
Well....if it wasn't for Indra and Brahma there would be no Dharma !

Malcolm wrote:
They are not God, G.O.D. They are gods.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
In the Bible it says no mortal can see God and live.   Is this why this Luminosity can only be experienced fully by advanced meditator's ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

"Some variations of Buddhism express a philosophical belief in an eternal Buddha: a representation of omnipresent enlightenment and a symbol of the true nature of the universe. The primordial aspect that interconnects every part of the universe is the clear light of the eternal Buddha, where everything timelessly arises and dissolves"




"Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end... Buddha... is eternal, immutable... As such He represents Dharmakaya."
—Professor C. D. Sebastian

"According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha taught the existence of this spiritual essence called the tathagatagarbha or Buddha-nature, which is present in all beings and phenomena. B. Alan Wallace writes of this doctrine:

"The essential nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the absolute space (dhatu) of the tathagatagarbha, but this space is not to be confused with a mere absence of matter. Rather, this absolute space is imbued with all the infinite knowledge, compassion, power, and enlightened activities of the Buddha. Moreover, this luminous space is that which causes the phenomenal world to appear, and it is none other than the nature of one's own mind, which by nature is clear light."
—B. Alan Wallace


""Samantabhadra, the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the tathagatagarbha within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of samsara and nirvana; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavanga to the tathagatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
—B. Alan Wallace

"The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality"

Malcolm wrote:
Westerners are really in love with God, and nothing, it seems, will prevent them from importing God into Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Arhats and pratyekabuddhas are not at all attached to the aggregate of consciousness, or concepts, and yet still have non-afflictive ignorance. Because of this non-afflctive ignorance, they do not have omniscience. So it is pretty clear the attainment of omniscience is more than mere nonattachment to concepts and aggregates.

Astus said:
That non-afflictive ignorance is the cognitive hindrance, not knowing the emptiness of appearances, that is, considering phenomena to be real. Such reification is conceptual attachment. What more is there to it? Is there a third hindrance?

Malcolm wrote:
So you disagree with Tsongkhapa when he asserts that the realization of emptiness in Hinayāna and Mahāyana is the same?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is something beyond the skandhas, the āyatanas. Specifically, the skandhas include only conditioned phenomena, while space and the two kinds of cessations, the unconditioned phenomena, belong to the dharma-āyatana/dhātu.

Astus said:
Although "Unconditioned things are not named with respect to the skandhas, because they do not correspond to the concept" (Kosha, vol 1, p 81), there is a matching between the skandhas, ayatanas and dhatus (Kosha, vol 1, p 74; Inner Science of Buddhist Practice, p 241). In that way, the aggregate of consciousness includes the dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the aggregate of consciousness does not included the dharmadhātu at all.

And yes, there is only one kind of liberation. Liberation is being free from the afflictions that cause rebirth in the three realms, there is no other kind of liberation beyond that. However there is something to attain beyond liberation, and that is omniscience. But there is only one liberation.
Omniscience is blocked by attachment to concepts, but concepts themselves belong to the aggregates, so if there is no attachment to the aggregates, there cannot be attachment to concepts either.
Arhats and pratyekabuddhas are not at all attached to the aggregate of consciousness, or concepts, and yet still have non-afflictive ignorance. Because of this non-afflctive ignorance, they do not have omniscience. So it is pretty clear the attainment of omniscience is more than mere nonattachment to concepts and aggregates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Everyone looks happy, and no one looks miserable. So?

Successful centers require charisma, costumes/identities, and considerable interpersonal and organizational skills to run. I have seen very learned Lamas with zero qualifications in this regard who never ever have any students, so who are they benefitting?

There are on the other hand a number of western (and also Tibetan) teachers with not much in the way of what I would consider even a barely adequate Dharma education, who nonetheless run very successful organizations with very satisfied customers/students. So?

In the end, it is the students that make the teacher. It is important to keep this in mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Astus said:
Is there anything else to attach to beyond the five aggregates? If yes, what is it? If no, isn't there only one kind of liberation?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is something beyond the skandhas, the āyatanas. Specifically, the skandhas include only conditioned phenomena, while space and the two kinds of cessations, the unconditioned phenomena, belong to the dharma-āyatana/dhātu. However, I would not say that one can "attach" to space or the two cessations.

And yes, there is only one kind of liberation. Liberation is being free from the afflictions that cause rebirth in the three realms, there is no other kind of liberation beyond that.

However there is something to attain beyond liberation, and that is omniscience. But there is only one liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Schedule of HH Sakya Trizin past events?
Content:
tobias said:
I don't know if someone is interested in this. But I asked the office of HH Sakya Trizin about this. They say as far as they know This will be the first Lamdre Teaching in Germany. That means there is only one Lamdre Teaching within at least 60 Years. So this will be a very very rare Oportunity to receive these teaching cycle.

greetings.
Tobias

Malcolm wrote:
It is always rare when Lamdre is given, but it has been given in Europe before, at least once.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:


Tom said:
No need to torture the text... the meaning is clear.  The first three lines are obviously talking about the three meditative experiences of bliss, clarity, and non-conceptuality (བདེ་གསལ་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཉམས་གསུམ་) and interestingly here the 3rd Karmapa uses luminosity ('od gsal) rather than clarity (gsal) for the second experience. He uses luminosity ('od gsal) and clarity (gsal) as interchangeable in this context.

There is one line here that is relevant: མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི་འོད་གསལ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། and མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པ is clearly modifying luminosity (་འོད་གསལ) describing it as something that does not grasp at attributes. Of course, grasping /not grasping is a very common way of talking about "knowers." Your suggestion "Featureless luminosity” does not capture this and is incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
These are experiences of a mind, not a cognizer itself, that should be obvious to you from the text.

There are no attributes to grasp in luminosity. On the other, hand, if it is as you say, this is still not the rang bzhin 'od gsal, since that is clearly ultimate, and not a fleeting experience, the attachment to which results in a form realm rebirth.

The fact that Tai Situ introduces the fact that it is the 'od gsal of rang rig proves that in this case. You elided rig in rang rig in your translation, in response I elided 'dzin pa. Perhaps what it should read is "the unobscured luminosity of a featureless apprehension." Read this way, it places luminosity as an adjective of rang rig, which is clearly how the Situ 8 sees it, rang rig 'od gsal, where 'od gsal is an adjective describing rang rig.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Thanks, Malcolm, very helpful. I am not trying to be difficult, and I accept the basic premise 100%. Just interested in exploring the philosophical ramifications.



Malcolm wrote:
Sure, you would need to examine the Abhisamayālaṃkara literature, it is treated most at length there.

BTW, I just noticed that David Reigle, who posts here from time to time has an interesting article on just this very topic. He says:
The Sanskrit word prabhāsvara was translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, meaning literally “clear (gsal) light (’od).” Thus, thanks to the many translations of Buddhist texts from Tibetan into English in recent decades, prabhāsvara has come to be known in English as “clear light” via its Tibetan translation ’od gsal. Translators working directly from the Sanskrit texts have usually preferred to translate prabhāsvara with words such as “luminosity” or “luminous,” for a couple of reasons. In standard Sanskrit, prabhāsvara was only known as an adjective, defined by Monier-Williams as “shining forth, shining brightly, brilliant,” and by V. S. Apte as “brilliant, bright, shining.” As we can see, the Tibetan translation ’od gsal, “clear light,” is a noun. It is hard to make “clear light” into an adjective if needed (although not impossible), while “luminosity” can easily be made into the adjective, “luminous.” Another reason would be that prabhāsvara is not a compound term in Sanskrit, like “clear (gsal) light (’od)” is in Tibetan. It consists of the main part, bhāsvara, which by itself means the same as prabhāsvara, plus the prefix pra. While prefixes such as pra obviously add something to the meaning of a word, what they add, more often than not, is not enough to require an additional word in the translation.

How, then, did prabhāsvara come to be translated into Tibetan as ’od gsal, “clear light”? One of the many meanings of the prefix pra when added to nouns, according to the Gaṇa-ratna-mahodadhi by Vardhamāna as cited by Vaman Shivaram Apte in The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, is “purity,” giving the example, prasannaṃ jalam, which means “pure water” or “clear water.” This shows us why ’od gsal, “clear light,” was chosen long ago as the standardized Tibetan translation of prabhāsvara, rather than just ’od, “light.” Yet the related Sanskrit word prabhā was translated into Tibetan as just ’od, “light,” even though it has the prefix pra. In prabhā, as is more usual, the prefix pra does not change the meaning from “light” to “clear light.” An example of an actual compound term in Sanskrit is the title Vimala-prabhā, meaning “stainless (vimala) light (prabhā).” It seems, then, that the addition of gsal, “clear,” to ’od, “light,” serves to distinguish ’od gsal, “clear light,” as a technical term. So there is good reason to translate prabhāsvara either as “clear light” or as “luminosity.” A translator must choose one or the other, and the choice may come down to nothing more than indicating whether the translation was made from the Sanskrit directly or from a Tibetan translation.
http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/prabhasvara-in-the-canonical-texts-and-in-cosmogony/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Clarity [ gsal ba ] is the power of the mind to makes things evident. It is defined as the characteristic [ lakṣana ] of the mind, for example, in both Sakya Lamdre and Kagyu Mahāmudra.

Luminosity [in this context] and clarity, 'od gsal ba and gsal ba, are therefore, really not the same thing at all.

Tom said:
However, in mahāmudrā texts you will find 'od gsal being explained as a type of "knowing." For example the 3rd Karmapa in the The Aspirational Prayer of Mahāmudrā says,

ཞེན་པ་མེད་པའི་བདེ་ཆེན་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད། །
Great bliss without attachment is continuous.
མཚན་འཛིན་མེད་པའི ་འོད་གསལ ་སྒྲིབ་གཡོགས་བྲལ། །
Luminosity without grasping at attributes is free from obscuration.
བློ་ལས་འདས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ། །
Non-conceptuality that is beyond the intellect is spontaneous.
རྩོལ་མེད་ཉམས་མྱོང་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ཤོག།
May these effortless experiences occur without interruption.

The 8th Situpa clarifies in this verse that luminosity ( 'od gsal ) here is self-luminous ( rang rig 'od gsal ) and is of the nature of clarity ( gsal ).

Malcolm wrote:
You mean it is the luminosity of reflexive knowing, which is free from obscuration. Thus, since in this case 'od gsal is being used as an adjective for the absence of obscuration of the reflexive knower that does not apprehend characteristics, it is perfectly fine if that reflexive knower also has the characteristic of clarity; the two are not mutually exclusive when it comes to a mind. But the former [ 'od gsal ] is not the latter [ gsal ba ], nor the latter the former. In fact, this verse is perfectly consistent with the points I have made above.

You could have just as easily translated the line, "Featureless luminosity is unobscured." The question then arises, the featureless luminosity of what? The answer, of a reflexive knower.

Also, frankly translating lhun gyis grub [anābhoga] as spontaneous should be deprecated [as in code].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I am trying to understand this philosophically. It seems clear to me that 'things are not actually luminous'. If they were actually luminous then you could measure their luminosity using a photometer. So it seems 'luminosity', whether of mind or things, is a metaphorical expression. I think 'luminosity' must be a metaphor for 'knowing' - mind is intrinsically knowing, and that 'knowing' is fundamental to its nature; but that 'knowing' is not an attribute of 'something', it is simply an intrinsic attribute of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Light = purity in the pre-modern mind.

Natural luminosity [ rang bzhin gyis od gsal ba ], as very clearly stated in the citations above, is a description of the purity of all phenomena. I did not exclude citations that were somehow inconvenient to this definition. On the contrary, I sought for them and could not find them because they do not exist.

Thus, to say that matter is naturally luminous is merely to say that it is ultimately pure. I am not sure why people are intent in ignoring the fact that the term "natural luminosity" is uniformly applied to all phenomena, all phenomena are naturally luminous, not only the mind.

To be sure, the term 'od gsal by itself can and is often used merely to refer to lights shining from the Buddha's uṛṇa and so on, the quality of the light of a gem and so on. But in this context, we are not discussing the generic term "light", we are discussing a very specific term, [ rang bzhin gyis od gsal ba ], which is a technical term that has a very persistent usage across a broad swath of sūtras and tantras.

Clarity [ gsal ba ] is the power of the mind to makes things evident. It is defined as the characteristic [ lakṣana ] of the mind, for example, in both Sakya Lamdre and Kagyu Mahāmudra.

Luminosity [in this context] and clarity, 'od gsal ba and gsal ba, are therefore, really not the same thing at all.

I very carefully looked for examples in the translations of Indian texts where gsal ba could be taken as an abbreviation of 'od gsal ba and was unable to find any at all. I have spent many hours engaged in this project. I also compared usages in available Sanskrit texts as well. Perhaps someone more skilled in Tibetan, in looking up citations, in reading them and in translating them, will be successful where I have failed.

Further, as I showed already, luminosity and clarity are treated separately and distinctly in one of the main sources for understanding the so called union of clarity and emptiness, which I presented in the tantra above.

I did not present this post with an intention to have a lengthy debate about the issue. I selected a few representative quotes out of hundreds (to avoid stultifying repetition) in order to edify all of you. If you choose to be edified, that is fantastic. If you prefer to cling to your own ideas, that is just fine with me too.

At this point, having restated my point of view three or four times, I will leave it here unless someone has something of further value to add. Otherwise, I fear we are just going in circles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In any case, clarity [ gsal ba ] is described as relative, samsara; while luminosity [' od gsal ] is everywhere described as ultimate and nirvana; so how can gsal ba = 'od gsal? Clarity is relative and conditioned, luminosity is ultimate and unconditioned

dzogchungpa said:
Well, it sounds like Duff has made a big mistake here, but I wonder how he could be so off.

Malcolm wrote:
Publishing a book does not make one a reliable expert on the topic upon which one is writing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I don't know anything about Sanskrit...

Malcolm wrote:
Then you should stop right there...

dzogchungpa said:
...but I think 'vara' can mean 'excellent' and perhaps it does serve as an abrreviation for 'prabhasvara' in Sanskrit sometimes.

Malcolm wrote:
It means choice, and by inference can be "best," as in best choice.

dzogchungpa said:
Ignoring the Sanskrit, what about his statement that "gsal ba" is an abbreviation for "'od gsal ba", at least in some contexts?

Malcolm wrote:
Then we have to be very precise, don't we? For example, we have in the Ṥrī-jñānavajra-samuccaya-tantra this line:
Luminosity ['od gsal ba] is the ultimate truth.
But we also have this verse in the same text:
If the two truths are separate, 
the path of wisdom is pointless. 
If clarity and emptiness ['gsal stong] are separate,
there will be falling into the extremes of permanence and annihilation.
Now, in case you are tempted to think that emptiness is relative, the same text clearly states:
Relative truth
is the moon in the water;
ulimate truth
is the eighteen emptinesses.
Luminosity is clearly described here as ultimate. Clarity here is clearly described as relative, the apparent and evident aspect of the two truths, as we can further see:
From the relative clarity arises the woman, 
the bhaga, and the assembly of goddesses.
Or for example, in Indrabhuti's Śrī-cakrasaṃvaratantrarājaśambarasamuccaya-nāma-vṛitti, it is stated:
There is joy from the gradual blazing everywhere from the three channels; and in a moment of experience, samsara and nirvana arise as nondual clarity and emptiness.
In any case, clarity [ gsal ba ] is described as relative, samsara; while luminosity [' od gsal ] is everywhere described as ultimate and nirvana; so how can gsal ba = 'od gsal? Clarity is relative and conditioned, luminosity is ultimate and unconditioned


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Matt J said:
So it sounds like what you're saying is that luminosity is the appearance side of emptiness--- which may include clarity.

And by saying that space is luminous, we are not saying it is a vast mind, but that it has a potential to manifest appearances.


Malcolm wrote:
Actually, what is being said is that space is pure, as the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā states:
Due to the element of space being naturally luminous, it is pure and without afflictions.
Vasubandhu echos this in the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā:
Luminosity is natural because its nature is pure.
And:
Since so-called "luminosity" is free from the temporary taint of subject and object because there is no reification, it is explained as naturally pure. The concept that there is a subject and object is called "reification"; since there is no concept of the existence of subject and object, so-called "luminosity" means "the characteristic of natural purity."
And:
Since the obscurations of knowledge and affliction do not exist, the luminosity of discerning wisdom (prajñā) is explained as "the purity of discerning wisdom."
Bhavaviveka states in the Tarkajvala:

"Luminous clarity" is so called because of being free from the darkness of affliction and objects of knowledge.

Jayānanda states in the Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā-nāma:
It says in sūtra that "Tathāgatagarbha" means "All sentient beings have tathāgatagarbha." That passage concerns tathāgatagarbha. "Natural luminosity" means that natural luminosity is immaculate. It's characteristic is what which is pure. "Pure from the start" meanings immaculate from the beginning like space. "Possessing the thirty two major marks means possessing the nature of emptiness.
And:
So called "luminosity" means the nature of emptiness is intrinsically pure.
Prajñamokṣa's Madhyamakopadeśa-nāma-vṛtti states:
Luminosity is natural purity.
I could go on citing Indian masters, but there is not much point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
From the entry in one of his glossaries for 'luminosity': Note also that in both Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist literature, this term is frequently abbreviated just to Skt. “vara” and Tib. “gsal ba” with no change of meaning. Unfortunately, this has been thought to be another word and it has then been translated with “clarity”, when in fact it is just this term in abbreviation.
You're saying he's just wrong about this?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. For one thing, he is splitting the word at the wrong place, i.e. he splits it as prabhās/vara.

The split is actually prabhā ['od]/ svara [gsal ba], hence prabhāsvara.

Prabhā means "light". svara primarily means "sound"; but also is the antonym of āsvara, indistinct, hence svara also has a meaning of "distinct". For example, the voice of a bodhisattva is described as prabhāsvara. If you look in the Sanskrit dictionary, you discover that prabhāsvara usually means "clear, shrill," but not in this case. When prabhāsvara is to be translated as "clear" as in a voice, it is rendered as gsal dbyangs, and not as 'od gsal.

The other Sanskrit terms which gsal ba generally translates are uttānaḥ, to stretch or vyaktaḥ, "...caused to appear , manifested , apparent , visible , evident", and a number other terms as well which are not included in the Mahāvyutpatti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The mind doesn't literally give off light - neither does matter, really -  so as said, it's a metaphorical description. But what is it a metaphor for?

anjali said:
I've always liked this simple definition/explanation by Tony Duff, Luminosity or illumination, Skt. prabhäsvara, Tib. 'od gsal ba: The core of mind has two aspects; an emptiness factor and a knowing factor. The Buddha and many Indian religious teachers used "luminosity" as a metaphor for the knowing quality of the core of mind. If in English we would say "Mind has a knowing quality", the teachers of ancient India would say, "Mind has an illuminative quality, it is like a source of light which illuminates what it knows".

Malcolm wrote:
This is not what rang bzhin 'od gsal means. He is conflating 'od gsal ba and gsal ba. A very common error among translators. Luminosity and clarity are not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
If the end is buddhahood or omniscience, then rather than purity, the continuum of radiance suggests life or livingness - at bottom sentience, thru intelligence, mind, awareness etc. until jnana.

If the point is not related to Bodhi, then what?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the list of citations again, looking for one that says no sentient being, no life, no buddhas, no awakening...

Nicholas Weeks said:
Yes, I read them, but how is this basically differing from the Heart Sutra?  It says the same thing, using emptiness rather than luminosity.

The Heart also has a line: all dharmas are empty—they are neither created nor destroyed, neither defiled nor pure, and they neither increase nor diminish.


So one could say 'neither luminous nor dark'.

Also one of your quotes says this explains bodhicitta, so there is a relation to Bodhi.

Yet, as Je Rinpoche says, there is never any real conflict between Dharma doors, every teaching is correct for some minds at some point on their path to buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that things, including the mind, are naturally luminous regardless of whether one is awakened or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
If the end is buddhahood or omniscience, then rather than purity, the continuum of radiance suggests life or livingness - at bottom sentience, thru intelligence, mind, awareness etc. until jnana.

If the point is not related to Bodhi, then what?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the list of citations again, looking for one that says no sentient being, no life, no buddhas, no awakening...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Dan74 said:
Why not say 'stainless purity' then?

Perhaps there is a vibrant luminous quality to the mind when freed from the habitual defilements?

Malcolm wrote:
All phenomena are naturally luminous, not just the mind. In any case, few of these citations have been presented in English before. Perhaps it is best if you reference a particular citation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Wayfarer said:
'Luminous' means 'giving off light; bright or shining.
synonyms:	shining, bright, brilliant, radiant, dazzling, glowing, gleaming, coruscating, scintillating, lustrous, luminescent, phosphorescent, incandescent'

The mind doesn't literally give off light - neither does matter, really -  so as said, it's a metaphorical description. But what is it a metaphor for?

Malcolm wrote:
Stainless purity, it is one of the central concepts in Mahayana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 10:33 AM
Title: Re: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Vimalakirti also mentions luminosity as an aspect of Bodhi, but also many other factors.  See chapter three, Boin-Lamotte gives the Sanskrit.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but the point here is different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Certain beliefs, such as belief in karma, rebirth and so on, are part of mundane right view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I found James Swartz to be a good speaker and I thought he spoke from genuine experience: doesn't mean I agreed with what he said. But do you think it's possible to be critically aware of other's ideas, even while not agreeing with them, without having to resort to juvenile name-calling?

Malcolm wrote:
I know a load of bollocks when I see it. No one speaks from geunine exoerience of something that does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
( http://www.shiningworld.com/now/ being a notable exception.).

James Swartz said:
It is not widely known that there is only one Self and its nature is Consciousness or Awareness.  It is generally believed that the consciousness of each being is unique. It is unique…if consciousness is defined as subjective events, thoughts, feelings, memories, dreams, desires, fantasies, etc.  But subjective events…our experience…actually occur in formless impersonal Consciousness, the knowing principle.  Because Consciousness/Awareness is the knowing principle it is commonly called ‘the light’ in spiritual literature.  It is not the light that makes physical sight possible but it is that because of which physical light…and everything that exists…is known.  It is uncreated and eternal.  It pervades everything and is the innermost Self of every living being.  Therefore every being is enlightened…in the light…by default.   However, the proof of enlightenment lies neither in the intellectual affirmation of enlightenment nor in the claim of the experience of an enlightened state of consciousness, but in the hard and fast understanding that Awareness is one’s essential identity.

Malcolm wrote:
Yuck. What a load of bollocks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 16th, 2015 at 7:00 AM
Title: Natural Luminosity
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The following is a comprehensive selection of citations from sūtra and tantra concerning natural luminosity [prakṛti prabhāsvara, rang gzhin gyis ‘od gsal]. It is by no means exhaustive, and I have not included any commentarial glosses by Indian scholars.

