﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Hashang's view is higher than Kamalashila
Content:
Sherlock said:
Claiming Chan is a wrong view is something later Tibetans came up with.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. The account of the defeat of Hashang comes from the Ba bshed, which is contemporary with Nubchen.

Even so, Nubchen argues that Mahāyoga is superior to Chan.

Also, their view was the same. They both had Madhyamaka views as far as I know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Nun's ordination
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The Karmapa has indicated that he is going to start the process of giving nuns full ordination:
http://kagyuoffice.org/gyalwang-karmapa-makes-historic-announcement-on-restoring-nuns-ordination/


This is a link to the thread in the Kagyu forum: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=18685&p=269756&hilit=nuns+ordination#p269756



My question is about how this discussion is developing across the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Although the Karmapa is taking a lead on this issue, it is not only a Kagyu issue and relates to all schools of Tibetan Buddhism?

Does anybody have any news or feedback about this issue?

I myself am looking forward to the full ordination being awailable to all nuns in the Tibetan traditions.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, the problem is that they will not be Mulasarvastivadin bhikṣunis, since that ordination never even reached Tibet and died out in India. They will be Dharmaguptaka bhikṣunis, which is not our tradition. It is fine, but we have to be clear what is actually happening. We will have an odd situation where bhikṣus will be ordained according to one Vinaya, and bhikṣunis according to another.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Xuanzang and Kuiji on Madhyamaka
Content:
Will said:
Lusthaus paper:

https://www.academia.edu/11698064/Xuanzang_and_Kuiji_on_Madhyamaka


Malcolm wrote:
The last sentence of the paper states:

In comparison to Mādhyamikans, Yogācāras are realists.
30+ pages to tell us what we already know!!!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Perhaps I was not clear, what I am asking is, what does 'meeting' mean here?

Malcolm wrote:
"Meeting" means "come together."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 29th, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Candra's definition of dependent origination, "...production through the meeting such and such an assembly of causes and conditions is what is called "dependent origination."

dzogchungpa said:
I haven't been following this discussion, and maybe I am showing my obtuseness, but what does it mean for an assembly of causes and conditions to "meet'?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that such a meeting produces an effect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
You said  "Any dependent existence is an inherent existence. No matter how far back in time one imagines, at the start there will be an unconditioned cause."  I took this to mean that there is a beginning to a casual chain (even though it is just an appearance).  But you are now saying that there is no beginning to a causal chain.  So which is your position?

If a logical fallacy such as infinite regression applies to secular reasoning and does not apply to reasoning involving the Buddha Dharma, how can there be any certainty that the Dharma is correct (other than direct experience)?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the case of dependent existence, not in the case of dependent origination. My position has been the same all along, which is why, if you examine, I rejected your two typologies of dependent existence. The term dependent existence itself is the problem. This is why I rejected your assertion that dependent origination was a type of dependent existence.

Sherab said:
Please elaborate so that I can understand your objection.

Malcolm wrote:
The term parabhāva = dependent existence. The term pratītyasamutpāda = dependent origination.

Candra's definition of dependent origination, "...production through the meeting such and such an assembly of causes and conditions is what is called "dependent origination."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
One point — you might have to abandon the atomist framework of western science in order to discover other rational means of investigation.

Challenge23 said:
In regards to other rational means of investigation, are you referring to any type of method involving internal inquiry?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I was referring to using other frameworks to understand the nature of matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Astus said:
My orientation towards the topic of supernatural powers is materialist because the idea that they manifest within the material realm requires that. Natural science is what analyses matter, so physical phenomena falls within that area of study.

Malcolm wrote:
It follows then that since rebirth is manifests in the material realm, you therefore must also come up with an explanation for it according to natural science.

Astus said:
Rebirth is the continuation of the mind-stream, and since mind is non-physical it is out of scope for material investigation.

Malcolm wrote:
The mind clearly interacts with matter every time rebirth occurs. How is this possible? How can a nonmaterial entity interact with a material one? What sound reason can you possibley have for rejecting all paranormal phenomena apart from the one that is the most paranormal of all, i.e., a nonphysical entity [a mind] appropriating physical matter [a body].

Surely you must admit that if the mind, a nonphysical entity according to you, can appropriate matter, such as a body and make obvious changes to it, it ought to also be able to make changes to other phenomena by paranormal means and be capable of other paranormal capabilities such as the ability to know other minds (other phenomena of a similar kind).

So why do you hold onto the  belief that non-physical entities can supernaturally interact with physical matter in the case of rebirth, and yet reject all other kinds of "supernatural powers" of the mind where the mind interacts with or influences physical matter?

If you state it is because the Buddha taught rebirth in the sūtras, well, the Buddha also taught the abhijñās and the iddhi-pattis as well. Why accept a literal interpretation of a supernatural feat [rebirth] explained by the Buddha in one place, and yet reject all other literal interpretations of supernatural feats explained by the Buddha. If you want irrational, your POV is the most irrational of all. And you have no other basis for accepting rebirth other than the fact that it was taught by the Buddha. You certainly do not accept rebirth because you have recall of your past lifes, Astus — or do you?

Astus said:
And for more than a hundred years experts of material sciences were unable to find any sound basis for supernormal powers, and not one person could actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal anything paranormal so far, I cannot see any basis for accepting such claims.

Malcolm wrote:
Did it ever occur to you they were examining the wrong people? So far your arguments amount to the same thing as the proverbial frog in the well.

Astus said:
It is another matter that even if there were such powers they would have nothing to do with the path of liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not true they have nothing to do with the path of liberation — on the bodhisattva path their cultivation is considered indispensable.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
As far as I am concerned, other than teachings pointing to the inexpressible, all teachings are provisional with a pragmatic objective.  So we get words like unconditioned, unmade, unborn etc., being used provisionally because actual descriptors are not available in our language.  I would argue that words like beginningless are similarly provisional.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously, Sherab? That is an extremely lame answer: "It is not about emptiness so therefore I can dispense with it as I see fit, even if it means accepting a first cause in contradiction to every principle indicated by the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination."

Your argument is not only unreasonable, it is not even grounded in the texts. It seems you have forgotten the dictum that the ultimate is to be understood on the basis of the conventional truth, in order that nirvana may be realized.

So, I leave you here to your rampant proliferation and hope that someone, somewhere, some day can penetrate that formidably hard carapace in which your brain is trapped with no means of escape.

Sherab said:
You said  "Any dependent existence is an inherent existence. No matter how far back in time one imagines, at the start there will be an unconditioned cause."  I took this to mean that there is a beginning to a casual chain (even though it is just an appearance).  But you are now saying that there is no beginning to a causal chain.  So which is your position?

If a logical fallacy such as infinite regression applies to secular reasoning and does not apply to reasoning involving the Buddha Dharma, how can there be any certainty that the Dharma is correct (other than direct experience)?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the case of dependent existence, not in the case of dependent origination. My position has been the same all along, which is why, if you examine, I rejected your two typologies of dependent existence. The term dependent existence itself is the problem. This is why I rejected your assertion that dependent origination was a type of dependent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
If you show it off you attract people who just want to take it from you. In the same way, showing off Siddhi is likely to attract so called "students" who just want power.

Astus said:
It seems we should all feel sorry for film stars, celebrities, politicians, business people, bankers, and in general the rich and powerful.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh indeed, they have the unique suffering of having to defend their wealth, power and position.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Both you and Astus thus far have demonstrated only that you are basically materialists in your orientation towards these questions.

Astus said:
Isn't it you who claim that powers are physical phenomena, like in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings? How is it anti-Dharma to ask for physical evidence then? And you call it materialism if I say that such powers are not physical manifestations, therefore cannot be observed in any ordinary, natural or scientific way, but rather spiritual. Is the reference to mental phenomena a materialist view?

Malcolm wrote:
I told you where you can find evidence of these things Astus. If you don't want to make the effort to travel to places where there are siddhas, what can I say?

As to your contention that these things are merely mental experiences, well, that does not save your from my charge that your orientation towards these questions is basically materialist. I am surprised in fact that you still accept literal rebirth, or is rebirth just another "spiritual experience", like recall of past lives, knowing the minds of others, seeing into deva realms and so on and so forth?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:


WeiHan said:
Base on the above, that LTKP do not believe that enlightenment is without any conceptualisation...

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa never issues a retort to Gorampa since the latter was born ten years after the former passed away.

In that respect, Tsongkhapa must have found this hard to understand — The Buddhāvatamska Sūtra states:
The buddhas do not engage in thought;
though they have no concept about teaching,
through blessings they appear to teach.
Or the Śraddhā-balādhānāvatāra-mudrā Sūtra:

Mañjuśrī, likewise, in order for the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddha to fully ripen sentient beings, he produces infinite deeds at the same time in all the infinite worlds in the ten directions, but while the tathāgata indeed is without thoughts and  is without concepts, nevertheless, because he possesses such unmixed qualities there is no impediment to displaying such effortless deeds


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which rational means did you have in mind? Define "rational means."

dharmagoat said:
Looking for evidence in one's own experience, looking for evidence in the wider world, considering its plausibility empirically.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you really only have two options:

a) mind is based on matter
b) mind is not based on matter

If a) is true, there should be evidence to prove that matter produces consciousness.

If b) is true, one will never find evidence to prove a no matter how hard one tries.

Now then, the Buddha clearly divides all of reality, material and mental, into six major divisions called dhātus, earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. Outside of these six things there is nothing else. All phenomena are composed of some mixture of these six entities. All insentient phenomena are composed of the five elements; all sentient phenomena also include consciousness as part their make up.

Now, in terms of personal experience, there is only one way you can confirm rebirth for yourself that is through developing the abhijñā of recalling past lives and the abhijñā of being able to know the minds of others. Failing the development of these two skills in meditation, one is left with inferences.

The materialist, yes Carvaka, perspective, is to reject inference as a valid form of knowledge, as well as testimony of reliable witnesses.

There is no further point to this discussion. Either you develop these abilities through meditation or you accept rebirth in the third valid form of knowledge accepted by the Buddha, testimony of reliable witnesses. Both you and Astus thus far have demonstrated only that you are basically materialists in your orientation towards these questions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Who says Buddhadharma demands belief in phenomena that defy investigation? What kind of investigation are we talking about here?

dharmagoat said:
From the point of view of someone with one foot in Bodhidharma and one foot out, the phenomenon of rebirth is extremely elusive, defying attempts to investigate it by rational means.

Malcolm wrote:
Which rational means did you have in mind? Define "rational means."

One point — you might have to abandon the atomist framework of western science in order to discover other rational means of investigation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I thought that was the great mystery, the hard problem within all traditions of human thought.

Malcolm wrote:
It may be a great mystery in the West, it is not such a great mystery at all in Buddhadharma.

dharmagoat said:
I would say that this is why Buddhadharma attracts the interest of so many scientifically minded people. It prescribes a course of investigation that purports to solve the mystery of mind, while at the same time demanding belief in phenomena that defy investigation. There is a catch.

Malcolm wrote:
Who says Buddhadharma demands belief in phenomena that defy investigation? What kind of investigation are we talking about here?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa & Tsongkhapa
Content:
Jikan said:
I would like to be convinced that later Tibetan Madhyamika does not do this.  Can anyone here help me out?

Malcolm wrote:
Later Tibetan Madhyamaka introduces a whole set of concerns never imagined by Indians. The school that that most closely adheres to the traditional Indian tradition in Madhyamaka studies is Sakya following Rongton and Gorampa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I resist that degree of certainty. Consciousness cannot be understood, let alone reduced to a physical phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think consciousness cannot be understood, why bother even trying to discuss such issues? You are wasting your time and mine.

dharmagoat said:
You understand consciousness?

I thought that was the great mystery, the hard problem within all traditions of human thought.

Malcolm wrote:
It may be a great mystery in the West, it is not such a great mystery at all in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I resist that degree of certainty. Consciousness cannot be understood, let alone reduced to a physical phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think consciousness cannot be understood, why bother even trying to discuss such issues? You are wasting your time and mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
As far as I am concerned, other than teachings pointing to the inexpressible, all teachings are provisional with a pragmatic objective.  So we get words like unconditioned, unmade, unborn etc., being used provisionally because actual descriptors are not available in our language.  I would argue that words like beginningless are similarly provisional.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously, Sherab? That is an extremely lame answer: "It is not about emptiness so therefore I can dispense with it as I see fit, even if it means accepting a first cause in contradiction to every principle indicated by the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination."

Your argument is not only unreasonable, it is not even grounded in the texts. It seems you have forgotten the dictum that the ultimate is to be understood on the basis of the conventional truth, in order that nirvana may be realized.

So, I leave you here to your rampant proliferation and hope that someone, somewhere, some day can penetrate that formidably hard carapace in which your brain is trapped with no means of escape.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Astus said:
Still, no living weather controllers or others to show yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure there are, the TGIE always has a weather controller on staff, I simply don't know his name. If you go to Tibet and look for some ngakpas, I am sure you will find someone who will satisfy your curiosity.

Khetsun Zangpo, though recently deceased, was also employed in this capacity by the Tibetan Govt. in Tibet between 1955 and 1959. Apparently, his abilities are well documented in Tibetan.

But you are just an armchair skeptic, lazily waiting from someone to show you a video you can scoff at.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Sherlock said:
The main point of Carvaka is not caring about rebirth.

dharmagoat said:
False. Read some stuff.

Malcolm wrote:
It is one of the leading arguments of this school.
They held that all of existence can be reduced to the four elements of air, water, fire and earth.  All things come into existence through a mixture of these elements and will perish with their separation.  Perhaps the most philosophically sophisticated position of Indian Materialism is the assertion that even human consciousness is a material construct. According to K. K. Mittal, the ontology of the Lokāyata is strictly set forth as follows:

1) Our observation does not bring forth any instance of a disincarnate consciousness. For the manifestation of life and consciousness, body is an inalienable factor.
2) That body is the substratum of consciousness can be seen in the undoubted fact of the arising of sensation and perception only in so far as they are conditioned by the bodily mechanism.
3) The medicinal science by prescribing that certain foods and drinks (such as Brāhmighrta) have the properties conducive to the intellectual powers affords another proof and evidence of the relation of consciousness with body and the material ingredients (of food).  (Mittal 47)
Just exactly how is your point of view different than the above?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:


Astus said:
What you cited were stories of two deceased people

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently you don't read well, I cited twice one master who had this capacity, someone I knew personally, someone who I watched die, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
It does follow if from the Buddha's perspective there are infinite regressions and he cannot explain their existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite the contrary, he does:

Where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose.

Sherab said:
What I am arguing here is that for someone to think that infinite regression is acceptable, then he must be assuming that it is also acceptable to the Buddha.  If so, then for such a person, he can no longer argue for an omniscient Buddha.

I don't accept infinite regression and I don't think that for a fully enlightened Buddha there is such a thing as linear infinitely regressive phenomena.  So for me, I can still argue for an omniscient Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Your argument is senseless and supposes that the Buddha argues for first causes, which he explicitly rejects. This is why we frequently see such statements by the Buddha as "beginningless samsara" and "samsara without a beginning." According to you, when the Buddha makes such statements he is lying or by making such statements, he is proving he is not omniscient.

For example, the Ārya-saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra states:
In beginningless samsara,
recall the result of positive deeds is happiness, 
the result of negative deeds
is likewise suffering, 
arising like causes and results, 
but do not engaged in false thinking. 
Whatever is made by a past cause,
likewise it's result will be obtained.
You directly contradict the teaching of the Buddha by rejecting infinite regression of causes because of your conflation of the unsuitability of infinite regress in logical argumentation with the fact that any series of conditioned causes and effects must be beginningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Sherlock said:
You find it hard to accept rebirth because you find a materialist conception of consciousness more convincing than the Buddhist account, no?

dharmagoat said:
Equally convincing, hence the dilemma.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not equally convincing at all. Since you don't seem to understand the Buddhist objections, might I suggest you read Nagel's take down of physicalism? Your assignment is to read Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
What's your take on Ud 8.3 where the Buddha said that because there is the unmade, freedom from the made is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
The fourth seal is "Nirvana is peaceful."

This just means that cessation (absence of causes) is possible. There are only four unconditioned phenomena recognized in Mahāyāna Buddhism — space, the two cessations and emptiness.

Sherab said:
I can accept that space is a phenomenon but space as understood in Buddhism seemed very simplistic compared to space as understood in modern science, assuming it can be understood at all.

However, I find it hard to think of cessation and emptiness as phenomena.  If you say the state of cessation or the state of emptiness, then yes, I would think the label phenomena makes sense especially if the adjective unconditioned is to be applied.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, the term dharma [phenomena] means bearer of characteristics. That is all a "phenomenon" is. The term "phenomena" for "dharma" is very inadequate, but it is what we have.

Space and the two cessations, as well as emptiness, all are known through their characteristics.

Space is simply the absence of obstruction, and of the two cessations, the first is nirvana, cessation due to insight. The second cessation is simple absence of a cause for arising.

These three things make up the classic trio of unconditioned dharmas [there is also a kind of conditioned space, which is defined as a cavity. But that is not what is being discussed here].

Quite honestly, you need to familiarize yourself with how these things are defined in Abhidharma if you ever hope to understand them in a Mahāyāna context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:


Sherab said:
Actually, this would mean that the Buddha can never claim omniscience because there is always something beyond his range.

Malcolm wrote:
Your last statement does not follow. Merely because you cannot fathom this kind of acceptable infinite regression does not necessarily entail that it is beyond the comprehension of a Buddha's omniscience. Buddhas are omniscient about the three times, there is no limitation on it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
My suggestion to you is that you get up off your ass, go to Tibet and meet a weather controller, sine they still exist there.

dharmagoat said:
And while you are there, invite along some unbiased and reliable witnesses and record a video so that the rest of us can assess it for ourselves. Seriously.

Malcolm wrote:
I have already seen, I don't need to go. As I pointed out, my teacher was employed in Dharamshala for many years as one of the official weathermakers for the TGIE. He was famous for this, well known in the Tibetan community, personally employed for this function by HHDL before he left Dhararmshala in the mid '80's for health reasons. He was regularly hired by local famers in India to make the weather go their way, and even staved off a drought in southern California in the late '80's where he was hired by a friend of mine who owned some Avocado orchards.

But the real point is that you and Astus have turned western conventional truths into ultimate truths by asserting that what you take to be laws of physics and so on to be immutable.

I doubt even if you saw someone control the weather that you could actually see it, recorded or otherwise, similar to a preta being unable to see the liquid in a glass as water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
Sure, but it is possible that while achieving buddhahood without receiving Buddha Dharma is nearly impossible, there is still the possibility that out of a gazillion beings subjected to gazillion causes and conditions, over a gazillion kalpas, there could be that one being where all the causes and conditions are perfectly aligned at one moment in time for that being to achieve buddhahood truly all by itself.  This is just simply the law of statistics.

Malcolm wrote:
No, such a person would be a pratyekabuddha since they will not have gathered the accumulations necessary for full buddhahood, and second, in order to become a fully awakened buddha, one must have generated supreme bodhicitta, there is no other way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, if this were the case the path would be suffering because it is impermanent.

What the first seal states is: "whatever is conditioned is impermanent." The second seal states: "whatever is contaminated is suffering."

Just because the citta moments are impermanent does not entail they are contaminated.

Sherab said:
What's your take on Ud 8.3 where the Buddha said that because there is the unmade, freedom from the made is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
The fourth seal is "Nirvana is peaceful."

This just means that cessation (absence of causes) is possible. There are only four unconditioned phenomena recognized in Mahāyāna Buddhism — space, the two cessations and emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is because you are blind to it. I already pointed out to twice a master who definitely exhibited the ability control the weather. At this point, I have to concluded you are just too locked into the "scientific" worldview to be open to any such experiences.

Astus said:
What you cited were stories of two deceased people who have supposedly had the ability to change the weather. Stories like that and even more fantastic we have a lot from all over the world. For instance, canonised Catholic saints have performed various miracles, and there are thousands of them, including many from the 20th century. And while in all practical matters the veracity of such stories are at least irrelevant and not much different from superhero films, if someone claims for whatever reason that powers like levitation and weather changing exist, it is not a strong argument to say that only those with faith can perceive supernormal events. Although saying that actually fits what we briefly discussed with Anders here that experiences of siddhis are a matter of mind set, and that matches what I have said from the beginning that powers are not physical but spiritual. Similarly, if I were to argue that there are pegasi, I would have to provide some evidence for that, and excusing the lack of proof would not make my argument any stronger, even if I called unbelievers materialists.

Malcolm wrote:
My suggestion to you is that you get up off your ass, go to Tibet and meet a weather controller, since they still exist there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
Explain how tathagatas can be an infinite regression.

Malcolm wrote:
Every tathāgata must have a predecessor from whom they receive a prediction and in front of whom they generate bodhicitta.

Sherab said:
Presumably, Nagarjuna does not know about how Samantabhadra Buddha became a Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Also Samantabhadra was once an ordinary sentient being, belive it or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you do not give rise to faith in the Buddha's teachings, your bodhicitta will never have a chance to develop. As the Avatamska says, faith in the mother of all good qualities. Faithlessness is negative mental factor. You should examine this.

dharmagoat said:
Thanks Malcolm.

Indeed I do. The odd thing is that I did once have faith, but upon examining that faith I came to the conclusion that much of it was delusion.

Malcolm wrote:
You should understand that all that matters is what is conducive to your path. If accepting rebirth is conducive to your path, accept it, and don't look back, spend time rationalizing, obsessing mind/brain relations and so on.

What should matter most to a bodhisattva is attaining Buddhahood, the rest is just a distraction or an obstacle.

You should discard faithlessness as you would avoid poisonous food.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
Explain how tathagatas can be an infinite regression.

Malcolm wrote:
Every tathāgata must have a predecessor from whom they receive a prediction and in front of whom they generate bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When the obscuration of affliction and knowledge are eliminated, falling back into samsara is impossible because the stream of cittas is not longer adventitiously contaminated, so how could it become contaminated again? But the Buddha has assured us that liberation is a permanent state of affairs. Your objection was actually a non-sequitor.

Sherab said:
That which is impermanent is suffering.  What is a citta that is not impermanent?

Malcolm wrote:
No, if this were the case the path would be suffering because it is impermanent.

What the first seal states is: "whatever is conditioned is impermanent." The second seal states: "whatever is contaminated is suffering."

Just because the citta moments are impermanent does not entail they are contaminated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/mar/25/iceland-construction-respect-elves-or-else?CMP=fb_gu


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:


dharmagoat said:
I didn't quite say that I could "freely express bodhicitta". Instead, I was reserving the possibility that the compassion experienced by people such as myself was genuine bodhicitta. But, as you point out, if the aspiration to endure over many lifetimes for the benefit of beings is missing, then it is not the bodhicitta of the bodhisattva.


Malcolm wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche states: It is usual for tears to flow from one’s eyes now and again
because of biased good will and compassion.
Even though a fool reifies this as bodhicitta, 
such things are never supreme bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I don't think anyone 'wants' to be a bodhisattva, it simply presents itself as a way of life to those that have the inclination to follow it.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes and no. There are two kinds "inclination" as you call it — natural and developed. Everyone has the former, but in order to possess the later, one must formally enter the Mahāyāna path. The way to do that is to receive the bodhisattva vows.


dharmagoat said:
I know I have the inclination, but I feel my way has become blocked. I can't believe what I don't believe.

Malcolm wrote:
This a an obstacle well described in Mahāyāna teachings. As Sakya Pandita states:
Bodhicitta is damaged when one is ignorant of the qualities of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and makes no effort to seek out such qualities for oneself. The antidote for those is cultivating devotion, enthusiasm and so on as much as possible.
If you do not give rise to faith in the Buddha's teachings, your bodhicitta will never have a chance to develop. As the Avatamska says, faith is the mother of all good qualities. Faithlessness is negative mental factor. You should examine this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:


Anders said:
I must admit, I find this 'my compassion is better than your compassion' distasteful. It may be 'correct', but the spirit of the topic feels somewhat violated at this point.


Malcolm wrote:
But Anders, there are grades of compassion discussed in Mahāyāna Sūtras: compassion towards persons, compassion towards phenomena and limitless compassion [which indeed is the sole province of bodhisattvas on the stages].

Moreover, Dharmakīrti clearly enunciates the principle that compassion itself does not have the power to bring about liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Astus said:
Buddhism today can spread because it promises help with mental problems like stress and such, not because people are interested in the true nature of reality and similar abstract issues. So, if there were actually supernormal powers that people could learn, it would definitely be a big thing. But it's just not happening.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because you are blind to it. I already pointed out to twice a master who definitely exhibited the ability control the weather. At this point, I have to concluded you are just too locked into the "scientific" worldview to be open to any such experiences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Can it be clarified what the three humors are? I was always under the impression that illness comes from having harmed others.

Malcolm wrote:
Wind, bile and phlegm, or to give their proper Sanskrit names, vata, pitta and kapha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
According to the Dharma, illnesses arise from the three humors, which in turn arise from the three afflictions, which in turn arises from the innate grasping to self.

Luke said:
If this is true, then why did the 16th Karmapa die of cancer?  Surely he did not suffer from the three afflictions or from innate grasping for a self!

Malcolm wrote:
According to the Abhidanottara Tantra:
...to some he appears to have gone to great awakening,
to others, victorious over the enemy Māras,
to some, he has the nature of a child,
to others, old and infirm, 
to some as ill and dying,
to some he appears as Buddha Vairocana, 
to others as Tāra, Pandaravaśinī and so on…
He tames migrating beings having displayed
such emanations as these.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Karmapa awarded honorary PhD
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
With any luck he'll be able to assist in the finding of HHDL XV and pass the torch back as soon as possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? HHDL has indicated that he is the last.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and evolution
Content:
Aemilius said:
The Lotus Sutra exists, and it has been taught, in the context of the buddhist view of existence. Thus in modern times you easily read into it meanings that did not exist there originally.

dharmagoat said:
I think it is fair to say that the misogyny did exist there originally. We frequently encounter passages in the Buddhist canon that are disparaging of women.

Malcolm wrote:
Oddly enough, the purpose of such passages is to appeal to women sick of living in patriarchal cultures. The actual point of such passages is to say to women, "If you aspire to be born here, when you are born here you will no longer suffer any gender discrimination because indeed there won't be any."

In reality, these sūtras appealed very widely to women. It is only a modern judgement that they are mysogynistic, arising from not understanding the culture in which such sentiments were being expressed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When the obscuration of affliction and knowledge are eliminated, falling back into samsara is impossible because the stream of cittas is not longer adventitiously contaminated, so how could it become contaminated again? But the Buddha has assured us that liberation is a permanent state of affairs. Your objection was actually a non-sequitor.

The reason there is an infinite chain of cittas is that cittas are relative and conditioned, each one is an effect as well as a cause. In this case the infinite regression is a reasonable inference, just as Nāgārjuna specifically allows that an infinite regression of tathāgatas in the past is also reasonable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Thank you for taking the time to write this, Malcolm. It has helped to make your position clearer to me. While I still feel that it is a somewhat stiff and inflexible view...
It is more like an XML scheme. An XML schema that does not work is automatically not an XML schema.

I am willing to accept that it is one built on sound logic.
It is built on knowledge of the Dharma. But thanks.
I acknowledge that what I endorse can not rightly be called "Buddhadharma", or even "Buddhism", but I am hopeful that it can still bring benefit to those that have no choice but to adjust the traditional teachings to fit their own specific needs, without compromising the source from which it came.

Malcolm wrote:
The traditional teachings can't be adjusted. Core concepts like rebirth, dependent origination, karma, samsara, liberation are all essential and interrelated concepts which are vital for the very identity of Buddhadharma as a set body of practice and belief.

People can try to adapt the teachings to their life however they see fit, however, this approach, unfortunately, does not go beyond spiritual materialism.

The teaching best suited for people who cannot accept Buddhadharma is the teaching of the four brahma-viharas, described in the Kalamas sutta among other places. Here, Buddha does not pretend that the four brahma-viharas are a path of liberation, but recommends their cultivation to everyone whether they accept rebirth or not. This however is not Buddhadharma per se because the four brahma-viharas are common to all Indian religions and not the sole province of Buddhadharma. In fact the four brahma-viharas are termed "the vehicle of gods and men" precisely because they only assure higher rebirth in samsara and or happiness and contentment in this lifetime.

But let us not confuse the cultivation of such compassion and love in the four brahma-viharas with bodhicitta. They are not the same thing. While the latter indeed does depend on the former, without the sincere wish to attain full buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings and the career that entails, the former will never become the latter. Bodhicitta, the wish to become a buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings, is the defining feature of the bodhisattva path, just as emptiness is the defining doctrine of Mahāyāna.

So are the brahma-viharas and śamatha meditation beneficial for everyone, no matter what they believe? Yes, very much so. Should this be called "Buddhism"? No, because these two things are common to all Indian religions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
by rejecting rebirth, you automatically destroy any bodhisattva vow you might have made.

kirtu said:
To me, this is too much.  Some people will sincerely take the Bodhisattva Vows and sincerely practice but may have issues with so-called transcendental issues.  That's okay IMO because if they are practicing sincerely they will develop good roots and purify their minds over time and over lifetimes.  We should probably refrain from being dogmatic .  Some people will be attracted to practice via so-called "secular" Buddhism.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Someone has to hold the line and insist that things be called by their proper names. It might as well be me since what I observe these days is intense wishywashiness in the name of "compassion", when it is really just marketing to increase membership in Dharma centers and increased book sales. Cynical? Yes. True? Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Who ever said that lifting tons of heavy rocks was possible for someone who had gained control over the four elements? Attaining control over the four elements does not mean omnipotence. You are venturing into lala land here. Why don't you study the matter and actually find out what these things actually mean.

On the other hand, when the Buddha levitated to the height of fourteen palm trees to prove a point, this means he had gained control over the four elements. And in fact he had forbad monks who had mastered siddhis to demonstrate them.

Astus said:
A few tons of rocks are nothing compared to the powers displayed openly for everyone in the Vimalakirti Sutra and others. Influencing the weather is significantly more difficult then lifting weight.

Vsm. quotes the Patisambhidamagga (p 378):

“What is success through the sciences? Masters of the sciences, having pronounced their scientific spells, travel through the air, and they show an elephant in space, in the sky … and they show a manifold military array”

I.e. it is no problem to have even an army in the air.

Malcolm wrote:
The latter are examples of conjured illusions, not actual armies and elephants.

Astus said:
In the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2 / D i 77) the stock passage includes: "he even touches and strokes with his hand the sun and moon, mighty and powerfuJ as they are". Although I think it is noteworthy that the process begins by the creation of the mind-made body that performs the supernormal powers.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the manomayakāya is a mental body with intact and completely sense organs that can move here and there and even has autonomy. There is an entire sūtra detailing it in the Majjihma Nikāya.

But that is merely one kind of power, and the iddhi-pattis are not confined to the manomayakāya


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are not a Mahāyānist, by rejecting rebirth, you automatically destroy any bodhisattva vow you might have made. You can't imagine that you will ever go through the rounds of rebirth necessary to accumulate the merit and wisdom necessary to become a Buddha with the three kāyas because you don't accept rebirth, you don't accept the bodhisattva path, and so on. It is joke for you to pretend you are Mahāyānist, seriously.

dharmagoat said:
What if someone were to act exactly as a Mahāyānist does, fulfil the bodhisattva vow inasmuch as it applies to the present lifetime, and keep quiet that they were unable to honestly believe in literal rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
The bodhisattva vows has two parts, aspirational and engaged.

The aspirational part means generating the motivation to become a buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings. That requires generating an enormous store of merit and wisdom and that cannot be achieved in a single lifetime by virtue of the methods of common Mahāyāna.

A person who does not believe in rebirth is someone who has an obscuration such that they cannot even take refuge in the Dharma, let alone develop the compassion needed to generate the bodhicitta to undertake the long series of rebirths in samsara needed to gather the two accumulations in order to become a buddha.

Whatever kindness, love and compassion you you have is still kindness, love and compassion but as it is not kindness, love and compassion attended with bodhicitta, it does not have the force to counter afflictions and so on. It is mundane. Still good, but not a path Dharma.

Since you do not believe in the goal and path of a bodhisattva how could you aspire to practice it? Perhaps you have confused the popular concept of a compassionate person as being a "bodhisattva" with the actual bodhisattva described in Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.

The engaged part means practicing the six perfections for three eons or more until you have progressed through the paths and stages and entered Buddhahood. Apart from these two, there is no other bodhisattva practice. Vajrayāna may, if one holds the vows perfectly, shorten this time frame to one or several lifetimes at most, but even here, bodhicitta is still tied with the idea of undertaking rebirths for the benefit of sentient beings in order to attain buddhahood.

Even in the Hīnayāna teachings, rebirth is not an optional belief since the four sorts of āryas described in Hīnayāna texts are defined with respect to how many lifetimes it will take such and such a person to achieve arhats ship from the time they enter the stream, and moreover, where they take rebirth before hand. The Buddha's Dharma is inextricably tied up with rebirth as a key and vital concept. Without rebirth, the path has no meaning, there is no liberation to speak of, there is no reason to eradicate the afflictions that cause rebirth and so on. The negative consequences of rejecting rebirth and yet still claiming to practice Buddhadharma are so numerous that I can only barely begin to write them down here.

You see, this is why I make a distinction between "Buddhisms" and Buddhadharma. You can practice your secular "Buddhism" all you like, but it will never be Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Simon E. said:
So basically, as Malcolm has suggested your motivation is to substitute a different understanding from that of the Mahayana?

dharmagoat said:
I am asking my fellow Mahayanists to find it in their hearts to make room for the more rational among us.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not a Mahāyānist, much less a follower of the Buddhadharma — by rejecting rebirth, you automatically destroy any bodhisattva vow you might have made. You can't imagine that you will ever go through the rounds of rebirth necessary to accumulate the merit and wisdom necessary to become a Buddha with the three kāyas because you don't accept rebirth, you don't accept the bodhisattva path, and so on. It is joke for you to pretend you are Mahāyānist, seriously.

You are, sadly enough, deluding yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, secular "Buddhism" is not a valid interpretation of what the Buddha taught, aka Buddhadharma...

dharmagoat said:
Your opinion is one of many. Should we conduct a poll?


Malcolm wrote:
Be my guest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I already pointed out, very few people develop the level of concentration needed to develop the abhijñas, for example. But some people do.

Astus said:
Why are those few not known? The living ones. If they can control the four elements then they should come forward. It would definitely be a greater sensation then the discovery of radio waves. And it could definitely upset the current physicalist worldview. But again, there must be some excuses for them to stay hidden, like the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom in the Himalayas.

But they don't stay hidden. They are right there in plain sight for anyone who wants to go see them. My guru worked as the weather controller in Dharmasala for many years, in the open, and no secret was made of the fact. He was not hiding out.

Actually, it would take only one proper master of elements to demonstrate that there are other ways to raise tons of rocks than heavy machinery. Why don't we see any?

Malcolm wrote:
Who ever said that lifting tons of heavy rocks was possible for someone who had gained control over the four elements? Attaining control over the four elements does not mean omnipotence. You are venturing into lala land here. Why don't you study the matter and actually find out what these things actually mean.

On the other hand, when the Buddha levitated to the height of fourteen palm trees to prove a point, this means he had gained control over the four elements. And in fact he had forbad monks who had mastered siddhis to demonstrate them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you do not accept rebirth, if you do not accept karma, then you may be practicing some species of secular "Buddhism," but you are not practicing Buddhadharma.

dharmagoat said:
I disagree, and will continue to campaign that what you describe as "secular Buddhism" is one of many valid interpretations of what the Buddha taught.

(Remembering too, that the issue is with literal rebirth, not rebirth per se. Karma is indisputable, but is open to interpretation.)

Malcolm wrote:
No, secular "Buddhism" is not a valid interpretation of what the Buddha taught, aka Buddhadharma. It actually corresponds with what the Buddha specifically taught as wrong view, ucchedavada, i.e. advocacy of annihilation, denial of future lives and rejection of karma.

There is no form of meaningful rebirth outside of the serial appropriation of the addictive aggregates.

Further, and I will remind you, so called secular "Buddhism" is definitely not compatible with Mahāyāna view, since the very denial rebirth (there is only one kind, literal) renders the bodhisattva vow meaningless. Since this is a Mahāyāna forum, where the bodhisattva vow is indispensable, I would suggest that your proselytizing is at best inappropriate and at worst a violation of TOS.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
You are making a huge assumption in arguing that by looking back at where a thing come from, you will never come to a point beyond which you cannot find a cause.  Theists will disagree with you and say that all causal chains when traced back will lead to the Creator God.  Your assumption that there is no inherent cause on any causal chains is just as huge as the assumption of theist that there is an inherent cause, a first cause, at the beginning of all causal chains.

Whereas if you take the straightforward meaning of Nagarjuna's statement that is without an inherent existence there can be no dependent existence, it then follows that since inherent existence is unreasonable, so is dependent existence.  This is so much simpler and tighter.  No need for mental gymnastics as well.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not an assumption, it is simple observation that all causes that we can observe are themselves effects.

"[W]ithout an inherent existence there can be no dependent existence, it then follows that since inherent existence is unreasonable, so is dependent existence."

Correct. Therefore, as I pointed out before, there is no need to posit then that dependent origination is some kind of existence. This idea that you have advanced therefore is unnecessary, and you yourself have explained it to your own satisfaction in words that differ substantially in no way from mine, i.e., "...without an inherent existence there can be no dependent existence, it then follows that since inherent existence is unreasonable, so is dependent existence."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Online I work toward my cause in the most generous, harmless, compassionate, kind, peaceful and joyous way that I am able. I participate in the wider world in the same way. I practice Buddhism as much as any of you.

Malcolm wrote:
If you do not accept rebirth, if you do not accept karma, then you may be practicing some species of secular "Buddhism," but you are not practicing Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, you are actually supporting a positivist theory of reality, which holds that physical laws are inherently real and impose inherent limitations which cannot be overcome. This is why I claim you have succumbed to physicalism.

Astus said:
How do you account for the lack of people who can perform supernormal powers, even though there are many who study and practice such methods? In fact, all those people who just want meditation out of Buddhism should have some experiences with siddhis, not to mention a perhaps even larger number of people who directly aim for higher powers. On what reasons can one accept the existence of magic as a physical force?

Malcolm wrote:
Magic is your word, I don't use it.

As I already pointed out, very few people develop the level of concentration needed to develop the abhijñas, for example. But some people do.

And as far as the control over the four elements go, that is not "magic", that is learning how to control the four elements. When one learns how to control them within one's body, one can gain control over them externally. I have met people who can, for example, control the weather, and were employed in that position by the Tibetan Gvt. for many years, i.e., my guru Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje:



He was able to control the weather quite well really, which is why he kept his job for so many years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Can I put a direct question to you Dharmagoat..you are under no obligation to answer of course, and if the mods see it as inappropriate then they will of course take action.

What is your motive vis-a-vis this discussion forum.. Is it to explore Buddhadharma, or is it to dissuade others from an interest in it ? To promote something else in fact ?

Malcolm wrote:
At the end of the day, he is just another materialist trying to adapt Buddhist meditation to a materialist world view.

dharmagoat said:
... So that rational Westerners may be better able to digest the essential teachings of the Buddha and thereby derive greater benefit for themselves and for the world as a whole.

Malcolm wrote:
They won't understand the essential teachings of Buddha since they won't accept rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
From my discussion with Malcolm and Bakmoon, it would appear that there are two species of dependent existences, one based on Nagarjuna's verse mentioned by Malcolm where dependent existence need to start of with inherent existence (call this species 1) and one were most forumers are comfortable with, namely an infinitely regressive dependent existence (call this species 2).

Bakmoon said:
This second species isn't dependent existence though. Dependent existence (parabhāva) refers exclusively to this first sense. That's just how this term has been used historically.

Sherab said:
In my earlier post, I mentioned that " dependent origination is used to negate existence in the four extremes. But dependent origination as an existence is not abandoned. In other words, reliance on freedom from the four extremes does not abandon the view of existence based on the view of dependent origination. "

Bakmoon said:
Within the Gelug understanding it's true that dependent origination can be said to merely exist (I'm not going to debate the validity or non-validity of mere existence) but that's a red herring here because dependent existence isn't the same thing as dependent origination. Dependent existence doesn't refer to conventional causation, but to an existence that depends on an intrinsic existence.

Malcolm wrote:
"Mere existence" is an imputation of existence upon an appearance, but it not really an "existence" per se since it is merely an imputation and is understand that such a mere existence does not exist from its own side  (i.e. independently or inherently).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But there is such a explanation, you merely seem immune to understanding it.

Astus said:
And that explanation is what?

Malcolm wrote:
Research kashina meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense Astus, your post shows no such things, quite the opposite, it merely shows that you do not take such things literally, and this is normal for those who subscribe to physicalist view of reality. But then, we already know that Zen people are throwing away rebirth, tossing out karma, reducing the Dharma to mindfulness techniques to make us better programmers and managers. In fact, the departure of many Zen and Vipassana teachers from Buddhadharma has hastened rise of so called secular "Buddhism".

Astus said:
I don't subscribe to physicalism, never did in my life. I simply have a logical and an evidential problem with powers.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence your innate adherence to the physicalist world view.



Astus said:
The logical is that even in Buddhism there is no explanation for how the human body could multiply or levitate,

Malcolm wrote:
But there is such a explanation, you merely seem immune to understanding it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, people are not properly cultivating dhyāna. But we have modern examples of people, like Dipa ma, who have. There are also a lack of experienced teachers, like Dipa ma's teacher.

And I still think it is a pity that you are going down the secular "buddhist" road.

Astus said:
There is no shortage of accounts of special powers both within and outside Buddhism. But I have not yet heard of any living teacher of some credibility to claim it for him/herself (e.g. Ajahn Sumedho, Hsing Yun, Chokyi Nyima), although they are often accepted as enlightened masters. Scientists cooperate with several meditation teachers to investigate its effects, but there is no record of siddhis.

I don't see how secular it is that you see. I have had this view of magic for a while now (see this from 2012: http://eubuddhist.blogspot.in/2012/09/buddhist-magic.html ). And as I quote there, it is not without precedent that superpowers are not taken literally in Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense Astus, your post shows no such things, quite the opposite, it merely shows that you do not take such things literally, and this is normal for those who subscribe to physicalist view of reality. But then, we already know that Zen people are throwing away rebirth, tossing out karma, reducing the Dharma to mindfulness techniques to make us better programmers and managers. In fact, the departure of many Zen and Vipassana teachers from Buddhadharma has hastened rise of so called secular "Buddhism".

Pity you never met Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:


Astus said:
Taking the position that anyone who practises the right type of meditation can manipulate the physical world in a supernatural way raises numerous questions, beginning with the apparent lack of anyone who can actually perform them. Common excuses, like that the Buddha has forbidden it, or that it is a distraction for practitioners, seems to have no relevance in thousands of well known Buddhist stories where we can read about the Buddha, his disciples and later yogis do all sorts of wonderful things. But if you have some explanation for that, please share it.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, people are not properly cultivating dhyāna. But we have modern examples of people, like Dipa ma, who have. There are also a lack of experienced teachers, like Dipa ma's teacher.

And I still think it is a pity that you are going down the secular "buddhist" road.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
So if you follow the meaning of existence (inherent and dependent (species 1)) per Nagarjuna, an infinite regression of dependent existences (species 2) is not abandoned.  This could explain why like Garfield reading Nagarjuna, concluded that dependent existences that are part of infinitely regressive causal chains are all there is.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you grotesquely misread Nāgārjuna.

Sherab said:
But you have not explained (to my satisfaction anyway) why dependent existence in this quote of Nagarjuna "If there is no inherent existence, where will there be dependent existence" includes dependent existence that is infinitely regressive.  You mentioned about shunting of inherent existence.  But I argued (with Bakmoon) that shunting inherent existence to infinity effectively means that there is no inherent existence along any part of the causal chain.  And that throws a wrench in Nagarjuna's argument that dependent existence needs inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Any dependent existence is an inherent existence. No matter how far back in time one imagines, at the start there will be an unconditioned cause. Therefore, dependent existence is altogether impossible. Don't blame me, BTW, for your inability to understand what Nāgārjuna is saying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
Perhaps, in the milieu that Nagarjuna was in, people thought that all existing things came from God, an inherent existing thing.  So Nagarjuna argued that there is no inherent existing thing nor any thing that dependently originated from the inherent existing God.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in the milieu that Nāgārjuna was in, to which he responding, was a specific milieu in which people thought that all things exist (Sarva asti) and were thus called Sarvastivādins. They asserted that things existed by virtue of intrinsic characteristics, and that further all things existed in the three times simultaneously.

Sherab said:
So if you follow the meaning of existence (inherent and dependent (species 1)) per Nagarjuna, an infinite regression of dependent existences (species 2) is not abandoned.  This could explain why like Garfield reading Nagarjuna, concluded that dependent existences that are part of infinitely regressive causal chains are all there is.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you grotesquely misread Nāgārjuna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Luke said:
If siddhis are real, as many practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism claim, then why aren't lamas visiting hospitals daily and blasting out the miracles and healing tons of people all the time?

If siddhis are real, then I say, "Great! Then find the local cancer ward and get to work!"

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot remove the karma of other sentient beings.

According to the Dharma, illnesses arise from the three humors, which in turn arise from the three afflictions, which in turn arises from the innate grasping to self.

The greatest miracle of all is when someone realizes selflessness because of the Dharma. Who needs demonstration of a siddhi greater than this? The others are just tricks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dependent origination is not dependent existence.
My reply remains the same.

Sherab said:
In the most simple of cases, a dependent existence can lie in a causal chain that starts off with a thing possessing inherent existence (species 1) or it could sit on a causal chain that is infinite regressive (species 2).

Malcolm wrote:
I am objecting to term dependent existence. There is no such thing. Nāgārjuna states
Existence cannot arise from existence, 
existence cannot arise from nonexistence, 
nonexistence cannot arise from existence, 
nonexistence cannot arise from nonexistence 
where then can there be arising?
Therefore, arising, existing, and so on are all merely conventions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:


Sherab said:
In my earlier post, I mentioned that " dependent origination is used to negate existence in the four extremes. But dependent origination as an existence is not abandoned. In other words, reliance on freedom from the four extremes does not abandon the view of existence based on the view of dependent origination. "

Malcolm wrote:
See my previous post. Reply unchanged.

Sherab said:
I am surprised.  You normally read posts quite carefully.

Malcolm wrote:
You said in your first post:

Sherab said:
From my discussion with Malcolm and Bakmoon, it would appear that there are two species of dependent existences, one based on Nagarjuna's verse mentioned by Malcolm where dependent existence need to start of with inherent existence (call this species 1) and one were most forumers are comfortable with, namely an infinitely regressive dependent existence (call this species 2).

Malcolm wrote:
You said in your second post:
From my discussion with Malcolm and Bakmoon, it would appear that there are two species of dependent existences, one based on Nagarjuna's verse mentioned by Malcolm where dependent existence need to start of with inherent existence (call this species 1) and one were most forumers are comfortable with, namely an infinitely regressive dependent existence (call this species 2).

I replied:
Dependent origination is not dependent existence.
My reply remains the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:


Sherab said:
In my earlier post, I mentioned that " dependent origination is used to negate existence in the four extremes. But dependent origination as an existence is not abandoned. In other words, reliance on freedom from the four extremes does not abandon the view of existence based on the view of dependent origination. "

Malcolm wrote:
See my previous post. Reply unchanged.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan language--indispensible in Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sanskrit mantras are preserved with perfect accuracy in Tibetan texts. Whether they are pronounced well by Tibetans is another matter altogether.

Shamati said:
Ok. But what about the scriptures? Are the different canons preserved in their original languages? I thought there are many scriptures that are only preserved because of Tibet

Malcolm wrote:
The sūtras and tantras are preserved in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
In my earlier post, I mentioned that dependent origination is used to negate existence in the four extremes. But dependent origination as an existence is not abandoned.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is. Dependent origination is not dependent existence.



Sherab said:
In other words, reliance on freedom from the four extremes does not abandon the view of existence based on the view of dependent origination.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it does. Why?

Whatever arises in dependence does not cease, does not arise, does not go, does not come, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and is not identical. In these eight negations no existence, apart from falsely imputed existence, is possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Why is Tulku system only found in Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I remember that episode--"As the sands through the hourglass, so are the lives of our rebirths."   Remember when Nicole confronted Serena, after the baby was born?   "He's NOT the Yangsi! He's NOT!!  It's my son!!! MINE!!!"


Good times.

Good times.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Malcolm wrote:
I have a question about this, do you think dzogchungpa passes the Turing test? If not, can one dedicate the merit of a bot?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Why is Tulku system only found in Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Malcolm, thanks for that.  Are you aware of any sources that show how it "spread" to the other schools/lineages?