To understand natural luminosity, the first place to start is with the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Most people are familiar with the famous statement:
There is no mind in the mind, but the mind is naturally luminous.
The Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā, beginning with matter, ending with omniscience and including everything in between, states:
Due to matter being naturally luminous, it is pure and non-afflicted…due to omniscience of all aspects being naturally luminous, it is pure and non-afflicted.
Ārya-suvikrāntavikrami-paripṛcchā-prajñāpāramitā-nirdeśa states:
It is thought, “This mind is naturally luminous.” As this was thought, it is thought, “The mind arises based on a perception.” Since that perception is totally understood, the mind does not arise and does not cease. Such a mind is luminous, non-afflicted, beautiful, totally pure. Since that mind dwells in nonarising, no phenomena at all arise or cease.
The Ārya-prajñāpāramitānayaśatapañcāśatikā states:
Since prajñāpāramitā is totally pure, all phenomena are naturally luminous.
The Buddhāvataṃsaka-nāma-mahāvaipulya-sūtra states:
Since the original nature [prakriti] of the mind is luminous and endowed with purity, it is extremely pure…
The original nature [prakriti] of the mind is correctly known as peaceful, luminous and equivalent with space…
The natural luminosity of the dharmadhātu is abides as totality pure in the same way…
The Āryānantamukhapariśodhananirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Whatever is totally pure, that is an immaculate entryway, the mind is naturally luminous and never possesses afflictions. 
The Ārya-bodhisattvapiṭaka-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
All these phenomena are naturally pure, 
naturally luminous, fundamentally pure from the start,
unfabricated and imperceptible.
And:
If it is asked what is luminosity, that which is natural is without affliction, like space, the nature of space. Follow space. That which is equivalent with the extent of space itself is extremely luminous by nature. Therefore, the immature are temporarily afflicted because they do not comprehend natural luminosity. Since sentient beings do not know natural luminosity, they must comprehend natural luminosity…Due to understanding the natural luminosity of the mind just as it is, the unsurpassed perfected awakening through the discerning wisdom possessed by an instant of the mind is called “full buddhahood.”
The Ārya-lalitavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
I have obtained the ambrosia of Dharma,
profound, peaceful, immaculate, luminous and unconditioned. 
Even though I explain it, no one will understand, 
I think I will remain in the forest without speaking. 
Free from words, untrained by speech,
suchness, the nature of Dharma, is like space
free from the movements of mind and intellect, 
supreme, amazing, the sublime knowledge…
Always like space, 
nonconceptual, luminous,
the teaching without periphery or center
is expressed in this Dharmawheel. 
Free from existence and nonexistence,
beyond self and nonself, 
the teaching of natural nonarising
is expressed in this Dharmawheel…
The Ārya-sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Mañjuśrī, because the mind is naturally luminous, the secondary afflictions are exhausted by temporary secondary afflictions, but the primary afflictions do not exist by nature. Whatever is naturally luminous is without primary afflictions…
Mañjuśrī, awakening naturally luminous through the natural luminosity of the mind. If it is asked what is luminosity, whatever is natural is without the primary afflictions, is equal with space, has the nature of space and is included in space, and is like space because of being extremely luminous by nature.
The Ārya-cintye-prabhāsa-nirdeśa-nāma-dharmaparyāya states:
The child asked, how shall I discern this? The mind is naturally luminous, within that afflictions are not produced and it does not become afflicted.”
The Bhagavān replied, “It is just as you have said. The mind is always luminous, the common people become afflicted by temporary afflictions."
The Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Purified of the afflictions
abandoned by meditation and seeing, 
the mind is naturally luminous,
the pure tathāgatagarbha;
but the addictions of sentient beings
are boundless and endless.
Just as when the surface of gold is polished, one sees
the gold color, the brilliant shine and the pure surface,
in just that way
is the sentient being in the aggregates.
The supreme ones have always shown 
the inexhaustible wisdom of the Buddha to be peace,
without a person, without the aggregates.
The natural luminosity of the mind
endowed with the affliction of mind and so on
along with [the affliction of] self
possesses temporary afflictions
from the start,
naturally luminosity can be purified of the affliction of self,
just like a [stained] cloth. 
Just as the flaws of either cloth or gold
can be cleansed because they are [intrinsically] stainless, 
which neither remain nor are destroyed, 
and likewise have the nature of being flawless.
The Āryātajñāna-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Since all phenomena are naturally luminous, 
one should fully cultivate the perception of nonperception.
The Ārya-Śūraṃgamasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
All phenomena are naturally luminous,
those are not real entities. 
When something is a nonentity, 
that is the purity of phenomena.
The Ārya-pratyutpanna-buddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Also the mind is pure, naturally luminous,
unperturbed, all pervasive and unadulterated.
And:
Since all these phenomena are naturally luminous, they are equivalent with nirvana.
The Ārya-bodhisattvagocaropāyaviṣayavikurvitanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Due to not being asserted in other vehicles, the mind is pure. Due to the removal of the turbulence of the afflictions, the mind is not afflicted. Due to naturally luminosity, the mind is luminous.
The Ārya-tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Due to the natural luminosity of the mind, awakening is naturally luminous. If it is asked why it is called “naturally luminous,” whatever is natural is without the afflictions, equivalent with space, the nature of space, and equal in extent with space, and even with space. That nature is very luminous. Since immature common people do not comprehend natural luminosity, they are afflicted by the afflictions…
The element of afflictions are fully known as the characteristics of the temporary afflictions. The element of purification is fully known as the characteristic of natural luminosity…
The natural luminosity of the mind should be known in just that way. Due to that, the Dharma of the existence of result is shown in one moment of mind.


The Ārya-gaganagañjaparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Whoever skillfully realizes all phenomena as pure,
that is the natural luminosity of the mind…
Because the mind is naturally luminous, 
therefore it is never afflicted.
There are of course many sūtra citations which I have excluded, but they all present a consistent theme.

Moving onto the tantras, we really do not find much variation on this theme, apart from the fact that the tantras tend to present a more precise explanation of the stages of the experience of luminosity in meditation (which will not be disclosed here). To begin with, the Ārya-ḍākinī-vajrapañjara-mahātantrarāja-kalpa-nāma states:
The dharmadhātu is luminous,
someone who meditates on that
is a sentient being who becomes equal with a buddha…
The dharmadhātu is luminous,
the taste of excellent bliss, 
called “the unobscured vajra.”
The Śrī-mahāsaṃvarodaya-tantrarāja-nāma states:
Natural luminosity
is beyond the range of analysis,
it is not low, not high, peaceful
it cannot be invoked,
it is inexpressible, beyond enumeration,
the aspect of emptiness
abiding as the nature all entities, 
free from all qualities such as sound and so on, 
this is the sources of the bliss of buddhahood.
The Saṃpūṭi-nāma-mahātantra states:
Natural luminosity is free from all concepts,
free from being covered by the taints of desire and so on, 
with subject and object, the supreme being
has said that is supreme nirvana…
all phenomena are naturally luminous, 
because all phenomena do not arise from the start, 
it is termed non-origination by the mind.
The Mahāmāyā-tantra-nāma states:
All phenomena are naturally luminous, 
pure from the start and without perturbation…
All phenomena are naturally luminous, 
pure from the start, like space.
The Śrī-vajramālābhidhānamahāyogatantra-sarvatantrahṛdaya-rahasyavibhaṅga-iti states:
Natural luminosity is stainless, 
free from all aspects.
The Sandhivyākaraṇa-nāma-tantra states:
This phenomena is naturally luminous,
since it is pure from the start, it is equivalent with space,
there is no awakening, no realization,
it is the explanation of bodhicitta.
The Māyājāla-mahātantrarāja-nāma states:
All phenomena are naturally luminous, 
pure from the start, without perturbation,
without sentient beings, without life, 
without buddhas and without awakening.
The Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Also everything is naturally luminous,
pure from the start, like space,
neither a phenomena nor a nonphenomena, 
inconceivable and delightful…
All phenomena are naturally luminous,
intrinsically pure from the start.
The Vajraśikharamahāguhyayoga-tantra states:
Since everything is naturally luminous, 
its nature will be pure from the start, 
afflictions will not be perceptible, 
there will also be no liberation of nirvana…
All phenomena are nonarising, 
totally luminous, peaceful from the start.


The Sarvarahasyo-nāma-tantrarājā states:
To explain the meaning of “sentient beings:”
the mind is naturally luminous…
whatever is naturally luminous
is unsurpassed bodhicitta.
The Śrī-paramādya-nāma-mahāyānakalparājā states:
Since prajñānapāramita is totally pure, all phenomena are naturally luminous.
The Ārya-guhyamaṇitilaka-nāma-sūtra states:
All conditioned things are impermanent, and never arose from the beginning in natural luminosity.
The Ārya-vajrapāṇyabhiṣeka-mahātantra states:
The wisdom free from concepts
is the actual buddhahood of all the past victors, 
that freedom from concepts
is demonstrated as the accomplishment of Secret Mantra. 
The result of that is pure,
naturally luminosity.
Whoever dwells in conceptuality
will never produce siddhis.
The Śrī-jñānavajrasamuccaya states:
Whatever arises from luminosity, 
that is called “mind,” “intellect" and “consciousness,”
that is the foundation of all phenomena,
the two stages are realized from
affliction and purification…
In order to explain the reality of all phenomena [gnas lugs], whatever arises from luminosity is dharmatā, the dhātu of naturally pure luminosity. Since a nonconceptual knowing awareness arises at the same time as the subtle vāyu, the mind [citta, sems] is the basis of all…
The reality of that inner consciousness,
nonconceptual innate dharmatā,
is the nature of luminosity, empty and not a self…
The reality of luminosity
is an unfabricated mind which arises from it
different from generic consciousness…
luminosity is the ultimate truth…
based on luminosity, the ultimate true state,
the path is traversed rapidly…
luminosity is dharmatā, suchness,
pure like space, great bliss,
unceasing, immaculate, peace,
ultimate, mahāmudra itself.
Mahāmudra of union
is attained from luminosity that is very free from proliferation…
Natural luminosity is totally pure, 
immaculate, like the element of space…
So, in the end we can see here that luminosity is uniformly considered to be a metaphor for the purity of both mind and phenomena. It is the critical point of meditation in Mahāyāna Buddhism, in both sūtra and tantra, and its experiential recognition leads in both cases to the realization of the final result, buddhahood. I have not included any citations from either sūtra and tantra which indicate how it is experientially entered, as that is beyond the scope of this post.

Finally, we can also see here in these citations that the naturally luminosity of the mind what is being termed tathāgatagarbha, dharmadhātu, and so on, and we can see that it is also termed emptiness, suchness, dharmatā and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Dan74 said:
I'm sorry to butt in like this with my silly 2c, but does anyone else wonder what all this has to do with practice?

Malcolm wrote:
There are three trainings, discipline, meditation, and discerning wisdom.

In discerning wisdom there three, hearing, reflection and meditation.

This kind of thread, as are most threads here, concern hearing and reflection, so indeed, it is very much concerned with practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
Jikan said:
I have good reason to think that not all participants in Ngakpa International have found this thread amusing (PM me for details if you really need them).

I'm also pretty sure they'd rather not have it near the top of the of the page when one does a Google search for the term "Pema Khandro"

So there's no harm in using words like Pema Khandro and Ngakpa International a time or two more.

Malcolm wrote:
If they are not laughing, they should be. They need to remember Oscar Wilde's quip:
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
Jikan said:
They look like they could be related (compare the noses and eyes).  The jawline differs between them, as do the angle of their ears.

I'm interested in finding out more about Gyaldak.  I'd like to know if his story checks out.

It's entirely possible that all these people have some level of realization/qualities, no matter what the unconventional circumstances.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure they are laughing at all this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:



Matt J said:
Sorry to hear that.

Malcolm wrote:
It was a fun post to work on.

In any event, in the huge plethora of citations I found, there are three main adjectives for 'od gsal [prabhasvara]: purity, stainless and nonafflicted. The main metaphor for 'od gsal is space; it is identified with emptiness; and it is defined as non-arising.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
Jikan said:
Pema Khandro / Kali Ma may well be Nessa D. Ross.  I'm just not convinced that Aruna Ross is Pema Khandro.

Ngakpa International uses the same mailing address, PO Box 1491, Los Gatos, CA 95032 USA as does the Yogic Medicine thing.  Nessa Ross is listed as the head of NI.

Malcolm wrote:
I think what is being said is that Aruna Ross =  Nessa Ross. Or perhaps they are relatives: sisters, cousins?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:
Lingpupa said:
it does look somewhat likely that Nessa D Ross and PK are the same person.

Malcolm wrote:
It is probably this person:

http://107.170.200.250/?page_id=240


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
Malcolm, you're saying here that luminosity is a metaphor for purity, but not clarity? Or both?

Malcolm wrote:
So here, of we want to apply the term nature (atman) to sentient beings, we can say that the nature (atman) of sentient beings is luminosity. But luminosity is just a metaphor for purity.

I just spent four hours working on a post with multiple citations from sutra and tantra, and lost it. So short answer, mainly a metaphor for purity.

Maybe I will reconstruct it later.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
oh my bad, I thought he just misspelled Srimala. of course the next question that begs is why he would think a Dzogchen master's writings would be considered to be an authority on anything to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is this, from your favorite sūtra:
The tathāgatagarbha is the tathāgatas' wisdom of emptiness. The tathāgatagarbha has not been previously seen by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas nor realized.
This brings up what is this wisdom of emptiness? You have mentioned this emptiness before, but it is not exactly the extrinsic emptiness you imagine. Your presentation of these two emptiness suggests that not only the buddhadharmas but indeed the wisdoms too are innate to tathāgatagarbha, but a close reading of the Tibetan translation of this text does not support this idea:
Bhavagan, this wisdom of the emptiness of the tathāgatagarbha is of two kinds. If it is asked which two?, since the tathāgatagarbha abides as separate from the sheath of all afflictions, it is empty of the wisdoms because it has not been freed. Bhagavan, since the tathāgatagarbha does not exist separate from the buddhadharmas, by freeing it inconceivable wisdoms beyond the sands of the Ganges are attained.

Son of Buddha said:
Dude non of these passages are saying that the Buddha Nature is not the Dharmakaya, it has already been proven to you that the Dharmakaya is the Buddha nature in the Queen Srimala Sutra

Chapter 8: The Dharmakaya V96.   O’ Bhagavan, the extinction of suffering is not the destruction of the Dharma. Why so? Because the ‘extinction of suffering’ is known as the Dharmakaya of the World Honored One, which is beginningless, uncreated, unborn, undying, free from destruction, permanent unchanging, eternal, inherently pure, and separate from all the stores of defilement. The Dharmakaya is also not different from the inconceivable Buddha Natures which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. The Dharmakaya of the World Honored One is called the Buddha Nature when it is obscured by the stores of defilement.”

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmakāya is what? It is the absence of intrinsic nature, as the Ārya-trikāya-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states quite succinctly:
Son of a good family, meaning of the dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is the absence of intrinsic nature, like space.
So yes, I agree with Maladevi when she tells the Buddha that dharmakāya is beginningless and so on, because the absence of an intrinsic nature, like space, is unconditioned.

Son of Buddha said:
likewise the quote up above also states the Dharmakaya(Full Buddhahood) is UNBORN and UNCREATED, which further proves the inherent enlightenment position.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it merely describes the dharmakāya, which the Buddha defines above as an absence of an intrinsic nature. Further, the Ārya-pratītyasamutpāda-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states very clearly:
Avalokiteśvara, it is as follows: this dependent origination is the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata; whoever sees dependent origination, they see the Tathāgata.
Or the Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which describes dharmakaya very clearly:
Whoever seeks the dharmatā of phenomena, seeks emptiness. Whoever seeks emptiness, cannot be debated by anyone. Whoever cannot be debated by anyone, abides in the Dharma of a śramaṇa. However abides in the Dharma of a śramaṇa, they do not abide anywhere; whoever does not abide anywhere, they are uncontaminated with regard to objects. Whoever is uncontaminated with regard to objects, they are without faults. Whoever is without faults, they are the dharmakāya; whoever is the dharmakāya, they are a Tathāgata; whoever is the Tathāgata, they is said to be nondual; whoever is nondual, they do not abandon samsara and do they accomplish nirvana; in other words, they are shown to be totally free of all concepts. Bhagavan, this is the Dharmasaṃgīti.
So here again, we see that emptiness, the absence of a intrinsic nature, is defined by the Buddha as dharmakāya. It also states:
Emptiness is the dharma. The dharmakāya is the parnirvana of the Tathāgata.
As to the idea that there is no cause for the dharmakāya, this assertion cannot be made without qualifications. The Saddharma-rāja-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
Buddhanature is a permanent cause; dharmakāya is a permanent result. If is asked how, the causal mind is the buddhanature, the result is attained through the yield of Dharma.

Son of Buddha said:
To add to my post above, Jñānavajra writes in the Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-nāma-mahāyānasūtra-vṛtti-tathāgata-hṛdayālaṃkāra-nāma:
The tathāgatagarbha is the dharmatā of the mind free from proliferation and luminous; that [dharmatā of the mind] is the stage of buddhahood.
isn't this quote just further proving what i am saying to you?

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmatā of the mind is the absence of an intrinsic nature.



Son of Buddha said:
Then of course one has to deal with the fact that ālayavijñāna is frequently termed "tathāgatagarbha." Here, one cannot use the excuse that the Lanka is provisional, since it is clear included in the third turning sūtras by those who choose to interpret sūtras in this way.
and you know the Lanka says the Alayavijnana is pure like an amala fruit in the hand with no imperfection right?

Malcolm wrote:
The Ārya-trikāya-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra also tells us that that purified ālayavijñāna is the dharmakāya:
The purified ālayavijn̄āna is the mirror-like wisdom, i.e. the dharmakāya; the purified afflicted mind [kliṣṭamanas] is the wisdom of uniformity; the purified mental consciousness is the individually discriminating wisdom, i.e. the sambhogakāya...etc.]
And yet the ālayavijñāna is also conditioned and momentary; so since you have admitted the equation tathāgatagarbha = the ālayavijñāna, you have admitted the tathāgatagarbha is conditioned. It is simple logic.
The alāyavijñāna is conditioned,
the tathāgatagarbha is the ālayavijñāna
therefore, the tathāgatagarbha is conditioned.
The mind is also pure, inherently, it is also conditioned inherently; purity and being conditioned are not mutually exclusive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Oh, right, I forgot to mention that I have reserved such a room for you two here:




Son of Buddha said:
I hope he likes whips and chains


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


LastLegend said:
Would you say wisdom is innate?

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of wisdom, mundane and transcendent, but neither of them are innate; transcendent wisdom burns the seeds of ignorance, this is why it is irreversible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No, I can but merely point out the absurdity of taking literally the idea that there is some kind of innate buddhahood.

LastLegend said:
If Buddhahood is not innate, then it must be created? This begs if created, how can Buddhahood be unconditioned/permanent?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood is a subtractive process; it means removing, gradually, obscurations of affliction and obscurations of knowledge. Since wisdom burns these obscurations away, in the end they have no causes for returning; and further, the causes for buddhahood are permanent leading to a permanent result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
well you are welcome to your opinions, of course you opinions do not get to dictate what the rest of East Asian Mahayana Buddhists practice.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I can but merely point out the absurdity of taking literally the idea that there is some kind of innate buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Now, if someone is going to assert the tathātagarbha is a self, they will also have to assert that the mind (citta) is a self. Then they will find themselves on a very slippery slope. But if, on the other hand, they assert merely that innate purity of the mind is all that is intended by tathāgatagarbha, then of course they will remain on level ground with no danger of falling in the ravine of permanence and annihilation. And perhaps it is needless to say, but this luminosity is only universal in the sense that it is a characteristic of everyone's mind, like heat in fire or wetness in water.

Son of Buddha said:
I don't know who would be crazy enough to assert that the Tathagatagarbha is a Atman(Self)


Chapter Twelve: On the Tathagata-DHATU
“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?” The Buddha said: “O good man! “Self” means “Tathagatagarbha” [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it.

Malcolm wrote:
And this is why your insistence on following the words, rather than the meaning causes you to completely misunderstand these teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
oh my bad, I thought he just misspelled Srimala. of course the next question that begs is why he would think a Dzogchen master's writings would be considered to be an authority on anything to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is this, from your favorite sūtra:
The tathāgatagarbha is the tathāgatas' wisdom of emptiness. The tathāgatagarbha has not been previously seen by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas nor realized.
This brings up what is this wisdom of emptiness? You have mentioned this emptiness before, but it is not exactly the extrinsic emptiness you imagine. Your presentation of these two emptiness suggests that not only the buddhadharmas but indeed the wisdoms too are innate to tathāgatagarbha, but a close reading of the Tibetan translation of this text does not support this idea:
Bhavagan, this wisdom of the emptiness of the tathāgatagarbha is of two kinds. If it is asked which two?, since the tathāgatagarbha abides as separate from the sheath of all afflictions, it is empty of the wisdoms because it has not been freed. Bhagavan, since the tathāgatagarbha does not exist separate from the buddhadharmas, by freeing it inconceivable wisdoms beyond the sands of the Ganges are attained.
To add to my post above, Jñānavajra writes in the Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-nāma-mahāyānasūtra-vṛtti-tathāgata-hṛdayālaṃkāra-nāma:
The tathāgatagarbha is the dharmatā of the mind free from proliferation and luminous; that [dharmatā of the mind] is the stage of buddhahood.
Then of course one has to deal with the fact that ālayavijñāna is frequently termed "tathāgatagarbha." Here, one cannot use the excuse that the Lanka is provisional, since it is clear included in the third turning sūtras by those who choose to interpret sūtras in this way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
As I have cited before Śrī Siṃha is very clear about this idea of 'primordial buddhahood' or 'inherent enlightenment' being a misunderstanding, and you should make sure you are VERY clear on this, otherwise you will compromise your chances of buddhahood altogether:

This is acceptable since a so called “primordial buddhahood” is not asserted. Full awakening is not possible without being free of the five afflictions... It is not possible for wisdom to increase without giving up afflictions. Wisdom will not arise without purifying afflictions.
I have 5 translations of the Queen Srimala Sutra which is literally my favorite sutra and I have NEVER seen this passage ever, do you care to send a link to the chapter and translation you are using (the sutra itself is only 36 pages long so you should have no problem whatsoever sourcing this)

Malcolm wrote:
He is not citing the Ārya-śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra. He is citing an importan Indian Dzogchen master, Śrī Siṃha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Nevertheless the role of the Tathāgatagarbha is at least analogous to the idea of Ātman, insofar as insight into the Tathāgatagarbha is liberating (in a way similar to the insight into Ātman is said to be.)

But you can acknowledge that, without saying they're the same.