Malcolm wrote:
Like most fads spread, they saw it on TV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Why is Tulku system only found in Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
PadmeSamadhi said:
One more information is: Karmapa started this.

conebeckham said:
Well, it's true that Karma Pakshi was the first generally-recognized Yangsi, but there are accounts from the prior century of Tibetan Lamas claiming to be the rebirths of prior Tibetan masters, in the Kadam lineage.  There's at least one female incarnation line noted, though short-lived, in the 12th century, as well!

Further, the "Tulku System" as it exists now, with the Labrangs, inheritence, etc., was a later development, and didn't start with the second Karmapa.  I don't know when it actually developed, but it, like all things "tulku-system-related," must have been retrospective.  I'm not sure there's clear documentation regarding the development of the institution.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it began with the third Karmapa in the 14th century and really began taking off in the 15th, and by the 16th was in full swing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
If one just cuts out the middle step and tries to negate all conceptuality within the mind then the result is a totally blank mind that doesn't have any insight at all.

srivijaya said:
I guess that comes down to the kind of meditation one practices. With Shamata & Vipassana this should not occur. I also don't think it's wise to set out in any way to forcefully negate conceptuality. Like you say, a blank mind is no help at all. We get plenty of that in deep sleep.


Malcolm wrote:
One need not negate conceptuality, one needs to merely remove its foundation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 24th, 2015 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We do not see independent origination because that which originates non-dependently is not empty, it exists inherently.

srivijaya said:
Theoretically, but in practice this is exactly what beings see and act upon.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that we do not see anything that arises from itself, other or without a cause. Everything that we see arise we see arising from a cause. All instances of arising that we observe are instances of causal arising.

srivijaya said:
So I guess I completely agree when you say "The view of emptiness is not a view".

Malcolm wrote:
When we investigate causal arising, we are then led to inquire about inherent existence and so on. But no one sees a flower and thinks, "That flower is real because it exists inherently", they think only, "That flower exists, therefore it is real" and do not take it any further.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna sūtras
Content:
coyote said:
I have a few related questions:

Does this apply to Vajrayana also?

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrapani compiled the tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna sūtras
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The traditional account is that they were compiled by Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara on a mountain in south India in a bodhisattvas council.

PorkChop said:
Malcolm, thanks for providing that (again) and fixing my earlier misunderstanding (Avalokiteśvara not Maitreya). I was curious, do you know where I could read more about this account?


Malcolm wrote:
Buton's History of Dharma has a summary of it. It is not extensive, BTW, in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Where to start?
Content:
Ihrjordan said:
So say I had interest in Dzogchen Buddhism and already have a good knowledge of Theravada, how would any of you advise me to start my journey into practicing and studying Dzogchen? Books I should read, Temples in Massachusetts, practices I can do etc etc Thanks : )

Malcolm wrote:
You should contact Dzogchen Community in Conway, Massachusetts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna sūtras
Content:
coyote said:
Dear all,

I would like to know about the traditional accounts of the origin of Mahāyāna sūtras.

Malcolm wrote:
The traditional account is that they were compiled by Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara on a mountain in south India in a bodhisattvas council.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
The "why" element still stands though - ie. why cultivate views, which are in any case subsequently abandoned.

Malcolm wrote:
The view of emptiness is not a view since there is nothing in and no emptiness to see. What one does to "see" emptiness is eliminate all views, one by one in turn. There are basically only two views:1) "it is" and 2) "it is not." But for formal completeness 3) "it is and it is not" and the reverse 4) "it neither is nor is not" are added because some people would argue the third position is the phase of coming into being. No one argues for the fourth position in truth.

This is why the Śantideva verse I provided for you earlier is crucial:

When neither an entity not a non-entity remain before the mind...



srivijaya said:
I suppose it's fair to say that everyone has views of one kind or another, so why not deconstruct a few of the more erroneous ones in the mean time.

Malcolm wrote:
All views are variations of only two views, "it is" and "it is not".

srivijaya said:
My concern would be that in imparting an ontological framework,

Malcolm wrote:
There is no ontological framework. Merely the deconstruction of views. We perceive dependent origination. We are able to perceive dependent origination because that which originates dependently is empty. We do not see independent origination because that which originates non-dependently is not empty, it exists inherently. But we see no examples at all of any thing which which inherently exists, we may therefore conclude that everything we see is empty, like a dream, illusion, mirage and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Is this Tibetan?
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
The image looks like a crude depiction of Padmasambhava/Guru Rinpoche. The text is tibetanized Sanskrit and translates as Vajra Guru.

Whether it is from Tibet or another Himalayan region I wouldn't be able to tell.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an initiation card.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He is saying that a dependent existence just offloads inherent existence onto another thing.

Sherab said:
How did the offload occur?

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent existence merely shunts inherent existence onto the cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
I take it that Nagarjuna was saying that the starting point of a chain of dependent existences must come from something inherently existing.  Since inherently existing thing is non-functional, it could not possibly start a chain of dependent existences and therefore there can be no dependent existences if inherent existence is an impossibility.

The consequence of accepting this argument is that acceptance of infinite regression of a causal chain is no longer tenable.  Even the idea of beginninglessness of something, say the universe, is no longer tenable.  I have no problem with this as I never accepted infinite regression as an explanation.  I guess those on this forum who accepted the view of infinite causal chain or something beginningless will have to contend with Nagarjuna's argument.

Bakmoon said:
An infinite regress of causes is only a problem if you assume that all causation must derive from a cause that possesses its own innate power to produce an effect. If one particular effect can follow from one particular cause without being produced by an intrinsic power, then in principle there should be no problem with an infinite chain of them.

Malcolm wrote:
Provided these causes and conditions are merely conventions...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: I do not accept reality
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
What is your definition of existence?

Malcolm wrote:
At the outset of this chapter, chapter 15, Nāgārjuna states:
It is not reasonable for inherent existence [svabhāva] to arise from causes and conditions;
an inherent existence that arises from causes and conditions would have been produced,
How can this be correct? 
Inherent existences are unfabricated
and do not depend on others.
If there is no inherent existence,
where will there be dependent existence [parabhāva]?
Having already defined dependent existence (parabhāva) as a species of inherent existence (svabhāva), Nāgārjuna states:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence?
If there were inherent existence or dependent existence, existence would be established.
An existence that is not an inherent existence is therefore impossible. So, my definition of existence is that "existence" as such is a mere convention and nothing further. Much like a self.

Sherab said:
Thanks for the clarification.

I take it that Nagarjuna was saying that the starting point of a chain of dependent existences must come from something inherently existing.  Since inherently existing thing is non-functional, it could not possibly start a chain of dependent existences and therefore there can be no dependent existences if inherent existence is an impossibility.

The consequence of accepting this argument is that acceptance of infinite regression of a causal chain is no longer tenable.  Even the idea of beginninglessness of something, say the universe, is no longer tenable.  I have no problem with this as I never accepted infinite regression as an explanation.  I guess those on this forum who accepted the view of infinite causal chain or something beginningless will have to contend with Nagarjuna's argument.

Malcolm wrote:
He is saying that a dependent existence just offloads inherent existence onto another thing.

However, this does not refute the infinite regression of dependent origination in any way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The ālaya does not store memories, it only stores traces (vāsanā) or bijas.

Sherab said:
I am curious.  Where are memories of past lives stored so that certain beings (such as enlightened beings or beings who displayed the ability to recollect past lives) could 'retrieve' them?

Punya said:
I had a chance to ask a respected Nyingma khenpo yesterday about memory. He said memory is relative and while memories from the defiled mind do not fit into the alaya, memories from the neutral mind do. This seems to be consistent with what Traleg Rinpoche said.

He also said memories (from the neutral mind) do carry on into the next life and that this was as habitual imprints left on the alaya.

Malcolm wrote:
I would need a source from him to accept this. What is his source?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
One may completely accept the doctrine of the two truths - the emptiness of inherent existence etc. and nevertheless be subjected to the forces of desire and aversion with little means to stem an habitual reaction to them. I think this is mainly because the underlying ignorance is not the intellectual ignorance of not knowing a doctrine, rather something more fundamental.

Malcolm wrote:
The underlying ignorance is a knowledge obscuration, not just an afflictive lack of knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Consciousness, name and form
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Interesting. Is that a Dzogchen thing or just standard Buddhism or what?

Malcolm wrote:
The notion that the ālayavijñāna is accompanied by a vāyu is even found in Buddhist Ayurveda. Candarānanda's commentary on the Aṣṭangahridayasamhita states:

First, the moment the male’s semen and the female’s blood, free from the defects of vata, and so on, a consciousness possessing karma and afflictions accompanied by the five very subtle elements of space and so on (which are objects of yoga beyond the range of sense organs) gather and fuse in the uterus, it is called fertilization in the uterus.


What I was specifically referring to was a doctrine which comes from the Vajramāla Tantra, which is a commentary tantra on the Guhyasamaja. And a major source for the functioning of the five or ten vāyus in Vajrayāna completion stage practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Deity practice realization?
Content:
PadmeSamadhi said:
I'm not sure if I am asking this correctly, but here it goes:
-When a person achieves the realization of a deity practice?

If someone give me an empowerment, that I practice that for many years and how do I know I have when that realization happened?
I read you could even have one or more siddhis related to that deity, but siddhis may come earlier.

What do we have to realize anyways? What we can not fail so this works?

Thanks in advance.


Malcolm wrote:
You need to ask this question of a qualified guru in the lineage in which you practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: what is the best realm from which to help beings?
Content:
Simon E. said:
We are not bodies as containers for souls. We are a whole.  We arise as a whole. We are are awakened as a whole. All aspects of being ..' coarse ' or subtle arise together.... in great Emptiness.

dzogchungpa said:
As somebody once http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html: If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?

Malcolm wrote:
The mahaprāṇavāyu from which the ālayavijñāna is inseparable contains the four elements within it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Traditional Buddhist Cultures and "sexual misconduct"
Content:
tingdzin said:
Rory,
Could you supply us with some sources for documentation of gay marriage in Ancient Rome? Not that I disbelieve you, but I've never read about this. Also, some Asian cultures such as Thailand are miles ahead of the West in tolerating varied expressions of sexuality, and have been for years -- it's not something they are "learning" from enlightened Westerners. It's more a matter of people knowing how to mind their own business, which everyone in the West seems to be forgetting.

Malcolm wrote:
Look at the epigrams of Martial, Tacitus writes about the same sex marriages of Nero, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Why is Tulku system only found in Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Plat said:
It's not found in in any other type of Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Because it is a Tibetan innovation. That being said, the idea of kings and so on being reincarnations is quite an old idea in Buddhism, likewise too the idea that famous scholars are reincarnations, and so on.

What is different about the Tibetan system is that it has become a means of transferring property and political authority from one generation to another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
LastLegend said:
It's like conditioned existence/dependent existence is inherently to exist. If it's not inherently to exist, it cannot exist at all. Because it's inherently to exist, this inherency cannot go extinct and is not caused and conditioned, by the virtue of its definition 'inherent.' It cannot exist forever either(eternalism) because it's inherently caused and conditioned. So dependent existence is inherent/inherent existence. Inherent existence is no other than dependent existence; if it is some separate independent other/entity, we again establish a self.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what Nāgārjuna is saying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Letters from self recognized tulkus
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have met plenty of so called western tulkus recognized by this or that Tibetan and not one was something special.

kirtu said:
Perhaps you have not seen their positive qualities for 1 or 2 of them.

Remember that by his own account Dezhung Rinpoche was acted like a silly boy until one day when he was 15.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone has positive qualities. I simply have not met any recognized western tulkus (quite a few actually) I would consider remarkable people. On the other hand, I have met many western Dharma practitioners who are not tulkus that I consider very remarkable. That is my experience, Kirt. If you want to chalk it up to my lack of observational skills, that's ok with me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan language--indispensible in Tantra?
Content:
Shamati said:
Isn't Nepal & Bhutan countries who adhere to vajrayana buddhism but don't speak Tibetan? How do they do it in those countries? Do the mantras & texts still exist in Sanskrit?
i think it's very difficult to first chant along with a language completely different from European languages while remembering the meaning & simultaneously visualizing a deity.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhutanese is a language closely related to Tibetan, and has the same script and religious texts. The main difference is dialect and accent.

Nepal has Newari Buddhism, which is done practiced in Sanskrit.

Shamati said:
I understand that newari Buddhists are descended from the same mahasiddha tradition of Nalanda that was adopted in Tibet, but that they still use Sanskrit? wouldnt the mantras etc used in that tradition be closer to the 'original' of India? Have they preserved important texts in the original language there?

I think that eventually there will translation into at least English but that it will take time & be done gradually by great masters who have natural authority in choosing correct words.

Malcolm wrote:
Sanskrit mantras are preserved with perfect accuracy in Tibetan texts. Whether they are pronounced well by Tibetans is another matter altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan language--indispensible in Tantra?
Content:
Shamati said:
Isn't Nepal & Bhutan countries who adhere to vajrayana buddhism but don't speak Tibetan? How do they do it in those countries? Do the mantras & texts still exist in Sanskrit?
i think it's very difficult to first chant along with a language completely different from European languages while remembering the meaning & simultaneously visualizing a deity.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhutanese is a language closely related to Tibetan, and has the same script and religious texts. The main difference is dialect and accent.

Nepal has Newari Buddhism, which is done practiced in Sanskrit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
pael said:
Ist it allowed to want rebirth in Sukhavati? Or in body in which you can practice Dharma easily?

Malcolm wrote:
Sukhavati is not part of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If there is attachment to samsara, there is no renunciation.

pael said:
How one is attached to samsara?
I thought buddhism is for ridding of greed, hatred and delusion. Is that nirvana? Does it require reincarnation-doctrine, wrether it's true or otherwise?

Malcolm wrote:
Being attached to samsara means merely wanting to have a better place of rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, now it all makes sense.

Malcolm wrote:
A citation for you. The Jātakamālaṭīkā states:
If one obtained the concentration [dhyāna] called "clear recollection,"
this is shown to be the cause of recalling past lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Sherab said:
What then is the mechanism for recollection (retrieval method)  of past lives (data) by a Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
The mechanism for recalling past lives is abhijñā.

dzogchungpa said:
And the mechanism for abhijñā is?

Malcolm wrote:
Samadhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Sherab said:
What then is the mechanism for recollection (retrieval method)  of past lives (data) by a Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
The mechanism for recalling past lives is abhijñā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
In other words, reliance on freedom from the four extremes does not abandon the view of existence based on the view of dependent origination.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact it does. If there existence, there cannot be arising from conditions.

Sherab said:
What is your definition of existence?

Malcolm wrote:
At the outset of this chapter, chapter 15, Nāgārjuna states:
It is not reasonable for inherent existence [svabhāva] to arise from causes and conditions;
an inherent existence that arises from causes and conditions would have been produced,
How can this be correct? 
Inherent existences are unfabricated
and do not depend on others.
If there is no inherent existence,
where will there be dependent existence [parabhāva]?
Having already defined dependent existence (parabhāva) as a species of inherent existence (svabhāva), Nāgārjuna states:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence?
If there were inherent existence or dependent existence, existence would be established.
An existence that is not an inherent existence is therefore impossible. So, my definition of existence is that "existence" as such is a mere convention and nothing further. Much like a self.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
The above 3 quotes are essentially saying the same thing, which is the same as the view I have encountered in scholarly  Prasangika presentations, which don't indicate any obvious correlation to direct insight.

Malcolm wrote:
This because you haven't incorporated the path framework of Mahāyāna into your understanding. Simply put, on the path of preparation there is a stage called "heat", which is a conceptual meditation which resembles the insight realized on the path of seeing. This in turn leads to a stage called "peaks", where one's samadhi peaks and nearly becomes the yoga pratyakṣa on emptiness of the path of seeing. There is a further stage called patience, where one turns away from all rebirth in the three lower realms as a result of the previously cultivated samadhi, and finally the stage called "highest mundane dharmas", which immediately precedes attainment of the path of seeing.

There are no other approaches within the Mahayana. This is the Mahāyāna path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Dan74 said:
I must've missed it, I will reread the thread when I have the time. However, misgivings from some people do not necessarily make a sutra inauthentic, it seems to me. What is the right test, do you think? As far as I can tell, it is venerated in the Chan tradition and it would be disrespectful (and unwise) to dismiss it due to a few minor passages.

Malcolm wrote:
It is missing in the Tibetan canon [well, it was until the Qianlong Emperor sponsored its translation in Tibetan in the 18th century], for one thing. While this is not a definitive indication, it is an important one. Second, there is no mention of it or citations of it in any secondary Indian literature.

Dan74 said:
Incidentally, I recall reading a Charles Muller translation of the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment with commentaries by Master Kihwa, a 14th Century monk, who queried parts of the Sutra as being correctly rendered. To my way of seeing it is quite possible that parts of a sutra may have been corrupted at some stage in transmission, but that is no reason to dismiss the whole.

Malcolm wrote:
Likely another wholly Chinese pseudographia. I don't have problems with pseudographia as long as they are more or less in line with the Dharma as a whole, but when confronted with such a text, it should be evaluated in terms of how it corresponds with accepted teachings. When it states things that are wholly out of line with the Indian tradition, then I leave those things aside and ignore them.

Dan74 said:
The 5 pungent herbs.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a Chinese cultural and medical classification, not an Indian one. In the Vinaya, as well as Mahāyāna sūtras of verified origin, when garlic is mentioned in group, it is mentioned with onion and spring onions/leeks/wild garlic (the exact plant here is a little uncertain, but it belongs to the allium family), never in a group of "five pungent herbs." This classification is unknown in India.

Dan74 said:
This isn't something that bothers me personally, you are welcome to your opinions and any scholarship you bring to the discussion is appreciated, but it is a question of respect and etiquette. In the Chan forum, the discussion should be framed by Chan teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
May I suggest you move the thread then to a forum where it seems more appropriate since the OP was not really asking about Chan at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Sherab said:
In other words, reliance on freedom from the four extremes does not abandon the view of existence based on the view of dependent origination.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact it does. If there existence, there cannot be arising from conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Dan74 said:
I don't think it is appropriate here to reject scholarship on the provenance of Mahayana sutras which have been accepted by Tibetan tradition and then assert that Surangama Sutra which has been accepted by the Chan tradition, is inauthentic. This takes Tibetan tradition as the standard, which is fine, but not when you are in the Chan forum.

Perhaps it is more reasonable to suppose that the Sutra takes a skillful approach to overstate its case in order to impress upon the readers that they should not consume these herbs, as other sutras also assert?

Malcolm wrote:
The standard is actually the Indian tradition, not the derivative Tibetan and Chinese traditions.

As to the second point, I have already shown how the text in question contradicts other Mahāyāna sūtra which all accept as authoritative. It is also well known that this text, the  Śūranagama Sūtra, has experienced a long and contentious history in China over the question of its authenticity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The ālaya does not store memories, it only stores traces (vāsanā) or bijas.

Sherab said:
I am curious.  Where are memories of past lives stored so that certain beings (such as enlightened beings or beings who displayed the ability to recollect past lives) could 'retrieve' them?


Malcolm wrote:
Why should they be stored?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
not even in your Brahmajala Sutra.

Astus said:
http://www.ymba.org/books/brahma-net-sutra-moral-code-bodhisattva/brahma-net-sutra/secondary-precepts:
3. On Eating Meat


Malcolm wrote:
Ok, my error.

But it is definitely not part of the bodhisattva vow traditions of Mañjuśrī or Maitreya.

Your source does contain one inaccuracy, the Brahmajala Sūtra in the Tibetan canon is from the Agamas and is more or less that same text found in the Digha Nikāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, there is no Mahāyāna vow not to eat meat which is connected with the bodhisattva vows. The Buddha mentions the faults of eating meat in many sūtras, but never made it a vow that one should not.

seeker242 said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. That isn't true. It's only true after you dismiss the sutras that prohibit it. You dismiss sutras based on your own traditions acceptance or non acceptance of them. But like I said before, Tibetans don't have a monopoly over Mayahana. No Korean Buddhist would ever say such a thing. Why? Because the sutras clearly prohibit it.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no vow against eating meat. Even if the Buddha says we should not eat meat, there is nevertheless no bodhisattva vow prohibiting it, not in the tradition of Manjushri, not in the tradition of Maitreya and not even in your Brahmajala Sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
What kind of wisdom though?

Malcolm wrote:
Jñāna.

When one correctly apprehends emptiness, there is no support left for conceptual thought to rest upon, so it dissolves into itself, right on the spot.
"Correctly apprehends", seems more like direct insight in this case, than analytical deconstruction. I can see how that would work.

That analytical deconstruction leads to direct insight, when that is achieved, the analysis is discarded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
Where you find people with a strong belief, you will find that the poisons are quick to follow if that belief is in any way, shape, or form challenged or disregarded. Lots of people who believe in rebirth have lots of attachment to this life, whereas there are people who hold no such belief who have little or no attachment, so I also dont think these two things are always directly causally related..

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of understanding rebirth is to understand what it is that following the path is freeing us from. That is all. As Mañjuśrī said to Sachen:
If there is attachment to samsara, there is no renunciation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
seeker242 said:
Alright, but my point was that just because Tibetans don't accept it as valid, doesn't mean it's invalid. No one sect or tradition has a monopoly over what is or is not Mahayana. Things like vegetarianism are a good example of that. Chan Buddhists abstain from eating meat and Tibetans don't. That doesn't invalidate chan buddhisms stance on eating meat nor does it render it not Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
It has already been pointed out to you that the status of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is not certain even within Chinese Buddhism and it has been subject to much controversy, unlike say the Prajñāpāramita or the Lankāvatāra sūtras.

That Tibetans eat meat is a Tibetan cultural thing. It has nothing to do with the Dharma and there is really no justification for meat-eating that can be found in Mahāyāna sutras. Avoidance of eating meat is well known in Mahāyāna sutras such as the Mahāparinivana, Lankāvatāra, and so on. Many Tibetan Buddhists have been and are vegetarian.

In general, if one is following common Mahāyāna one should not eat meat unless one is ill. On the other hand, there is no Mahāyāna vow not to eat meat which is connected with the bodhisattva vows. The Buddha mentions the faults of eating meat in many sūtras, but never made it a vow that one should not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
We can say that it is accepted by some Chan masters as authentic and we can at the same time deny it is authentic, which is to say it is not a sutra spoken by the Buddha, nor a sutra which he gave permission to one his disciples to speak, nor did he confer his blessings upon anyone to speak it.

We can therefore also understand that some Chan masters will assert various things said in that sūtra and feel under no obligation to take them or it seriously since we do not accept the sūtra in question is authentic.

seeker242 said:
Sure, because you are a Tibetan Buddhist, not a Chan one. The exact same thing can be said about Theravada Buddhists not accepting Tibetan sutras. Obviously, Theravada Buddhists feel no need to obligation to take things like Buddha Nature seriously. Why, because they don't accept those sutras as authentic words of the Buddha. Does that make those Buddha nature sutras invalid or inauthentic for everyone else? Of course not...To assert that it does would be ridiculous.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that both Tibetan Buddhists and Chan Buddhists are followers of Mahāyāna. We both generally accept the same Dharma, we both generally accept that same set of Mahāyāna sūtras which can be confirmed to be of Indian origin. The differences in the basic sūtras we both accept are trivial.

There are a few sūtras in the Chinese canon which were not translated into Tibetan because even during the 8th and early ninth century there was uncertainty as to their validity. Many Mahāyāna sūtras were translated into Tibetan first from Chinese sources and only later were revised with respect to Sanskrit manuscripts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The other he mentions is the effect it has on the mind. He does not mention all of the reasons in this short talk.
No such effects are mentioned in any sūtra what so ever. If there is a problem with alliums, it is purely because of the breath, and the idea that it stimulates sexual desire. The latter however seems a little iffy. Even if it does, who would want you reeking of garlic?

seeker242 said:
You didn't say this? Could have fooled me. Your name is Malcom right?...
You basically have defaulted to the position that any text that calls itself a sūtra should be accepted as such
False. You are now misrepresenting what I have said, which is obvious to anyone. It is simply a fact that this sutra is already accepted as such in Chan Buddhism. To say it's not a sutra, is patently false. To say the sugranama does not mention, what it clearly mentions, is also patently false. As well as ridiculous.

Malcolm wrote:
We can say that it is accepted by some Chan masters as authentic and we can at the same time deny it is authentic, which is to say it is not a sutra spoken by the Buddha, nor a sutra which he gave permission to one his disciples to speak, nor did he confer his blessings upon anyone to speak it.