Malcolm wrote:
One, the Indian scholastics belonging to the Madhyamaka and Yogacara strains did not really pay much attention to this idea or this class of sūtras. There exists but a single commentary and subcommentary on the tathāgarbhasūtras, the Ratnagotravibhaga, aka, the Uttaratantra (a title in all probability derived from the Nirvana Sūtra, which describes itself as such).

Most of the Tibetan scholastics around the issue arise from the Tibetan desire to reconcile the five treatises of Maitreyanatha with Madhyamaka.

In so far as tathagatagarbha being analogous to the notion of atman, it is simply another example of Buddhist expropriation and redefinition, so that now "ātman", in these sūtras, represents the potential to become a Tathāgata, which all sentient beings possess, the seed of buddhahood, as the Nirvana Sūtra so clearly states.

In any case, the idea is far more important outside of India than it was in India. We should take that into consideration. It was also far more important to later Indian Buddhists (Vajrayāna) than to earlier ones (common Mahāyāna), and that also needs to be taken into consideration. We can understand this is a fact due to the increasing attention it receives in Vajrayāna commentaries. Whereas earlier Indian Buddhists wrote voluminous commentaries on the Prajñāpāramita with the Abhisamaya-ālaṃkara literature, on Yogacara with literature on the Mahāyāna Sutra-ālaṃkara and so on, they virtually neglect the Uttaratantra. However, there is another important text which can give us some alternate insight into this doctrine as it was understood in India, and that is the Āryalaṅkāvatāra-vṛtti by Jñānaśrībhadra. I cannot reproduce all 47+ comments he makes on tathagatagarbha in this text, but this one should give you an indication of what Indians in general understood tathagatagarbha to mean. They generally understood tathāgatagarbha as a synonym for the mind's natural luminosity:
Therefore, that dharmatā of the mind that is being examined [with regard to being] conditioned and unconditioned has always existed; because all sentient beings are possessors of tathāgatagarbha, these vessels of natural luminosity (prakṛtiprabhāsvara) are neither pure nor impure. Because they have spoiled that natural total purity, by abandoning the temporary flaws that the form of two arisisings, they are like gold, i.e., for that reason through category of permanence the tathāgatas are like precious gold.
Indeed the Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-mahāyāna-sūtra treats this metaphor in the following way:
Just as one sees the golden color, 
the natural shine and pure surface
when gold is polished, likewise
are sentient beings in the aggregates.
So here, of we want to apply the term nature (atman) to sentient beings, we can say that the nature (atman) of sentient beings is luminosity. But luminosity is just a metaphor for purity. For example, we see in the Ārya-bodhisattvapiṭaka-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
All phenomena are naturally pure,
natural luminosity has always been the pure foundation, 
unfabricated and unperceived.
And also:
The kāya of the Tathāgata is natually pure, totally pure, free from the taints of all afflictions.
To illustrate this further, the Ārya-sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states very clearly:
Mañjuśrī, awakening (bodhi) is natural luminosity because of the natural luminosity of the mind itself. If it is asked for what reason is it luminous?, that which natural is totally without afflictions, equal with space, possessing the nature of space, truly inclusive of space and like space, because it is extremely luminous by nature.
And of course the Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-mahāyāna-sūtra clearly makes the equation between the naturally luminosity of the mind and the tathāgatagarbha:
Having purified the the afflictions
abandoned by cultivation and seeing,
the mind is natural luminous, 
the pure tathāgatagarbha.
It is also says:
The mind free of turbidty
is the opposite of the mental consciousness;
in order to understand all Dharmas, 
I have explained "The mind is the Buddha."
Now, if someone is going to assert the tathātagarbha is a self, they will also have to assert that the mind (citta) is a self. Then they will find themselves on a very slippery slope. But if, on the other hand, they assert merely that innate purity of the mind is all that is intended by tathāgatagarbha, then of course they will remain on level ground with no danger of falling in the ravine of permanence and annihilation. And perhaps it is needless to say, but this luminosity is only universal in the sense that it is a characteristic of everyone's mind, like heat in fire or wetness in water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There is no school in Buddhism that states sentient beings are inherently awakened... sure, they may state that we possess an innately unconditioned nature... but that is something different than awakening or enlightenment [bodhi].

Qianxi said:
The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana 大乘起信論 states that all sentient beings are 'inherently awakened' 本覺. 覺 is the usual translation for bodhi, 本　means 'root' or 'originally'.

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

You'd either have to argue that schools following Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (most of East Asian Buddhism) are not Buddhist schools, or argue that although the text talks about inherent awakening, they really mean 'innately unconditioned' (that's a plausible argument).   But the Awakening of Faith, and many other East Asian Buddhist texts do use a term that translates as 'inherent awakening'.

Malcolm wrote:
Chinese Buddhism departs from Indian Buddhism in many respects. Still, the idea of "inherent awakening" is patently absurd and cannot be taken literally or seriously by any means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
... Dudjom ...

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
I need to read more to understand his position. But my current understanding is that while shengtongpas devised the term "mahamadhyamika"...

Malcolm wrote:
But they did not devise this term. It shows up in Indian texts that have nothing to do with gzhan stong; Kawa Paltseg uses it in the ninth century as a term for freedom from extremes; Jestun Dragpa Gyalsten uses it in the Great Song of Experience in the 12th century and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Koji said:
We need to always keep in mind the use of "self" for ātman is a calque. Why is this? First of all self is a pronoun, ātman is a noun. ātman is almost impossible to render into English, adequately. We should also keep in mind that ātman is probably one of the most important words in Indian philosophy; way before Buddhism arrived on the scene.

We are not to see ātman as a mere self, the pronoun, but as the essence underlying everything—the permanent behind the impermanent.

Malcolm wrote:
In other words, you commit the realist fallacy of assuming that universals (sāmānya-artha) are real, as opposed to unreal abstractions. This puts you in the same league as Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Shankara, but not in the same league as the Buddha.

And in fact, ātma is used again and again as a pronoun in Sanskrit texts — people who claim otherwise are fools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
I've been reading "When the Clouds Part" by Brunnholzl. He confirms that Mipham self-identifies as a Madhyamika, although Mipham did write Shentong material also. He also says that most Nyingmas are Madhyamikas. However since all the Nyingma lamas I personally knew up until the present day were Dudjom lamas (something I hadn't realized until now), I think I can be forgiven for assuming that they all shared the same view.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm, what have we been telling you now for several years?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I see, Ardent, now you equate atman with jiva? Something conditioned, impermanent and mutable?

Strange.

Koji said:
Yo Nam! Do I equate atman with jiva? Not on your life, dude. Everyone knows that jīva—not ātman—transmigrates. Death is like a rest stop where jīva changes vehicles. Jīva is similar to Buddhism's vijñāna which is the transmigrant.

Malcolm wrote:
Your words, not mine:
...ātman means the animative principle.
But maybe you meant prāṇa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
After 40 plus years the scholar K. Bhattacharya's French edition has been put into English.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=The+Atman-Brahman+in+Ancient+Buddhism

Koji said:
I just got the book the other day. I am about a quarter through it. It is great. The Buddha never categorically denied ātman. He only denied that the five aggregates, which are murderous, are ātman. In Pali, a categorical denial of attā would be natthattā. This is the term used in the Ananda Sutta, not anattā. Also I would mention that ātman does not mean a self, individual or person. In the Nirukta, which is an etymological work far older than Buddhism, ātman means the animative principle.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I see, Ardent, now you equate atman with jiva? Something conditioned, impermanent and mutable?

Strange.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
srivijaya said:
Essentially if all consciousness is eradicated in the enlightened state, then how can it be known? Same for nirvana - which just means "cessation" as opposed to any state.

Wayfarer said:
Cessation is nirodha. 'Nirvana' is inconceivable. The Tathagatha can't be conceived in terms of mere cessation or absence of being; that is annihilationism. We don't know what nirvana is; otherwise we'd be Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
"Cessation" simply means an absence of causes for a future arising. There are two kinds, cessation due to analysis and non-analytical cessation. The former is a result of the path, the latter is simple absence of causation. Asserting that nirvana is a cessation is not annihilationism. Of course nirvana is a cessation, it is the cessation of the afflictions. Cessation is not an absence of being. An absence of being requires a being that is absent. There is no absent being in cessation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
as you can see by these quotes posted below about the Self from the Nirvana Sutra

(1) the Buddha Nature is the Self, so if as you say the only self in the nirvana sutra is a conventional self(personality ego) then that means your idea of Buddha nature is that it is a conventional ego.

Malcolm wrote:
The term "self" is a merely convention no matter how you may think it is being used. So is permanent, true, unchanging, etc. These are all merely conventions and do not indicate anything real.


Son of Buddha said:
The very description of the True Self in the Nirvana Sutra is that it is Real.......... so the term Self in not merely convention no matter how you may think it is being used and the term Self is not a convention and its literal description in the Nirvana Sutra does in fact indicate it is real.
Nirvana Sutra: The Self is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ‘the Self’ [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says “there is the Self in all things” O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!”

Malcolm wrote:
This passage merely indicates that sometimes Buddha taught there is no self, other times he taught there was a self, as an antidote to different extremes. It is not the case however that this passage is claiming there is an actual self that is real, permanent, and so on. The Nirvana sutra states, as mentioned before:
When it is explained that the tathāgatgarbha is empty, the immature cultivate an incorrect fear; the intelligent know permanence, stability and immutability to be illusory.
Also the idea that tathāgatagarbha is full-fledged buddhahood is contradicted by this passage:
The seed existing in oneself that turns into buddhahood is called "tathāgatgarbha," the buddhahood which one will obtain.
Or:
When the Tathāgata explains to the bhikṣus and bhikṣunis that his body is afflicted with a limitless great illness, at that time it should be understood that absence of self is being explained, and one should cultivate the meditation of selflessness. When the Tathāgata explains liberation is signless, empty and nothing at all, at that time one should understand the explanation that liberation is free from the 25 existences, and therefore it is called emptiness. Why?, since there is no suffering, there isn't any suffering at all, it is supreme bliss and signless. Why?, since that [suffering] is not permanent, not stable and not immutable, and because the nature of peace is not nonexistent, therefore, liberation is permanent, stable, immutable and peaceful, that is the Tathāgata. When the Tathāgata explains that the tathāgatagarbha exists sentient beings, at that time, one must correctly cultivate the meditation of permanence.
So really, it is not necessary reify liberation as a self, though some people may find it temporarily useful. But in the above statement there is no reason to reify an entity. Being free from the 25 or three realms does not mean that there is some entity outside of or apart from the three realms. A self either a) exists in the three realms, b) or it does not exist at all, or c) is just a philosophical abstraction used to describe the permanence of liberation when it is attained, and the permanent potential one has to be liberated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
zengen said:
I think people keep confusing between the "self" that is an illusion of the five skandhas and the "True Self" that is beyond the five skandhas and is taught in Buddhism as the Buddha Nature that is inherent in all living beings. When you argue whether or not the SELF exists, which "self" are you referring to?

Malcolm wrote:
The five skandhas are not a self, and there is no self outside them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
as you can see by these quotes posted below about the Self from the Nirvana Sutra

(1) the Buddha Nature is the Self, so if as you say the only self in the nirvana sutra is a conventional self(personality ego) then that means your idea of Buddha nature is that it is a conventional ego.

Malcolm wrote:
The term "self" is a merely convention no matter how you may think it is being used. So is permanent, true, unchanging, etc. These are all merely conventions and do not indicate anything real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
The quote actually came from Malcolm, who said that we could see the Buddha nature with our own eyes and that it was physically located within our bodies.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we ordinary people who have not even begun to realize emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
Regarding Yamamoto's 1973 English translation of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra: This was reviewed by J. W. de Jong, well-known for his harsh critiques of incompetent translations, in the Indo-Iranian Journal. He said that he compared the first hundred pages with the Chinese, and that it was a good translation. I do not know any Chinese, and from a comment posted here I wonder if someone has some other information that indicates problems with this translation.

Malcolm wrote:
Hodge states that Yamamoto's translation on the whole is unreliable:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131219063612/http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/The_Textual_Transmisssion_of_the_MPNS.pdf

As problems I notice, problems arise when the Indian Dharmakshema's Chinese translation of the long sūtra from Sanskrit [?] (translated into Tibetan by one Chinese monk, Wang-phab-zhwun; and two Tibetans, Dge-ba'i-blo-gros and Rgya-mtsho'i-sde) in fourteen chapters is compared against the Tibetan translation from Sanskrit text in five chapters and 3900 ślokas made by two Indian masters, Jinamitra and Jñānagarbha and one Tibetan translator, Devacandra.

Generally speaking, the Faxian's translation and Tibetan translation made by Jinamitra and Jñānagarbha and Devacandra are the same basic text. Dharmakshema's translation appears to be supplemented with extra texts. Hodges' account is really very interesting. In his view, everything not included in the Indian recension which is reflected by the Faxian translation and the Tibetan translation by Jinamitra and Jñānagarbha and Devacandra is entirely spurious and was composed by Dharmakshema himself, in other words, everything subsequent to chapter five (In the Yamamoto translation, chapters 1-17 corresponds with the five chapters found in the "short version).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
Regarding Vinītadeva’s gloss of ātman in Vasubandhu’s commentary on his Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi Viṃśatikā, verse 10, as rang gi ngo bo, or svarūpa, an intrinsic nature: Certainly svarūpa, like svabhāva that is found in this passage by Vasubandhu, is a synonym of ātman, when speaking of anātman or nairātyma. When pudgala-nairātmya, or absence of self in persons, was extended by Mahāyāna to dharma-nairātmya, or absence of self in dharmas, svabhāva was widely used as a synonym for nairātmya, and was often glossed by another synonym, svarūpa. It is exactly the point of Mahāyāna in using nairātyma for dharmas as well as for pudgalas or persons that it is the same absence of self.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is synonym for atman in the sense that atman is used to describe a nature, rather than an personal identity. The atman of persons and things is anātman. In the Nirvana sūtra, after describing atman in terms like tattva, nitya, etc., he also describes it as the natural great emptiness [ rang zhing gyis stong pa chen po ] Form this passage we can see his intent:
One must know that the teaching of the Buddha is "this is the middle way." The Bhagavān Buddha teaches the path as the middle way that is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. Some fools however, confused about the Buddha's teaching, like those with weak digestive heat who consume butter, quickly come to have views about the two extremes. Though existence is not established, also nonexistence is not established.
When the Buddha, in the Nirvana Sutra, discusses atman in personal terms, he very clearly states he only intends that there is a conventional self; when however he speaks of the self of phenomena, it is very clear by this that he intends emptiness as the "self" of phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
I don't think this is the Atman the Upanishads are talking about. The Atman is not a thing, it doesn't have qualities the way an object does. A great deal of Advaita is actually devoted to correcting improper views of the Atman. Shankara compares it to a lamp. You don't need another lamp to illuminate a lamp. You can't know the Atman because the Atman is knowing itself. As knowing, it is unlimited by any specific act of knowledge.

Malcolm wrote:
Which means it is a consciousness, anyway you slice it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
That is not scepticism in the usual sense; it is much more like scepticism in the sense of the 'great doubt' in Zen, which calls everything into question. And I think that is what it takes to understand this issue.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, I cited a text earlier, the Indian recension of the Nirvana Sūtra:
If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The [self] exists conventionally, there is no doubt.
There is no "true self" demonstrated in that text, the word is never used. The self is demonstrated as above, a conventional self only.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Best Yidams to Remove Obstacles
Content:
Tanaduk said:
I received  Gonkar abhisheka from Sangter Tulku Rinpoche he received  from Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche,Tenga R. received  from Kalu Rinpoche.
So it comes from Shangpa. My short sadhana is "Brief Daily Practice of the Rapidly Acting Lord of Pristine Awareness,The Jewel, King of Power" by Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche.
Maybe in Sakya is different
Greetings!


Malcolm wrote:
It is just a different lineage, that is all, same source, ultimately.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Take it up with Ruegg.

Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking, when one introduces someone's elses idea, one should have an opinion or a purpose in doing so, no? Or is your purpose merely to sow doubts? It is not very responsible to merely throw out this and that opinion of others, especially when you yourself have stated a lack of capacity to evaluate what you are reading.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
When I posed this question to ChNN he said the former is the exhaustion of karma and the latter results in the body of light. The implication is that togal has a higher result re immortal nirmanakaya of light.

Malcolm wrote:
According to Sachen, the result of the completion stage is that the physical body reverts to wisdom. There is no difference in the results at all; the path is the only difference.

WeiHan said:
Hi Malcohm,

Do you mean the rainbow body attained in Naro Kacho is the same as Great Transference Light Body attained through Togal?

My understanding is that the rainbow body attained in Naro kacho is similar to that attained in Trecho which is the shrinking in physical body into light after death but it is not a Great Transference Light Body similar to Togal practice. Of course, another accomplishment of Naro Kacho is flying to Akanistha without leaving behind the gross body.

And then in Kalachakra practice, the body can also dissolve after death but it dissolves into the small particles instead of into light.

Malcolm wrote:
I can only relate was is stated in the Sachen's texts, as above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Best Yidams to Remove Obstacles
Content:


Tanaduk said:
WeiHan you're wrong. White Mahakala has 50 fresh garland of human heads and a tiger skin skirt. This is clearly described in the short sadhana and long puja


Malcolm wrote:
Not in the Sakya Tradition of this practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Saoshun said:
Bodri (meditationexpert.com) levels of realization are based skandhas (look on his ebook how to measure spiritual cultivation levels) so in that terms it does not matter whatever you practice, buddhism or hindu or whatever the question is if your vehicle can take you there.

zengen said:
The question is if Hindu paths can take one past the five skandhas. If not, then one cannot be enlightened. It's likely that Hindu paths can at most take one to the consciousness skandha, which is A LOT of progress (most people practicing any religion can't even reach this stage), but still is short of enlightenment.

Saoshun said:
We would need list all the hindu practices and research on them based thru the buddhist cultivation leveles but the yogic practices (yoga darshana) surely bring people fast to skandha of consciousness, even taoist practices do that very quickly.

Asl we must understand that Siddha traditions goes beyond skandha of consciousness because  in some writings you have term "Siddhas as beyond brahma" which means they transcended limitations of god etc.

So traditions considered "beyond god" could be considered as beyond skandha of consciousnesses.

Malcolm wrote:
No we don't. There are six abhijñās: five are common with Hinduism, etc., one is uncommon, only found in Buddhadharma, the abhijñā of insight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 6:54 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Speaking of Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, I believe he once http://www.cttbusa.org/openyoureyes/1978journal7.asp: “Of course there is a ‘soul’ within the Buddhist doctrine. We just use different terminology. We say ‘eighth consciousness’, or the ‘intermediate skandha body’. When one is confused, this entity is called a soul; when one is enlightened it is called the Buddha Nature. if in Buddhism we deny the existence of a soul, then there is no Buddha Nature to speak of, and what use is there of studying to become a Buddha?
(Yes, yes, I know, it's a TRANSLATION Who knows what the translator was smoking?)

Malcolm wrote:
I see so ālayavijñāna and gandharva = a self?

But wait, I see when one is a confused one calls the mind "a self," and when one is unconfused one calls the mind "tathāgatagarbha."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 5:00 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Here is something from Ruegg about those Bhavya verses, from his http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/buddhist-philosophy-middle/selections: But at the same time, in chapter III of the same work, Bhā(va)viveka has virtually assimilated the supreme brahman and the dharmakāya (verses 278–83), which he describes as cessation of discursive development ( prapañca ) and as inaccessible to those who engage in hypothetical reasoning ( tārkika, 280); and he goes on to say that this brahman corresponds to the supreme reality of which the Muni (i.e., the Buddha) spoke (283), and that Sages ( ārya ) such as Avalokiteśa, Maitreya, and the rest “approach” ( upās -) it precisely through the mode of non-worship ( anupāsanayogena, 284).


Malcolm wrote:
Well, as I pointed out, he [Bhavavivekva] does not really say this. What he says is the "Brahma" is a term for the lord of living beings or nirvana, and in this case he is using it as nirvana. It continues that because the Munis have no inherent body, speech and mind, being illusory, they are venerated by these arya bodhisattvas without an object to venerate using prostrations and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus you are following Lindtner in a huge leap which is totally unjustified when we examine the commentary:
Following that, with an unbiased mind, I shall endeavor to know the truth [tattvajñāna] which does not contradict reason and scripture through an examination of all textual systems...
This is hardly a proclamation that he [Bhavya] regards brahman to be an equivalent of dharmatā. Honestly, sometimes I think you people are like children in the woods eating berries without knowing whether they are poisonous or not, merely because they look pretty.

dzogchungpa said:
"You people"?

I am not following Lindtner, I am just pointing out what he says. Did you read the entire introduction? I, personally, don't have the background to really follow it. Here's what he says when beginning to consider "The Philosophy of Bhavya": The only safe way to form a picture of Bhavya as a philosopher and writer is through a careful study of his extant works and the tradition to which he belongs.
which he then proceeds to do in what appears to me to be a fairly informed way, but I am not a scholar. Before anyone gets too excited, perhaps I should add that I am not trying to assert that brahman = dharmata or anything like that.

Does the term 'brahman' occur in Bhavya's work anywhere?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as David notes, it occurs in one spot in the text where, according to the commentary brahaman [ tshangs pa dam pa ] is used ironically as a term for the nirvana which is not realized by Braham, Vishnu, Shiva, etc. On the other hand, one must also take into consideration Bhavaviveka's rejection of the equation parātman = dharmakāya. Considering that parātman and brahman are universally equated in Advaita and Vedanta in general, we must here understand that Bhavaviveka is making fun of the Trimurti, since he contrasts their non-realization of nirvana with the realization of Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, Samantabhadra and so on in the subsequent part of the passage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 10th, 2015 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Three, later Mahāyanis like Bhavaviveka explicitly reject such equations as Brahman = dharmakāya and so on.

dzogchungpa said:
Obviously you know much more about this than I do but I remember reading, and just looked up, this passage from Lindtner's introduction to his edition of Bhavya's Madhyamakahrdayam: For Bhavya tattva, brahman and dharma(ta) are synonyms ...
Lindtner's "From Brahmanism to Buddhism" is probably also relevant, but I don't have time to look through it right now.

Malcolm wrote:
So you apparently did not read the direct citation I presented the other day where Bhavaviveka explicitly rejects this?

From the commentary on Bhavaviveka's Madhayamakahridaya, the Tarkajvala.
If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma [bdag pa dam pa] asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtly, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place.
And from his introduction to the Sanskrit text:
The tenets of Vedanta and Mimarpsa are stated and rejected in two chapters full of interesting information from the doxographical point of view.
pg. xxix https://www.scribd.com/doc/208431986/Lindtner-Ch-Madhyamakahrdayam-of-Bhavya

And for Lindnter's contention MH 1: 1-5 merely says:
tattvajñānaiṣaṇā ceti caryā sarvārthasiddhaye ||5||

bodhicittaṃ mahāmaitrīkaruṇājñānabhūṣaṇam |
There is no mention of either dharmatā or brahman in this passage. Thus you are following Lindtner in a huge leap which is totally unjustified when we examine the commentary:
Following that, with an unbiased mind, I shall endeavor to know the truth [tattvajñāna] which does not contradict reason and scripture through an examination of all textual systems...
This is hardly a proclamation that he [Bhavya] regards brahman to be an equivalent of dharmatā. Honestly, sometimes I think you people are like children in the woods eating berries without knowing whether they are poisonous or not, merely because they look pretty.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 9th, 2015 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


David Reigle said:
Bhattacharya’s thesis cannot be meaningfully evaluated by regarding it as eternalism. He is not saying that the Buddha was a closet eternalist. If he was, then the argument would be over before it started, with no need to ascertain his position. But he is not saying this. His thesis is more subtle than that.

Malcolm wrote:
What he is saying is that since the Buddha does not actively refute a concept found in the Upanishads, he upheld it. But this is unreasonable. One, the Buddha rejects the idea of an "all" outside of the fields of the six senses gates. Two, the Buddha clearly rejects a person apart from aggregates. Three, later Mahāyanis like Bhavaviveka explicitly reject such equations as Brahman = dharmakāya and so on. Four, the Buddha is clearly aware of Saṃkhya and rejected it., etc., etc.

Claiming "subtlety" as an argument won't work merely because one cannot present a rational for Bhattacararya's arguments beyond the fact that he made them.

Pluse we have the evidence of 25 centuries of awakened Buddhist masters, not one of whom ever proclaimed that there was no essential difference in meaning between Vedanta and Buddhadharma, quite the opposite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Figure of Prajna Paramita
Content:
antiquebuddhas said:
Technically speaking, prajna paramita is the perfection of Wisdom and is considered as one of the most difficult to understand sutra.
But in Tibetan Buddhism, Prajnaparamita is depicted as the figure with golden divine body figure and also known as "The Great Mother".
Its seems quite surprising.
Anyway wanna know more about this.
http://www.burmese-art.com/blog/the-perfection-of-wisdom

Malcolm wrote:
The image and sadhanas of Prajñāpāpramita were widely known in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:


Matt J said:
I think David is right to point out that this is a glaring omission. However, it is not necessarily clear (at least to me) that these doctrines were fully developed in the Buddha's day.  And when the doctrines were fully developed, the Buddhists were quick to refute them.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not a glaring omission at all.

In any case, [apart from Chinese Buddhism, in which the doctrine of self has tragically reasserted itself like weeds in a garden left untended] there is a solid textual and instruction lineage tradition dating from the time of Ashoka to the present day which asserts that the teaching of the Buddha is in essence nairatmya, The trend of Buddhism called Pudgalavada was popular indeed, but it was never a transcendent self they asserted, merely an "inexpressible" self that was neither the same as nor different than the aggregates (which Vasubandhu polishes off very nicely in the refutation of the pudgala).

People who think they can ferret out the Buddha's meaning through textual analysis are very sad. Buddhadharma is, and always has been from the beginning an oral exegesis tradition, without which one cannot understand its doctrines.

Then of course, the Buddha refutes Samkhya, Vaiśeṣikaḥ Paśupatis, and so in the Lanka. One can hardly account for such refutations if one upholds the Buddha maintained a purusha like the Samkhyas, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
Well, you had the Samkhya running around --- although I don't know if they were fully formed in the Buddha's day, but they may have been. But the Upanishad's posit a self apart from the body and mind, and did the Samkhya philosophers. All the skandhas of the Buddha would fall roughly under the banner of prakirti, which was put forth as separate from purusha. I imagine a Samkhya would agree with the Buddha that none of the skandhas are the self, but that the self was independent of the skandhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, correct. The the pre-Buddhist Upanishads do posit such as self. And the Buddha studied Samkhya with Ārāḍa Kālāma, at least according to the Buddhacarita (circa 100 BCE).

I already pointed out that the Yoga Sūtras criticize yogins who become absorbed in Prakriti, and that this was really a critique of Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe that love is "samsaric"?
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: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.

dzogchungpa said:
David, I don't know much about Dzogchen, but I came across the following quotation from a well-known scholar that might shed some light on this issue:
Malcolm wrote:
If we have to have a soul, it might as well be vidya, it is after all, permanent, unconditioned, a knower, stainless, and free from the three realms. But If we don't have to have one, vidya still has these characteristics. It is our essenceless essence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the Tibetan translation of the Uttaratantra commentary by Asanga, paramātman is translated as dam pa'i bdag, but it only occurs there.

David Reigle said:
Thanks, Malcolm, for this helpful information. For those who may want to see what is said there: The first of the two references to paramātman in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga is in the commentary following verse 1.36, discussing the four qualities or perfections of śubha, ātman, sukha, and nitya, or purity, self, happiness, and permanence, given in 1.35. Shortly after the quote about these from the Śrīmālā-sūtra, the commentary says:

pañcasūpādāna-skandheṣv ātma-darśinām anya-tīrthyānām asad-ātma-grahābhirati-viparyayeṇa prajñā-pāramitā-bhāvanāyāḥ paramātma-pāramitādhigamaḥ phalaṃ draṣṭavyam

As translated by Karl Brunnhölzl, p. 363:

“By way of being the opposite of the tīrthakas, who are other [than us] and regard the five appropriating skandhas as a self, taking delight in clinging to a nonexistent self, the attainment of the pāramitā of the supreme self should be regarded as the fruition of [bodhisattvas’] having cultivated prajñāpāramitā.”

The second of the two references to paramātman in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga is in verse 1.37:

sa hi prakṛti-śuddhatvād vāsanāpagamāc chuciḥ
paramātmātma-nairātmya-prapañca-vyupaśāntitaḥ || 1.37 ||

As translated by Karl Brunnhölzl:

“Because the [dharmakāya] is naturally pure
And free from latent tendencies, it is pure.
It is the supreme self because the reference points
Of self and no-self are at peace.”

Karl’s “reference points” translates prapañca, which has also been translated as “elaboration,” diversification,” “proliferation” (of concepts).

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is how the whole passage reads:
From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed. 

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=19502&start=200#p282302

You might want to see the rest of my post.


conebeckham said:
If you say that Tathagatagarbha does not exist primordially, somehow, in the continuua of sentient beings, you are saying Buddhahood is caused, and therefore "conditioned."

Malcolm wrote:
The Uttaratantra states:
Unconditioned, effortless, 
not realized through other conditions,
endowed with wisdom, compassion and power, 
buddhahood is endowed with two benefits.
But what does this really all mean?

When we examine Asanga's comments on this, he states:
When these are summarized, buddhahood is described with eight qualties. If it is asked what those eight qualities are, they are unconditioned, effortless, not realized through other conditions, wisdom, compassion, power, the abundance of one's own benefit and the abundance of others' benefit. [Buddhahood] is unconditioned because it is the nature of lacking a beginning, middle and end. It is called "effortless" because peace is endowed with the dharmakāya. It is not realized through other conditions because each person must realize it for themselves. It is wisdom because those three things are realized. [Buddhahood] is compassionate because [the Buddha] shows the path. It is powerful because it is free from suffering and affliction. The former three [unconditioned, effortless and not realized through other conditions] are for one's own benefit; the latter three [wisdom, compassion and power] are for others' benefit. 

In that regard, the conditioned is fully understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end. This is seen as a differentiation made through the dharmakāya. Because all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub].  Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced. Here, udayo [to produce] is not the arising of a desire for realization. As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth, out of the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha effortlessly engaged in without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists
So let us parse this out a little bit.

Asanga states in his commentary on the Uttaratantra:
...the conditioned is understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end.
Buddhahood is unconditioned because the trio of arising, abiding and perishing are false. Not because in contrast to things that arise, abide and perish, buddhahood does not arise, abide and perish.

Buddhahood however has a cause, as he writes:
Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced.
Buddhahood is also effortless, because, as he writes:
...all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub]...As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth; and from the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha are engaged in effortlessly [lhun grub], without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists
As for tathāgatagarbha always existing in the continuums of sentient beings; if you think somehow tathāgatagarba is something other than or different than a sentient beings mind, there there is a fallacy of the tathāgatagarbha being something like an atman. But there is no atman in the tathāgatagarbha theory, not really. the supreme self, (paramātma) is explained very clearly in the Uttaratantra:
The supreme self is the pacification of the proliferations of self and and nonself.
But what does this mean? Asanga adds:
The perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) is known through two reasons: due to being free from proliferation of a self because of being free from the extreme of the non-buddhists and due to being free from the proliferation of nonself because of giving up the extreme of the śrāvakas.
He explains further:
From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed. 

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.
There are some people who, ignoring the Nirvana Sutra's admonition to rely on the meaning rather than on the words, fall headlong into eternalism, unable to parse the Buddha's profound meaning through addiction to naive literalism.

Tathagatagarbha is just a potential to become a buddha. When we say it is has infinite qualities, this is nothing more nor less than when the Vajrapañjara praises the so called "jewel-like mind":
The jewel-like mind is tainted with
evil conceptual imputations;
but when the mind is purified it becomes pure. 
Just as space cannot be destroyed,
just as is space, so too is the mind. 
By activating the jewel-like mind
and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood, 
and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.
There is no buddha nor a person
outside of the jewel-like mind,
the abode of consciousness is ultimate, 
outside of which there isn't the slightest thing. 
All buddhahood is through the mind...
Matter, sensation, perception
formations and consciousness
these all arise from the mind,
these [five] munis are not anything else.
Like a great wishfulfilling gem, 
granting the results of desires and goals, 
the pure original nature of the true state of the mind
bestows the result, Buddha's awakening
There is no other basis apart from this natural purity of the mind that is inseparable clarity and emptiness. We can call it whatever we want, but still this fact remains. The Lankāvatara rightly observes that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for emptiness and the ālayavijñāna for those afraid of emptiness. Jayānanda writes that ālayavijñāna is the mind that comprehends the basis, i.e. emptiness. How else can the mind be purified of evil conceptual imputations other than by realizing emptiness? Emptiness free from all extremes is the pure original nature of the true state of the mind, so why bother confusing oneself with all kinds of rhetoric? The mind itself has two aspects, emptiness and clarity, ka dag and lhun grub, and these are inseparable. This inseparable clarity and emptiness is call the ālaya in gsar ma and the basis in Nyingma. This also known as tathagatagarbha when it encased in afflictions, the dharmadhātu from its ultimate side, the ālayavijñāna from its relative side and so on. It really is not that complicated.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
If the whole point of the Buddha's refuting of self only applied to the aggregates for the purpose of clearing the ground to deny a supreme self that is separate from the aggregates, then why is it that in the hundreds of passages when he applies the teachings of non-self to the aggregates he never follows it up by giving a teaching denying a universal self? He could have easily said "Form etc are all impermanent, dukkha, and non-self, but there is no reality beyond them that is permanent, blissful, and actually IS a self"? If the whole point of rejecting the aggregates as self were to deny the true self, then the Buddha must have been horribly inept to not just say so.


Malcolm wrote:
Why would the Buddha negate a self which is wholly unrelated to a person? Such an abstract self bears no need for negation because no thinking person would imagine that there was such a self that was somehow separate from their body or mind. The Buddha would be horribly inept to refute something that was totally without any basis. If the point of the Buddha's teaching was to identify some supreme self, why did he not merely come out and say so? It is not like the Buddha was a cagey gambler who kept is cards close to his chest.

Indeed, in the Sutta Nipatta, the Buddha is reported to have said of arhats, that when someone goes out, attains nirvana, there is nothing left by virtue of which their nonexistence can be discussed.

The continuing abstraction of the ultimate self in Hinduism is just a result of the continued and persistent  Buddhist negation of any such entity. There is also the fact that Hindu opponents of Buddhism continually castigate Buddhists for nihilism. How can so many centuries of Buddhists have gotten it so wrong. Why are there no awakened Buddhists returning to tell us how wrong we all have it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
At any rate, Padmasambhava and other Buddhists who did live during the time when Advaita was in vogue did in fact refute it.

David Reigle said:
Yes, Śāntarakṣita devoted verses 328-335 of his 3,646 verse Tattvasamgraha to a refutation of Advaita. Well worth reading. He says that their error is slight (alpa), since they accept jñāna only (jñāna-mātra), which is reasonable (yukti), but that their error is in holding jñāna to be permanent (nitya). As we know, jñāna is in Tibetan ye shes. Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, some gzhan stong pas might erroneously hold this view, but it is not the view of Dzogchen. In point of fact, the Rig pa rang shar tantra, one of the most important tantras on Dzogchen explicitly rejects Shankara's views by name, as well as those of Kumarila.

Anway, the view of Dzogchen is that wisdom arises from prajñā, as the Rig pa rang shar also states:
All phenomena arise from within
the self-originated wisdom (prajñā) that is not a phenomenon. 
Pristine consciousness (jñāna) arises from that.
To go into how that prajñā self originates is a little beyond our scope, but suffice to say it arises on the basis of a stirring of a vāyu which propels a jnāta which is neutral; and when this jñāta knows its appearances as its own state, it becomes a self-originated prajñā, self-originated because its knowledge of its own state did not come from outside, not because it is something that just pops into existence all of a sudden. And needless to say, if this same jnāta does not recognize its own state, it becomes avidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
Advaita did not even exist in the time of the Buddha.

They repurposed Buddhist dialectical techniques to re-interpret the Vedas. I know Hindus and Theosophists like to claim there is some actual lineage behind them but this is completely unproven.

At any rate, Padmasambhava and other Buddhists who did live during the time when Advaita was in vogue did in fact refute it.

Why should I take the word of Hindus living in the present day over Padmasambhava's word?

Malcolm wrote:
Or more cogently, Śantarakṣita, who specifically addressed refutations against Advaita in his Tattvasamgraha. There is also this from the commentary on Bhavaviveka's Madhayamakahridaya, the Tarkajvala.
If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma [bdag pa dam pa] asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtly, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place.
He then address those who advocate puruśa, pradhana, those who advocate for a creator Brahma, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Brahman is...
is the Absolute Consciousness devoid of particularities,

Malcolm wrote:
And this is rejected by Buddhism in toto as a fantasy. Where the term "self" used in special cases, as I have shown before it is used as nature, not as any kind of absolute entity such as Brahman.

Will said:
Hardly an 'entity' if it is free of upadhis or vehicles.  I suspect the word 'Consciousness' is cit - which is not any sort of awareness we can fathom, thus the qualifier 'Absolute'.

Malcolm wrote:
Is it is a knower? Or is it inert?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
That's a different issue. I'm only wanting to identify this distinction. Tregcho is about exhausted karma and only disappearing into particles. These mahamudra results equate here. Togal has another result. I have no idea who. Can do such a retreat. But if one has such lineage at least there is the future possibility. For those who have such lineage of course should regard this feature highly as most precious.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, but this just does not correspond to what I am saying.

Sachen is very clear that at the culmination of the completion stage, the body does not just perish into atoms, it reverts into wisdom light, in terms identical with what it is stated in thögal.

Sachen uses the term "' lus zag med 'od kyi lus ", "the immaculate body, the body of light", actually, and the "the body transforms into the body of wisdom." He says further when discussing the result, "The body of wisdom is adorned with thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks, and is the sambhogakāya. The nature of that existing as emptiness is the dharmakāya and the various benefits of sentient beings produced from the latter is the nirmanakāya. The single nature of those three is the svabhāvakāya. That is the so- called mahasukhakāya of the mantra system."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Brahman is...
is the Absolute Consciousness devoid of particularities,

Malcolm wrote:
And this is rejected by Buddhism in toto as a fantasy. Where the term "self" used in special cases, as I have shown before it is used as nature, not as any kind of absolute entity such as Brahman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Whatever happened to the result of two stages and mahamudra are only equal to tregcho and togal goes beyond that? ChNN holds to that. I asked him about the result of Vajrayogini and the body disappearing. He said that's from the exhaustion of karma. He was implying no rainbow body of great transference happens there. Not that we are going that far but at least we should be clear about it.

Malcolm wrote:
No one ever said that the result of Mahāmudra is only equal to tregchö.

There are two approaches to rainbow body. Both involve exhausting the karma of the elements in the body, that is all rainbow body is, whether via the new Tantras or the old.

We have fantasies for eons about which one is faster, but as far as I know, they both take a lot of practice. To achieve rainbow body via thogal an average practitioner will have to go into strict retreat for 12 years, or so the texts say. So, who among us is going to do that?

It does get to the point where people have to either put up or shut up. Otherwise, it is like arguing about who should have won the 1939 world series.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
But my mind is a blank now when it comes to finding in a Mahayana sutra a refutation of paramatman (not atman); surely there are such?

David Reigle said:
I have just checked the large Sanskrit-Tibetan Dictionary by Lokesh Chandra. It gives paramātma as Tibetan mchog bdag, which one must look up in his 19-volume Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary to find the references. There, in the Supplement volumes, it gives as reference the Amarakośa, and only that. This does not help us at all, since this book gives lists of words, and served as a dictionary. I then checked the 16-volume Negi Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary, which gives only the same reference to the Amarakośa. Between the two multi-volume Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries, a large number of Buddhist texts are covered, but far from all.

I then did a search on all five of the GRETIL files of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, covering the entire Sanskrit text of the 25,000 line Perfection of Wisdom. The word paramātma does not occur in it. Nor does it occur in the 8,000 line version. Nor in the portions of the 100,000 line version that have so far been input.

It may be that we have to use references to brahman, as Dzogchungpa suggested.

Will said:
Do not want to jump to conclusions, but with no sutra refutation yet found and the only uses are in two of the Maitreyan shastras, and those are not criticisms but positive uses... seems very odd to me.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not positive uses. They do not occur in the Uttaratantra itself. Asanga basically states that "supreme self" is the negation of the extremes of self proposed by tīrthikas (meaning all of them) and the nonself proposed by the śravakas.

Some people seem to have this strange idea that when Buddhists refute tīrthikas, somehow there is a special class of tīrthikas that are excluded from this thorough refutation — as if Buddhists were not somehow aware of the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Matt J said:
I think Leigh Brasington makes a good argument that the Buddha was familiar with, and rejected the Atman here:

http://www.leighb.com/ud1_10.htm

He compares the Bahiya Sutta with the Birhadaranyaka Upanishad.

Compare:

'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

With:

"The unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the uncognized cognizer... There is no other seer but he, no other hearer, no other thinker, no other cognizer. This is thy self, the inner controller, the immortal...." Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23.

Malcolm wrote:
Right....we have: the latter proposes a unified permanent agent, the former does not.

You have to understand that the criticism in the Yoga Sūtra about those yogis who become caught up in prakriti is referring precisely to Buddhist yogis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
But my mind is a blank now when it comes to finding in a Mahayana sutra a refutation of paramatman (not atman); surely there are such?

David Reigle said:
I have just checked the large Sanskrit-Tibetan Dictionary by Lokesh Chandra. It gives paramātma as Tibetan mchog bdag, which one must look up in his 19-volume Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary to find the references.

Malcolm wrote:
In the Tibetan translation of the Uttaratantra commentary by Asanga, paramātman is translated as dam pa'i bdag, but it only occurs there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
It's funny bc I've saying for years that all these paradigms are malleable and that sarma has everything DC has. They just keep it in the oral tradition. Malcolm would be on his DC superiority kick.

One point stands out from this era that still registers with me as supremely useful for us Westerners who are very very intelligent we just have heavy burdens and no time. We need some way to accelerate if we can. Why? Not for cool points. We need help and it has to work at work. And work here is serious. Mistakes can land you in court.

Longchenpa explains how the clear light yoga of nyingthig makes use of only the central channel which is pure and does not gather winds from chakras but leaves them to dissipate in their own place thus reducing the danger of jacking up the intensity of emotions which is a big danger with methods dealing with the chakras. So he successfully isolates the precise point that distinguishes nyingthig.

So rainbows and evaporating cadavers aside, this method give someone a chance to experience the clear light innate Buddha within without having to do a complicated sadhana, one, and, two, without creating dangerous obstacles related to loud emotional energy. Of course obstacle come up like diseases and such, and the anuyoga yidams related with DC help a lot for that.

Sure from a scholar's or realized person's standpoint this or that round up to the same thing. But from a practitioner standpoint especially a beginner, knowing ahead of time that some two step method will crank up the anxiety level might help them decide "hey in my line of work I can't have that," and what a godsend a method that doesn't is.

Maybe on this board it sounds cool to wax poetical but folks need to go off board and go outside more. Interact with folks while engaging the teachings and see how folks react to you. See how you react with them. That's the pudding where the proof is. Do they like you, feel comfortable around you? Can you set someone at ease? Can you be kind? If not don't feel bad abt it just ganapuja, Vajrasattva, go to an empowerment, you know refresh the blessings and try again. If you are lucky enough to meet a DC master then you have a great opportunity to put an end to anxiety, depression, weakness, etc.

At least for me the two stage stuff did jack up me emotions. The teacher said this was a blessing and had me examining my feeling in the moment. This made me jumpy. It hurt my performance at work a lot. But somehow the lineage kept me blessed. I won awards and business was great. But I didn't feel right. I started following DC teachers and that helped some. But it was so hard like Malcolm said to sort out which scheme to follow. There are so many. In the meantime we got six yogas of Naropa from a higher master and the tummo thing began to work to help deep relaxation instead of jumpy. So for a while I was at a loss which was working. I took time off from sarma kinda went back to my feral state and that's when Guhyagarbha began a year of all DC. This helped to distinguish.

So if you get a DC empowerment, reading transmission and the experiences are clearly explained with a good translator, you definitely can practice in that style and it will help. That is a big if bc these things are very rare, and rarer and rarer still are all these elements together.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is, that when we are the bee stage, each flower we visit is better than the last one.

When we are done collecting pollen, we look at the whole field of flowers and realize, they are all flowers and they all have pollen. Then we may decide, we like the taste of the red flowers more than the blue flowers, whatever, but it is all pollen just the same, it all makes honey.

As far as your experience goes Paul, you have been in for 10 years now. Wait till you hit the 25 year mark. I think you will find that your attitude towards things will have changed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
He also disparages Nyingma and makes it seems right the silver tongue of a devil. This after forever proclaiming DC utter superiority. Oh well.


Malcolm wrote:
I did not disparage Nyingma, I just pointed out what is obvious to anyone who spends time reading Dzogchen tantras, i.e., that Dzogchen tantras themselves spends reams of paper criticizing lower yanas, and then successively, upper levels of ati criticize the lower levels of ati yoga until we get to yangti, where it seems that the triumphalism peters out since there is nothing else to say. Well, that is until some westerner invents:

Ati lite™ New and Improved! With more flavors than ever!