We can therefore also understand that some Chan masters will assert various things said in that sūtra and feel under no obligation to take them or it seriously on such subjects since we do not accept the sūtra in question is authentic and since it conflicts with what authentic sūtras say on the subject, in this case, of consuming garlic.

Now I think we have reached this point in the discussion:



I have nothing further to add for the time being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
What I said exactly was:
There is no Indian sūtra of confirmed provenance that makes similar claims about garlic attracting ghosts (rather the opposite is the fact) or rebirth in hell. This therefore can be understood as a Chinese cultural idea in a sūtra without an Indian origin.

While indeed the Lankāvatāra tells us to avoid garlic and so on, there is no mention of spirits and so no.
You see, I was very precise in what I was delineating.

I also said:
I am sorry, but there is no mention of negative mental effects of garlic in any authentic Mahāyāna sutra.

seeker242 said:
The Surangama is a sutra and it says these things, whether you think it's unreasonable or not, whether you think it should be followed or not, isn't relevant to the question of whether or not garlic is mentioned in the sutras. It clearly is.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that garlic was not mentioned in the sūtras. You are now misrepresenting what I have said, which is obvious to anyone.

You basically have defaulted to the position that any text that calls itself a sūtra should be accepted as such, whether or not it was spoken by the Buddha. This ludicrous. If you wish to accept that it is valid Buddhavacana, that is fine with me. But I do not accept it as such, and while there may be a good many things of merit in that text, the bit about garlic is absurd.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
plwk said:
...the Sūtra in Forty-Eight Chapters...
Forty-Two you mean?
And whilst we are at it, http://www.acmuller.net/articles/1998-03-apocrypha.html may interest some...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I rejected the statement primarily because it is unreasonable, because it is in clear conflict with what other sūtras (everyone agrees are authentic Mahāyāna sūtras) as well as the Mūlasarvastivada Vinaya say about garlic and so on.

Whether sūtra in question is an authentic sūtra or not is a very distant secondary consideration for me.

seeker242 said:
Alright. Although, earlier you said with regard to negative effects of garlic "No such effects are mentioned in any sūtra what so ever." Well, the Surangama is a sutra and it mentions it, so to say "No such effects are mentioned in any sūtra what so ever" isn't true. You could say it's unreasonable, because it is in clear conflict with what other sūtras say, but even if that is the case, it's still a sutra nonetheless. You can call it crazy and ridiculous, but you can't call it not a sutra. Chan masters are used to being called crazy and ridiculous, that's nothing new.


Malcolm wrote:
What I said exactly was:
There is no Indian sūtra of confirmed provenance that makes similar claims about garlic attracting ghosts (rather the opposite is the fact) or rebirth in hell. This therefore can be understood as a Chinese cultural idea in a sūtra without an Indian origin.

While indeed the Lankāvatāra tells us to avoid garlic and so on, there is no mention of spirits and so no.
You see, I was very precise in what I was delineating.

I also said:
I am sorry, but there is no mention of negative mental effects of garlic in any authentic Mahāyāna sutra.
The latter statement is to understood in the light of the former, since I already laid out what I consider to be "authentic", i.e. a Mahāyāna sūtra of confirmed Indian origin. Neither the Brahamjala Sūtra, nor the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, nor the Sūtra in Forty-Eight Chapters can be considered authentic Indian texts. We can also toss in the Vajrasamadhi Sūtra for good measure.

If the teachings in these texts conform to what we know to be taught in authentic sūtras, then those teachings can be accepted — but if there are teachings in those texts which do not conform, then those teachings should be ignored, such as the idea that garlic will send one to hell for eating it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
It's still not clear why there needs to be a connection between an intellectually acquired ontological world view and experiential gnosis.

Malcolm wrote:
In Madhyamaka, the analytical deconstruction of views gives rise to wisdom.

srivijaya said:
Whilst the nod is given to some kind of direct unconditioned experience, the exact minutiae of "what actually exists" and what "does not" and the interpretation of these two positions is still hotly debated.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in Madhyamaka.


srivijaya said:
Even in lower form jhanas all discursive thoughts, views and opinions are abandoned, in fact they need to be.

Malcolm wrote:
What is not abandoned is conceptual thought. Each of the form realm dhyānas is characterized by a conceptual object as well as mental factors associated with that dhyāna, likewise, the four formless realm āyatanas are characterized by a conceptual object, which is why the Buddha rejected them as liberation.


srivijaya said:
So why the insistence that views are necessary?

Malcolm wrote:
In order to understand emptiness, freedom from views, one must understand dependent origination, which is also freedom from views. That which originates in dependence does not exist according to any of the four extremes, therefore, whatever dependently originates is empty by nature. For this reason, Nāgārjuna praised dependent origination as the pacification of proliferation. He likewise maintained that those who understand emptiness incorrectly were likes those who handled a snake at the wrong end or applied vidyāmantras incorrectly. He called such people incorrigible.

When one correctly apprehends emptiness, there is no support left for conceptual thought to rest upon, so it dissolves into itself, right on the spot. It for this reason then that Shantideva states:
When neither an entity nor a nonentity
remain before the mind, 
at that time, since there is no other aspect 
there is nothing to perceive, total peace.
The point is not to have a view, the point is go beyond views — but the road there is narrow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:


Punya said:
1. My understanding is that the alayvijnana has the capacity to store memories. So what you are saying seems to be that memories for ordinary beings (without getting into bardo discussions) get erased at the end of each life. On the other hand the seeds (bijas), which I read as karmic propensities (possibly mistakenly), continue on to the next life. Why does one continue and the other not?

2. Is the manas where (for want of a better word) the I making occurs?

Malcolm wrote:
The ālaya does not store memories, it only stores traces (vāsanā) or bijas.

The kliṣṭa-mānovijñāna, the afflictive mental consciousness, generates the sense of "I" in the Yogacara scheme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Punya said:
Sure that's basically the body but there's a bit more to I making than just the body, isn't there? Did you mean that the I making is useful for functioning in the human realm (even though it would better to stop the cycle altogether)?

Malcolm wrote:
I mean that use the notion of "I" to do everything. That delusion of 'I' is an agent, capable acting and receiving the results of action, even though it does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


Simon E. said:
The onus is on those who affirm those texts that are unique to the Chinese Canon to show that their authority extends beyond the purview of Chinese Buddhism.

seeker242 said:
No it isn't because the discussion is about chan buddhism, chan masters and a chan sutra. The opinion that it's inauthentic outside of chan buddhism is irrelevant. It's just as irrelevant as Thanissaro Bhikkhu claiming the Buddha never taught Buddha Nature.

Malcolm wrote:
I rejected the statement primarily because it is unreasonable, because it is in clear conflict with what other sūtras (everyone agrees are authentic Mahāyāna sūtras) as well as the Mūlasarvastivada Vinaya say about garlic and so on.

Whether sūtra in question is an authentic sūtra or not is a very distant secondary consideration for me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but there is no mention of negative mental effects of garlic in any authentic Mahāyāna sutra. There is a chapter of the Chinese Surangama Samadhi sūtra in the Tibetan canon, chapter ten, where it says that if one eats garlic, it increases desire, if one eats it raw, it increases hatred, but that is all.

I am not questioning Master Sheng Yen's knowledge of the Chinese canon. But I don't think there is any reason to accept what the Chinese Surangama Samadhi has to say at all. I don't consider it an authentic Mahāyāna sūtra. Just because a chapter of it is included in the Tibetan canon does not guarantee its authenticity. There are several texts included in the sutra and dharani section of the Tibetan canon whose authenticity is disputed. This is one of those texts.

PorkChop said:
Not to be a pest, but AFAIK, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABra%E1%B9%85gama_Sam%C4%81dhi_S%C5%ABtra is a separate text from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABra%E1%B9%85gama_S%C5%ABtra. The first is considered an Indian sutra according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABra%E1%B9%83gamasam%C4%81dhis%C5%ABtra,_The_Concentration_of_Heroic_Progress, the later was the one that caused controversy even as far back as the 8th century,  with the Emperor of Japan. The former doesn't seem to involve this topic, as I can't find anything related to "onion", "garlic", "pungent", or even "vegetable" in the sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, I was referring the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, there is a chapter of it in the Tibetan canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


seeker242 said:
That's not relevant. For example, if someone has not taken a vow to abstain from killing, there is still a negative effect from killing regardless. The negative effect it has, is the reason why it's a precept to begin with.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is relevant. Of the five lay vows, only the vow against intoxication is prohibition rather than a natural non-virtue like killing, taking what is not given, lying and sexual misconduct. Likewise, the monastic vow against consuming garlic is a vow of prohibition, as are most of them, and so therefore, no non-virtue is accrued when they are engaged in by novices and lay people.

On the other hand, there is no vow forbidding malice, envy and ignorance, the three mental natural non-virtues because hinayāna precepts apply only to physical and verbal actions, nevertheless, indulging in these three results in negative karma and ripening. Likewise, harsh speech, gossip and calumny are natural non-virtues, but there is in fact no vows against them, because the Buddha judged it would be too hard not to break these and because there is natural negative consequences.

Most of the monastic vows therefore are vows of prohibition only and are not natural non-virtues. Thus there are no negative consequences if lay people do not follow precepts meant for the ordained. Otherwise, for example, sleeping with your wife would become a downfall.

seeker242 said:
Chan Master Sheng Yen just doesn't know what he is talking about? Sorry, I can't believe that. It's highly unlikely that he doesn't know what he is taking about. He's a well regarded monastic Chan master. He's also a scholar with a Ph.D in Buddhist literature. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to the sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but there is no mention of negative mental effects of garlic in any authentic Mahāyāna sutra. There is a chapter of the Chinese Surangama Samadhi sūtra in the Tibetan canon, chapter ten, where it says that if one eats garlic, it increases desire, if one eats it raw, it increases hatred, but that is all.

I am not questioning Master Sheng Yen's knowledge of the Chinese canon. But I don't think there is any reason to accept what the Chinese Surangama Samadhi has to say at all. I don't consider it an authentic Mahāyāna sūtra. Just because a chapter of it is included in the Tibetan canon does not guarantee its authenticity. There are several texts included in the sutra and dharani section of the Tibetan canon whose authenticity is disputed. This is one of those texts.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


seeker242 said:
Precepts do come from taking vows but I think it's obvious that the surangama and Hsuan Hua are speaking to the benefit of keeping these vows and the drawbacks of breaking them, regardless if one has formally taken them or not.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot maintain a vow one has not taken, nor can one break it.

seeker242 said:
The other he mentions is the effect it has on the mind. He does not mention all of the reasons in this short talk.

Malcolm wrote:
No such effects are mentioned in any sūtra what so ever. If there is a problem with alliums, it is purely because of the breath, and the idea that it stimulates sexual desire. The latter however seems a little iffy. Even if it does, who would want you reeking of garlic?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
seeker242 said:
[
So indulging and clinging to sense pleasures won't send you towards hell realms? Yes, it will... Breaking the precepts won't send you towards hell realms? Yes, it will... Allowing anger to overcome your mind won't send you to a hell realm? Yes, it will... The idea that those things won't...is patently ridiculous.

Malcolm wrote:
Precepts come from taking vows. If you have not taken a given vows, you cannot break the precept to which it is connected.

For example, fully ordained Mulasarvastivadin monks who eat  garlic and who are not ill are considered to have committed a downfall of duration. Eating onion or spring onions is considered an offense. Why? Because one should not enter a temple after eating these things.

But in Vinaya, the reason is given that sick monks are allowed to eat these things because there is no question that they will being going to a temple. If a monk eats these things, in the case of garlic, he should not enter a temple for a week, in the case of onions, for three days and the case of spring onions, one day. It is a downfall punished by brief period of banishment. But there is certainly no mention of going to hell and such things can easily be purified.

And as far as we are concerned, none of us here are ordained bhikṣus, so really, the idea that eating garlic is going to send one to hell is ridiculous. Not only this, but the Lankāvatara states exactly the opposite of what is stated here in this sutra about spirits:
Since the bhūtas will become terrified
yogis should not eat meat.
Likewise, yogis should avoid
various things such as
meat, garlic, onions and alcohol,
garlic and spring onions.
Yes, garlic is mentioned twice in this passage. Again, no mention of hell for eating garlic. One can infer from the passage however that it upsets local spirits and frightens them because of the smell, which is of course why garlic is used to repel spirits in Ayurvedic medicine and in many Buddhist texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


seeker242 said:
I also would not go so far as to say it's just a Chinese Cultural influence. It's a prevalent idea in traditional Hindu medicine also, specifically regarding a "Sattvic diet" or "yogic diet". Garlic and onions are both rajasic and tamasic according to Hindu Ayurveda, and are forbidden to yogis because they root the consciousness more firmly in the body, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Garlic is one of the main medicines we find in all Ayurvedic formulas used to repel spirits. Having actually studied both Tibetan and Indian materia medica (given my profession as a Doctor of Tibetan Medicine), I am quite certain of this. Also the origin story of garlic and onions is the same in Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda, since the former adopts much of the latter.

Second, there is no classification of foods by the three gunas in classical Ayurvedic treatises such as the Caraka Samhita, the Aṣṭangahridaya Samhita and so on. Foods are classified by their effect on the three doshas — in this case, garlic, for example, removes kapha and vata, among other effects.

The notion of the "sattvic" diet comes from the Bhagavad Gita where all tastes apart from the sweet taste are defined as rajasic. Tamasic food is all old, wilted, etc., foods.

Ironically, milk, butter, cream, yogurt and so on, as well as honey, etc., are all considered sattvic [vegan freakout here].


seeker242 said:
Sure, it sounds crazy to say "you will go to hell if you eat onions". But it seems to me to have a much deeper meaning than that. Master Hsuan Hua was a Chan master. Chan masters are notorious for saying things that have a deeper meaning than what appears on the surface.

Malcolm wrote:
The only food that will send you hell is meat you have killed for yourself or requested be killed for yourself. We are not Jains and Hindus who define their paths partially in terms of pure and impure foods which we may eat. Granted, if you practice lower tantras, you need to be vegetarian and avoid alliums, but this is because this is conduct attractive to Hindus, and so it is merely as skillful means.

There is no deeper meaning. The idea that eating garlic will send you to hell is patently ridiculous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
And you thought Avici hell was the worst...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
seeker242 said:
That's just him telling you what the sutra says.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no Indian sūtra of confirmed provenance that makes similar claims about garlic attracting ghosts (rather the opposite is the fact) or rebirth in hell. This therefore can be understood as a Chinese cultural idea in a sūtra without an Indian origin.

While indeed the Lankāvatāra tells us to avoid garlic and so on, there is no mention of spirits and so no.

seeker242 said:
And what does the Surangama Sutra actually say? He is not doing a commentary on the Lankavatara or some Indian sutra, his commentary is specifically on the Surangama and that's what the Surangama says. The quote I posted above is directly from it on page 230. See link below. Master Hsuan Hua is not the one who wrote this. Whether people think that is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, or just flat out crazy, isn't relevant as to where this idea comes from. It doesn't matter if it's a "Chinese cultural idea in a sūtra". My point was that yes, it's in the actual sutra and Hsuan Hua is telling you what that sutra says and what he says is an accurate commentary.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

Malcolm wrote:
It is still just a Chinese cultural idea. It is crazy to believe that a) garlic attracts spirits b) that eating it will send you to hell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Corporate "Mindfulness".
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I didn say they were 'creating drones', that's a strawman if I ever heard one. What I was saying is that many large companies are employing mindfulness to (among other things) invrease productivity...that is simply true, not conspiracies, and IMO it is, or could be contrary to the purpose of mindfulness in a dharmic sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the mindfulness of a sniper is definitely counter the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Did Kongtrul study the Abhidharma?

Malcolm wrote:
In detail, he also studied tenet systems, and if you do not study these, you won't really know what he is referring to in the passage above.

dzogchungpa said:
So much studying! What's an obtuse guy to do?

Malcolm wrote:
It will make you less obtuse, that is the purpose of study. There are three prajñās, study/listening is the first.

Otherwise, there is a spot reserved for you in this hell:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Did Kongtrul study the Abhidharma?

Malcolm wrote:
In detail, he also studied tenet systems, and if you do not study these, you won't really know what he is referring to in the passage above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Sherlock said:
How to study Abhidharma?

I understand generally the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas, and how e.g. each one of the 5,18,12 can be divided into different categories, but do I need to remember like all the different factors of each one?

Malcolm wrote:
By studying Abhidharma you will understand:

1. Skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas
2. Mental factors and general causality
3. Dependent origination and Buddhist cosmology
4. Karmic causality
5. Affliction
6. Hinayāna paths and stages
7. The knowledges
8. The concentrations
9. Refutation of the person

If you do not study Abhidharma, it is very hard to understand these things accurately. You should understand it as a detailed commentary on the four truths of nobles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Serially connected" = connected in a series.

A "given series" means an instance of a series.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, now it all makes sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Study Abhidharma, then it will all make sense. Until then, I doubt it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:


Berry said:
I'm glad its not just me that finds the often repeated candle example really puzzling!

Malcolm wrote:
There are eight examples of causes and results being neither the same nor different, for the purpose of educating the obtuse.

Berry said:
"Educatiing the obtuse?"... could you be implying that I'm stupid, by any chance ?

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna understood that there would be people who would be slow to understand the principle that causes and their effects are neither the same nor different, and thus he provided eight examples for their benefit. Just as he provided eight examples of illusion so that people could understand the nature of relative truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In any case, consciousness exists in a series of single moments, so unlike a candle flame, it does not give rise to more than one subsequent moment of consciousness in a given series. As Nāgārjuna points out, the aggregates are serially connected.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess I'm pretty obtuse. What do you mean by "a given series" and "serially connected"?

Malcolm wrote:
"Serially connected" = connected in a series.

A "given series" means an instance of a series.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Convention" means words and meanings, being able to understand what relatively true as opposed to false.

srivijaya said:
So he's definitely in favour of an intellectual grounding in the two truths, in order to experience that which is beyond discursive intellect. How does that work in Dzogchen? One hears a lot about direct introduction.

Malcolm wrote:
Go to a Dzogchen master and find out. That is the only way it works.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Bardo and rebirth
Content:
umbra said:
Sorry, is Mahayana not Tibetan Buddhism? Which forum are you referring?

Redfaery said:
........the one specifically labeled "Tibetan Buddhism?" What you're looking for isn't even Mahayana at all. It's Vajrayana.


Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna is a subset of Mahāyāna, called uncommon Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:


Berry said:
I'm glad its not just me that finds the often repeated candle example really puzzling!

Malcolm wrote:
There are eight examples of causes and results being neither the same nor different, for the purpose of educating the obtuse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I don't see why one can't say they are different, and furthermore I don't know what you mean by saying they exist in a continuum. I have never understood why Buddhists like this candle example. The flame of a candle can be used to light any number of other candles, and does not need to become extinguished in the process, so this does not explain the thing that is actually mysterious, at least to me.

Malcolm wrote:
The example comes from Nāgārjuna's Verses on Depdendent Origination:
Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals,
fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes.
His Commentary on the Verses of Dependent Origination states:
Likewise, just as a butter lamp is produced from a butter lamp; the reflection of a mirror produced from a likeness; a seal impression from a seal; fire from a fire crystal; a sprout from a seed, saliva caused by sour fruit and an echo from a sound. Also those can easily be understood to be neither the same nor different.
In any case, consciousness exists in a series of single moments, so unlike a candle flame, it does not give rise to more than one subsequent moment of consciousness in a given series. As Nāgārjuna points out, the aggregates are serially connected. He says:
Those [aggregates], called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Punya said:
But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.
In what way is it useful?

Malcolm wrote:
it is useful for eating, drinking, having conversations, procreation etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The genera rule, as stated by Nāgārjuna is:
Without relying on convention
the ultimate will not be comprehended;
if the ultimate is not comprehended,
nirvana will not be obtained.

srivijaya said:
How would he define convention? Is it a scholarly grounding in the tenets etc?

Malcolm wrote:
"Convention" means words and meanings, being able to understand what relatively true as opposed to false.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
PorkChop said:
don't think he was always like that though. I think this side of him came out when he taught the Shurangama Sutra (arguably his favorite), almost like a wrathful emanation.

Malcolm wrote:
I think this is because he was angered by that fact that this sūtra has been dismissed by western academics as a Chinese pseudographia.

He also did not like Tibetan Buddhism very much and thought is was pretty corrupt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Sakya Trizin - Chakrasamvara Body Mandala - Boston 4/201
Content:
alexprice said:
It has just been announced that the following will take place after the Body Mandala empowerment on Sunday April 13th

Malcolm wrote:
That should read Sunday, April 12th.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
seeker242 said:
That's just him telling you what the sutra says.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no Indian sūtra of confirmed provenance that makes similar claims about garlic attracting ghosts (rather the opposite is the fact) or rebirth in hell. This therefore can be understood as a Chinese cultural idea in a sūtra without an Indian origin.

While indeed the Lankāvatāra tells us to avoid garlic and so on, there is no mention of spirits and so no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 19th, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
I would like to ask contributors for their opinion on the following question:

How crucial is it to establish a correct ontology of the two truths within Mahayana Buddhism. Is it a prerequisite for spiritual advancement and enlightenment - and if so, why?

I’m deliberately not being specific as to the exact definition of any those terms, as they may vary from person to person,
as I'm more interested in the general rule.


Malcolm wrote:
The genera rule, as stated by Nāgārjuna is:
Without relying on convention
the ultimate will not be comprehended;
if the ultimate is not comprehended,
nirvana will not be obtained.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Kaccāni said:
I have an understanding of that. I simply refuse the soul-like notion that has apparently been introduced in this thread. \


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.

There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.

But no soul-concept has been introduced in this thread, not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as "me" and "mine" is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.

It is important to understand that this "I" generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Bardo and rebirth
Content:


silver surfer said:
I'm fully open minded, fully.

Malcolm wrote:
You say you are open minded, then claim:
Dreams, they happen in the brain.
You don't sound very open minded to me, you sound like you accept the current physicalist account of consciousness as being an epiphenomena of the brain, and have read this idea into the sūtra citation you mention above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Kaccāni said:
So this is a sermon that is obviously directed at an audience that still believes in a concept of soul, attempting to illustrate to them the principle of emergence, arguably for the purpose of getting beyond the "beginning" that initiates craving.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not a sūtra directed at monks who still believe in a soul or an atman. This is a sūtra directed at monks who understand that there is no person to be found in the five aggregates.

The Buddha defined the four types of awakened person by virtue of the number of lifetimes it would take before they entered nirvana, for example, it would take a stream entrant to attain nirvana (seven), arhats achieve nirvana in this lifetime.

Stream entrants by definition are free from the fetter of believing in a self or an atman.

You really need to study harder.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Cyclic Existence vs Total Liberation
Content:
tomschwarz said:
...my answer was "yes" and if follows the question from dear garudha:
After liberation, is it possible to return to cyclical existence ?
is that not true that my answer follows and addresses the question on a gross level?

Malcolm wrote:
Your answer does not follow since if there was a return to samsara after liberation the path to liberation would be pointless. Of course you have citation or reason to support your mistaken answer.

I will not be replying further in this thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Redfaery said:
[

I'd like to ask you, Malcom, were individuals who had used the "incorrect orifice" in lay life prohibited from ordaining, or did the rule only apply to monks? Because if it was the latter, it frankly seems much more like a "no sex, PERIOD" rule.

Malcolm wrote:
The rule only applies to lay people. Sexual misconduct for an ordained person is any sexual activity at all that involves penetration or being penetrated.

People are not prohibited from ordaining unless they are intersexed, voyeurs or they are men who like to swallow semen. In the case of the latter, since the male and female ordained sanghas were segregated, one can understand that men with active sexual interests in other men in a celibate male community is problematic. However, while there certainly is sexism in Buddhism historically, there is almost no discussion of the issue of same sex attraction at all, apart from how it impinges on male ordinands.

Redfaery said:
I'd also like to point out that if there was a bar against gay men, historically that would make sense (sadly) due to much higher levels of homophobia.

Malcolm wrote:
The concept of "homosexual", "gay" and "lesbian" does not exist in Tibetan culture. They did even have a word for it, until modern times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
jmlee369 said:
As for the Tibetan traditions, owing to Vasubandhu's influence, homosexual acts are likewise considered misconduct by various Tibetan commentators.