Then you wind up like some people do (not referring to anyone here), not doing anything at all because they think Dzogchen is not about doing anything, lost in a net of proliferation.

If we are honest with ourselves, we will recognize that the likely hood of any of us attaining the ultimate fruits of any of these systems that we hold up as the bee's knees in this lifetime is very small. Maybe some of us will attain realization in the bardo. But rainbow body? In this life? Among we here who are posting now? I don't think so. And that is not a criticism of any lineage. So you have to take my criticisms for what they are, antidotes to what I perceive as rhetorical excesses. Have I committed my own fair share? Of course, its the internet. I understand the impulse to praise what one is into. Are Dzogchen teachings amazing? Sure. Is Lamdre amazing? Sure. Is Naro Chodrug amazing? Absolutely, Sadanga yoga and Kalacakra? Of course, etc., etc.

For this reason, it is a little strange to say that oh this teachings is more experiential than that teaching. All teachings are experiential, as are all empowerments.

As far as obstacles go, well, Virupa's advice is to take the obstacles as the attainments, and the faults as the qualities. This of course does not mean that we should be crazy people.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, if you're not a Buddha. If you are a superior being in meditative equipoise on emptiness, there are no conventional appearances at all, only emptiness. Buddha says this in the Heart Sutra when he says "there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness".

tomamundsen said:
That's not at all how I interpret that passage. Also, it was Avalokiteshvara, not Shakyamuni. It's a statement about ultimate truth, doesn't specify about apperances.

Malcolm wrote:
Avalokiteśvara was speaking through the power of the Buddha's samadhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
He did Guru Dragpo instead. Maybe next time. I'm pretty sure the GGT was complete. we got those complete instructions. I like to work on the full ganachakra puja there. But I'm in a place I try to work on GY and trecho. I'm a DC dog.

Malcolm wrote:
GGT?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Spoken like a true sarma.

Malcolm wrote:
I have come to the point where I really do not see any lineage as being better than any other. It is not about the lineage, it is about the practitioner.

Give a dog Dzogchen introduction and he will still be a dog. He may be a "Dzogchen" dog, but he will still bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks. Give him Mahamudra instruction, and he may be a "Mahamudra" dog, but he will still bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks., etc.

People talk about their lineages all the time, "I have this powerful teachings, it is so fast, it is so quick, it is so deep, it is so x...", but if at the end of the day they behave like schmucks, so what? I know so many people who have received every level of Dzogchen teaching, and they have not changed one little bit. They still behave like immature children, doing nothing but causing themselves and others headaches and trouble. I know people who only recite the mani, and watch them grow nicer and more mature everyday. I see many people posturing in their tantric garb, very elegant, who have no concentration and less mantra power, who become angry over the smallest slight, accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being samaya breakers.

I think in this day and age, focusing on blessings as a substitute for practice is disease we've contracted from Tibetans, so naturally no blessing arise from our practice. I think that in this day and age substituting devotion for understanding is a disease we have contracted from Tibetans, so naturally no understanding arises from our devotion. In reality blessings arise from practice, and devotion arises from understanding, not the other way around.

Really, we live in degenerate times.

Crazywisdom said:
Yeah. I can get with some of this. Some of these criticisms definitely apply to me also. I've also seen the simple type people like mani practitioners being way better than others. But also some of these methods stir up problems. So maybe they don't behave so nice but maybe that's a phase that has to happen. I never met someone without obstacles. The folks I see dedicating a lot of time have the loudest obstacles. I also see we Westerners loving to posture in all sorts of ways. Besides how are we supposed to know someone's obstacle from some blessing? Tantra has a madness element in its approach.  Being nice and being good are two different things. I learned that from Disney Buddha. Most people crocosmile while secretly planning to subvert you. And at least a Dzogchen dog has an auspicious connection. That's one lucky dog. I am a very lucky Dzogchen Dog. And these degenerate times are too lucky, these tantric methods work even better due to commitments of Buddhas. Obstacles are lucky opportunity to gain vast merit dancing in the view. So all is so well as always.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna is not an excuse to play out one's complexes on others, obstacles or not. But in our culture we externalize everything, we feel too much — we have gone to the other extreme. Too much is about our feelings. The rising heights of food narcissism in our country is an example of this (GF, NF, SF, Vegan, Paleo etc. it's crazy].

In my opinion, people over play the "madness" element in Vajrayāna, not understanding the different levels of the path and when it is appropriate to engage in this or that conduct and when it is not. Conduct is a reflection of realization, not obstacles. There is a vast difference between someone who is merely behaving like Vajryāna hot mess and someone's whose conduct is a result realizing heat....

anyway....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Luckily the VK wang came. This practice is so precious.

Malcolm wrote:
Try, if you can, to receive the lower activities empowerment someday. You only received the upper activities.


Crazywisdom said:
I hope so. How would I know?


Malcolm wrote:
The lower activities empowerment is an extra day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have come to the point where I really do not see any lineage as being better than any other. It is not about the lineage, it is about the practitioner.

Give a dog Dzogchen introduction and he will still be a dog. He may be a "Dzogchen" dog, but he will still bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks. Give him Mahamudra instruction, and he may be a "Mahamudra" dog, but he will still bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks., etc.

dzogchungpa said:
I wonder how a "Hindu" dog would behave?


Malcolm wrote:
...bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Spoken like a true sarma.

Malcolm wrote:
I have come to the point where I really do not see any lineage as being better than any other. It is not about the lineage, it is about the practitioner.

Give a dog Dzogchen introduction and he will still be a dog. He may be a "Dzogchen" dog, but he will still bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks. Give him Mahamudra instruction, and he may be a "Mahamudra" dog, but he will still bark, pee on fire hydrants, chase cats and fetch sticks., etc.

People talk about their lineages all the time, "I have this powerful teachings, it is so fast, it is so quick, it is so deep, it is so x...", but if at the end of the day they behave like schmucks, so what? I know so many people who have received every level of Dzogchen teaching, and they have not changed one little bit. They still behave like immature children, doing nothing but causing themselves and others headaches and trouble. I know people who only recite the mani, and watch them grow nicer and more mature everyday. I see many people posturing in their tantric garb, very elegant, who have no concentration and less mantra power, who become angry over the smallest slight, accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being samaya breakers.

I think in this day and age, focusing on blessings as a substitute for practice is disease we've contracted from Tibetans, so naturally no blessing arise from our practice. I think that in this day and age substituting devotion for understanding is a disease we have contracted from Tibetans, so naturally no understanding arises from our devotion. In reality blessings arise from practice, and devotion arises from understanding, not the other way around.

Really, we live in degenerate times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
The "empty-of-other" paradigm is used in post meditational discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Then why claim the difference is experiential?

smcj said:
In terms of approach to meditation, the two differ between relying on intellect and relying on faith.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense. You belittle everyone when you make such claims.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
conebeckham said:
but if one creates a conceptual "image" of emptiness... this is not meditation

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, no one asserts that it is...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
HHDL: There is a tradition of making a distinction between two different perspectives on the nature of emptiness: one is when emptiness is presented within a philosophical analysis of the ultimate reality of things, in which case it ought to be understood in terms of a non-affirming negative phenomena. On the other hand, when it is discussed from the point of view of experience, it should be understood more in terms of an affirming negation.
Here HHDL is rephrasing the Shentong position on how Madhyamaka is for talking about emptiness from an intellectual perspective, and Shentong from an experiential perspective. I'm sure he is aware of all the types of objections you raise, but if HHDL-- a Gelugpa --is ok with it, that's good enough for me.

Malcolm wrote:
Gzhan stong pas assert that in equipoise there is no difference in how they and so called rang stong pas meditate, so claiming there is a difference via vie experience is just lip service to make the gzhan stong pas feel validated. HHDL is a nice person, he wants everyone to feel good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Assertions are not thought.

Make you a deal Malcolm.  I will apologize for presuming you have not read the book, if you will also apologize for presuming you understand his book based on a few excerpts & comments by those who have read it.

Malcolm wrote:
Will, you posted a plethora of his articles, which I have had a chance to review. I am telling you, his arguments are just wishful thinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Religious background and eternalism
Content:
Sherlock said:
I am curious how the religious background of people affects what views they have.

I was always nominally a Buddhist, but my parents weren't very serious, I do not have eternalist views.

Malcolm wrote:
I can't answer your poll — you missed one option "raised without religion at all, became a Buddhist."

I did not convert from anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The [self] exists conventionally, there is no doubt."
-- Nirvana Sūtra

Hardly a ringing endorsement for Bhattacarya's views.

Will said:
A view which you do not understand. Since you have not read the book, that is understandable.

Malcolm wrote:
I do understand his view.

His view is not different than that of many people in the past who have tried to argue that Buddha was not refuting the pre-Buddhist Upanishadic view of atman. He uses the same arguments, use the same citations (incorrectly) and has the same set of misunderstandings because, in the end, he is not a Dharma practitioner, he is a Hindu scholar trying to reconcile what the Buddha explicitly teaches with what he wants to believe.

He presents not one single decisive argument.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The [self] exists conventionally, there is no doubt."
-- Nirvana Sūtra

Hardly a ringing endorsement for Bhattacarya's views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
Well Dolpopa and Kongtrul both comment on Maitreya/Asanga's "Uttaratantra" from a Shentong perspective. In fact they base much of their view on it, so there's no consensus on that.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, no —  Dolpbupa's commentary on the Uttaratantra is surprisingly tepid and not at all novel. Kongtrul's commentary largely just follows Rongton's.

smcj said:
Yep, that's right. Square pegs don't fit into round holes.

Malcolm wrote:
Yet, it is exactly this mapping that exposes gzhan stong to most of the criticism it receives; it is their deformation of Madhyamaka that is the problem. They want to be Madhyamakas, but they also want to use the three own natures in their presentation of the two truths. So they twist both Madhyamaka and Yogacara in ways that are just not justifiable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Do you believe that love is "samsaric"?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Yeah love characterized by compassion is the foundation to bodhichitta which is the wish to help beings awaken followed up by actions according to the six paramitas.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, however, as Dharmakirti observes, love and compassion by themselves do not have the force to burn away afflictions and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Do you believe that love is "samsaric"?
Content:
boda said:
I discovered yesterday that some Buddhists make distinctions between what they believe is "samsaric," and what they believe is something else, something not samsaric. Some believe that love, of all things, is samsaric.

I don't understand how it makes any sense at all to make such distinctions. If anything it seems to me that making such distinctions is "samsaric."

Any thoughts about this?

Do you believe that love is "samsaric"?

Malcolm wrote:
Love, from a Buddhist point of view, is the wish that someone be happy and have the virtuous causes of happiness. But love does not have the power to lift another out of samsara, or even oneself, and so while it is an important and necessary thing for Buddhists to cultivate, it is not sufficient as a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
Sherlock said:
OK, I see, thanks.

So how are the 2 truths presented in gzhan stong? Is it similar to Nyingma 9-yana system?

Malcolm wrote:
The three own natures are mapped onto the two truths in the following way:

Ultimate truth = the perfected nature (parinispanna)
Correct relative truth  =  the dependent nature (paratantra)
False relative truth = the imagined nature (parikalpita)

Ultimate truth, parinispanna, is held to be empty of the dependent and the relative. According to this system in general, whatever is held to be ultimate is unconditioned, permanent and so on, and is empty of the conditioned, impermanent and so on.

So, it is a very dualistic perspective in many regards, positing all kinds of dualisms such as empty/not-empty; impermanent/permanent; conditioned/unconditioned; and so on.

In reality, according to the Maitreya, Asanga and Vasubandhu's treatises, the perfected nature is merely the absence of the imagined in the dependent nature. So, the two truths theory does not really work well if you try to map it to the three own natures as they are explained by the three great Yogacara masters.

If you understand the dependent nature as the union of the two truths — in this case the imagined is the relative truth; the perfected, the ultimate truth; which corresponds to Candrakirti's observation that all things bear two natures, one relative, one ultimate. However, there is no classical presentation like this anywhere, AFAIK, and definitely not within gzhan stong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
LastLegend said:
I have never met any dharmakaya in my life.

Malcolm wrote:
You never met the Buddha either, is it is not surprising.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
Sherlock said:
Why is rang stong said to err towards nihilism? I don't get this common remark by gzhan stong pas. Rang stong is actually a realist position, they only limit their emptiness to svabhavas, very similar to Sautrantikas, so it is very confusing to see them claim to be Prasangika.

Also I always found this terminology of translating inherent existence or some other variant very confusing until I learned that it was just svabhava/rang bzhin. Using the Sanskrit really makes everything clearer.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, first of all, Gelugpas are not rang stong pas, even Khedrupje rejects this appellation for their view and heaps ridicule on it.

Second of all, the reason why Gelug view leans towards nihilism is the insistence that ultimate is merely "the emptiness that is the absence of true existence in things". Hence they assert the ultimate is a mere nonexistence, and that leans towards ucchedavada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddhahood is not truly existent either.

LastLegend said:
Namo Amitabha. Who is Shakymuni then?

Malcolm wrote:
An illusory emanation of the dharmakāya, what else?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
Anyway it's not as if Shentong is completely absent from Sakya. Deshung R. was a very important Sakyapa. I think Malcolm personally just doesn't like it because it's too close to Hinduism, and that freaks him out.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, gzhan stong is not completely absent from Sakya. However, there are important differences between the gzhan stong of Shakya Chogden and the gzhan stong of Dolbupa. These have been summarized in a short text by Taranatha.

The long and short of it is that Shakya Chogden considered wisdom relative and conditioned, among many other things. Shakya Chogden's main aim, at least one point in his long and varied career (he shifted his views many times and is therefore perhaps the most interesting Sakya scholar of the classical period) was to show that all the treatises of Maitreta were definitive and not in contradiction with Madhyamaka.

However, in general within Sakya the view of gzhan stong is generally considered to be incompatible with the practice of Lamdre since the notion that the ultimate is empty of the relative, with the former truly existing and the latter not existing at all, is incompatible with the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana; the view of gzhan stong is considered to be a misinterpretation of the doctrines of the Yogacara school (this is a point of view shared with Tsongkhapa); the view of gzhan stong is considered to lean toward the extreme of existence, just as Tsongkhapa's views are considered to be lean toward the view of nonexistence.

Now then, gzhan stong scholars in Tibet don't freak me out at all; then there are westerners who have naively jumped on the gzhan stong bandwagon who often proclaim a view of Buddhahood that is really indistinguishable from how Hindus conceive of brahmin because these people do not know how to understand words like permanent, stable and unchanging. These people don't freak me out either, I just feel they have been very misled by what has been up till now very poor scholarship on the subject.

That has changed, but still, when we talk about this issue, rather than talk about what is actually a unique feature of gzhan stong teachings, the way in which they present the two truths, people would rather talk about infinite unconditioned qualities of tathāgatagarbha, as if that was really the issue at stake. It isn't really the issue.

As the Buddha said in the Nirvana Sūtra above:
If it is explained "tathagatagarbha is empty." The immature cultivate the dread of annihilation.The intelligent know that permanence, stability and immutability exists as a mere illusion.
People could start, for example, by understanding the Buddha, Maitreya, Asanga, and so on were not gzhan stong pas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
smcj said:
The problem with gzhan stong is the idea that these infinite wonderful qualities are somehow truly existent and not themselves empty (among other things)
So "these infinite wonderful qualities" are fiction? Or are they non-fiction? If fiction, they are like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If non-fiction, they have soteriological capacity and validity.

If they are non-fiction, which I believe them to be, then obviously it can easily be said that they are "empty of anything other than their own qualities". The English "existent", as I've said before, is misleading and I think inappropriate as it suggests something manifest or material. Obviously that is not the case. Going to my thesaurus, I propose as alternates: genuine, authentic, valid, true, unmistaken, actual, and non-fiction. If someone else has a better thesaurus I'm open to more terms.

Malcolm wrote:
Did you read the sutra citation?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Kagyupas are (mostly) Shentongpas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The problem with gzhan stong really is not the idea that tathāgatagarbha is empty of adventitious afflictions. The problem with gzhan stong is the idea that these infinite wonderful qualities are somehow truly existent and not themselves empty (among other things0

The emptiness of other, the emptiness that is not empty, as the Nirvana sutra puts its, is not the profound emptiness of freedom from extremes. It is not more profound than the emptiness taught in the Cullasuññata sutta where the Buddha says a village is empty of a city because the people are not there. etc. Also the Buddha repeats this emptiness example in the Nirvana Sutra.

However the Buddha also teaches profound emptiness in the Nirvana Sutra (Sanskrit recension translated into Tibetan). It is important to know the difference between the trivial emptiness of the so called affirming negation the emptiness of free of extremes.
One must know that the teaching of the Buddha is "this is the middle way." The Bhagavān Buddha teaches the path as the middle way that is free from the extremes of permanence and annihilation. Some fools however, confused about the Buddha's teaching, like those with weak digestive heat who consume butter, quickly come to have views about the two extremes. Though existence is not established, also nonexistence is not established. 

For example, just as when the elements of pitta and so on become disturbed and have mutual conflicts, doctors pacify pitta for the illness of pitta, remove vata when vata predominates, eliminate kapha in those with kapha, and apply combination remedies for those with combination disorders. Without causing mutual conflicts also the happines [of the patient] improves. Like a doctor, infinite illnesses of afflictions are removed by extremes and perfect health is restored. 

So called "perfect health" is the tathāgatgarbha, i.e. the so called "buddhadhātu", but it is free from all [other] dhātus, being permanent, stable and persistent. Though the intelligent are not attached to existence, also so called "nonexistence" arises from telling lies. Silent about called "existence," they also do not make it into a premise. They also do not dispute it. These are to be understood as natural dharmatā. 

Fools who do not understand words, "While the seed of happiness exists in my body, this conflicts with permanence because suffering is shown." Grasping everything, these immature ones think "my body is not stable." If impermanence is explained, the immature think it is like a pot made by a potter. Since the intelligent on the other hand think "The seed of dharmakāya exists in my body," they do not grasp to everything. If selflessness is demonstrated, the immature grasp to the explanation thinking there is no self. The intelligent on the other hand think "The [self] exists conventionally, there is no doubt. If it is explained "tathagatagarbha is empty." The immature cultivate the dread of annihilation.The intelligent know that permanence, stability and immutability exists as a mere illusion.
158/a—159/a Lhasa edition

So here in the Nirvana Sutra we can clearly see that the Buddha refers to permanence, stability and immutability as being illusory. What does it mean to be illusory? Not real, but apparent. The Buddha continues:
When liberation is demonstrated, the immature grasp the thought, after the Buddhas are liberated, they become nonexistent. The intelligent know that the Buddha has come and the Buddha has gone, and say "The lion of humans arrived."  The immature grasp ignorance conditioning formation as a duality. The intelligent understand there is no difference between ignorance and knowledge, they are nondual. The immature grasp consciousness conditioned formation as a duality. The intelligent know that there is no difference between the formation and the absence of formations, they are nondual. Likewise, the immature grasp all virtue and nonvirtue as two different things. The intelligent understand them as nondual...the immature cultivate the idea that in the tathāgatagarbha, everything conditioned is impermanent. The intelligent understand this as nondual. That is the nature of the intelligent. The immature grasp all phenomena as nonself in Buddha's explanation of nonself. The intelligent understand that "self exists" and "there is no་self are nondual, that is the nature of the intelligent. The tathāgatagarbha praised by buddhas beyond measure was explained by me in the Sarvapuṇya-samuccaya sūtra, in which it is held that the "self exists" and "the self does not exist" are nondual. 

Son of a good family, in the appearance of entering into the nonduality in the Sarvapuṇya-samuccaya sūtra and the great Prajñāpāramita sūtra, I have explained the "self exists" and "the self does not exist" as nondual, remember this!"
159/a —160/a

So, here the main point is not to get hung up on the words, permanent, stable, immutable, which are just illusions, nor should one get hung up on self and nonself, knowing that self is just a convention. All in all, pretty standard Buddhist fare.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Then, what exists appearing to be things
And their non-existence, pure being, emptiness
Are essentially inseparable, one taste

Malcolm wrote:
This term is dharmatā, chos nyid, translating it as pure being is very wrong as there is no dharmatā without a dharmin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood is unconditioned because the trio of arising, abiding and perishing are false. Not because in contrast to things that arise, abide and perish, buddhahood does not arise, abide and perish.

Buddhahood however has a cause

tomamundsen said:
This appears to be contradictory. First you negate causation and then you posit a cause.

Malcolm wrote:
"False" mere simply means relative, also the attainment of buddhahood is relative since it is result of realizing the falsity of arising, abiding and ceasing, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Luckily the VK wang came. This practice is so precious.

Malcolm wrote:
Try, if you can, to receive the lower activities empowerment someday. You only received the upper activities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
I have. I'm referring to the way it is presented. For example the 3rd requires a consort. That don't happen at the ceremony. What happens is simulacrum. Of course due to the blessing of the lineage one can connect directly with the teachers state in the 4th. In Rigpa'i tsal wang it is describes what the light is about. In mahayoga or Anu it is presented but not fully explained. It's this subtlety of explanation that makes it special in Nyingma. I know hardly anyone gets anything. That's karma. But some do. So that's what matters for the lineage. BTW HHST gave a perfect wang in Richmond. In a Kagyu-Nyingma-Sakya-Bonpo aka Vajrayanist.

Malcolm wrote:
Empowerments are related to practices. And there are all kinds of rig pa'i tshal dbangs, from ones that just hold up one to two items to those that give full fledged explanations of various aspects of the path [the kind you are talking about]. So it is really not enough to say "Oh, the rig pa'i tshal dbang is the best thing since sliced bread." You have to be very specific. There are lots of rig pa'i tshal dbang that are no different than the fourth in brevity.

Of course the GZT goes all out, is like a kitchen sink of dbangs, elaborate, unelaborate, very unelaborate, extremely unelaborate, and it does not stop there, I know since I was at the one in Virginia, but...dbangs are one thing, practice is another.

(And, while I am getting every closer to putting out the Vimalamitra book, there are reams of stuff yet to edit and publish from the GZT.)

Frankly, in my opinion, claiming that this thing and that thing is more profound than this and that is a bit of an error. For example, where you aware that in Kālacakra there is an outer four empowerments, an inner four empowerments and so on? Or that in Lamdre there are many empowerments, not just a few, so in reality, when you make the claims that you do, you cheapen Nyingma by falsely elevating it.

Nyingmapas like to claim their teachings as the highest thing on Buddha's green earth, but when you get right down to it, it is all just a complicated mess of ever conflicting systems, with each "higher" level saying the last one is shit. It is really a lot of proliferation and I have studied it and practiced it in detail for 20 years now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:


conebeckham said:
If you say that Tathagatagarbha does not exist primordially, somehow, in the continuua of sentient beings, you are saying Buddhahood is caused, and therefore "conditioned."

Malcolm wrote:
The Uttaratantra states:
Unconditioned, effortless, 
not realized through other conditions,
endowed with wisdom, compassion and power, 
buddhahood is endowed with two benefits.
But what does this really all mean?

When we examine Asanga's comments on this, he states:
When these are summarized, buddhahood is described with eight qualties. If it is asked what those eight qualities are, they are unconditioned, effortless, not realized through other conditions, wisdom, compassion, power, the abundance of one's own benefit and the abundance of others' benefit. [Buddhahood] is unconditioned because it is the nature of lacking a beginning, middle and end. It is called "effortless" because peace is endowed with the dharmakāya. It is not realized through other conditions because each person must realize it for themselves. It is wisdom because those three things are realized. [Buddhahood] is compassionate because [the Buddha] shows the path. It is powerful because it is free from suffering and affliction. The former three [unconditioned, effortless and not realized through other conditions] are for one's own benefit; the latter three [wisdom, compassion and power] are for others' benefit. 

In that regard, the conditioned is fully understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end. This is seen as a differentiation made through the dharmakāya. Because all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub].  Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced. Here, udayo [to produce] is not the arising of a desire for realization. As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth, out of the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha effortlessly engaged in without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists
So let us parse this out a little bit.

Asanga states in his commentary on the Uttaratantra:
...the conditioned is understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end.
Buddhahood is unconditioned because the trio of arising, abiding and perishing are false. Not because in contrast to things that arise, abide and perish, buddhahood does not arise, abide and perish.

Buddhahood however has a cause, as he writes:
Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced.
Buddhahood is also effortless, because, as he writes:
...all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub]...As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth; and from the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha are engaged in effortlessly [lhun grub], without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists
As for tathāgatagarbha always existing in the continuums of sentient beings; if you think somehow tathāgatagarba is something other than or different than a sentient beings mind, there there is a fallacy of the tathāgatagarbha being something like an atman. But there is no atman in the tathāgatagarbha theory, not really. the supreme self, (paramātma) is explained very clearly in the Uttaratantra:
The supreme self is the pacification of the proliferations of self and and nonself.
But what does this mean? Asanga adds:
The perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) is known through two reasons: due to being free from proliferation of a self because of being free from the extreme of the non-buddhists and due to being free from the proliferation of nonself because of giving up the extreme of the śrāvakas.
He explains further:
From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed. 

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.
There are some people who, ignoring the Nirvana Sutra's admonition to rely on the meaning rather than on the words, fall headlong into eternalism, unable to parse the Buddha's profound meaning through addiction to naive literalism.

Tathagatagarbha is just a potential to become a buddha. When we say it is has infinite qualities, this is nothing more nor less than when the Vajrapañjara praises the so called "jewel-like mind":
The jewel-like mind is tainted with
evil conceptual imputations;
but when the mind is purified it becomes pure. 
Just as space cannot be destroyed,
just as is space, so too is the mind. 
By activating the jewel-like mind
and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood, 
and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.
There is no buddha nor a person
outside of the jewel-like mind,
the abode of consciousness is ultimate, 
outside of which there isn't the slightest thing. 
All buddhahood is through the mind...
Matter, sensation, perception
formations and consciousness
these all arise from the mind,
these [five] munis are not anything else.
Like a great wishfulfilling gem, 
granting the results of desires and goals, 
the pure original nature of the true state of the mind
bestows the result, Buddha's awakening
There is no other basis apart from this natural purity of the mind that is inseparable clarity and emptiness. We can call it whatever we want, but still this fact remains. The Lankāvatara rightly observes that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for emptiness and the ālayavijñāna for those afraid of emptiness. Jayānanda writes that ālayavijñāna is the mind that comprehends the basis, i.e. emptiness. How else can the mind be purified of evil conceptual imputations other than by realizing emptiness? Emptiness free from all extremes is the pure original nature of the true state of the mind, so why bother confusing oneself with all kinds of rhetoric? The mind itself has two aspects, emptiness and clarity, ka dag and lhun grub, and these are inseparable. This inseparable clarity and emptiness is call the ālaya in gsar ma and the basis in Nyingma. This also known as tathagatagarbha when it encased in afflictions, the dharmadhātu from its ultimate side, the ālayavijñāna from its relative side and so on. It really is not that complicated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
What I found helpful about Nyingma is the way they are able to combine experience with empowerments, transmissions and explanation.

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone does that. It is not a unique Nyingma thing.

Crazywisdom said:
They do it better. Rigpa'i tsal wang is a direct experience. The four initiations are imaginary.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you have never properly received the four empowerments...on the other hand, the more empowerments you receive, the better you become at receiving them. Its a practice, not a gateway. This applies equally to the famed rig pa'i tshal dbang. Most people who receive it the first time have no clue what is going on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
What I found helpful about Nyingma is the way they are able to combine experience with empowerments, transmissions and explanation.

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone does that. It is not a unique Nyingma thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
But this system is just endless proliferation that never end, ati of anu of maha, maha of ati of anu....etc.
Maybe in your head it is. Your unique arguments make for an interesting aside.

Malcolm wrote:
I find that Nyingmapas have a talent for endless over-classification.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Tantra vs. Sutra Buddha Nature
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
So talking about Dzogchen to someone like this SOB is the definition of samaya violation, because upon hearing what he doesn't like to hear or read he disparages it. Now both sayer and responder are headed to hell. So time for confessions and to drop this. It's called Secret Mantra not Public Mantra.

Malcolm wrote:
SOB is a single issue poster. Tathāgatagarbha is a self; it is filled with infinite qualities; it is permanent; and empty of adventitious taints. For him this what gzhan stong means and that is all. He appears to have no interest at all in the actual philosophical issues with Dolbupa's view at stake. There are all kinds of people who do not take issue with what the tathāgatagarbha sūtra say (like Gorampa, for example) who have all kinds of issues with Dolbupa's overly literal interpretation of them.

As far as the other things goes, he is not saying that buddhanature is not a direct perception, he just thinks that it is a mistaken to say that only buddhas can have such a direct perception, he thinks (erroneously) that also tenth stage bodhisattvas can have such a direct perception (even though it is clearly stated that their perception of tathāgatagarbha is generic i.e. abstract, and not direct).

I don't see him disparaging Secret Mantra. We are not talking about anything very specific, so I don't see the issue.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Ok. Sure. So is what you just said. The import is there is such a tantra and explanation and method. If one has such a teacher one can have such a practice.

Malcolm wrote:
The method of practicing Guhyagarbha is mahāyoga — it is only the fact that the thirteenth chapter has a brief mention of Dzogchen that makes it stand out.

Basically Longchenpa is reading a lot into the tantra.

Crazywisdom said:
You are upholding the Zurpa tradition. Longchenpa successfully goes to great lengths to show the limitations of this view.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not upholding any such tradition. The fact that Longchenpa has to go through great lengths to read Dzogchen into the Guhyagarbha is a) a testament to his energy and intellect b) a testament to the fact that it is a bit of a reach.

One can also explain the carya tantra, the Mañjuśrīnamasaṃgiti, according both Kālacakra and Dzogchen; but it does not make it a niruttarayoga tantra or an atiyoga tantra. See my point? Everyone classfies Guhyagarba as a Mahāyoga tantra. Some people sub-classify it ati of mahā. But this system is just endless proliferation that never end, ati of anu of maha, maha of ati of anu....etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
Malcolms position is that the sugatagarbha can be visibly seen with the eyes through various yogic techniques and that the sugatagarbha cannot be seen in the Sutras.....his statement is false in BOTH the tantras and Sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not false.

Son of Buddha said:
The Buddha nature can bee seen by the eye by being's other than the Buddha.............

Malcolm wrote:
No, it cannot. Tenth stage bodhisattvas can perceive a generic approximation of tathāgatagarbha, but that is all. And no one else can see even that much. The Indian version states:
Son of a good family, bodhisattvas of the tenth stage can seen only a generic approximation of the tathagātagarbha that exists in their bodies.
Chinese long version (from Tibetan):
Son of a good family, buddhanature can be seen by only a buddha, and not a śravaka [arhat] or a pratyekabuddha.

Son of Buddha said:
on top of the fact the idea that a person can see the Buddha nature and another person cannot see the Buddha Nature does not in any way shape form or fashion show that there are two different Buddha natures.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on how it is being defined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 8:14 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
"Existence" is probably not the correct word for something that is unborn and beyond conceptuality. Semantics.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that something is unborn is to say either a) it always existed from time immemorial b) it never arose and is not something one would consider real. If it is former, then one's view is no different than nonbuddhists. If it is the latter, than wisdom is just as empty as everything else (buddhist view).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since it has no causes, it should therefore arise at all times, randomly, in ants, humans, dogs, etc.

smcj said:
The Uttartantra has a lot of analogies for Buddha Nature, each with a commentary explaining the significance. But the only one that I personally need is the clouds and the sun in the sky. The sun is never contaminated by the clouds. So the salient point is what perspective you are speaking from. If you are above the clouds there is absolutely no difference between a stormy day and clear weather. There are teachings from that perspective, such as Huang Po's "There is no difference between the enlightened and unenlightened." So yes, from that perspective it is fully present at all times in ants, human, dogs, etc.

But obviously I'm not a pilot (or yogi) so I've got my raincoat in my car at all times.
So therefore, no one can have this truly existing wisdom, not even a buddha, since it already exists without needing to be realized.
Huh?

Malcolm wrote:
To say that something truly exists is to say that it produces itself without any cause or condition. It is not something that can be realized, much less known.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
That's basically how I interpret the above quote from Khenpo Tsultrim. How else to understand the distinction between "consciousness" which is non-arising as per Madhyamaka, and "Wisdom Mind" which has true existence? I haven't had teachings with questions answered, so obviously I'm just guessing. It would have been nice if he had elaborated on it some more in his book..

Malcolm wrote:
What does it mean to say that wisdom has true existence? It has no cause? It is like the mind of god, self-existing, unconditioned?

smcj said:
More like the mind of Buddha. Since K.T.'s quote is a presentation of Shentong, I think it safe to say it is empty-of-(anything)-other than its own innate buddha qualities. That much is pretty standard Shentong presentation, with possible variations of course.

Malcolm wrote:
So therefore, no one can have this truly existing wisdom, not even a buddha, since it already exists without needing to be realized. Since it has no causes, it should therefore arise at all times, randomly, in ants, humans, dogs, etc. Practicing the path is useless, since wisdom already exists, truly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What do you think that basis is?

conebeckham said:
The Dharmadhatu?

smcj said:
That's basically how I interpret the above quote from Khenpo Tsultrim. How else to understand the distinction between "consciousness" which is non-arising as per Madhyamaka, and "Wisdom Mind" which has true existence? I haven't had teachings with questions answered, so obviously I'm just guessing. It would have been nice if he had elaborated on it some more in his book..

Malcolm wrote:
What does it mean to say that wisdom has true existence? It has no cause? It is like the mind of god, self-existing, unconditioned?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Ok.  Mind is empty, and therefore there is no impediment.  Display arises.  We mistake display for subject/object. We reify.  I'm with you.  So, we purify the kleshas, bakchaks, what-have-you.  When purified,reification no longer occurs.  Does display still occur?   If so, from where?  Even if subject/object duality is exhausted by the purification of all stains, there is the base, yes?

Malcolm wrote:
What do you think that basis is?

conebeckham said:
The Dharmadhatu?

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmadhātu is aware, some sort of universal awareness?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
But I also posit an awareness, or sentience, as, I think, do you.

Malcolm wrote:
An awareness that is different than the mind?

conebeckham said:
An awareness that is common to both the "mind," i.e., sentient beings, and "Wisdom," i.e. The Purified continuum of Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, so you just mean clarity, the characteristic of the mind. But clarity is conditioned, and cannot alone serve as a basis for buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
But I also posit an awareness, or sentience, as, I think, do you.

Malcolm wrote:
An awareness that is different than the mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Ok.  Mind is empty, and therefore there is no impediment.  Display arises.  We mistake display for subject/object. We reify.  I'm with you.  So, we purify the kleshas, bakchaks, what-have-you.  When purified,reification no longer occurs.  Does display still occur?   If so, from where?  Even if subject/object duality is exhausted by the purification of all stains, there is the base, yes?

asunthatneversets said:
By "base" do you mean "gzhi"?

conebeckham said:
I mean the same thing that Sherlock means, whatever his reference term would be.....
I am assuming it is gzhi, and not kun gzhi.

Malcolm wrote:
gsar ma kun gzhi; rnying ma gzhi, same meaning, different word.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Ok.  Mind is empty, and therefore there is no impediment.  Display arises.  We mistake display for subject/object. We reify.  I'm with you.  So, we purify the kleshas, bakchaks, what-have-you.  When purified,reification no longer occurs.  Does display still occur?   If so, from where?  Even if subject/object duality is exhausted by the purification of all stains, there is the base, yes?

Malcolm wrote:
What do you think that basis is?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So, the answer is that your nature of water is merely an abstraction, and does not really exist.

dzogchungpa said:
Are you then saying that the nature of mind is merely an abstraction?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the sense that there is no nature of the mind apart from the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Yes, all dharmas are like a reflection.  But what is the basis, the surface, the mirror, the water, upon which dharmas reflect??

Malcolm wrote:
One's mind, of course.

conebeckham said:
OK!  but is "one's mind" all water? Or is it just a specific body of water?  Water has the same characteristics no matter what body it resides in.....light passes through it, more or less, depending on the temporary obscurations suspended in it, reflections can appear in it, given light.....but at all times the nature of water is unchanged.   If one's mind were a puddle, and the puddle dried up, was the water impermanent?  Or has it changed state?  Will it eventually recondense and form another puddle?  Is the Nature of Water one, or different, with the various Bodies of Water?

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot find the nature of water apart from water. It does not precede or succeed it. Now then, if you are an essentialist [Hindu, etc.], you will argue that all water derives its nature from some hypothetical essence of water. If you are a nominalist [Buddhist], you will argue our notion of a characteristic of water is an abstraction derived from our experiences of water. So, the answer is that your nature of water is merely an abstraction, and does not really exist. See MMK chapter 5:7:
Therefor space is not existent, it is not non-existent, is not the characterized, 
is not the characteristic; also any other of the five elements are the same as space.
And 5:8:
Some of small intelligence, see existents in terms of ‘is’ or ‘is not’;
they do not perceive the pacification of views, or peace.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Can we not say that the reflection is how the water appears?

Malcolm wrote:
all of the water or only a part?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Yes, all dharmas are like a reflection.  But what is the basis, the surface, the mirror, the water, upon which dharmas reflect??

Malcolm wrote:
One's mind, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Ok. Sure. So is what you just said. The import is there is such a tantra and explanation and method. If one has such a teacher one can have such a practice.

Malcolm wrote:
The method of practicing Guhyagarbha is mahāyoga — it is only the fact that the thirteenth chapter has a brief mention of Dzogchen that makes it stand out.

Basically Longchenpa is reading a lot into the tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
conebeckham said:
Without the water, there would be no reflection, yes?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, but there is no moon in the water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Sherlock said:
Actually we are arguing that the moon is just a reflection.

conebeckham said:
Mmmm....the reflection of the moon is actually "water," though.

Malcolm wrote:
Since when it a reflection part of the surface it is reflected in?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Crazywisdom"
Responding briefly to your arguments. Kyedzog are indivisible. You can approach the wheel from any point. One is not a Buddha due to looking left and walking right. It's a mere obscuration. Once this is done away with everything manifests.[/quote]

Easy to say, in practice however, not so easy — no matter which path one chooses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
The Dharmakāya produces form bodies for sentient beings — did you ever ask yourself how?
Funny, I was going to ask you the same question.

So let us start with "Dharmakaya produces…" Really? Nothing produces something? Hmmm...

Malcolm wrote:
Right, this actually only happens from the side of sentient being. In reality, the dharmakāya does not produce anything. The Mahāyāna Uttaratantra states:
Just as the reflection of Indra appears
in a pure ground of sapphire, [435/a]
likewise, the reflection of the body of the Munindra
arises in the pure ground of the mind of migrating beings. 
The reflection that arises or subsides for migrating beings is engaged
through the power of whether their minds are permeated or not with taints,
just like the appearance of the reflection [of Indra] in the worlds
is in the same way not seen as existing or not existing.
The Vajracchedikā Sūtra states:
Whoever sees me as form, 
whoever knows me as sound,
those people who apprehend me
incorrectly do not see me, [411/b]
and so do not see the dharmakāya.
The buddhas are dharmatā.
The guides are the dharmakāya.
Since dharmatā is unknowable,
it cannot be known.
So you have to ask yourself what dharmatā is. The Saptaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states:
Inconceivable wisdom is the wisdom of the buddhas. The absence of perception of any phenomenon is the wisdom of the buddhas…If it is asked why, the omniscience with the mode of the nonexistence of wisdom in the ultimate is the wisdom of the buddha.
The Mahāyāna Uttaratantra states:
Just as space is nothing at all, invisible,
imperceptible, unsupported, 
totally beyond sight, 
formless, indemonstrable
and cannot be seen
even though one looks high and low,
likewise, even though one looks for buddha 
everywhere, he isn’t there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
No. It's an Atiyoga tantra. It's view is equal to the ninth. That's all I'm going to say. Except path appearances are not built or developed. They are obscured only. They can gradually appear like defogging a window. So viewing this as development is a wrong view. Samsara has no beginning so the sambhogakaya appears fully endowed from beginningless time. It appears w/i this bindi

Malcolm wrote:
The Guhyagarbha is a mahāyoga tantra, which mentions Dzogchen exactly twice and most importantly in chapter thirteen. You are not the only person who can read, or who has taken teachings on these things.

Your position above is not more profound than the Uttaratantra, which of course makes a distinction between impure, pure/impure and pure, from the perspective of sentient beings, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. No one ever said the path was additive, it is only subtractive, gathering the two accumulations for example, means just that one is removing the two obscurations. When one is obscured, one is impure; when on the path, especially the aryan path, pure/impure; and when one attains buddhahood, pure. It does not mean that one has in fact actually removed or added anything. Nevertheless, these so called buddha qualities both can be considered naturally perfected, and they also are produced by a process of transformation and there is no contradiction between these two things. If someone thinks there is a contradiction, they have to explain why they are not at present omniscient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:


conebeckham said:
Is Bare Awareness a phenomenon? Or is it of another category entirely?  If the Ultimate were just a sort of  "Bare Awareness," one could say such awareness is indeed "empty of all phenomena,"  correct? And yet one could not say that the "nature of the dharmadhatu" --suchness-is not a mere "blankness," but that there is awareness there.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "awareness", naked or clothed, outside of your mind. There is no buddhahood outside of your mind. Searching for buddhahood somewhere else other than in your mind is deluded.

conebeckham said:
No argument here.  Also, no appearances of phenomena outside your mind.  But who said anything about searching for Buddhahood somewhere else other than one's mind? Certainly not me.......

Malcolm wrote:
Is your mind something relative or something ultimate? Is the awareness of your mind relative or ultimate? If your mind is relative, its awareness must also be relative, correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
It is quite another to claim that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena.
Ok, so then the Dharmakaya is a solid object? Or a convenient fiction used as upaya? Wow.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on how you are defining it. For example, in Secret Mantra, among the seven limbs of three kāyas, dharmakāya is the limb of the absence of inherent existence. Sambhogakāya has three limbs: union, great bliss and perfect enjoyments. Nirmānakāya has three limbs great compassion, the uninterrupted stream of the wheel of activities, and never ceasing.

In sūtra, dharmakāya is the two-fold omniscience that comes about from gathering the accumulation of wisdom.

This however does not mean that there is some platonic ultimate that exists separate from the relative phenomena of the world. The three kāyas function in the world for sentient beings. The dharmakāya produces form bodies for sentient beings — did you ever ask yourself how? Or did you think that the dharmakāya, sambhogakāya and nirmanakāya were something like the father, son and holy ghost?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:


conebeckham said:
Is Bare Awareness a phenomenon? Or is it of another category entirely?  If the Ultimate were just a sort of  "Bare Awareness," one could say such awareness is indeed "empty of all phenomena,"  correct? And yet one could not say that the "nature of the dharmadhatu" --suchness-is not a mere "blankness," but that there is awareness there.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "awareness", naked or clothed, outside of your mind. There is no buddhahood outside of your mind. Searching for buddhahood somewhere else other than in your mind is deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Guhyagarbha has more pointed words. The kayas are fully endowed in this bindi. The only job is to stop distractions.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, there is a problem of literalism. For example, ChNN very clearly explains that even through the buddhaqualities are lhun grub, they are lhun grub as a _potential_. Vimalamitra also makes this distinction, as does the Six Dimensions Tantra:
Since the cause and result are different,
[the basis] too is not naturally perfect (lhun grub). 
Likewise, if the cause and result were the same, 
effort would be meaningless.

Crazywisdom said:
Khenpo Namdrol never makes this caveat. Longchenpa either. And Guhyagarbha is a dzogchen tantra. It is beyond cause and effect. This is explicit but also secret. So. I prob shouldn't discuss it.

Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa absolutely makes this caveat, he does so in both the Tshig Don Mdzod as well as the Theg mchog mdzod when he discusses the six incorrect positions of the basis. Morever, so does Vimalamitra, at length, in his commentary in Six Dimensions Tantra. Longchenpa may not make this distinction in the phyogs bcu mun sel, but then, Guhyagarbha is a mahāyoga tantra, and its view is a bit limited.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, this thread is an embarrassment. If anyone who actually reads the book wants to talk about it, I'll be back.

Malcolm wrote:
In all fairness, the book preview given on Amazon is sufficient to assess the opinions of this scholar. Quite simple, there are many people of eternalist bent, who cannot fathom and refuse to fathom that the Buddha's teaching means there is no "super reality of the individual ego" (that Bhattacarya is arguing for).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Guhyagarbha has more pointed words. The kayas are fully endowed in this bindi. The only job is to stop distractions.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, there is a problem of literalism. For example, ChNN very clearly explains that even through the buddhaqualities are lhun grub, they are lhun grub as a _potential_. Vimalamitra also makes this distinction, as does the Six Dimensions Tantra:
Since the cause and result are different,
[the basis] too is not naturally perfect (lhun grub). 
Likewise, if the cause and result were the same, 
effort would be meaningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are you saying that In Dzogchen tathāgatagarbha is impermanent whereas in the sutras it is permanent?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that the term is used very differently. Here in Varjayāna, since the basis of the potential to achieve buddhahood is the physical body, especially key points of tantra anatomy, and since the mind is located in this bindu of four elements and so on, the term is being used differently than in sūtra.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, it seems to me that one could say it is being used the same way, but since there is a different explanation of how buddhahood is achieved there is a different idea of what the 'garbha' of the 'tathagata' is. Does that make sense?

Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty hard to say that something which is made of conditioned and impermanent things is conditioned and permanent, no? Unless tathāgatagarba refers to a potential for awakening (which it in fact does) rather than full-blown buddhahood (which in fact it does not).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Right, and since it those four elements are impermanent, it really does not correspond to tathāgatagarbha taught in the sūtras.

dzogchungpa said:
I don't doubt it. Are you saying that In Dzogchen tathāgatagarbha is impermanent whereas in the sutras it is permanent?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that the term is used very differently. Here in Varjayāna, since the basis of the potential to achieve buddhahood is the physical body, especially key points of tantra anatomy, and since the mind is located in this bindu of four elements and so on, the term is being used differently than in sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Arguing with you is hopeless. Why? You genuinely think this is responsive and counters the quote above. In fact, it makes it obvious that sutra is dealing with generalities and tantra is dealing with specifics. A college education would help you. Our more study or something.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is like arguing with a Christian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm
it is not a question of "believing what I want," Stephen Hodge also has doubts about the veracity of later portions of the translation by Dharmakṣema. The version translated by by Fa-hsien appears to be the original.
Sure it is a question of what you believe......and likewise many scholars, historians and Buddhists think the Vajrayana Tantras are entirely dubious in origin and in many cases contain very perverse teachings if token literally.

Also the first 17 chapters of the Dharmakeshema version Correspond to the Original Faxian version, my quote came from chapter 8

Second I find it hard to believe you like the faxian version better you know seeing as the Faxian version uses the term JIVATMAN instead of Atman it teaches directly the term Soul.

But as I said before believe what you want.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't prefer any Chinese translation. The Tibetan translation from Sanskrit is based on the same text as Faxian's translation, as far as I can tell. The Tibetan translation from Chinese is the Dharmakeshema version. Naturally, I prefer the Tibetan translation from Sanskrit, because it is a much more accurate translation than the version translated from Chinese.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Speaking of Dzogchen, http://vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&p=12465#p12464: In Dzogchen, the thigle of elements in the heart is considered tathāgatagarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, and since it those four elements are impermanent, it really does not correspond to tathāgatagarbha taught in the sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Are all phenomena suchness or not?

conebeckham said:
Of course the nature of all phenomena is suchness.  But suchness is not merely phenomenal non-existence, in Shentong.  Suchness is also luminous awareness--not merely absence of "self."

Malcolm wrote:
And it is for this reason, for example, that Rongton Sheja Kunrig classifies gzhan stong as a species of false aspectarian yogacara, or a sort of intermediate view between yogacara and madhyamaka.


conebeckham said:
The Ultimate truth is certainly empty of stains, but is "full" of qualities.  But these are all just conceptual "approximations."

Malcolm wrote:
The problem lies when one conflates the language of the tathatagarbha teachings, the language of yogacara and the language of madhyamaka. The ancient yogacarins in Indian took virtually no interest in tathāgatagarbha theory devoting only a total of two commentaries to the subject: the Uttaratantra and the subcommentary on that by Asanga. Further proof, is that Madhyamakas such as Bhavavieka and Chandrakirti treast the subject of tathāgatagarbha theory with much more interest then Asanga, Vasuubandhu and so on. We do not really find consistent commentarial treatment of tathāgatagarbha theory until the Vajrayāna commentaries dating from the ninth century onward. Even here it is not systematic.

conebeckham said:
Mahdyamika in the classical sense denies the ability of conceptual mind to encompass reality.  Shentong also does the same thing.   The only thing Shentong, as I understand it, posits is an awareness which is beyond description, also beyond the ability of conceptual mind to encompass reality--but in that sense, it does posit "something" other than "bare emptiness" as an "ultimate."

Malcolm wrote:
And thus gzhan stong slips off the other side of the horse while trying avoid the extreme of annihilation. Such an assertion of existence in the ultimate cannot be considered free from extremes, because it is an extreme. This is why the Buddha states in the Ārya-saṃvṛitiparamārthasatyanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Devaputra: ultimate truth is beyond the range of the omniscient wisdom endowed with the supreme of all aspects. However one describes ultimate truth, it is not like that.
And as Gorampa states:
Other than the need for the existence of a middle path which avoids two extremes in all three vehicles, as explained in the Ratnavali, the system of Mādhyamikas must be free from the extreme of permanence because the ultimate asserted in the lower vehicles is not established, and free from the extreme of annihilation since the causes and results of action are not denied in the relative. 

Also based upon this Mahāyāna, since one meditates having brought together the trio of the special view that reality’s own nature is free from the extremes of the dualistic grasping of existence and nonexistence and so on, compassion in relation to sentient beings, and the development of Mahāyāna bodhicitta, at the time of the final result while never moving from the state of the dharmadhātu free from all proliferation one will effortlessly produce the benefit of sentient beings throughout all of space.
There cannot be a Madhyamaka better than this, nor a result better than this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Are all phenomena suchness or not?

Awakening faith in Mahayana...

Malcolm wrote:
Right, so you did not even answer the question.

As a basic definition, nirvana, space and so on are included in "all phenomena." In fact, the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā, etc., state:
All phenomena are included with the category of suchness, those cannot go beyond that category. If it asked why, Subhuti no coming or coming can be perceived in suchness. Subhuti, all phenomena are within these categories: the dharmadhātu, are the limit of reality, uniformity and inconceivability.
And:
Subhuti, when categorized, all phenomena are the nature of being unreal. Subhuti, in the same way, also all phenomena are nature of emptiness, all phenomena are the nature of signlessness, all phenomena are the nature of aspirationalessness. Subhuti, in the same way also, all phenomena are the nature of suchness, all phenomena are the nature of the limit of reality, all phenomena are the nature of dharmadhātu.
This being so, it is ludicrous to assert that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena. Such an assertion directly contradicts the words of the Buddha. It is one thing to claim "tathāgatagarbha is empty of adventitious afflictions." It is quite another to claim that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena. The ultimate is merely the emptiness of all phenomena, there is no other ultimate that can be found.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
The universal ātman of the Upaniṣads is not here being spoken of.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a mere assertion on your part.

David Reigle said:
Yes, it is my understanding of the evidence presented, and hopefully it correctly represents Bhattacharya's position.

Malcolm wrote:
Given that the atman spoken of in the upanishads as being thumb sized etc, is explicitly rejected by the Buddha, your assertion would seem to be quite unsupported.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
The universal ātman of the Upaniṣads is not here being spoken of.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a mere assertion on your part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm.


Umm, no, that is not what gzhan stong is. This is how it is defined:

Dharmatā, the thoroughly established, the ultimate truth, is not empty of its own nature, but because it is empty of imputed and other-dependent entities, relative entities, conditioned phenomena, it is empty of other entities. That is the true unperverted emptiness, ultimate truth, dharmakāya, [3/b] the limit of the real, suchness, and emptiness endowed with the supreme of all aspects. The powers, major and minor marks and so on are the unconditioned qualities that abide in that from the beginning.
You do realise your quote is in agreement with what I am saying right?

All your quote us saying is the ultimate truth which is the Buddha attributes(as I stated in the queen srimala Sutra) is empty of imputed and other-dependent entities, relative entities, conditioned phenomena, it is empty of other entities which are adventious defilements (which again was what was taught in the Queen Srimala Sutra I quoted)

Here is some more info to add to yours

The Moutain Doctrine Tibet’s Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix By: Dolpopa.
Moreover the Angulimala Sutra says:
“Manjushri, an empty home in a built-up city is called empty due to the absence of humans. A pot is empty due to the absence of water. A river is empty due to water not flowing. Is a village that is without householders called “empty, empty?” Or are the households empty in all respects? They are not empty in all respects; they are called empty due to the absence of humans. Is a pot empty in all respects? It is not empty in all respects; it is called “empty” due to the absence of water. Is a river empty in all respects? It is not empty in all respects; it is called “empty” because water is not flowing. Similarly, liberation is not empty in all respects; it is called “empty” because of being devoid of all defects. A Buddha, a supermundane victor, is not empty but is called “empty” because of being devoid of defects and due to the absence of humanness and godhood that have ten of millions of afflictive emotions.
Alas, venerable Manjushri, acting out the behavior of a bug, you do not know the real meaning of empty and non-empty. The naked ones” also meditate on all as empty. Do not say anything, you bug of the naked ones!

[Dolpopa’s Commentary]
The passage from “The Buddha is like space” through “How could you, Angulimala, understand/ Empty nothingness!”which indicates, in accordance with the assertions of some, that everything is a self-emptiness of nothingness is an introduction by Manjushri. It leads to Angulimala’s delineating the difference between self-emptiness and other-emptiness, despite the fact that Manjushri actually knows the difference.
Then, using the example of hail-stone becoming non-existent upon melting, he teaches that the final liberation, Buddhahood, is not empty,This teaches that the ultimate supermundane truth, the body of attributes,is not empty of its own entity. Using the example of an empty home, an empty vase, and an empty river, he teaches an emptiness of all defects; this teaches that the final liberation is other-emptiness. All descriptions of non-emptiness/ “Liberation is not empty in all respects,” “A supermundane victor is not empty,” “Non-empty phenomena are other,” and so forth– mean that the ultimate noumenon is not itself empty of itself.

Malcolm wrote:
What you do not seem to understand is while the sūtra passages you are citing are noncontroversial, the gzhan stong interpretation Dolbupa applied to them in general is controversial for many reasons, but mostly having to do with his novel (and largely unprecedented) interpretation of the three own natures, his idea that the perfected nature (parinispanna) was empty of both the dependent (paratantra) and imputed (parikalpita) natures. In fact Maitreyanath, Asanga and Vasubandhu uniformly consider that the absence of the imputed in the dependent is the perfected. The second place where the gzhan stong view is found contradictory to Nāgārjuna is that if one follows the gzhan stong view, samsara and nirvana cannot be inseparable. Therefore, the statement by the Buddha in the Hevajra Tantra must be false:
This so-called "samsara," 
just this is nirvana.
Many other clear and unambiguous statements by the Buddha on the identity of samsara and nirvana must also be considered false. Not to mention Nāgārjuna's famed dictum:
Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana, 
nirvana is not the slightest bit different from samsara;
whatever is the limit of nirvana, that is the limit of samsara, 
a difference between those two does not exist even slightly.
We can see that Vasubandhu agrees with this meaning in the Sūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya:
The meaning of nirvana being all-pervasive is that because samsara and peace (nirvana) have one taste due to one not having concepts about their faults and qualities, in the respect there is no difference between samsara and nirvana.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You need to accumulate merit to realize emptiness, as well as the rūpakāya. You need to accumulate wisdom to realize the dharmakāya.

Tenso said:
Confusing. Dharmakaya is emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Dharmakāya is the two fold omniscience that comes from realizing emptiness and accumulating wisdom. Accumulating merit improves your mind and makes it ever more clear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Sherlock said:
Malcolm, is the main way Nyingma and Sakya view differ in the way the Nyingmas say there is a different relative truth for each of the 9 yanas?

Malcolm wrote:
IN terms of tantra, yes. Sapan rejects the idea.

But otherwise, in terms of sutra, Sakya and Nyingma is more or less on the same page.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Gzhan stong is the theory that the ultimate truth is empty of relative truth and utterly different than it; it is not the theory that the nature of mind (tathāgatagarbha) is empty of adventitious defilements and replete with buddha qualities (potentially). You can cite the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda sūtra (and the nine other tathāgatagarbha sūtras) till you pass out from exhaustion but it wont make tathāgatagarbha theory any more "gzhan stong".


Son of Buddha said:
That's weird seeing as Dolpopa used that quote as the literal definition of Shentong

The Ultimate Truth is the Tathagatagarbha and is empty of the realitive truth which is the adventious defilements and utterly different than it ......... Your refuting yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
Are all phenomena suchness or not?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Um that quote from that Buddhist Sutra is LITTERALLY the DEFINITION of Shentong..... You sir are in denial.

Malcolm wrote:
Your quote does not support Dolbupa's entire theory, which has much more to do with his treatment of three own natures, his interpretation of the idea of the three turnings, and so on that it does tathāgatagarbha.

We all accept tathāgatagarbha theory, we just don't accept Dolbupas interpretation of it, because it is eternalist.

Son of Buddha said:
Um yea that quote IS the actual definition of Shentong simple as that. As far as Dolpopas teachings, he ties many other teachings in to make a full system, that still doesn't change what the literal definition of Other Emptiness(Shentong) is.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no, that is not what gzhan stong is. This is how it is defined:
Dharmatā, the thoroughly established, the ultimate truth, is not empty of its own nature, but because it is empty of imputed and other-dependent entities, relative entities, conditioned phenomena, it is empty of other entities. That is the true unperverted emptiness, ultimate truth, dharmakāya, [3/b] the limit of the real, suchness, and emptiness endowed with the supreme of all aspects. The powers, major and minor marks and so on are the unconditioned qualities that abide in that from the beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Rangtong, Shentong, Prasangika and Svatantrika are all Tibetan categories.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
(1) the idea that Shentong is a Tibetan invention is false, Shentong is literally taught in Buddhist Indian Holy texts.

(2) the idea that Shentong did not exist in India is false again Shentong is literally taught in INDIAN Buddhist Holy texts.

Malcolm wrote:
As to points one and two, no. It was never taught in India.

Son of Buddha said:
So Other Emptiness(Shentong) is not taught in ANY Indian Buddhist Sutra?



Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Gzhan stong is the theory that the ultimate truth is empty of relative truth and utterly different than it; it is not the theory that the nature of mind (tathāgatagarbha) is empty of adventitious defilements and replete with buddha qualities (potentially). You can cite the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda sūtra (and the nine other tathāgatagarbha sūtras) till you pass out from exhaustion but it wont make tathāgatagarbha theory any more "gzhan stong".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Um that quote from that Buddhist Sutra is LITTERALLY the DEFINITION of Shentong..... You sir are in denial.

Malcolm wrote:
Your quote does not support Dolbupa's entire theory, which has much more to do with his treatment of three own natures, his interpretation of the idea of the three turnings, and so on that it does tathāgatagarbha.

We all accept tathāgatagarbha theory, we just don't accept Dolbupas interpretation of it, because it is eternalist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
(1) the idea that Shentong is a Tibetan invention is false, Shentong is literally taught in Buddhist Indian Holy texts.

(2) the idea that Shentong did not exist in India is false again Shentong is literally taught in INDIAN Buddhist Holy texts.

Malcolm wrote:
As to points one and two, no. It was never taught in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
p. 300-p.301.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he merely says on these pages that the meaning of Madhyamaka and Yogacara are included within Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
it is claimed that His Eminence Gyaltsab Rinpoche said that
those persons who hear the recording of Him reciting the mantra

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN gives the lung for this mantra in person all the time, it is part of the Shitro practice which comes from Namcho.

Lobsang said:
Thanks but that doesn't answer my questions, no offence really.
Who is 'ChNN'?


Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.

In general, you cannot receive a lung from a recording.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Sherlock said:
All gzhan stong views (including Gelug) are needlessly convoluted.

Mipham shows how simple and elegant the old Nyingma view is and how it applies to both sutra and tantra. This is also the Indian view.

Mipham acknowledges that e.g. Gelug view can help people who find it hard to accept emptiness fully but this is provisional. He even quotes Tsongkhapa saying that.

smcj said:
I don't buy that the Gelug view as Shentong. .

Malcolm wrote:
It is upside down gzhan stong, why you have even read Gelugs on this forum assert that things are not empty of themselves, they are merely empty of inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:


Tenso said:
Well, there is really no such thing as an immortal nirmanakayā because the rūpakāya always arises out of the dharmakāya, and therefore, the issue of mortal/immortal never arises for a buddha. If you can achieve buddhahood by a given path, then you realize dharmakāya, and if you realize dharmakāya, you can always generate rūpakāya, which you do so in response to the needs of sentient beings.
Thats good to know but then why do you need two accumulations to achieve buddhahood? If im not mistaken you need one accumulation to realize rupakaya and the other one for dharmakaya so what your saying is you only really need one? Help clarify please.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to accumulate merit to realize emptiness, as well as the rūpakāya. You need to accumulate wisdom to realize the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So, has anyone read the book yet and if so, what did you think?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you kidding? There is no point at all in criticizing a book you have read....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Yes

Malcolm wrote:
Right, well, they are there in gsar ma, just expressed differently. A certain point in your practice, one can visibly see the elemental winds in their colors. The connection elements ——> winds ——> wisdoms is made in gsar ma tantra.

Crazywisdom said:
So they do or do not have a means of manifesting an immortal nirmanakaya like GR?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is really no such thing as an immortal nirmanakayā because the rūpakāya always arises out of the dharmakāya, and therefore, the issue of mortal/immortal never arises for a buddha. If you can achieve buddhahood by a given path, then you realize dharmakāya, and if you realize dharmakāya, you can always generate rūpakāya, which you do so in response to the needs of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: is vajrayana budhism a path of renunciation or isn't it?
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
There is no spiritual path without renunciation as the very definition of a spiritual path is an exalted awareness conjoined with non-fabricated renunciation, so of course the Vajrayana is a path of renunciation - it's a supramundane path if practised properly.

Objects are not contaminated from their own side, so if you remember emptiness, your enjoyment is not a cause of samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I explained this already. In Vajrayāna you do not renounce sense objects, in lower yānas, you do. It is therefore not a path of renunciation.

This is distinct from having renunciation, which is necessary to practice any path at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Sherlock said:
I have faith in the unassailable position of Nagarjuna, Rongzompa, Longchenpa, Sapan, Mipham.

Have any gzhan stong pas tried to refute this before?

Malcolm wrote:
They never refute Nāgārjuna, they merely consider Madhyamaka incomplete. This is why the Yogacara master Dharmapāla wrote a commentary on Aryadeva's four hundred. They accept Madhyamaka, just think that some Madhyamakas negate too much.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Mantra Liberation Through Hearing ("Ha Gan Ga")
Content:
Lobsang said:
it is claimed that His Eminence Gyaltsab Rinpoche said that
those persons who hear the recording of Him reciting the mantra

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN gives the lung for this mantra in person all the time, it is part of the Shitro practice which comes from Namcho.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Yes

Malcolm wrote:
Right, well, they are there in gsar ma, just expressed differently. A certain point in your practice, one can visibly see the elemental winds in their colors. The connection elements ——> winds ——> wisdoms is made in gsar ma tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
Does he use the term "empty-of-other"?

Malcolm wrote:
What characterizes a gzhan stong pa is the use of three own-natures to explain the two truths of Madhyamaka. This trend begins with the 10th century Indian polymath, Ratnakaraśanti, in his Madhyamakālaṃkara.

However, Longchenpa never does this, relegating the three own natures to the cittamantra system. He never conflates it with Madhyamaka.

smcj said:
I'll take that as an extremely reluctant "yes".

Malcolm wrote:
The term "empty of other" is just a word, it does not necessarily characterize a position. Actually, I have never seen Longchen use the term anywhere. Not saying he never did, but I have not seen it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Sherlock said:
To sum up, it's better to stick to old school Madhyamika like Sakya, Nyingma up to Longchenpa or Kagyu up to 8th Karmapa. It is much more logical and elegant too.

smcj said:
I'm not great on history, but my understanding is that Karmapa III was a Shentongpa...

Malcolm wrote:
I would not go that far. He admired Dolbupa's "new Dharma terminology," but there is no evidence that he was influenced by Dolbupa.

The first person I know of to make the claim that Rangjung Dorje as well as Longchenpa were gzhan stong pas is the great Nyingma master and scholar, Rigzin Tsewang Norbu (1658-1755). I think this is the reason you commonly see Longchenpa's name included in Kagyu accounts of gzhan stong history is that gzhan ston entered Karma Kagyu via Rigzin Tsewang Norbu because he was the guru (and disciple) of the 8th Situ Panchen (1700-1775).

Personally, I don't agree with Rigzin Tsewang Norbu's opinion, since Longchenpa never makes use of key parts of gzhan stong teachings, so I think it is enthusiastic overreach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Longchen is junior to Dolbupa (i.e. live after him), and explicitly identifies such texts as Dharmadharmatāvibhanga has belonging to the mind-only system. Longchenpa was not a gzhan stong pa.

smcj said:
Does he use the term "empty-of-other"?

Malcolm wrote:
What characterizes a gzhan stong pa is the use of three own-natures to explain the two truths of Madhyamaka. This trend begins with the 10th century Indian polymath, Ratnakaraśanti, in his Madhyamakālaṃkara.

However, Longchenpa never does this, relegating the three own natures to the cittamantra system. He never conflates it with Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Mipham was not gzhan stong
Content:
smcj said:
There is room for debate on that. From the translator's introduction of " Maitreya's Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being (with commentary by Mipham)"

1. The section of the text treating of phenomena follows the Chittamatra (mind only) tradition and serves the important purpose of explaining how the mind confuses itself and thus wanders in samsara by assuming that outer perceived objects and the inner perceiving mind actually exist as two different things, just because they appear to do so.
2. The section on pure being follows the shentong Madhyamaka (empty-of-other middle way) tradition by describing the nature of mind in an affirmative fashion, as self-present wisdom-awareness, the clear light.

It should also be noted that Longchenpa does use the "empty-of-other" terminology long before Shentong was established as a view.

Malcolm wrote:
Longchen is junior to Dolbupa (i.e. lived after him), and explicitly identifies such texts as Dharmadharmatāvibhanga has belonging to the mind-only system. Longchenpa was not a gzhan stong pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
"Inner yānas" thinking only applies to Nyingma tantras. It is not relevant to gsar ma. One cannot fit Hevajra, Cakrasamvara, etc., into the Nyingma classification scheme (which never existed in India in any case).

In any case, wisdom is wisdom. The fact that the body reverts to wisdom is the identical in both systems.

Crazywisdom said:
Yes. I've often wondered if this were true. But the lights thing

Malcolm wrote:
What lights thing? Can you be more specific? You mean the five lights?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Do people really deserve compassion?
Content:


Jesse said:
I have really been thinking, why do these people deserve compassion?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Jesse said:
Just because ignorance causes them to act in these ways?

Malcolm wrote:
Especially then.

Jesse said:
So what. At what point does karma cease being a cause unto itself, at what point are people no longer the victim of their karma, and just plain being assholes?

Malcolm wrote:
In this case, it is not karma that is causing this, it is affliction. Affliction leads to such behavior, just as your afflictions presently inform your anger towards them and has motivated you to engage in the karma talking with malice and hatred about others.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: Is 'drupon' a title?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Is 'drupon' a title?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, primarily in the Drikung school, where it means roughly, master of a retreats, and is only given to those who have accomplished many years in strict retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:49 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm No it does not it says
Son of a good family, bodhisattvas of the tenth stage can seen only a general approximation of the tathagātagarbha that exists in their bodies.
You probably gots your quotes mixed up the are about 4 that say similar things but differ on the compacities of the 10th level Bodhisattva.