Malcolm wrote:
No, In Vasubandhu, using an incorrect orifices is considered misconduct (anus, mouth), whether the orifice belongs to a man or a women is never made an issue. Tibetans follow suit.

jmlee369 said:
I find it slightly disingenuous to claim that there is no scriptural support originating from India for such a position.

Malcolm wrote:
There isn't such support. What you have produced are criticisms of wrong orifice and wrong partner. My observation above stands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Cyclic Existence vs Total Liberation
Content:
tomschwarz said:
the answer is yes. time has no beginning.  so if the path to liberation is 1) possible 2) a realm of no return,  then statisticaly speaking all beings would already abide in that realm ))) like a fish trap.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not follow on any level, neither is it in accordance with citation, nor does it conform to reason.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 18th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not have a problem with it. Maybe there is some sūtra composed in China which says such a thing, but there are no such sūtras in the Tibetan canon.

There are certain restrictions in Vinaya on paṇḍakas that I know of such as: people who can only be aroused through voyeurism (and these are not even necessarily "gay" people), intersexed people and men who enjoy swallowing semen are barred from becoming ordained. Otherwise, the Buddhist sūtras and tantras really do not have much to say about paṇḍakas.

In Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine one's gender preference is biologically determined by various factors during conception and pregnancy, for the most part.

yan kong said:
My point I think was that this thread need not descend into a debate on the master's controversial views on the matter as most threads about him have the subject at least brought up.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no debate, he was wrong, and that is the end of the story.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Oh em gee, is that Ayu?

Malcolm wrote:
That is all of us...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Cyclic Existence vs Total Liberation
Content:
garudha said:
After liberation; is it possible to return to cyclical existence ?

Malcolm wrote:
No. If so, it would not be liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Ayu said:
... 13 years when I was kind of Hindu. ...

Malcolm wrote:
It was just a phase...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Simon E. said:
Hsuan Hua also assured his followers that same sex practices lead to hell states.

BrianG said:
How would he know?

yan kong said:
I would just like to put out there that there is already a lengthy debate thread on Master Hua's views on homosexuality which I'm sure can easily be found via the handy search box.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not have a problem with it. Maybe there is some sūtra composed in China which says such a thing, but there are no such sūtras in the Tibetan canon.

There are certain restrictions in Vinaya on paṇḍakas that I know of such as: people who can only be aroused through voyeurism (and these are not even necessarily "gay" people), intersexed people and men who enjoy swallowing semen are barred from becoming ordained. Otherwise, the Buddhist sūtras and tantras really do not have much to say about paṇḍakas.

In Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine one's gender preference is biologically determined by various factors during conception and pregnancy, for the most part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: The Almighty Holly Father Padmasambava
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Heh, Bodhisattvas never abandon sentient beings..unless of course, they stink..in which case, all bets are off.

I know I have seen initiations where you are not supposed to consume these a certain amount of time before hand, some that specify "no meat garilc onion" etc..I always assumed it was a winds and channels thing in the Vajrayana perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
These initiations are grounded in lower tantra where conduct which resembles that of brahmins is important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Kaccāni said:
I see no need to introduce a concept of multiple lives beyond that which can be experienced.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha found it important, indeed his realization was predicated on it.

Kaccāni said:
Can you please give me a couple of sources that illustrate this importance?

Best wishes
Kc
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:


TheSynergist said:
However, the idea that these "5 pungent plants" can result in bad rebirths and ghost attacks is quite a development.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, garlic is a main ingredient in herbal formulas for repelling attacks by bhūtas, nāgas and so on.

But generally, one is to avoid eating it and onions because they grew from the drops of blood of Rahu mixed with amrita which fell to the earth when Rahu was decapitated. But because Rahu's blood was mixed with amrita, these plants are also medicinal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
TheSynergist said:
Let me just say that I very much appreciated the discussion about Nāgārjuna. I myself wasn't sure if Nāgārjuna authored all the authored all the texts that are attributed to him and now I now I'm not alone in my skepticism.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a core body of texts called the collection of reasonings, another collection called the four praises, and then the Ratnavali and the Suhrllekha, which all generally accept are composed by Nāgārjuna I.

Then there are the texts authored by the siddhi Nāgārjuna who likely lived in the early 8th century, the disciple of Saraha senior.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
TheSynergist said:
I recently stumbled across Master Hsuan's commentary on the Shurangama Sutra, which contained this gem:

1) Do you think it's a good idea to abstain from the five pungent plants?

Malcolm wrote:
In the Lankāvatāra is recommended that one desist from eating garlic, and also in the lower tantras. Also Mulasarvastivadin bhikṣus and bhikṣunīs were supposed to avoid eating it, apart from as medicine for various complaints.

It probably has to do with the prohibition of garlic among Brahmans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Bardo and rebirth
Content:
umbra said:
I have read that there are practices one can do while alive, and techniques to employ in the Bardo-state, that gives the ability to choose the next incarnation, but no details ever seem to be given. What are the specific techniques and practices that gives one control to pick the next rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
No details are ever given because these are Vajrayāna practices which require empowerments and authorization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
Unfortunately just putting your foot down and saying "If you dont believe, you arent practicing Dharma!" is going to turn lots of people off from Dharma. This is exactly what religious institutions do and its what is driving westerners out of religions by the millions.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to follow your own ideas, that is fine. I prefer to follow the advice of Mañjuśrī:
If you have attachment to this life, you are not a Dharma practitioner.
And will continue to recommend that other people understand and follow this advice.

Loren said:
I agree with you but not everyone is Sachen Kunga Nyingpo and an emanation of Manjushri.  We do have to start off with where we are with our own understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and for that, Atisha's three kinds of persons is a useful place to start.

In order to understand how to become a Dharma practitioner, we need to understand how it is that we are not, and then correct those deficiencies. We should not congratulate ourselves on being Dharma practitioners merely because we have taken an interest in Dharma and gone to visit some Lamas, and maybe even do a little meditation or mantra. If our goal is this life's happiness, we are not practicing Dharma no matter who we are or what high teachings we have taken. Ironically, this is true even if we accept rebirth, have received Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


yan kong said:
Forgive my gross ignorance, but is this the idea of an enduring, unchanging ego of some kind in Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
When tathagātagarbha is not correctly understood, then it becomes an incorrect view of self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
Unfortunately just putting your foot down and saying "If you dont believe, you arent practicing Dharma!" is going to turn lots of people off from Dharma. This is exactly what religious institutions do and its what is driving westerners out of religions by the millions.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to follow your own ideas, that is fine. I prefer to follow the advice of Mañjuśrī:
If you have attachment to this life, you are not a Dharma practitioner.
And will continue to recommend that other people understand and follow this advice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We have a body of work, recognized by everyone, east and west, as being Nāgārjuna's authentic work. There are other texts which are under dispute and have been for centuries. Irrespective of the merits of Dharmadhātustava on its own, we really cannot accept it as representative of Nāgārjuna I's oeuvre or of his thought even if generations of Indians and Tibetans have accepted it as such.

dzogchungpa said:
These sweaters are just so unravelly, aren't they?

Bakmoon said:
Yes, but the point of a sweater is to wear it, not to pull it apart on purpose.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I already mentioned this, to no avail apparently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Loren said:
I don't know.  Even a practitioner of lowest capacity can practice the Dharma.  (Although I think Queen Maya (don't know if she was middling, or highest) was, like Rahula, very lucky.)  She was able to practice the Dharma in the god realm because of The Exalted One.

Malcolm wrote:
If someone's aim is the happiness and so on in this life, they are not even a practitioner of the lowest capacity since they are not following nor practicing the Dharma, even if they go for refuge to the Three Jewels. Their refuge is like trying to hire the Three Jewels as body guards.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Kaccāni said:
I see no need to introduce a concept of multiple lives beyond that which can be experienced.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha found it important, indeed his realization was predicated on it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the context of sutrayāna, which is under discussion here, one's intellectual view must be in accordance with one's in meditation.

In Vajrayāna, the view is experientially introduced, and having a correct intellectual view is less important. In that post I was speaking from the perspective of Vajrayāna. In this post, I am speaking from the perspective of sūtra.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, now it all makes sense.


Malcolm wrote:
Sūtra is based on analysis, whereas Vajrayāna is based on empowerment, that is where the differences lay.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
"If one is attached to this life, one is not a Dharma practitioner."

If your goal is to simply end suffering in this lifetime, you are not a Dharma practitioner.

Jesse said:
You really shouldn't make such comments so haphazardly.

Malcolm wrote:
It was a very deliberate comment, not haphazard at all.

If you are only interested in ending suffering in this life, this means you are only interested in happiness in this life. If this is the case, whatever else you may be, you are not a Dharma practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We have a body of work, recognized by everyone, east and west, as being Nāgārjuna's authentic work. There are other texts which are under dispute and have been for centuries. Irrespective of the merits of Dharmadhātustava on its own, we really cannot accept it as representative of Nāgārjuna I's oeuvre or of his thought even if generations of Indians and Tibetans have accepted it as such.

dzogchungpa said:
These sweaters are just so unravelly, aren't they?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is why we have darning needles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Sherlock said:
But the whole path of Buddhadharma depends on reincarnation being the problem to solve.

Anders said:
That is not strictly true. The problem to solve is suffering.

The end of rebirth is central to this because of the implications that to take birth again will inevitably keep lead to suffering, going on indefinitely.

But the end of rebirth is not the central issue per se. And suffering in this life is as relevant as the next.

Sherlock said:
If you don't believe it you are not really taking refuge in the Buddha.

Anders said:
According to whom? If this in IYHO, you should say so.


Malcolm wrote:
"If one is attached to this life, one is not a Dharma practitioner."

If your goal is to simply end suffering in this lifetime, you are not a Dharma practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Letters from self recognized tulkus
Content:
tlee said:
Reason, I do like your gradual way of breaking the news to them and will ask around for a psychiatrist who's willing to take the time.

Malcolm wrote:
A psychologist, unless they are in fact a buddhist, will not have the proper background to deal with thus delusion. Plus, this is not Tibet or India where the soft approach will have much impact. I have seen a number of self-proclaimed tulkus lead their followers down pretty sordid roads. So, speaking as a westerner who has been in the Dharma for half of my life, and most of my adult life, it is better to nip this in the bud with a direct and decisive approach. Even, then, it relatively easy to get some Tibetan to sajy you are a tulku if you happen to display an aptitude for Dharma, and a bit of cash.

For example, i have no memory of any past lives. But I can infer that I was some knd of practitioner in my past life due to the ease with which I met the Dharma and gurus in this life. But I am not a tulku, nor would I permit anyone to give me such a recognition for a couple of reasons.

i have met a number of very sad individuals who have been very damaged by this fantasy, and others who used this fantasy to defraud others, and yet others who in my opinion use this idea that they are a tulku or emanation to expand their influence with the naive.

This is not Tibet or India, where there is a proper structure for educating and training reincarnated lamas, as well as a cultural precedent for it. Every western Tibetan Buddhist has a past life connection with Tibet, so it is better to emphasize this, but discourage the idea that someone us a tulku. As you know, to be a real tulku you should be recognized when quite young.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, there is a way of understanding tathāgatagarbha that does not conflict with the main body of Buddhist thinking, and there is a way of understanding it that causes one to have wrong view.

dzogchungpa said:
Like, say, https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&p=101573#p101573: What does it matter if you believe in tathāgatagarbha which is described in so many tathāgatagarbha texts as a self (though, perish the thought, not the SAME self as advocated by the Hindus -- actually, if someone is reallty, really honest with themselvs , they will admit it is impossible to differentiate the sat cit ananda of the Hindus from the atman, sukha, nitya, śuddha of the uttaratantra)?
?

Malcolm wrote:
In the context of sutrayāna, which is under discussion here, one's intellectual view must be in accordance with one's in meditation.

In Vajrayāna, the view is experientially introduced, and having a correct intellectual view is less important. In that post I was speaking from the perspective of Vajrayāna. In this post, I am speaking from the perspective of sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Sherlock said:
You said he was second Buddha earlier

confused


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I did. Refer to Domsum about poetic license.

"...even common Geshess are referred to as Buddhas,
what is permissible for poets
is not acceptable to schoalrs..."

or something like that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
We have a body of work, recognized by everyone, east and west, as being Nāgārjuna's authentic work. There are other texts which are under dispute and have been for centuries. Irrespective of the merits of Dharmadhātustava on its own, we really cannot accept it as representative of Nāgārjuna I's oeuvre or of his thought even if generations of Indians and Tibetans have accepted it as such. It does not necessarily mean it conflicts with Nāgārjuna's thought, but when this text is interpreted in such a way that to clearly does conflict with Nāgārjuna's thought, one cannot say, "This is how I am reading the Dharmadhātustava, and therefore this is what Nāgārjuna also maintained."

For example, there is a way of understanding tathāgatagarbha that does not conflict with the main body of Buddhist thinking, and there is a way of understanding it that causes one to have wrong view.
As I said, I find it difficult to believe the Dharmadhatustava is by the same Nagarjuna. And no, it is not the type of scripture that authenticates itself. If it does not come from an enlightened mind it is not "Dharma". My point being that if someone like Karmapa III sees it as Dharma, then based on his credibility that is good enough for me to accept it regardless of the authorship issue. It's like having a co-signer. At that point it could be traditionally credited to Bozo the Clown for all I care.

Malcolm wrote:
There is all kind of valid Dharma that does not come from people who are quote unquote "enlightened". Even Nāgārjuna was only a first stage bodhisattva.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Western Tulku and adequate training.
Content:
kirtu said:
However ultimately Wyatt (and every other western "tulku") have to find the energy and direction from their own inner resources.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, just like normal people, since that is what they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
The original reason I brought this up was to make the point that it really doesn't matter one way or another. The somewhat muddled history hasn't limited anybody's practice in the last 1,000 years! That being the case, what possible difference does it make?

Malcolm wrote:
It matters when someone makes a claim asserting that it represents Nāgārjuna's thought, since he is the second Buddha.

smcj said:
Nagarjuna's "Reasonings" stand on their own merit. It is a case where the work validates itself, just like Shakespeare's plays are not dependent on who wrote them. His "Praises" are another issue.

Other types of teachings are more dependent on being validated by the source. However if (as is the premise of my position) later generations of yogis that have realization confirm the value of the scripture then you can say it receives authentication that way, much like Shakyamuni giving his stamp of approval on something that Ananada said. Therefore the historicity of the source need not be the only source of validation. The validation can be confirmed by a modern master--but only by a master, not an academic.

Malcolm wrote:
We have a body of work, recognized by everyone, east and west, as being Nāgārjuna's authentic work. There are other texts which are under dispute and have been for centuries. Irrespective of the merits of Dharmadhātustava on its own, we really cannot accept it as representative of Nāgārjuna I's oeuvre or of his thought even if generations of Indians and Tibetans have accepted it as such. It does not necessarily mean it conflicts with Nāgārjuna's thought, but when this text is interpreted in such a way that to clearly does conflict with Nāgārjuna's thought, one cannot say, "This is how I am reading the Dharmadhātustava, and therefore this is what Nāgārjuna also maintained."

For example, there is a way of understanding tathāgatagarbha that does not conflict with the main body of Buddhist thinking, and there is a way of understanding it that causes one to have wrong view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
The original reason I brought this up was to make the point that it really doesn't matter one way or another. The somewhat muddled history hasn't limited anybody's practice in the last 1,000 years! That being the case, what possible difference does it make?

Malcolm wrote:
It matters when someone makes a claim asserting that it represents Nāgārjuna's thought, since he is the second Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Western Tulku and adequate training.
Content:
kirtu said:
I remember the biography of Dezhung Rinooiche saying the younger Khons in the US not being very interested in the Dharma, which is sad.
Remember that HE Dezhung Rinpoche died in 1987.  That observation applied to what is now the middle generation in the US and is no longer valid.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed , Kirt, there are a number of Phuntsog Phodrang Dungseys presently being trained in India. This is actually one of the main reasons HHST and HHJS agreed on the rotational system of Trizins, so all their training would not be wasted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Letters from self recognized tulkus
Content:


ReasonAndRhyme said:
What I never did was directly confront people in the style Malcolm suggested.

Malcolm wrote:
People ask me sometimes, or proffer their idea, and I have two answers:

"I am not an awakened person, so don't ask me", followed quickly by, "You probably are not a tulku, and even if you are, you probably should abandon the idea and be happy you are just a normal, regular person who is no one special."

I have met people who were convinced they were tulkus and one hundred percent miserable that no one had recognized them as such. I have met plenty of so called western tulkus recognized by this or that Tibetan and not one was something special.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Letters from self recognized tulkus
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
What if some of the children really are tulkus?

Malcolm wrote:
Then their qualities will manifest without or without recognition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 16th, 2015 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Letters from self recognized tulkus
Content:
tlee said:
I decided when I joined this forum that I wouldn't identify myself so that I could speak my mind.

If you're thinking I'm some famous person you're mistaken. Many of the letters I receive have my name misspelled; which goes to show just how important I am lol.

Someone suggested in PM to refer them to someone else, and give them the run around until they give up. Immediately people who cannot be reached, but have an address to mail to, came to mind. What do you think?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you are a famous person, that is not the point, the point is why would people bother sending you such letters?

In general, my opinion is that you just be direct with them and encourage them to give up this delusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So, when I said there is no common ground, this is perhaps a bit of an overstatement, but what I really mean is that Śāntarakṣita is not basing himself on the treatises of the Yogacara masters.

Tom said:
This is still a huge assumption. It is likely that many of the ideas/arguments of Vasubhandu can be traced through to Śāntarakṣita and Kamaliśīla. Research on this to be published in the not too distant future.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but I am not seeing it. For example, in the Madhyamakālaṃkāravṛtti, there are exactly nine reference to paratantra, for example. Kind of surprising for such a lengthy commentary on an ostensibly Yogacara System, but there are a number of important passages from the Lanka and so on.

So I will wait and see this research.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Letters from self recognized tulkus
Content:
tlee said:
Because of my affiliations I get quite a few letters from around the USA from people who want to be recognized as the reincarnation of this lama or that.
I used to send replies explaining that neither I, nor someone I know, is qualified to recognize this or that lama's reincarnation, the second coming of Jesus, or whatever. The responses tended to lead to more letters and people showing up at the temple to prove they had miraculous powers so I stopped replying. Every month I usually have a few of these letters to shred, or more often emails to delete, to protect the privacy of people I recognize probably have a mental illness.
This isn't entirely unique to the Western world. In Asia it tends to be parents bringing in toddlers and explaining elephant dreams.

I'd like some outside perspective on this phenomenon as I have been receiving more than one letter a day for the past 2 weeks from a "reincarnation" of protector deity we practice here and their following of 2 or 3 students. They must have spent $40 on postage alone and they just seem to want validation, but I can't give them that.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, who are you to be receiving such letters?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Nyingma Khenpo in S.F. area 3/21/15-3/22/15
Content:
smcj said:
Sat: Dependent Arising, Emptiness & Modern Life
Sun a.m.: Samadhi & Dzogchen
Sun p.m.: Vajrasattva

http://www.dechenrang.com/event.html

I don't know him or what flavor of Nyingma he represents, but Khenpos are generally pretty reliable as scholars and Nyingma Khenpos are rare.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the flavor of my guru , Khenpo Jigmr Phutsog, who was truly ana amazing master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


daverupa said:
Well, as sure as one can be about history, I'm sure you meant.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure there was not a factory of pandita's churning texts branded "Nāgārjuna", just as I am equally sure there were at least two persons named Nāgārjuna who wrote texts whose identities became conflated, first by Indians, and later, by Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reinc
Content:
Matt J said:
I think this is clearly covered in the Kalamas Sutta.

The Buddha runs through the options, Pascal-wager like, and bets that his path which leads to the end of a "hate-filled" mind works in any event:
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

Emphasis added.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

Malcolm wrote:
This not a liberation teaching.

If someone wishes for liberation as taught by the Buddha, then they must understand the teaching of karma and rebirth as it is taught by the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
Your analogy is not apt — it is not like there was a Nāgārjuna factory punching out texts branded "Nāgārjuna".
You sure about that?

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I am.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
Like I said, I don't care.

I accept the Dharmadhatustava as authentic Dharma with no need to resolve the authorship question.I also don't care that Henry Ford had no part in producing the Mustang, yet I have no problem accepting the Mustang as an authentic Ford product.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara of Asanga is authentic Dharma, but I do not accept its ultimate conclusions; Abhidharma is authentic Dharma, but I do not accept is ultimate conclusions. Dharmadhātustava is an authentic Dharma text, but I certainly don't think we need to accept the claim it is a work of Nāgārjuna's and therefore consider it an authority that we need to take into account in order to take stock of Nāgājuna I's actual views on this and that.

The point is that it is not representative of the thought of Nāgārjuna I, and when it is conflated with Nāgārjuna I's works, it creates interpretive problems and headaches that simply are not necessary and obscure things.

Your analogy is not apt — it is not like there was a Nāgārjuna factory punching out texts branded "Nāgārjuna".

As a text, it is important, especially in a Vajrayāna context, but it should be treated on its own, and not as an emblem of some hidden or esoteric allegiance to the tathāgatagarbha school on the part of Nāgārjuna numero uno.

It is important to understand that Naropa thought it was a valid text of Nāgārjuna I, and to understand how that may have shaped his attitude towards things (less radically then you imagine), and so on. But clearly, despite Atisha's enthusiasm for it, he clearly understood it in light of Candrakīrti's approach to Madhyamaka. In other words, we need to understand this text, it's importance in formation of certain ideas because it was attributed to Nāgārjuna without conflating the text with Nāgārjuna's actual works.

I have really tremendous respect for KB's scholarship, but somehow, I think he has an emotional relationship with gzhan stong that causes him to err in his estimation of certain texts, even when he writes very clearly on textual issues and brings out facts that very clearly contradict and repudiate the claims that gzhan stong scholars make.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 15th, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
That is because Nāgārjuna I did not write it. The author of the Dharmadhātustava is the same Nāgārjuna who wrote the Bodhicittavivarana and the Pañcakrama.
I'm working off of Brunnholzl's book where he cites Candrakirti as having listed the "Praises" (the collection) as being authored by Nagarjuna, and Atisha specifically credits the Dharmadhatustava to him. Since you disagree, and since this is way way over my head, I'll let you contact Brunnholzl about it directly.

But like I said, I find it difficult to believe it's the same guy too. The point of my post being that I really don't care!

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Candra lists the praises, but does not detail this one. The earliest reference we have to the Dharmadhātustava being a composition of Nāgārjuna is by Dharmamitra (9th century, disciple of Haribhadra) in his Abhisamayālaṃkārakārikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstraṭīkā prasphuṭapadā-nāma. Naropa considers it to be a composition of Nāgārjuna's, as does Atisha and Jagaddalanivāsin. However, a commentary on Hevajra Tantra, likely composed in the 12th century, cites a passage from the Dharmadhātustava, saying only that "some ārya said,"...." — this indicates to me some doubt in Indian circles as to the veracity of the source.

So while of course there is a late tradition that this text was composed by Nāgārjuna dating from the ninth century (Dharmamitra), the absence of any reference to it all in earlier Madhyamaka sources, especially Candrakīrti, indicates it cannot be accepted as part of Nāgārjuna I's oeuvre. David Ruegg has also cast doubt on its composition, wondering at the fact that significant portions of it are reproduced in Atisha's Dharmadhātudarśanagīti which is included in the rgyud section of the bstan 'gyur, but I think Atisha was just riffing on it.

Given that the fact that 10th-11th century Indians like Naropoa and Atisha accepted the Mulamadhyamaka-karikas and the Pañcakrama side by side as the work of the same Nāgārjuna, I think we can understand that they did not know how to distinguish the authentic works of Nāgārjuna I from works by later authors of the same name.

Then there is the fact that the Dharmadhātustava was not translated into Tibetan until the 11th century ((like the Bodhicittavivarana and so on) by Kṛṣṇa Paṇḍita and Lotsawa Tsultrim Gyalwa, and I think we can understand this text was probably composed in early ninth century by the siddha Nāgārjuna. Also, if you examine carefully, you will find only that Candra mentions four praises as being authentic, these are the Lokakīta, Nirupamya, Acintya and Paramārthastavas. This does not mean these four are in fact compositions of Nāgārjuna, merely that they are a restricted list accepted by the middle period Madhyamikas (we can excluded the Madhyamakapradipa, because Bhavya and Bhavaviveka are different people).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 14th, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Would this simile be acceptable: 'knowing is to mind as illumination is to light'?

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, what Śāntarakṣita is attempting to point out is that mind is a knower intrinsically, that it's capacity for knowing is an innate quality. This is somewhat in distinction with the idea that it is the meeting of a sense organ with a sense object that gives rise to a consciousness of a given object.

One should contrast this with Candarkīrti and Śantideva's critiques of rang rig to fully understand the issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 14th, 2015 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:


Aemilius said:
Nagarjuna, who lived two or three centuries before Asanga and Vasubandu, is at least in one place criticizing the Yogacara view, (found that in Christian  Lindtner's Master of Wisdom, Writings of Nagarjuna ).
.

Malcolm wrote:
You are referring to the Bodhicittavivarana, this late tantric text is associated with the Guhyasamaja Tantra — I have no idea why Lindtner imagines it is by Nāgārjuna I, there is no chance that it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 14th, 2015 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
anjali said:
=
Somehow, though, the phrase "knowing inherent to consciousness" doesn't quiet explicitly capture the self-knowing dimension of that inherent knowing.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not know itself, that exactly Śāntarakṣita's point. It is just an inherent knower. If this knower knew itself, it would be susceptible to refutations leveled by Śantarakṣita against such a self-knower because it would become an object, viz this rebuttal:
Due to the characteristic of rang rig being a mere entity of clarity, if there is an object that becomes the knower while it is being known, since this will consequently harm your claim for two aspects, you also cannot make such an assertion.
In other words, rang rig is merely a term for the clarity of consciousness, just as clarity is merely a term for the rang rig of consciousness. But it is clear from all of the places where Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla deal with the problem of rang rig, they reject they idea that it is a knower that is capable of taking itself as an object — which is the classic madhyamika objection to rang rig. Thus Śāntarakṣita is redefining rang rig for his own purposes as the mere clarity of consciousness in order differentiate consciousness from insentient phenomena such as rock, chariots, and walls. This must be understood to be distinct from the svasamvedana proposed by the Pramāṇavārttika and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 14th, 2015 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
anjali said:
Hmm. Why the "[intrinsic]" in the above quotes? Is that your take on how "reflexive" should be understood? Or is it part of the actual quotations?

Malcolm wrote:
I guess you did not notice this sentence:

malcolm said:
...it is probably bad practice to define Śāntarakṣita's "rang rig", "svasamvedana" as either a "self-cognizing cognition" or a "reflexive knower", it is probably better to understand it as "intrinsic knowing", since that fits with how it is being defined above.
Taking a look at Śāntarakṣita's definition of svasamvedana, it takes the form of: The nature of X is Y.
In this case, The nature of X (intrinsic clarity) is Y (the reflexive knowing of consciousness).
X and Y aren't the same thing, in the same sense that mind and the nature of mind are not the same thing.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not talking about the nature of the mind in that sense. However, from a Madhyamaka point of view, one cannot separate a thing from its nature, for example, fire and heat are not two separate things, clarity and consciousness too are not separate things. Here, clarity, the nature of consciousness, is the knowing inherent to consciousness, which is what distinguishes consciousness from inert things like rocks, bricks and walls.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 14th, 2015 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no common ground with Yogacara and Shantarakṣita either.

Greg said:
"No common ground" seems a bit of an overstatement to me, based on the fact that Śāntarakṣita 1) famously claimed in the MA that one should "ride the chariots of the two systems" and 2) he accepts self-cognizing cognition at the level of saṁvṛiti-satya.

Malcolm wrote:
Your second statement should be examined first — which svasamvedana is Śāntarakṣita advocating?

What Śāntarakṣita says in fact about svasamvedana in the root text is only:

Because a tripartite nature cannot be accepted
in the nature of one partless [entity],
such a reflexive knower
is not an entity that has an action and and agent.


Śāntarakṣita's auto-commentary states:
"Though a reflexive [intrinsic] knower is imputed in relative truth, it cannot withstand an analysis into one or many", thus [the issue] has been settled.
He then defines an acceptable svasamvedana:
That being the case, the nature of intrinsic clarity that does not depend on another clarifier is the reflexive [intrinsic] knowing of consciousness.
Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā supports this saying:
The concise meaning is that the function of reflexive [intrinsic] knowing is only to be the opposite of inert substances such as chariots, walls and so on. It is a convention for a clarity that does not depend on anything.
And:
Due to the characteristic of reflexive [intrinsic] knowing being a mere entity of clarity, if there is an object that becomes the knower while it is being known, since this will consequently harm your claim for two aspects, you also cannot make such an assertion.
So this is quite a bit different than what most people take svasamvedana to mean. BTW, given this context, it is probably bad practice to define Śāntarakṣita's "rang rig", "svasamvedana" as either a "self-cognizing cognition" or a "reflexive knower", it is probably better to understand it as "intrinsic knowing", since that fits with how it is being defined above.

Then, Śāntarakṣita states:
One should know that external entities 
do not exist based on mind-only;
based on this approach [tshul]
one can truly understand the absence of a self.
And comments:
Based on the approach of mind-only, it is easy to understand the absence of nature [niḥsvabhāva] of I and mine, apprehending subject and apprehended object and so on, asserted as external to a concomitant mind. Since this approach is the non-existence of self-origination, that mind is also understood to be without nature. When this middle path free of all extremes is understood, the freedom from having a nature of one or many is truly understood as the absence of a nature.
In terms of the two approaches, it is true that Śāntarakṣita states:
Having mounted the chariot of the two approaches,
holding the reins of reasoning, 
in just that way therefore, they 
will obtain the Mahāyāna.
But it never clearly specified that he is combining Asanga and Nāgārjuna's system. In his auto-commentary, all that is said about this is a citation from the Lanka:
The Mahāyāna is included in two approaches. The brief explanation follows:

Five dharmas, three natures, 
eight consciousnesses, 
and two selflessness
encompass the entire Mahāyāna.
Kamalaśīla's Madhyamakālaṃkārapañjikā does however state pretty clearly that the two approaches are Madhyamaka and Yogacara. He expands on the list given in the Lanka as well.

But which Yogacara is Kamalaśīla referring to? It is pretty clear that Śāntarakṣita is not basing himself upon the Yogacara of Asanga and so on that, but rather the Yogacara of the Lanka and other related sūtras.

So, when I said there is no common ground, this is perhaps a bit of an overstatement, but what I really mean is that Śāntarakṣita is not basing himself on the treatises of the Yogacara masters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 14th, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is still not a positive affirmation, and also, Della Santina has it a little wrong. The controversy is over how to negate non-Buddhists, which Bhavaviveka started by rejecting Buddhapalita's consequential argument when the latter rejected Samkhya origination from self.

Vajrasvapna said:
I was not talking about the definition of the absolute, both groups defined ultimate truth like emptiness through logic. However, a group accepted that it is possible to express and elaborate on ultimate truth while the other denies this possibility:
"The Indian Svitantrikas who followed Bhavaviveka admittedly differed slightly with respect to what may be termed their ontological interpretations of Buddhist doctrine. Nevertheless, the mode of argument favoured by them was generally uniform.
They believed that the principles of formal logic were not irrelevant to the demonstration of the Madhyamaka philosophy to an opponent. They employed syllogisms whose members were commonly admitted to be established by valid instruments of cognition. The Prasangikas rejected this practice because they maintained that on the occasion of ascertaining the nature of the ultimate truth, neither the subject of inference nor the reason exist for the Madhyamaka. Hence, they concluded it was inconsistent for the Madhyamaka philosophy to admit independent syllogisms, when the ultimate truth was investigated." p. 92 in 'Madhyamaka Schools in India' by Peter D. Santina,

Malcolm wrote:
This still does not amount to a "positive expression of the absolute".

In order to understand the difference between Bhavavivka and Candra, you have to refer to the argument I mention above. Basically, Buddhapalita states:
Therein, some existents cannot arise from themselves because the arising of those would be purposeless and because arising would be without end. Thus, arising would not be necessary for existents existing in and of themselves.  If although [such things] exist, [they] still arise, and because there will never be non-arising, that is not desirable there. Therefor, something existent does not arise from self.
Bhavaviveka rejects this because this argument is not formed as a proper syllogism that an opponent would accept. It is a consequence, not a syllogism. He says of this that it is insufficient to turn someone away from the Samkhya view. He says:
[A]nother explains "existents cannot arise from themselves because the arising of those would be purposeless and because arising would be without end." That is not reasonable because no reason [hetu] and example is mentioned, because the faults stated by others will be not dispelled...."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:



usnisha said:
if Yogacara is originated from Sarvastivada (Asanga and Vasubandhu are from Sarvastivada ), From which school Madyamaka is originated?

Aemilius said:
From Vasubandhu in Abhidharmakosa it seems evident that Yogachara had existed long before the time of  Asanga and Vasubandhu. Because Vasubandhu often calls Yogacharins the Ancient Masters. The meaning is that Yogachara was the ancient school when compared to the Vibhasa of Sarvastivada, which was then modern and that Vasubandhu was commenting on.

It is quite certain that the Three turnings of Dharma existed originally, because the Sravakayana had to include a strained explanation for it in their Canon, (i.e. that they all refer to the four noble truths!)
I think that Yogacara and Madhyamaka both originated from the Buddha himself.

Asanga was not a Sarvastivadin, some scholars think that he may have been a Mahishasaka in his youth. Vasubanhu converted to Mahayana due to the influence of Asanga.

usnisha said:
I am quite confused now,  Asanga the one who popularize yogacara isn't it ? how is he related to Mahisasaka?

if it is originated from Buddha himself, there should be a trace either from Mahasanghika or Staviras, or maybe from  Licchavi Vimalakirti ( Vimalakirti is not a bhiksu, but a Highly realized being) or other Boddhisattvas that manifest in human being during the Buddha's lifetime.

and more Interesting  if yogacara is originated from ancient time, is it related to Master Patanjali a non-Buddhist and   theosophy follower? Patanjali is the one who popularize yoga (= name is similiar ), and from my understanding, yoga is a kind of philosophy in  india.

Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I see a lot of influence from Samkhya in Yogacara theory.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
'Mahayana' is not a school of Buddhism - there are many different 'schools' within Mahayana. Theravada (= Way of the Elders) is much more like a single school. The history and ancestory of the Buddhist lineages is a very complex topic which is made very difficult by the fact that many of the early schools left very few traces of their existence.

There is information on the question, but it takes research and reading to get to it. In terms of popular books which give an outline, I would recommend Buddhism: Its Essence and Development by Conze which is a standard text.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna schools in India are Madhyamaka and Yogacara, and arguable, Tathagatagarbha.

usnisha said:
if Yogacara is originated from Sarvastivada (Asanga and Vasubandhu are from Sarvastivada ), From which school Madyamaka is originated?

Malcolm wrote:
It has been argued that Nāgārjuna was a Sammitya, and this also makes some sense since the only version of karma that Nāgārjuna admits to liking is the theory of karma is that school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
I was talking about the Independent Syllogism: "It is after all our fundamental contention that the essential difference between the Prasatigika and Svatantrika schools lies in their acceptance or non-acceptance of the independent syllogism on the occasion of establishing the ultimate truth. It is, therefore, not our purpose to investigate in detail the ontological considerations which were entered into by Svatantrika philosophers inasmuch as they belonged to the Yogacara or Sautrantika schools. It is our aim in this study to concentrate upon the difference between the Prasatigika and Svatantrika schools with respect to the mode of argument which they adopted in order to explicate the Madhyamaka philosophy." p 75 in 'Madhyamaka Schools in India' by Peter D. Santina.

Malcolm wrote:
That is still not a positive affirmation, and also, Della Santina has it a little wrong. The controversy is over how to negate non-Buddhists, which Bhavaviveka started by rejecting Buddhapalita's consequential argument when the latter rejected Samkhya origination from self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:


Vajrasvapna said:
The idea that Shantarakshita separates the two truths is not really correct, because even on the relative level he claimed that everything is not truly existent. The difference, in fact, is that he used positive affirmations to express the absolute...

Malcolm wrote:
He asserts that while some say that the ultimate is non-origination, he prefers to describe it as inexpressible. But this is not a "positive affirmation to express the absolute."

This is all Śāntarakṣita says about the ultimate:
Therefore, the Tathāgatas have said
all phenomena have not arisen
because it corresponds with ultimate truth —
this is called "the ultimate truth."
Due to the absence of arising and so on, 
nonarising and so on are impossible. 
Due the negation of that [nonarising], 
words for it are not possible.
He states quite clearly and plainly that nonarising was is taught by the Buddhas because it corresponds with ultimate truth. He then further examines nonarising and establishes it too is impossible in absence of something which arose, and that impossibility is inexpressible, there are no words for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no common ground with Yogacara and Shantarakṣita either.

PorkChop said:
Because in the ultimate sense he was a Madhyamika?
The idea of using Yogacara to explain the conventional and Madhyamaka for the ultimate does have a sort of elegance.

Malcolm wrote:
Śāntarakṣita makes absolutely no use of the key Yogacara concepts, the imagined nature, the dependent nature and the perfected nature, or for that matter, ālayavijñān̄. The term "Yogacara" Madhyamaka, a misnomer, is a Tibetan appellation, it is not an Indian one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
Off topic; but there are many who assert there were indeed two separate Nāgārjunas: (i) the Siddha Nāgārjuna and (ii) Ācārya Nāgārjuna.

Though their sentiments and expositions are not antithetical at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Have you read it? It reads like a text by Asanga.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not really read like a Yogacara text at all either, it reads like a Vajrayāna text, which is in fact what it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 13th, 2015 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
Let me use a personal example: I find it very very difficult to believe that Nagarjuna wrote "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" (Skt: Dharmadhatustava ).

Malcolm wrote:
That is because Nāgārjuna I did not write it. The author of the Dharmadhātustava is the same Nāgārjuna who wrote the Bodhicittavivarana and the Pañcakrama.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: How does 18 early Buddhism School Related to Mahayana?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
'Mahayana' is not a school of Buddhism - there are many different 'schools' within Mahayana. Theravada (= Way of the Elders) is much more like a single school. The history and ancestory of the Buddhist lineages is a very complex topic which is made very difficult by the fact that many of the early schools left very few traces of their existence.

There is information on the question, but it takes research and reading to get to it. In terms of popular books which give an outline, I would recommend Buddhism: Its Essence and Development by Conze which is a standard text.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna schools in India are Madhyamaka and Yogacara, and arguable, Tathagatagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
PorkChop said:
Malcolm,
Sorry to butt in, but does that quote lend credence to the idea that there's a common ground between Yogacara masters like Asanga & Vasubandhu and Indian Madhyamikas, prior to Śāntarakṣita?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all.

PorkChop said:
Oh well. Guess I'll just stick with Śāntarakṣita then. Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no common ground with Yogacara and Shantarakṣita either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
PorkChop said:
Malcolm,
Sorry to butt in, but does that quote lend credence to the idea that there's a common ground between Yogacara masters like Asanga & Vasubandhu and Indian Madhyamikas, prior to Śāntarakṣita?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


TheSynergist said:
Seriously? It's hard to think of people more obsessed with worshiping the Buddha than Mahayanists. This is a point I allude to in my recent post, where I talked about how later scriptures play up the Buddha's (yes, the flesh and blood Buddha's) God-like qualities.

Also, bear in mind that the traditional Mahayana account posits that the historical Buddha did in fact teach the Mahayana Sutras, a point Malcolm likes to emphasize.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahayānists don't worship the Buddha, we respect the Buddha, we are devoted to the Buddha. The Buddha of the Mahāyāna does not have "god-like" qualities anymore than the Buddha of the Hinayāna. He has the same powers, fearlessnesses, and so on. If there is a distinction to be made, it is in the understanding of what a Buddha's omniscience covers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Unknown said:
(V)irtually all early Indian Yogacara masters (such as Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, and Asvabhava), if they refer to the term tathagatagarbha at all, always explain it as nothing but suchness in the sense of twofold identitylessness. Thus, all Indian Madhyamikas (except for Nagarjuna in his Dharmadhatustava) and virtually all classical Yogacara masters up to the tenth century were not willing to openly embrace the tathagatagarbha teachings as anything other than emptiness...

Malcolm wrote:
When the Clouds Part, Brunnholzl.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


TheSynergist said:
Just to elaborate on this point, while we might think that uncritically accepting tradition is preserving history, it's not.
Further elaborating, in reference to the Sujato post: later narratives emphasize the "awesomeness" of the Bodhisattva/Buddha (e.g., they are perfect embodiments of pure compassion, they spend aeons and aeons of lifetimes preparing for Buddhahood, they don't suffer, they received a promise of Buddhahood under a previous Buddha, they are unambiguously omniscient, etc.). The earliest narratives, by contrast, emphasize their humanity and ordinariness (e.g., Gautama had to be encouraged to teach by a Brahma, he had to be badgered by his friend into seeing the last Buddha into a past life, he admitted to be unenlightened in past lives, he didn't describe himself as a bodhisattva in past lives, the extent of his "all-knowingness" is vague/limited, etc.). Sometimes we just conveniently ignore the early narratives (even Theravadins do this). When we do try to harmonize the narratives, by saying that the later ones are just developments of the early ones, it seems pretty clear that we're prioritizing the later ones --- we're interpreting the early ones in light of the later ones, and hence we have all these explanation like the Buddha's apparent suffering, hesitation and imperfections were only part of a show to teach ppl (e.g., the Lalitavistara Sūtra's idea that the Buddha's life was a play). Well, ok, we can do that, but can we really say we are serious about preserving the history in the early sources? Not really.

Malcolm wrote:
The Mahāyāna narratives are simply different than the Hinayāna narratives, and that is really all there is to it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 10th, 2015 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Don't 'get infected by' Buddhism
Content:
Simon E. said:
To whom ?
I knew already that Evangelical Christians are convinced that Buddhists are damned. I would have thought that was common knowledge. Why give that view the oxygen of exposure ?

Malcolm wrote:
Oxygen rusts things...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 10th, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Sakya Trizin - Chakrasamvara Body Mandala - Boston 4/201
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Khenpo Migmar on HH Sakya Trizin's upcoming visit to Boston:

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 10th, 2015 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


rory said:
Your logic is faulty; if x didn't exist there naturally is nothing  vs. epigraphy, accounts, pottery, etc that  x existed.


Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that the Hittites mention an Akagamunaš in the 14th century BCE, who is the ruler of Achaeans?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 9th, 2015 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Soul Retrieval course pt 2: The Five Natural Elements
Content:
M.G. said:
I'm not familiar with Bon teachings in this area. Hope this isn't a naive question, but what is meant here by "soul?"


Malcolm wrote:
Life force, mainly.

Motova said:
What's the difference between Bon's force and Star Wars' force?


Malcolm wrote:
One's from an ancient culture, the other from a science fiction movie? Plus, there is not "dark side of the bla".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 9th, 2015 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Soul Retrieval course pt 2: The Five Natural Elements
Content:
M.G. said:
I'm not familiar with Bon teachings in this area. Hope this isn't a naive question, but what is meant here by "soul?"


Malcolm wrote:
Life force, mainly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 7th, 2015 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since you are Irish, and a fan of mythology, does it not strike you as interesting that the myth of the founding of the five counties in Ireland has an exact parallel in the  Mahābharata, down to the name of the queen?

dzogchungpa said:
Is this what you are talking about?
https://www.amazon.com/Destiny-King-Midway-Reprint-Series/dp/0226169766 The Destiny of a King examines one of the "little" epics within the Mahabharata—the legend of King Yayati, a distant ancestor of the Pandavas, the heroes of the larger epic. Dumézil compares Yayati's attributes and actions with those of the legendary Celtic king Eochaid Feidlech and also finds striking similarities in the stories surrounding the daughters of these two kings, the Indian Madhavi and the Celtic Medb.
That definitely strikes me as interesting. Is there an explanation?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Georges Dumezil has the most convincing explanation of these issues, his comparative mythology is based on linguistic diffusion and he focused on the triparte social structure of Indo-European societies — seminal texts of his included Mitra and Varuna, and so on. See also Puhvel, Jaan. Comparative Mythology. Baltimore 1987.

Destiny of a King is indeed also one of his seminal and important books.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 6th, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
rory said:
The Iliad is a bardic poem, shaped, re-shaped over centuries. There was a Troy and some memory of an event but no proof that Achilles, Paris, Helen of Troy existed.

Malcolm wrote:
And likewise, no evidence that they did not. Since you are Irish, and a fan of mythology, does it not strike you as interesting that the myth of the founding of the five counties in Ireland has an exact parallel in the  Mahābharata, down to the name of the queen?
[/quote]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


Indrajala said:
Prior to that the Chinese it seems were unaware of a Tibetan people existing, even though they were in contact with various peoples on the Tibetan plateau, which suggests the Tibetan ethnogenesis is perhaps from around the sixth century CE.

Malcolm wrote:
You really need to read Kapstien's The Tibetans. In particular, you need to look into the Old Tibetan Chronicles:

http://otdo.aa.tufs.ac.jp/archives.cgi

The idea that Tibetans sprang into being in the 6th century is absurd.


Indrajala said:
"Tibetans" are not people from all over the Tibetan plateau. For example, the people of Gyalmo Rong are not Tibetan, speak a language that is not related to Tibetan, even though they are "Tibetan" Buddhist. There were many peoples on the Tibetan plateau. Then of course there were the Zhang Zhung people in Western Tibet. I am sure you have read Beckwith.
I'm simply wondering when the first evidence of "Tibet" and "Tibetans" appears. As my area is Sinology, I can say that Chinese records, which were unparalleled in the first millennium CE, do not suggest a coherent body of self-identifying Tibetans existed in any great number until perhaps the sixth or early seventh century. The Tang history states first contact was made in 634.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this actually has no bearing on Tibetan history. For example, Kapstein notes:

The ascendency of the Pugyel Dynasty began sometime before 600, when Takbu Nyazi [grandfather of Srong bstan sgam po], the Yarlung ruler, became locked in conflict with the Takkyawo, the lord of the Zingpo, whose fiefdom was close to the region of of modern Lhasa. The Old Tibetan Chronicle, which is our major source for these legendary events, and represents the standpoint of the Yarlung princes, describes Takkyawo as a thoroughly evil tyrant, doing alll with in his power to thwart the counsel of the good..

And so on it goes, describing a war in which Srong bstan sgam po's father Namri Löngtsen takes control of Central Tibet from Tsang to Kongpo.

Then of course, the Tibetans began looking outward at the world, seeking to establish legitimacy through marriage. Srong btsan sgam po had three wives, one from China, one from Nepal and one from Zhang Zhung, the three major powers on his borders.


Indrajala said:
My main issue is that the Chinese records never seem to mention a Buddhist presence in the Yarlung empire, indicating minimal Buddhist activities in Tibet. If there had been Buddhist activities, they would have been mentioned, since Chinese accounts of other foreign countries like Japan and others always mention that they have Buddhism. Hyechao's remarks are a supporting piece of evidence for my conclusion. I do not primarily derive my conclusion from Hyechao's remarks, which you seem to be suggesting.

Malcolm wrote:
When you say "Yarlung empire", what period to you mean? 625-675, 675-725, 725-775, 775-825, 825-875? This is a 250 year period. I would expect more precision from someone so concerned with dating things.

It is entirely fair to say that we do not have enough evidence about the period of 625-700 to say conclusively whether there was much in the way of Dharma in Tibet at that time, though it is probable that Wencheng had a contingent of Chinese monks with her.

We do know that the princess of Jincheng  [d.739], married to Me Agsom in 710, as Kapsein recounts, "...appears to have played a major role in promoting Chinese learning, as well as the Buddhist religion, to which she was deeply devoted."

It is however preposterous to assert that in the period from 775 to 825 there wasn't an explosion of interest in Buddhism with literally hundreds of sūtras and śāstras being translated into Tibetan at a furious pace.

Indrajala said:
...A text's contents can be based on the inherited word of the Buddha, but can still be largely comprised of later concepts and ideas. I personally don't think this is an issue.

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out to you was the case in the Illiad. Anachronisms do not indicate a late original date of composition. In the other hand, since one cannot, as it were separate the milk from the water in the case of these texts, it is better to err on the side of caution, no?

Indrajala said:
After WWII its secrecy was set aside and the living lineage made a public appearance. The tradition is flourishing today and you can buy several books on the subject and even almanacs from major bookshops in Japan.

Malcolm wrote:
That's cool.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Indrajala said:
Perhaps you unaware, but Chinese dynastic histories detail various peoples they classified as Qiang 羌, which generally referred to areas around Gansu, Qinghai and (non-Han Chinese) Sichuan. What is now Central Tibet was made up of Western Qiang peoples. These accounts are not really studied or translated in English.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you should translate them into English, time permitting, to allow us all to see what is present there.