But since you find problem with that quote here us another.

Nirvana Sutra

Son's of good families, those who see it with the eyes are Buddha Tathagatas. Bodhisattva's in the tenth stage see Buddha Nature with the eyes and also see it through hearing. All sentient beings up to Bodhisattva's in the ninth stage see Buddha Nature through hearing.


There are not 2 different Buddha Nature's.

Malcolm wrote:
There most certainly two ways the concept is used, one in Vajrayāna, where it is taken to be the so called indestructible bindu which is composed of the elemental winds as well as the material from one's father and mind, along with one's mind; and the sugatagarbha strictly as dharmakāya, which is said in Nirvana sūtra to exist in the body solely for the reason that the mind inhabits the body. It is the mind that is encased by affliction, nothing else. Of course, we can also understand the many statements in sūtra and tantra that the mind itself is buddhahood, and there is no buddhahood to seek out apart from the mind. The mind when purified, becomes the dharmakāya, but it is not dharmakāya from the very beginning, even though its nature is intrinsically pure. You have mistaken the cause (intrinsically pure mind) for the result (dharmakāya, when that intrinsically pure mind is stripped of all adventitious obscurations). For example, The Dharmarāja Sūtra states:
The Bhagavan said to the bodhisattva Many Desires, “Many Desires, before, that was was tainted. Now it is clean, pure, very pure. The mind is one thing, nondual, without any other properties. Since that mind is pure, all phenomena become pure. 

Son of a good family, for example, a tree is cut down at the root, not at the branches and leaves. Likewise, if the mind is realized, it is equivalent with cutting all phenomena at the root. Since the mind is pure, all phenomena will be pure.”
As for Buddhahood itself, the Pitāputrasamāgamana Sūtra states:
Great king, “buddhahood” is a term for seeing reality. “Seeing reality” is a term for the limit of reality. “Limit of reality” is a term for the dharmadhātu. 
Great king, the dharmadhātu cannot be explained apart from being just a name, just a symbol, just a convention, [just relative], just an expression and just a designation.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:24 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
That is the sense in which Buddhism generally is sceptical. It is neither denying or asserting the reality of something 'beyond the six sense gates'...

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is. The six sense gates are defined as the all. Beyond which, nothing can be said because it is "out of range."


Wayfarer said:
That is why, I think, Nāgārjuna criticizes all philosophical views of 'the absolute' -

Malcolm wrote:
But he didn't. Ultimate truth is a correct cognition; relative truth, a cognition that is incorrect.


Wayfarer said:
Nothing here can be shown to be self-existent, so it does not 'truly exist' - but it is also not 'non-existent'.

Malcolm wrote:
Not sure why you fall into the third extreme here, unless you accept the Gelug formulation of madhyamaka, and mean that there is no existence in the ultimate and no non-existence in the relative.

Wayfarer said:
Actually our whole situation is really very perplexing, but we don't realize how perplexing it is. I think that sense of being utterly perplexed by our situation is the basic starting-point for the Buddhist analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not that perplexing: relatively everything arises from conditions, ultimately, nothing arises at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 10:30 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
[

Yes the Sutra's do say the 10th level bodhisattva's can see the Buddha Nature........again still waiting on an actual DIFFERENCE between Sutra Buddha Nature and Tantric Buddha Nature.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the sutra dies not say that.


https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=19423&start=120#p280894

Son of Buddha said:
Yea it does

Nirvana Sutra

'Noble son, although bodhisattvas dwelling on the tenth level [the tenth bhumi - i.e. the very higest level of spiritual development, just below that of a Buddha] do perceive Buddha-dhatu, it is not clear to them. Noble son, you might ask with what eye do bodhisattvas dwelling on the tenth level perceive Buddha-dhatu, though it is not clear to them, with what eye do the blessed Buddhas clearly perceive it? Noble son, that seen with the eye of insight (prajna-caksus) is not clear, while that seen with the Buddha eye is clear. It is not clear while engaging in the practice of a bodhisattva, but it is clear when no longer engaging in the practice [i.e. when full Buddhahood has been attained and one is no longer a trainee Buddha]. Though they perceive it because they dwell on the tenth level, it is not clear to them, whereas it is clear to those who do not dwell or proceed [along the preparatory levels]. What bodhisattva-mahasattvas perceive with insight [prajna] is not clear, whereas the blessed Buddhas perceive it clearly because they have eradicated (literally: severed) causes and effects. All-Knowing (sarvajna) is said to be the Buddha-dhatu, whereas tenth-level bodhisattvas are not said to be All-Knowing and so although they perceive it [i.e. the Buddha Nature], it is not clear to them.'


And again whether one sees the Buddha Nature or not does not denote that there are 2 different Buddha natures. Just like you not being able to see my car while I can does not denote that there are 2 different cars.

Peace and Love

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not, it says,,,

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
[

Yes the Sutra's do say the 10th level bodhisattva's can see the Buddha Nature........again still waiting on an actual DIFFERENCE between Sutra Buddha Nature and Tantric Buddha Nature.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the sutra dies not say that.


https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=19423&start=120#p280894


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
it is taught in the Nirvana Sutra that the Tenth level Bodhisattva's can clearly see it with their eyes.

BuddhaFollower said:
Dzogchen is not limited to Tenth level Bodhisattvas.

Malcolm wrote:
Not only that, but the sutra does not say that they can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm
it is not a question of "believing what I want," Stephen Hodge also has doubts about the veracity of later portions of the translation by Dharmakṣema. The version translated by by Fa-hsien appears to be the original.
Sure it is a question of what you believe......and likewise many scholars, historians and Buddhists think the Vajrayana Tantras are entirely dubious in origin and in many cases contain very perverse teachings if token literally.

Also the first 17 chapters of the Dharmakeshema version Correspond to the Original Faxian version, my quote came from chapter 8

Second I find it hard to believe you like the faxian version better you know seeing as the Faxian version uses the term JIVATMAN instead of Atman it teaches directly the term Soul.

But as I said before believe what you want.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, the  translation you are using has confused fasicles  with chapters. There are only five chapters in the original textt. Even so, the Chinese translation is quite inaccurate compared with the Tibetan translation. This is why i dont trust it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Read mine and Malcolms discussion as you can see no actual difference has been presented between the Sutras and Tantras idea of Buddha Nature.

BuddhaFollower said:
There is no anatomy in your passage for attaining rainbow body like in Malcolm's passage.


Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm s point was
Here, it is said that sugatagarbha has a physical location in the body. So really, there is a difference in how this concept is used in sutra and in tantra.

There are other Dzogchen texts which indicate that sugatagarbha can be visibly seen with the eyes through various yogic techniques. This is really quite different than the way it is presented in sutra, won't you agree?


And I have proven that the Sutra LIKEWISE teach that the Sugatagarbha has a physical location in the body just like the Tantras do.

Malcolm wrote:
Where in the body do sutras say sugatagarbha is located? There are other Dzogchen texts that declare the four elements are sugatagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No sūtra or tantra says this. However, for example, the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva Tantra states:
The sugatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate. It’s location — it is located in the center of the heart. Also that is called “the transcendent state of Samantabhadra’s sealed locket”. For example, like a sealed locket of leather, inside its location, from the center of a five colored light there exist peaceful kāyas the size of mustard grains in halos of light. That is the location of vidyā. For example, it is like form of a vase.
Here, it is said that sugatagarbha has a physical location in the body. So really, there is a difference in how this concept is used in sutra and in tantra.

There are other Dzogchen texts which indicate that sugatagarbha can be visibly seen with the eyes through various yogic techniques. This is really quite different than the way it is presented in sutra, won't you agree?

Son of Buddha said:
Nope don't agree seeing that the same exact thing is taught in the Sutras as well

Tatagatagarbha Sutra

when I look at beings with my Buddha vision, I see that the tathagatagarbha is surrounded by
a husk of ignorance, just as the seeds of a fruit are only found at its core. kulaputra, that
tathagatagarbha is cold and unripe. It is the profound nirvananirvrta that is brought about by
Maha jnana (great wisdom). It is called the Samyak sambuddha (perfect Buddha), the
Tathagata, the Arhat and so on. kulaputras, after the Tathagata has observed beings, he
reveals this message in order to purify the bodhisattva mahasattva jnana."

and
I see the different beings with their many kleshad, transmigrating
through the long night of endless samsara and I perceive that within their bodies is the
wondrous Tathagatagarbha. They are august and pure and no different from myself. For this
reason the Buddha expounds the Dharma for beings, that they might sever those kleshad and
purify their Tathagata jnana. I turn the Dharmacakra again and again in order to convert all
worlds."


Plently more quotes if you need them...... Again you have not shown how there are 2 different Buddha Natures nor have you shown any difference between the Sutra and Tantra versions of Buddha Nature.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in these sutras iit is made very clear that only huddhas can this, but in the tantras, ordinary persons can see the sugatagarbha, so the difference is huge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Enlightenment/Dharmakaya is the same thing as the Buddha Nature...... I proved that in my last post to you.

BuddhaFollower said:
Do you understand that there are 2 Buddha Natures, sutric Buddha Nature and tantric Buddha Nature?

As Malcolm said:

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of buddhanature, one as presented in sutra, another which is presented in the tantras. The sutrayāna version is often conflated with the way buddhanature is defined in tantra, especially in Dzogchen. In other words, the term "buddhanature" is used differently in sutra and tantra.


Son of Buddha said:
Got any actual proof for that statement?

What Sutra or Tantra literally says "There are 2 different kinds of Buddha Nature"?

Peace and Love

Malcolm wrote:
No sūtra or tantra says this. However, for example, the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva Tantra states:
The sugatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate. It’s location — it is located in the center of the heart. Also that is called “the transcendent state of Samantabhadra’s sealed locket”. For example, like a sealed locket of leather, inside its location, from the center of a five colored light there exist peaceful kāyas the size of mustard grains in halos of light. That is the location of vidyā. For example, it is like form of a vase.
Here, it is said that sugatagarbha has a physical location in the body. So really, there is a difference in how this concept is used in sutra and in tantra.

There are other Dzogchen texts which indicate that sugatagarbha can be visibly seen with the eyes through various yogic techniques. This is really quite different than the way it is presented in sutra, won't you agree?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
You sure about that?Nirvana Sutra chapter 8

Malcolm wrote:
It is questionable whether there actually is a chapter 8 in the original Mahāyāna Parinirvana sūtra. The direct Tibetan translation from Sanskrit by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha and Devacandra has only five chapters, in three thousand and nine hundred ślokas.

The version from Chinese is considerably longer, by an entire volume. I personally do not trust the long Chinese recension at all.

M

Son of Buddha said:
Hey believe what you want, I know people who think Vajrayana Tantra is a disgusting perversion of Buddhism in general so they are welcome to their opinions as are you.

Malcolm wrote:
It it is not a question of "believing what I want," Stephen Hodge also has doubts about the veracity of later portions of the translation by Dharmakṣema. The version translated by by Fa-hsien appears to be the original.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
You sure about that?Nirvana Sutra chapter 8

Malcolm wrote:
It is questionable whether there actually is a chapter 8 in the original Mahāyāna Parinirvana sūtra. The direct Tibetan translation from Sanskrit by Jinamitra, Jñānagarbha and Devacandra has only five chapters, in three thousand and nine hundred ślokas.

The version from Chinese is considerably longer, by an entire volume. I personally do not trust the long Chinese recension at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm

This is not the same text as thurman's
Ah I see then its a commentary of a commentary.

Question does the term Atman exist in the version of the text you are quoting?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, where it is defined as svarupa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
This quotation comes from Vasubandhu’s own commentary on his Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi Viṃśatikā, verse 10:

yo bālair dharmāṇāṃ svabhāvo grāhyagrāhakādiḥ parikalpitas tena kalpitenātmanā teṣāṃ nairātmyam, na tv anabhilāpyenātmanā yo buddhānāṃ viṣayaḥ.

“The own-nature of phenomena, consisting in graspable and grasper, as childish minds imagine it, that is the imaginary Self of phenomena; and it is through this imaginary Self that phenomena are without-self; but not by the ineffable Self which is the domain of the Buddhas.”

Malcolm wrote:
Having clarified this, we can then see how best to understand the following statement:

Yogins do not know the inexpressible nature [atman] of their own or others' minds; when they know the dualistic part of their own apprehensions, seeming like their own minds and others' minds, they generate the concept, "My mind and the minds of others are known". However, in reality, they have not known the intrinsic nature [svarūpa] of their own and other's minds.

Son of Buddha said:
Your translations doesn't match up that well with Thurman's.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the same text as thurman's


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are all those citations from the Nikayas?

Malcolm wrote:
This is the question you asked:
Yes, so how does that citation support the statement "Buddhist tathata is freedom from extremes."?
I already told you that the Nikayas do not discuss the issue, so why would I bother trying to cite something it does not exist? Suchness is principally a Mahāyāna tenet.

However, the Advice to Katyāyana is an Agamic sūtra, and it one used frequently to demonstrate that Buddha taught freedom extremes in a limited way to the śrāvakas.

dzogchungpa said:
Very good, but the point is I was asking Sherlock to support his statement  "Buddhist tathata is freedom from extremes." with a citation from the Nikayas, and you responded, presumably on his behalf, with the Katyāyana thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is from the nikayas...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yes, so how does that citation support the statement "Buddhist tathata is freedom from extremes."?

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna cites this very passage in MMK 15 in order to demonstrate the truth the Buddha is speaking about:
Whoever sees inherent existence, dependent existence,
existence or non-existence,
they do not see the truth
in the Buddha’s doctrine;
because the Bhagavan, explaining existence and non-existence, 
also negates
both ‘is’ and ‘is not’
in the Advice to Katyāyana.
The Ārya-pratyutpanna-buddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
One who understands suchness and the meaning of nonceptuality as dharma, there is no proliferation in him.
Or the Vajrapadasārasaṃgrahapañjikā:
Without proliferation from the beginning, 
pure suchness is the nature of purity.
Or the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā:
If one knows how matter is, one knows in that way just how it is suchness, unmistaken suchness, unchanging, nonconceptual, signless, effortless, without proliferation and imperceptible.
or the Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya:
In that way, the dharma called "suchness" is truly beyond proliferation, intellectual debate and range of consciousness, and is explained as inconceivable because it cannot be conceived by the immature.
I could go on and on, but there is no need, right?

dzogchungpa said:
Are all those citations from the Nikayas?

Malcolm wrote:
This is the question you asked:
Yes, so how does that citation support the statement "Buddhist tathata is freedom from extremes."?
I already told you that the Nikayas do not discuss the issue, so why would I bother trying to cite something it does not exist? Suchness is principally a Mahāyāna tenet.

However, the Advice to Katyāyana is an Agamic sūtra, and it one used frequently to demonstrate that Buddha taught freedom extremes in a limited way to the śrāvakas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So your citation is?

Malcolm wrote:
As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

dzogchungpa said:
Yes, so how does that citation support the statement "Buddhist tathata is freedom from extremes."?

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna cites this very passage in MMK 15 in order to demonstrate the truth the Buddha is speaking about:
Whoever sees inherent existence, dependent existence,
existence or non-existence,
they do not see the truth
in the Buddha’s doctrine;
because the Bhagavan, explaining existence and non-existence, 
also negates
both ‘is’ and ‘is not’
in the Advice to Katyāyana.
The Ārya-pratyutpanna-buddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
One who understands suchness and the meaning of nonceptuality as dharma, there is no proliferation in him.
Or the Vajrapadasārasaṃgrahapañjikā:
Without proliferation from the beginning, 
pure suchness is the nature of purity.
Or the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā:
If one knows how matter is, one knows in that way just how it is suchness, unmistaken suchness, unchanging, nonconceptual, signless, effortless, without proliferation and imperceptible.
Or the Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya:
In that way, the dharma called "suchness" is truly beyond proliferation, intellectual debate and the range of consciousness, and is explained as inconceivable because it cannot be conceived by the immature.
I could go on and on, but there is no need, right?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So your citation is?

Malcolm wrote:
As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... suchness is merely the emptiness of all phenomena, nothing more or less.

dzogchungpa said:
The book appears to be based primarily on the Nikayas. Can you provide a citation from the Nikayas for this?

Malcolm wrote:
"Suchness", tattva, is not really a word used much in the Agamas, where it does occur, it refers to nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Malcolm - But this is not a self that is separate from the aggregates, nor is it a self apart from what is wrongly identified as a self. This is no more controversial than when Candrakirtī states that absence of nature is the nature of all things.
Quite so, in which case, if this is Bhattacharya's approach, then the only new wrinkle from him would be the nature of the Hindu Atman.  If it is identical to tathata or Suchness, then Buddhists have misunderstood or misconstrued the Hindu Atman for a long time.

Malcolm wrote:
But it isn't, since suchness is merely the emptiness of all phenomena, nothing more or less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
So Malcolm, Vasubandhu or Thurman needs more interpretation here, in Sutralamkara 9:23:
Supreme selflessness is completely pure suchness, and that is a buddha's "self," in the sense of "intrinsic reality."
You may be, as other critics are, assuming that Bhattacharya's Atmic 'self' is a glorified version of our ordinary 'self'.  I do not know yet, because I have not read the book.  But Vasubandu above and the Avatamsaka Sutra, among others, makes it clear that our true nature lacks nature (svabhava or svarupa).  Since that true nature is real, then it can be thought of a a True self, with emphasis on True, not self.

Malcolm wrote:
Sthiramati clarifies the above:

ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་བདག་གི་སྒྲ་ནི་འདིའི་སྐབས་སུ་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་དོན་ལ་བྱ་སྟེ། སངས་རྒྱས་རྣམས་བདག་མེད་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་དུ་གྱུར་པས་བདག་གི་མཆོག་ཐོབ་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ
"The term "self" in this context means "svabhava", i.e., it means "since the Buddhas become the nature of selflessness, they obtain the supreme self."
But this is not a self that is separate from the aggregates, nor is it a self apart from what is wrongly identified as a self. This is no more controversial than when Candrakirtī states that absence of nature is the nature of all things.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
When I posed this question to ChNN he said the former is the exhaustion of karma and the latter results in the body of light. The implication is that togal has a higher result re immortal nirmanakaya of light.

Malcolm wrote:
According to Sachen, the result of the completion stage is that the physical body reverts to wisdom. There is no difference in the results at all; the path is the only difference.

Crazywisdom said:
I still feel the inner yanas might be a higher view, path and result, bc of the way five lights manifest beyond volition.but also bc guhyagarbha has these two stages of completion w Mahamudra preceding clear light.

Malcolm wrote:
"Inner yānas" thinking only applies to Nyingma tantras. It is not relevant to gsar ma. One cannot fit Hevajra, Cakrasamvara, etc., into the Nyingma classification scheme (which never existed in India in any case).

In any case, wisdom is wisdom. The fact that the body reverts to wisdom is the identical in both systems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Rainbow Body - Why?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
When I posed this question to ChNN he said the former is the exhaustion of karma and the latter results in the body of light. The implication is that togal has a higher result re immortal nirmanakaya of light.

Malcolm wrote:
According to Sachen, the result of the completion stage is that the physical body reverts to wisdom. There is no difference in the results at all; the path is the only difference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
While it is a bit premature for me to engage in an academic discussion of a book that can hardly have yet been read by others (unless one reads French), I will nonetheless provide a quotation from it (p. 33) as an example. This quotation comes from Vasubandhu’s own commentary on his Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi Viṃśatikā, verse 10:

yo bālair dharmāṇāṃ svabhāvo grāhyagrāhakādiḥ parikalpitas tena kalpitenātmanā teṣāṃ nairātmyam, na tv anabhilāpyenātmanā yo buddhānāṃ viṣayaḥ.

“The own-nature of phenomena, consisting in graspable and grasper, as childish minds imagine it, that is the imaginary Self of phenomena; and it is through this imaginary Self that phenomena are without-self; but not by the ineffable Self which is the domain of the Buddhas.”

Vasubandhu, at least, here accepted an ineffable (anabhilāpya) ātman that is the domain (viṣaya) of the Buddhas. This he distinguished from the absence of self (nairātmya) in phenomena (dharma-s).

Yes, this is the same Vasubandhu who earlier wrote a supplementary chapter to his Abhidharma-kośa on the person (pudgala). This supplementary chapter, chapter 9, is one of the strongest statements of anātman and one of the most sustained arguments against the ātman to be found anywhere in the Buddhist writings. It is for reasons like this that Bhattacharya in his book stresses the need to ask “which ātman?” is being referred to in any Buddhist statement about the ātman.


Malcolm wrote:
In order to understand that Vasubandhu is trying to at here, however, one needs to consult Vinitadeva's subcommentary, the Prakaraṇa viṃśatikāṭīkā:

...བརྗོད་དུ་མེད་པའི་བདག་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་བརྗོད་པར་མི་ནུས་པར་རང་གི་ངོ་བོས་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ

Thus "the inexpressible atman" turns out to mean "...a term for an intrinsic nature [རང་གི་ངོ་བོ, svarūpa] that cannot be expressed."

Having clarified this, we can then see how best to understand the following statement:

རྣལ་འབྱོར་པས་རང་གི་སེམས་དང་གཞན་གྱི་སེམས་བརྗོད་དུ་མེད་པའི་བདག་ཉིད་དུ་མ་རིག་སྟེ། དེ་དག་རང་གི་གཟུང་བའི་ཆ་གཉིས་རང་དང་གཞན་གྱི་སེམས་ལྟ་བུར་རིག་པ་ན་རང་དང་གཞན་གྱི་སེམས་རིག་གོ་ཞེས་རྟོག་པར་བྱེད་ཀྱི།
ཡང་དག་པའི་དོན་དུ་ན་རང་དང་གཞན་གྱི་སེམས་ཀྱི་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་ནི་མ་རིག་གོ།

Yogins do not know the inexpressible nature [atman] of their own or others' minds; when they know the dualistic part of their own apprehensions, seeming like their own minds and others' minds, they generate the concept, "My mind and the minds of others are known". However, in reality, they have not known the intrinsic nature [svarūpa] of their own and other's minds.

Thus, I think it is very hasty to presume that Vasubandhu's Viṃśatikāvṛtti can be used to justify an upanishadic-like self in Buddhadharma. This text in turn needs to be read in light of Vinitadeva's subcommentary, which clarifies what Vasubandhu is saying very clearly.

Without consulting Indian commentaries that may only exist in Tibetan, it is very hard to get a handle on Indian Buddhist texts when read through the eyes people who are expert mainly in Upanishadic, Vedic, and other non-Buddhist literature in Sanskrit.

Also, one needs to look and see what Xuan Tshang says about this passage and so on.