Indrajala said:
So, apart from external sources and oral traditions there are no records of early Tibet.
It might very well be that there was no Tibet before the sixth or early seventh century. My basis for saying this is that the ethnogenesis of Tibet is described in the Tang history. See the following:

https://wenyanwen.blogspot.com/2014/05/tibetan-ethnogenesis-in-tang-history.html

The Qiang tribes were the predecessors of the people who would later self-identify as "Tibetan" (Tubo 吐蕃 in Chinese), in which case you are discussing a diverse variety of peoples, unless you mean records of the Tibetan plateau region, in which case you can still indeed find many observations and records in Chinese histories.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is actually quite late and does not predate Tibetan records.

Indrajala said:
In my recent reading of the Tang dynasty history, which was was initially compiled in 945 and revised in 1060

Malcolm wrote:
https://wenyanwen.blogspot.com/2014/05/tibetan-ethnogenesis-in-tang-history.html


Indrajala said:
Actually the more interesting conclusion one draws from looking at Chinese sources and Dunhuang materials is that it seems the Yarlung empire did not have much Buddhism to begin with. The kings might have sponsored sanghas and built a few temples, but how far any of it influenced Tibetan society is an interesting question.

Malcolm wrote:
And one likely to remain unanswered unless we build a time machine.


Indrajala said:
The Chinese histories I've looked at don't seem to mention any Buddhism existing in Tibet, and bear in mind there were many diplomats travelling through Tibet to the capital and back. The Tibetan state during the Yarlung/Tang period consecrated peace treaties with oaths that included animal sacrifices. Not very Buddhist at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, the Yarlung kings were required to maintain their relationship with Bonpo priests. There were even Bonpo animal sacrifices made in Lhasa under the reign of the Fifth.

Indrajala said:
This should lead to doubts about later sources describing a flourishing Buddhist kingdom with Buddhist kings. The credibility of such traditional histories held suspect, one can ask further questions about the motivations of their authors.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it just means that Buddhism usually does not supplant native religions in a single generation, or even four, as in the case of Tibet. Of course, by the eleventh century, a mere 158 years after the collapse of the Yarlung Dynasty, even Bonpos are for all intents and purposes Buddhists, which suggests that the penetration of Buddhism into the population between 842 and 1000 was fast and thorough. It is well known, even according to Tibetan records, that the penetration of Buddhism into the populace prior to 750 was limited and tenuous, and after the reign of Srongtsen Gampo, Buddhism in Tibet was propped up by Chinese monks until they were kicked out in the early 8th century, only to be invited back during the reign of Trizon Detsen.


Indrajala said:
Just as there are no documents from Persia or China describing Tibet prior to the 6th century CE, and the Chinese records there are, are quite limited in scope and only cover the extreme western portion of Tibet, near modern Ladakh.
You're incorrect. The Chinese records detail contacts with peoples from all over the Tibetan plateau.

Malcolm wrote:
"Tibetans" are not people from all over the Tibetan plateau. For example, the people of Gyalmo Rong are not Tibetan, speak a language that is not related to Tibetan, even though they are "Tibetan" Buddhist. There were many peoples on the Tibetan plateau. Then of course there were the Zhang Zhung people in Western Tibet. I am sure you have read Beckwith.

There are five traditional tribes described in Tibetan culture — this is what I mean by oral tradition — who lived in various regions of Tibet. The tribe that may be described by the Chinese as the Qiang are known in Tibetan as the Dong (གདོང་). There were also the Dru (འགྲུ་), the Dra (དབྲ་) and the Go (སྒོ་) and the Ga (སྒ་).

Tibetans themselves also preserve records of all of their kings going back to the first king of Tibet, Nyatri Tsanpo, roughly 128 BCE. Unfortunately, the earliest of these records themselves are rather late, found in Dunhuang.

Indrajala said:
The Korean monk writing in Chinese, Hyechao, passed the extreme western portion of Tibet during the mid-Yarlung period, and made a few observations. I shall not reproduce his remarks as the last time I did you and many others reported taking personal offense.

Malcolm wrote:
Your reproduction of his remarks that was not offensive, it was your delight in them that was offensive. Anyway, do you have any idea how far extreme western Tibet is from central Tibet? Ngari is 900 miles from Lhasa. Leh is something like 1200 miles from Lhasa through rugged mountains, obviously not impossible to traverse, but at that time, they were separate kingdoms.

What he was describing is present day Baltistan, where today there are Tibetan speaking Muslims who write Tibetan in a Persian derived script. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balti_people, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balti_language

So saying, that Hyechao passed through what is present day Baltistan in the eighth century, and using this as a measure for the state of Buddhism in the Yarlung valley during his time period is rather like traveling to Scotland in the 4th century and noticing there aren't any Christians and assuming there must not be much Christianity in the British Isles as a whole (a false conclusion).

Indrajala said:
Something indeed must be from the Buddha. I just haven't seen any solid criteria for determining what is and isn't.

This is where perhaps later śāstra material is useful as it can argue for the truth of Buddhist concepts rather than taking scripture on faith. I find Abhidharma rather useful too as it lays out metaphysics and explains it all quite coherently and systematically, and it generally makes sense.



Malcolm wrote:
We don't need Abhidharma merely to not "take the scriptures on faith." On the other hand, faith is a necessary faculty, part of the 37 bodhipakṣadharmas.

On the other hand, Abhidharma confirms that there is core of Buddhist thought and discussion that is ancient, which predates the writing of all canons.



Indrajala said:
Shingon still has their system which goes back to Amoghavajra.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but outside of Shingon, it has no uses, correct?

Indrajala said:
My point is that Buddhists can and will adopt and integrate fields of knowledge and arts which have little to do with liberation from saṃsāra. Secular scholarship is already widely accepted and funded by Buddhist organizations.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they can, bodhisattvas need to become expert in the five sciences, according to Maitreyanatha, but not at the expense adhyatmavidyā.


Indrajala said:
Well, I am not complaining about Japanese scholarship, am I?
Japanese scholarship is just as secular as western scholarship, if not more. They deconstruct things as well. The main difference though is that they focus on the facts of texts and archaeology rather than debating opinions back and forth.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know. I was not born yesterday.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


Sherlock said:
Care about Western scientific knowledge to some extent yes (it is embarrassing that Tibetan monks don't even know where Tamil Nadu is for example, when they were educated in India/Nepal), but a concern with the origins of Buddhadharma according to Western historiography is not important at all and likely deletrious. .

Malcolm wrote:
If you asked them in Hindi, they would like respond immediately and accurately.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
daverupa said:
[

It's sad wherever this approach is seen, Mormon or New Ager or Mahayanika or Theravadan or anyone at all...

Malcolm wrote:
And what do you do when face with the Buddha's recounting his past lives in the Pali canon? Just ignore it? Or rationalize it away as a "later strata".

One of the problems with text critical studies pursued in this way is the assumption that texts are like geological strata and can be dated accordingly. This is a huge error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
smcj said:
The practice of Buddhism is emic. The study of Buddhism is etic. One path culminates in enlightenment. The other path culminates in tenure.


Malcolm wrote:
The two most misused terms in Buddhist studies these days.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are a lot of areas in Tibetan Buddhist studies where there is simply little or no evidence at all (like for example, the period prior to 1000), and yet people love making up theories all the time.

Indrajala said:
Yet you just said... There is evidence for the first century or two of Buddhist history, it is embedded in texts that are considerably later, that is all.

Surely evidence about early Tibet could be embedded in later texts?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by early. Pre 7th century? Not a chance. Tibetans managed an unparalleled cultural lobotomy. Even the Bonpos have no texts that truly date earlier than the early 11th century. So, apart from external sources and oral traditions there are no records of early Tibet. Separating out what might be truly pre-Buddhist material from the Buddhist era is very difficult. Namkhai Norbu has offered some theories in this respect, having to do with cultural differences between Indian and Tibetan rituals found in Bonpo liturgies, but in reality, pre-Buddhist Tibet is a matter for archaeologists now, like John Vincent Belleza.

When it comes to the imperial period, yes, there are lots of text circulating around that can be used to mine for evidence, there is also the Dunhuang collection, which has many important text, none probably dating earlier than the 10th century though. There are of course many interesting facts one could glean, but even here, did Lang Darma suppress the Buddhist monasteries? Or did he merely subject them to taxation? Why was he assassinated? There are things we might answer if we were given to speculate, but they would remain speculative.


Indrajala said:
The truth is there's absolutely nothing from the Buddha's time, but at least with early Tibet you have Dunhuang and Chinese sources. There is no Persian or Chinese document from the fifth century BCE describing the state of religion in Magadha.

Malcolm wrote:
Just as there are no documents from Persia or China describing Tibet prior to the 6th century CE, and the Chinese records there are, are quite limited in scope and only cover the extreme western portion of Tibet, near modern Ladakh.


Indrajala said:
There is evidence for the first century or two of Buddhist history, it is embedded in texts that are considerably later, that is all.
Good luck trying to decipher it from everything else. On what grounds does one even discern what is from the Buddha's time and what isn't? What criteria do you use? These are questions scholars are asking. Your statement here would never fly with most present day Indologists and Pali experts.

Malcolm wrote:
Something must be from the time of the Buddha, for example, in the Agamas and Pali Canon — unless of course you take the extreme skepticism of someone like Atwood seriously. That said, we have a record of the sayings of a person called the Buddha. One either accepts that record is generally accurate, or not. If you don't, chances are you are not going to make much a Dharma practitioner.

Indrajala said:
No one is going to attain awakening by reading your articles, nor are they going to attain awakening by reading Wedemeyer's book mentioned above, no matter how intellectually interesting they may be.
Nobody is going to attain awakening through astrology, yet historically many Buddhists found it quite useful and worth keeping.

Malcolm wrote:
There seem to have been a number of such systems — for the most part they are all lost, no one uses them. In Tibetan Buddhism, they have Kālacakra for calendar making, and 'byung rtsi for day to day — these survive mainly because in the first case, it sets the religious calendar for the year, and in the second case, it is the main means through which monasteries prescribe rituals for lay people to purchase.

Indrajala said:
What's more, scholarship on Buddhism has become more of an exercise in knowing the opinions of other westerners about this or that thing than it is knowing in depth the thing itself.
I actually will agree on this to an extent. This is why I much prefer Japanese scholarship, which is very much soaked in textual studies as it is the direct heir of Edo period scholasticism.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Well, I am not complaining about Japanese scholarship, am I?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 5th, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
daverupa said:
text criticism.

Malcolm wrote:
Text criticism can only tell you what is in one text as opposed to another version of the same text, it might show progressive development, for example, then again, it might not. Text criticism, for example, can tell you nothing about the actual conditions under which a given text was produced. It is a very brittle method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't see very much science in modern academic writing on Buddhism. I do see lots of theories, uses of various interpretive methodologies, and so on, most of which are employed to create a framework in which the author's speculations are made to seem less speculative.

Indrajala said:
Who are you talking about exactly? I agree that there is a lot of speculation in certain areas like early Buddhism where there is zero period evidence to work with, but when it comes to Tibetan or Chinese Buddhist histories, we have lineage records coupled with secular histories and archaeology sometimes to back things up.

Malcolm wrote:
Why don't you give Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions a spin. It is an interesting book which, while itself speculative in many respects, does a pretty thorough job of reviewing the scholarship on Tantric Buddhism and India, its problems and so on, including addressing many of Sanderson's contentions about possible intertextualities between Shaivites and Buddhists.

There are a lot of areas in Tibetan Buddhist studies where there is simply little or no evidence at all (like for example, the period prior to 1000), and yet people love making up theories all the time.


Indrajala said:
I don't even see this much level of agreement, especially with the new skepticism you are so taken with.
If you want to talk about Tang dynasty Buddhist history, there is plenty of contemporary evidence, Buddhist or otherwise, to work with, but there's zero period evidence for the first century or two of Buddhist history, which is a problem if we're going to base a discussion on evidence. Scientific research and discussion depends on evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
There is evidence for the first century or two of Buddhist history, it is embedded in texts that are considerably later, that is all.


Indrajala said:
... like the presence of Greek astrological terms in Indian astrology, but they don't necessarily prove anything beyond this.
Does it occur before or after Alexander, and why would that be significant? You need to ask the right questions to be able to prove a theory (or disprove it).

Malcolm wrote:
That is irrelevant.

Indrajala said:
I don't feel threatened at all. But one thing I do know is that secular scholars such as yourself are not writing about Buddhadharma, not are you writing for those who follow Buddhadharma. Whatever your and their interest or agendas may be, it has nothing to with Buddhadharma at all.
That's painting a lot of individuals with a very large brush. Quite unfair I would say, and an indication you really don't know what you're talking about.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

But I do read what you and many other secular scholars write, like Donald Lopez for example, and I can say with great confidence that you are not writing about Buddhadharma. You are all writing about a corpse you call "Buddhism". No one is going to attain awakening by reading your articles, nor are they going to attain awakening by reading Wedemeyer's book mentioned above, no matter how intellectually interesting they may be.

My statements are completely fair, and are based on having studied Buddhadharma as well as what passes for scholarship on Buddhism for as long as you have been alive. My skepticism about scholarship on Buddhism is well earned. What's more, scholarship on Buddhism has become more of an exercise in knowing the opinions of other westerners about this or that thing than it is knowing in depth the thing itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
History is one of the humanities, it is not a science.

Indrajala said:
It is not a science, but historical research is supposed to be done in a scientific manner whereby one tests theories against evidence, which in effect can and will refute earlier theories.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see very much science in modern academic writing on Buddhism. I do see lots of theories, uses of various interpretive methodologies, and so on, most of which are employed to create a framework in which the author's speculations are made to seem less speculative.

Indrajala said:
If you have two authors writing about the same historical epoch or event, it is highly unlikely they will draw the same conclusions or have the same perspective of events.
Sure, but they might very well agree on the same facts: dates and general events. History evolves as time goes on and new evidence or ideas are presented. It isn't static, which is a strength, not a weakness.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't even see this much level of agreement, especially with the new skepticism you are so taken with.


Indrajala said:
History is not the discipline of "dating" the past (that's what Archaeology is for), but it definitely is the art of explaining the past, and more importantly, putting the past into context for the modern day.
Your understanding is problematic here. History is very much about dating the past, so as to establish a chronological narrative which is necessary to properly understand how events and trends unfolded. Archaeology can be quite useful in this regard, but dating can be done also through analysis of texts or even linguistics. For instance, the appearance of a foreign loanword in a language can be used to help date a historical event.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all very tendentious and is not scientific in the least, it does not lead to certainty about anything. These things really cannot be tested or proven. For example, when did the Sanskrit word "hingu" (Ferula asafoetida) become "shing kun" (ཤིང་ཀུན) in Tibetan? 1st century CE, 6th? 8th? What about ཛ་ཏི (Sanskrit jati or nutmeg)? Loanwords can show trade relationships and intellectual exchanges, like the presence of Greek astrological terms in Indian astrology, but they don't necessarily prove anything beyond this.

Indrajala said:
This why the goals and aims of historians of Buddhadharma should be very different than the goals and aims of those who seek to write histories of Buddhism. The former are concerned with giving context to the Buddhadharma for those who live in the present day and age, where the latter merely seek to write down, as best they can, and without hope for much accuracy, a progression of events and persons.
Believe what you want, Malcolm. Many more scholars of Buddhism with many credentials and linguistic abilities are fortunately not so emotionally invested in sacred religious narratives. You might feel threatened by secular scholarship, but not everyone is.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

I don't feel threatened at all. But one thing I do know is that secular scholars such as yourself are not writing about Buddhadharma, not are you writing for those who follow Buddhadharma. Whatever your and their interest or agendas may be, it has nothing to with Buddhadharma at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What scholars write in books about events that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago is one thing and what actually happened is another, and never the twain shall meet.

Indrajala said:
This is what I mean by anti-intellectual sentiments.

Malcolm wrote:
History is one of the humanities, it is not a science. There is no such thing as a "scientific" approach to history, unless you are a Marxist. One may utilize the sciences in the service of composing a history, but this still does not make History a science. It is a humanity. This definition of the humanities from Stanford is instructive:
The humanities can be described as the study of how people process and document the human experience. Since humans have been able, we have used philosophy, literature, religion, art, music, history and language to understand and record our world. These modes of expression have become some of the subjects that traditionally fall under the humanities umbrella. Knowledge of these records of human experience gives us the opportunity to feel a sense of connection to those who have come before us, as well as to our contemporaries.
If you have two authors writing about the same historical epoch or event, it is highly unlikely they will draw the same conclusions or have the same perspective of events.

These days of course, many historians like to believe that they have pinned their subjects to the drying board, and have successfully mounted them for display. But of course, nothing is further from the truth. In the end histories are "just so stories", no matter from what perspective they are written.


Indrajala said:
History has its limitations, but unless you have some better approach for chronologically dating and explaining the past, I'm listening.

Malcolm wrote:
History is not the discipline of "dating" the past (that's what Archaeology is for), but it definitely is the art of explaining the past, and more importantly, putting the past into context for the modern day.

This why the goals and aims of historians of Buddhadharma should be very different than the goals and aims of those who seek to write histories of Buddhism. The former are concerned with giving context to the Buddhadharma for those who live in the present day and age, where the latter merely seek to write down, as best they can, and without hope for much accuracy, a progression of events and persons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: The Lankavatara Sutra and the Consequences of Eternalism
Content:
TheSynergist said:
Thank you very much for your responses, Jeff and Malcolm.

Malcolm, if I'm understanding your interpretation/translation correctly, it sounds like there are two parallel axes of development --- the one for śravakas (and Pratyekabuddhas?) deals with the eradication of afflictive emotions by way of penetrating the emptiness of self, culminating in a "samadhi" sort of experience. However, this does not permanently free one from future births due to the absence of insight into two-fold emptiness...The Bhumi path of the Bodhisattva, by contrast, involves the emptiness of all phenomena and hence leads to true liberation. Would this be a more or less correct interpretation of the Sutra?

Malcolm wrote:
More or less.

TheSynergist said:
Would this Sutra then suggest that Arhants will eventually be reborn? I vaguely remember reading (perhaps on this forum?) that, according to Dzogchen, those with lesser forms of Enlightenment eventually get reborn at the dawn of a new Aeon.

Malcolm wrote:
This sūtra explicitly declares that arhats are woken out of the samadhi of cessation by Buddhas and enter into the bodhisattva paths and stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Indrajala said:
If scholars come up and demonstrate that the supposed history of lineage accounts are full of errors, anachronisms and so on, then much doubt will be cast on the legitimacy of the lineage and consequently the purported realization of present representatives will likewise be called into question, if not entirely dismissed. This might be cause for anti-intellectual sentiments as scholars have the potential to completely undermine a living lineage.

Malcolm wrote:
What scholars write in books about events that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago is one thing and what actually happened is another, and never the twain shall meet.


Indrajala said:
There is similar to Vinaya ordination lineages. A legitimate ordination requires ten pure bhikṣus. If one of them is impure (i.e., has failed to confess every transgression against the Vinaya prior to the ordination ceremony), then the ordination is illegitimate and any sort of "precept essence" is not produced or transmitted. In order for someone to be legitimately ordained, every single generation of ten presiding bhikṣus back to the Buddha would have had to have been pure with the ceremonies done according to specifications outlined in the relevant literature. It goes without saying that it is doubtful it was always done properly with completely pure bhikṣus present during every ordination. In the absence of legitimately ordained bhikṣus, then the whole notion of the sangha still being a superior field of merit is undermined.

Malcolm wrote:
This is perhaps the reason that the Sangha Merit field in Mahāyāna is not the Bhikṣu Sangha, but rather the Sangha of tenth stage bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: The Lankavatara Sutra and the Consequences of Eternalism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I checked the sutra in question in the Tibetan translation. It is not exactly the six and fifth bodhisattva bhumi. Here is another passage which clarifies things:

It is talking about equivalent stages of the eradication of afflictions in this case.

Other than the view of the abhisamaya of the śravakas abandoning fully the afflictions on the sixth or fifth stage, the latent afflictions are not abandoned and they have inconceivable deaths and transmigrations. They proclaim My births are finished, I abide in brahmacarya, my work is finished", uttering the lion's roar. Having said that, after they become throughly familiar with the absence of self in persons, their minds turn a period of nirvana.

What is here being stated is that that śravakas abandonment of active afflictions is equivalent to that of the fifth or sixth bhumi, but that they do not abandon latent afflictions and are thus subject to inconceivable deaths and transmigrations.

Another section, dealing with bhumis, states:

Beginning with the sixth stage, bodhisattva mahasattvas, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas enter into the concentration on cessation. On the seventh stage, mental moment by mental moment, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas enter into a concentration that eliminates the characteristics of all things, but the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not. The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas' concentration on cessation falls into the characteristics of an apprehended object and apprehending subject through possession of ideation. That being the case, if the characteristic of the absence of the different dharma's they obtain and the characteristic of diversity were to become non-existent, it would not be proper — on the seventh bhumi one is to concentrate on one mental moment after another. They enter into concentration without comprehending the intrinsic characteristic of the virtue and nonvirtue of all phenomena. That being the case, such a one who enters into concentration is not skilled in entering into concentration on one mind moment after another.

The point is the comparison with the concentrations, abandonments and so on of śravakas and pratyekabuddhas with bodhisattvas on the stages. It is not an assertion that śravakas and pratyekabuddhas are traversing the stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: The Lankavatara Sutra and the Consequences of Eternalism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that here "stage" refers to bodhisattva bhumis. This is a really outdated translation much in need of revision.

TheSynergist said:
I was recently reading from the Lankavatara Sutra:
Again further, Mahamati, there are five groups of people, each of whom attains its own [spiritual] insight. What are the five? They are: (1) the group of people whose insight belongs to the Sravaka-vehicle; (2) the group of people whose insight belongs to the Pratyekabuddha-vehicle; (3) the group of people whose insight belongs to the Tathagata-vehicle; (4) the group of indefinite character; and (5) the group of people to whom no insight is possible.
Mahamati, how does one know the group of people whose insight belongs to the Sravaka vehicle? There are people the hair of whose body will stand on end when they know and realise the nature of the Skandhas, Dhatus, Ayatanas, and [what is meant by] generality and individuality; their intellect will leap with joy on knowing and practising what belongs to appearance and not on practising what they know of the uninterrupted chain of causation, —such ones, Mahamati, are said to be of the group whose insight belongs to the Sravaka vehicle. Having had an insight into their own vehicle, they abide at the fifth or the sixth stage where they do away with the rising of the passions, but not with the habit-energy; they have not yet passed beyond the inconceivable transformation-death, and their lion-roar is, "My life is destroyed, my morality is established, etc."; they will then discipline themselves in the egolessness of persons and finally gain the knowledge of Nirvana.
Again, Mahamati, there are others who, believing in such things as ego, being, vital principle, nourisher, supreme spirit, or personal soul, will seek Nirvana in them. Again, Mahamati, there are still others who, seeing that all things exist by depending upon causes, will recognise in this the way to Nirvana. (64) But, Mahamati, as they have no insight into the egolessness of things, there is no emancipation for them. This, Mahamati, is where those of the Sravaka-vehicle and the philosophers make the mistake in their insight by regarding non-deliverance as deliverance. Therefore, Mahamati, you ought to discipline yourself in order to escape this wrong view.
I'm a bit confused by this passage --- it introduces those on the Sravaka vehicle as being able to ascend to the 5th/6th bhumi, and eventually discipline themselves to gain Nirvana. Then it discusses those Sravaka disciples with incorrect eternalistic views, seeking nirvana in soul/god etc, and says they will not gain emancipation because they don't have the knowledge of the egoloness of all things. Does this passage mean to suggest that those with wrong eternalistic views can still rise to the 6th Bhumi? Is there any other Mahayana Sutra that attempts to place ppl with eternalistic views on the Bhumi scale? I assumed that having at least some insight into 2-fold emptiness was a prerequisite for even the 1st bhumi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
LastLegend said:
If Chan is nothing more than what you just described there, then there should not be any real Chan practitioners today. How you do explain the surviving Chan today?

Astus said:
What practice is it you call Chan? What doctrine?

Anders said:
Ah come on. You're eelwriggling now.

The point is valid - If that is all there is to Chan, it wouldn't have the lifeblood of realisation in its lineage that it has.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, it is pretty clear what Astus is up to. Next he will start attacking Vajrayāna lineages. Then, once he has satisfied himself that lineage is just a bunch of hokum, he will set himself up as a guru, indiscriminately mixing mahāmudra and Chan teachings.

Say it ain't so, Astus, come on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
LastLegend said:
There is a forum here called Chan. Why do you think that is?

Astus said:
My point is that it is not easy at all to tell what Chan practice and doctrine actually is.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, just read Nubchen Sangye Yeshe if you have any doubts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: 8th bhumi bodhisattvas suffering in subsequent births?
Content:
TheSynergist said:
If Buddhas don't suffer, doesn't that kinda cheapen their compassion? Like, can we really call an individual being reborn to help others "compassionate" if he/she isn't suffering for it?

Malcolm wrote:
The karuna of those who are not suffering is infinitely sublime because having gained their own solace, they turn toward the welfare of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
And as I pointed out to you, neither his son nor his grandson follow his views of Madhyamaka.
His new incarnation does though.

Malcolm wrote:
Which one?


smcj said:
So, given what you say above, I have to confess to being a little puzzled why you have been carrying out this campaign, which has lasted for several years. What did you hope to prove?
But my main point is that the presentation that D.R. makes is not a tirthika view. Place it however you may wish within the school, but it belongs there as one valid presentation of Dharma. Before I started making noises about it the culture here at DW dismissed anything like his presentation as a Hindu heresy. And, to be quite frank, the monks at Nalanda 1,000 years ago would probably have seen it that way too. But quite frankly I don't care about what the Hindus teach or what the monks at Nalanda might have thought, so it doesn't bother me at all. Evidently it didn't bother D.R. either.

Malcolm wrote:
No one every said gzhan stong was a hindu heresy — well, the Sakya master Rendawa did (Tsongkhapa's teacher)— but another Sakya master, Rongton, rejected that charge as too harsh, stating that gzhan stong was a transitional view between Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

Some masters at Nalanda would have liked the gzhan stong view just fine, masters like the false-aspectarian Yogacara master Ratnakarashanti for example (upon whose writing gzhan stong is in fact largely based, even if this is unacknowledged.)

The main difference between the Indians and people like Dudjom Rinpoche is that the former made no effort to try and locate their view in the so called three turnings, because in fact the Indians simply did not understand the three turnings in the way it was later interpreted by generations of Chinese Buddhists, as well as Kagyus and Nyingmapas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
The fact that he is at all discounted here is something of a shock to me.

Malcolm wrote:
But he isn't discounted at all. But he was not the only amazing Nyingma Lama with a large following in the late 20th century. However, his being the head of Nyingma was only relevant in the exile community.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between institutional curriculum and individual authors. And as I pointed out to you, neither his son nor his grandson follow his views of Madhyamaka.

So, given what you say above, I have to confess to being a little puzzled why you have been carrying out this campaign, which has lasted for several years. What did you hope to prove?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
We just say that gzhan stong is not definitive.
I have never said that it is definitive. I have said that I think, based on an admittedly small sampling, that Great Madhyamaka is the norm in Nyingma circles these day. But always I've said that YMMV and you can do as you please.

Malcolm wrote:
And I have told you several times, based on my much larger sampling, that your conclusion is flawed because your dataset is too small.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
Nice of you to mention that at this late date.

Malcolm wrote:
You were not paying attention, I have mentioned this several times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
I think some history is necessary here for people. Yes it is true that the Nyingmapas did not historically have a single "head of the Nyingma lineage", and that Dudjom R. was appointed as such for refugee purposes. But the same can be said of the Karmapa. Historically he was the head of the Karma Kagyupas, but the other Kagyu sects did not see the Karmapa as "the head of the Kagyu lineage". If the Karmapa was 2 years old, to if the Chinese had captured him, someone else would have been appointed to the role.

So really Dudjom R. and the 16th Karmapa had parallel roles in the late 20th century. And since I saw both of them on tour I can tell you that all the Nyingma lamas in California revered him just as much as the Kagyus revered the Karmapa. So what Dudjom R. wrote may not jive with the culture of this website, but he was not a minor figure in the Nyingma tradition in the late 20th century. So if you don't want to recognize his authority, go ahead. But you might want to check you internet understanding of Dharma against a real live Nyingma lama now and then. How else are you going to check your understanding against anything other than this echo chamber?

Malcolm wrote:
No, Dudjom Rinpoche was anything but a minor figure for the Nyingma Tradition in the late 20th century. He was a giant, of this there is no question at all. But you are conflating two separate issues here, and another thing which has seemly escaped your attention is that neither his son, Dungsey Trinly Norbu, nor his grandson, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche are adherents of gzhan stong. So what do you do with that fact?

The two separate issues you are conflating are: 1) the person of Dudjom Rinpoche as the guru of the present generation of middle aged and even senior Nyingma masters 2) the actual so-called orthodox position of the Nyingma school.

The latter lies in the works of Rongzom, Longchenpa and Mipham, and no one else: among these three, Longchenpa is the most important. And yes, I have talked about this issue with several living, breathing Nyingma Khenpos over the years (definitely more than you), all of whom regard Dudjom Rinpoche as one of their gurus, and hold him in great esteem, but they don't all hold gzhan stong as the definitive view: some of them do, some of them don't, most of them think gzhan stong is quite irrelevant to Dzogchen, or so they told me.

The reality of it is, these days the lineages that have adopted gzhan stong as their view are the Karma Kagyu and the Jonangpas. However, given how much Gelugpa education the present Karmapa has had, I wonder if he will continue the relatively recent (i.e. 19th century) adoption of gzhan stong by the Karma Kagyus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
Tell that to Dudjom Rinpoche. He seems to be totally ignorant of it. Poor guy, evidently he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure that Dudjom Rinpoche was quite aware of it, even if you are not. As I have pointed out to you, the translator Kawa Paltseg refers to "freedom from extremes" as Great Madhyamaka, as does the Sakya Gongma, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen.  Also the Gelugpas like to call Tsongkhapa's version of Madhyamaka, "Great Madhyamaka".

So in reality, all three major trends of "Madhyamaka" in Tibet refer to themselves as "Great".

M

smcj said:
And your point being…what? That somehow Dudjom Rinpoche's magnum opus is an epic fail because he declines to give lip service to other usages of the term? Really? REALLY?

Malcolm wrote:
No, my point is that your campaign to somehow enshrine Dudjom Rinpoche's perspective as the definitive view of Nyingma is an epic fail. His perspective is definitive for those Nyingmapas who choose to follow it, just as Mipham's is for those Nyingmapas who choose to follow it.

I will point out, however, that Dudjom Rinpoche's book is not used as part of the curriculum at Namdroling Monastery in South India (Palyul), not is it part of the curriculum at Larung Gar in Tibet (the largest Nyingma Institution in the world), nor is it on the curriculum of Mindroling in North India, nor Dzogchen Monastery, nor Kathog, nor Dorje Drag nor Sechen. It forms no part of the curriculum at the six main Nyingma monasteries, so how can it be regarded as definitive by anyone?

This is not to say it is not a wonderful book, since it is, but it does not trump Mipham, Longchenpa and Rongzom.

Now, I have wasted enough time with you on your obsession, and frankly I have better things to do.

Best,

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
Tell that to Dudjom Rinpoche. He seems to be totally ignorant of it. Poor guy, evidently he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure that Dudjom Rinpoche was quite aware of it, even if you are not. As I have pointed out to you, the translator Kawa Paltseg refers to "freedom from extremes" as Great Madhyamaka, as does the Sakya Gongma, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen.  Also the Gelugpas like to call Tsongkhapa's version of Madhyamaka, "Great Madhyamaka".

So in reality, all three major trends of "Madhyamaka" in Tibet refer to themselves as "Great".

If you wish to see how it is used by the Sakyapas, I refer to to my blog post here:

http://www.sakyapa.net/2010/04/great-madhyamaka-of-sakya-masters.html

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Written texts from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Chan Patriarchs
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because after all, McRae is even more authoritative that Bodhidharma.

Astus said:
It depends on the topic. Texts attributed to Bodhidharma are good for studying Chan, McRae's works are good for studying Chan history.

Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I have always found McRae's works to be highly speculative, and in the end, not really that informative. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism and so on are well written and interesting, but not very nutritious.

He was also not a practitioner. So frankly, this needs to be born in mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Heart Sutra...
Content:


Jeff said:
Best wishes.

Malcolm wrote:
You should find a proper guru.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
Malcolm has already told you many times that the term "Great Madhyamaka" has been used in different ways by different teachers.
You do realize that's nothing more than a red herring, right?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a red herring, it is simply factual. Gzhan stong pas do not own the brand Great Madhyamaka™, as much as you would like them to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 10:16 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
Incidentally, the primary source for Kongtrul's commentary on Uttaratantra is Rongton's commentary. Rongton was not a gzhan stong pa. But he wrote the definitive commentary on the text, which is why Kongtrul follows it.
Thanks. When I get to Kongtrul's commentary I will try to keep that in mind. The only thing I have by Rongzom is "Establishing Appearances as Divine." (You did mean Rongzom, right?) If I survive the Uttaratantra I might give it a shot.


Malcolm wrote:
Rongton, A 15th century Sakya Lama,  not Rongzom, an 11th century Nyingma Lama.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
The Uttaratantra continues: By his own former wishing prayers
and the power of the virtue of the gods
Brahma appears without deliberate effort.
So does the self-sprung illusory kaya.

He moves from [Tushita} and enters the womb, feet born, and goes to his father's palace.
He enjoys amusement and then seeks solitude, undergoes austerity, and defeats all evils.
[In Bodhgaya] he finds great enlightenment and shows the path to the citadel of peace.
The Muni, having shown [these deeds], becomes invisible to those of no karmic fortune.
I'm just now reading the Uttaratantra while making effort to understand it. Before I just skimmed it. I'm not going to say I understand it even on a superficial level yet. But those quotes do seem suggestive of….?

The edition I'm reading has Kongtrul's commentary next, then Khenpo Tsultrim's. That above quotes are from the root text. Given who wrote the commentaries, when I get to them I'm sure the spin will be an "empty-of-other" spin.

Malcolm wrote:
By his own former wishing prayers
Based on his own prayers, correct?
and the power of the virtue of the gods
And based on the desires of others, correct?
Brahma appears without deliberate effort.
This the metaphor.

So does the self-sprung illusory kaya.

Likewise, the nirmanakaya buddha arises from his own past aspirations as well as the needs of other sentient beings, and he therefore appears without "deliberate effort." You are reading way too much into "self-originated".

This is not a gzhan stong vs. blah blah issue — this is standard Mahāyāna.

Incidentally, the primary source for Kongtrul's commentary on Uttaratantra is Rongton's commentary. Rongton was not a gzhan stong pa. But he wrote the definitive commentary on the text, which is why Kongtrul follows it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
smcj said:
Here's a weird quote from the Uttaratantra:
...
So it seems there is room for Jeff's interpretation. But it does seem un-buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
SMCJ,

This metaphor does not supports Jeff's statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 1st, 2015 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Written texts from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Chan Patriarchs
Content:
Astus said:
McRae's

Malcolm wrote:
Because after all, McRae is even more authoritative that Bodhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 1st, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:
PorkChop said:
Going back to the original article, I remember criticizing it on facebook when it came out because of it's depiction of Texas (the only culture I really knew well enough to comment).

For starters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejano is its own brand of Latin culture, which is neither homogenous with the Chicano culture of California, nor Mexican culture south of the border. Texas culture also has a huge influence from German and Czech settlers, which did a lot to not only influence the Europeans who settled in the state, but the Latin culture there as well. You don't really need to look further than the number of German town names dotted throughout the state: Boerne, Fredericksburg, New Braunfels, Pflugerville, Schulenberg, Groesbeck, Gruene, etc to see how many settlements there were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolach and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klobasnek (also often referred to as kolaches) are popular breakfast foods throughout the state. The accordion playing of the Europeans found it's way into Texas' own blend of Latin music, also referred to as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejano_music ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--mQbV2zO2U ). Similarly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex-Mex is it's own distinct kind of food as well.

I can see differences between the major metropolitan areas in Texas (San Antonio vs Dallas for example), and between the rural areas (Lubbock vs Halletsville for example) but the commonalities are a lot stronger than say, between Dallas-Fort Worth and West Virginia (2 areas linked in that article).

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, you mean to say that Texas is not a "homogenous barbarism?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 1st, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:
maybay said:
I think the point about barbarism is that it lacks culture. It is simply a collection, of, for instance, people, legal entities, systems, ideas, all caught up in a fear-driven revolutionary turmoil that makes any sense of dignified progression or composition impossible.

Dezhung Rinpoche spoke of barbarism, or Rachmaninoff "America! What madness."
barbarism: absence of culture and civilization.

Malcolm wrote:
Defining the US that way is clearly wrong. It's an offensive characterization. One cannot separate people from culture.

maybay said:
culture |ˈkəlCHər|
noun
1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively: 20th century popular culture.
• a refined understanding or appreciation of this: men of culture.
• the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group: Caribbean culture | people from many different cultures.
• [ with modifier ] the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group: the emerging drug culture.

Malcolm wrote:
In the case, it is the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of the United States in their entirety that are being described as a "barbarism" via the adjective "homogenous."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 1st, 2015 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:


kirtu said:
I am not classifying all Americans as a group and have never done that.

I *AM* saying that American culture is a form of barbarism, causes people to be prone to violence, causes people to be competitive unnecessarily, causes people to be calous, etc.  Because these are the primary messages in US culture.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no culture apart from its people.

kirtu said:
However this is not true of all people in the US.

Malcolm wrote:
That's like saying that Jewish culture is based greed and venality, but not all Jews are like that.

kirtu said:
But during their lifetimes I would wager that almost all Americans fall prey to some sort of extremest violent, comparative or callous mindset because of the daily and yearly pounding of these drums.


and describing us a homogenous barbarism.
My characterization of the US as a homogeneous barbarism refers to the near universal obsession of Americans with power.


Malcolm wrote:
As I have said, we live in different countries.

kirtu said:
All French people are bigots. All Indians are stupid. All Blacks are lazy. All Jews are greedy. All Muslims are terrorists.
I never said any of that and my assertion that American culture is a barbarism is absolutely not the same.

Malcolm wrote:
I think so —— it is gross stereotyping.

kirtu said:
It's also factually inaccurate that I am "constantly bashing" the United States or Americans.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are being disingenuous.

kirtu said:
But this is one of the actions that people in the US do in fact take when they feel backed into a corner or just want to strike out at a person and attack them.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not attack you. I commented on the sentiment of your statement. Apparently, you need to learn to distinguish between an opinion about a public statement you have made, and a statement about your person. They are not the same thing.

kirtu said:
...let me as a person partly of American Indian heritage...

Malcolm wrote:
We are all from Africa, we all come from displaced peoples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 28th, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:
kirtu said:
[

On what logical basis can you make the deduction that I am expressing a "racist sentiment"?  Mr. Smith, you *MUST* provide a reasoned explanation because otherwise this is public character assassination and I will pursue legal remedies against you.

Malcolm wrote:
You are classifying all Americans as a group of people, and describing us a homogenous barbarism. In my book, that is racist, no different than the attitude of White Europeans towards Indians and Africans.

All French people are bigots. All Indians are stupid. All Blacks are lazy. All Jews are greedy. All Muslims are terrorists. All Americans are barbarians — what is the difference between these statements?

By the way, I did not say YOU were a racist, I expressed the opinion that the  sentiment of your statement is racist, so you have no basis for a case.

I have no wish to fight with you, but I do tire of your constant bashing of Americans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 28th, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:


kirtu said:
As I cearly stated, this is support for an argument that Malcolm has repeadedly made (that the US is compose of multiple cultures originating in various form from the founding of the US).  I disagree with this thesis.  American culture is only concerned with power and it's exercise.

Malcolm wrote:
Total BS.
Code: #
And power is exercised as a result of the violent and unpredictable nature of American society.
Dude, There is much less violence in the US then there was even in the 1980's.

kirtu said:
The US is frankly a psychopathic society.  While psychopaths rule the world, psychopaths are nurtured here and are very common in US society.

Malcolm wrote:
You are totally tripping, my friend.

kirtu said:
I frankly don't see how Americans can deny this (and in fact they don't - I just saw the producer of "House of Cards" talk about exactly this just a few minutes ago on CBS).

Malcolm wrote:
Americans can deny it because it is not true. Hyperbole by the producer of an American show adapted from a BBC show which comes from a novel originally written about a murderous MP hardly constitutes proof of your position.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 28th, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:
kirtu said:
What are you talking about?  What exactly is the "racist sentiment" that you refer to?

Kirt
the United States, which I view basically as a monoculture (or really more of a homogeneous barbarism)

Malcolm wrote:
If you barbarism, look a Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, ISIS etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 28th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:
steveb1 said:
OP wrote: "the United States, which I view basically as a monoculture (or really more of a homogeneous barbarism). North America *is* multinational, composed of at least four major cultures (Mexico, which has more than one culture, the lower 48 barbarism, and Canada"

Seems a bit judgmental, particularly in regard to Mexico, which is a culture in wildly barbaric disarray whose government sends and deliberately encourages its poorest, least educated citizens to illegally immigrate to the U.S., to the detriment of both cultures, but especially of the U.S., whose resources are inadequate to handle these waves of illegal colonization. To dismiss the U.S. simply as "the lower 48 barbarism" is inaccurate and itself looks like a form of barbarism.

Malcolm wrote:
It is actually a racist sentiment.

kirtu said:
What are you talking about?  What exactly is the "racist sentiment" that you refer to?

Kirt
the United States, which I view basically as a monoculture (or really more of a homogeneous barbarism)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Four axioms with which bullshit is brewed. The amount of presumptions and assumptions in the following four points is astonishing, and self-serving.

Astus said:
Regarding the mentioned criticism of academic studies, please consider

McRae’s Rules of Zen Studies
(Seeing Through Zen, p xix-xx)

1. It’s not true, and therefore it’s more important.
The contents of Zen texts should not be evaluated using a simpleminded criterion of journalistic accuracy, that is, “Did it really happen?” For any event or saying to have occurred would be a trivial reality involving a mere handful of people at one imagined point in time, which would be overwhelmed by the thousands of people over the centuries who were involved in the creation of Zen legends. The mythopoeic creation of Zen literature implies the religious imagination of the Chinese people, a phenomenon of vast scale and deep significance.

2. Lineage assertions are as wrong as they are strong.
Statements of lineage identity and “history” were polemical tools of self-assertion, not critical evaluations of chronological fact according to some modern concept of historical accuracy. To the extent that any lineage assertion is significant, it is also a misrepresentation; lineage assertions that can be shown to be historically accurate are also inevitably inconsequential as statements of religious identity.

3. Precision implies inaccuracy.
Numbers, dates, and other details lend an air of verisimilitude to a story, but the more they accumulate, the more we should recognize them as literary tropes. Especially in Zen studies, greater detail is an artifact of temporal distance, and the vagueness of earlier accounts should be comforting in its integrity. While we should avoid joining a misguided quest for origins, we should also be quick to distinguish between “good data”and ornamental fluff. Even as we ponder the vectors of medieval polemics.

4. Romanticism breeds cynicism.
Storytellers inevitably create heroes and villains, and the depiction of Zen’s early patriarchs and icons cripples our understanding of both the Tang “golden age” and the supposedly stagnant formalism of the Song dynasty. If one side is romanticized, the other must be vilified, and both subjects pass incognito. The collusion between Zen romanticists and the apologists for Confucian triumphalism—which has Song Neo-Confucianism climbing to glory on the back of a defeated Buddhism—is an obstacle to the understanding of both Chan and the Chinese civil tradition. The corollary is this: Cold realism eliminates dismissive misapprehension.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


Astus said:
On Shenhui and Huineng (p 55):

"Shenhui set up his own lineage hall in imitation of Puji, even as he worked to establish the transmission from Bodhidharma to Huineng (and then implicitly to Shenhui himself) as the sole lineal succession of Chan"

Malcolm wrote:
Evidence?

Astus said:
On the historical Huineng (p 68):

"It is probably fair to think of the historical Huineng as a reasonably conventional Chinese monk, whose teachings differed only slightly if at all from those of other members of the Northern school."

Malcolm wrote:
Probably?

Astus said:
On Shenhui's knowledge of Huineng's life (p 67):

"if the matter had been known to Shenhui, who was a master storyteller dedicated to promoting Huineng’s identity as sixth patriarch, he certainly would have included it in his writings. We have good evidence to show that in the late 730s Shenhui was ignorant of most of the details of Huineng’s life."

Malcolm wrote:
That evidence being?

Astus said:
On the Platform Sutra (p 60):

"The Platform Sutra appeared in about 780, over a century after the events it describes were supposed to have taken place. Many scholars have struggled to identify the contents of some “original” or “core” version of the text that might date back to Huineng himself, but the utter failure of these attempts has only confirmed the late provenance of the text as we have it. Barring some miraculous discovery, we must consider the text as we first discover it, in its Dunhuang version."

Malcolm wrote:
]

Irrelevant.



Astus said:
On Huairang and his connection to Huineng (p 82-83):

"In the case of Huairang, the little that is known about his biography definitely undermines the historicity of the filiation between him and Huineng. First, Huairang’s epitaph was written in the year 815, some seventy years after his death, at the request of two of Mazu’s disciples, so it can hardly be used to suggest that the connection between Huineng and Huairang was historical rather than legendary. In addition, the paucity of detail concerning Huairang’s biography—he is said to have been a mountain practitioner who did not “open the Dharma” to others— suggests that he was historically insignificant. And, needless to say, nothing like the story introduced above occurs in the epitaph. In fact, the Transmissions of Treasure Grove [Temple] (Baolin zhuan), the Hongzhou school’s important contribution to the “transmission of the lamp” genre of Chan literature, written about 801, describes Huairang’s enlightenment as having been gained under the guidance of the Northern school monk Lao’an. Actually, none of the men traditionally recognized as Huineng’s most important successors—Huairang, Qingyuan, Yongjia Xuanjue, and Nanyang Huizhong—are mentioned in the Dunhuang version of the Platform Sutra."

Malcolm wrote:
Again irrelevant.

Astus said:
"Ultimately, our main conclusion would be that Mazu had a typically variegated life of religious training, so that even if the interaction between Huairang and Mazu was historical in some sense—and it would be rash to deny this possibility out of hand—this would not be enough to make Mazu Huairang’s successor, let alone a direct secondgeneration successor to Huineng."

Malcolm wrote:
Again, quite irrelevant to your main contention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/26/who_is_bankrolling_the_islamic_state


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
Content:
Dan74 said:
Islam, given the circumstance of the recent times, the cultural shifts, etc has become a convenient flag for the anti-establishment radicals to rally under and we may well see more people converting and joining the cause.

Malcolm wrote:
Dan, seriously, this is just nonsense. Wake up and smell the roses. ISIS may be many things, but a convenient flag under which anti-establishment radicals might convene is hardly one of them. It may have a flattened, synchronic view of Islamic history, it may have left behind nuances of centuries of Islamic jurisprudence, but one thing people can hardly claim is that they are not Muslim in the fullest sense of the word. They just happen to subscribe to Wahhabism, and their execution of their Wahhabi values are completely consistent with the origins of Wahhabism in the late 18th century, you know, like when Ibn Saud and his men slaughtered 5,000 Shiites in a single day in Karbala in Iraq in 1801.

Dan74 said:
In 1801, the tomb of Hussein bin Ali (Prophet Mohammad's grandson) in Karbala was destroyed by the army of Abdullah bin Saud, causing anger among the Shiite Muslims.[1] Additionally, many people in Islam's holiest cities of Makkah and Madinah were killed and Prophet Mohammad's Mosque was damaged by his army in the same year. As a result, the Ottoman authorities found themselves in a situation that they had to punish the Saudis for their crimes because the Ottomans were the then-official ruler of the Arabian Peninsula. The guardian of Islam's religious places was the Turkish-Ottoman Caliph in Constantinople, Mahmud II.[1] He ordered that an Egyptian force be sent to the Arabian Peninsula to defeat Abdullah bin Saud and his allies. In 1818, an Egyptian army led by Ibrahim Pasha (Mohammad Ali's son) completely destroyed Abdullah's forces and took their capital, Diriyah in Najd. Abdullah bin Saud was captured along with two of his Wahhabi supporters. They were then sent to prison in Constantinople. Abdullah and his two followers were publicly beheaded for their crimes against holy cities and mosques.[1]

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

The sole difference between then and now is that there was an Ottoman Empire to put down the Wahhabis, and force their very Calvinist interpretation of Islam into the deserts of what is now Saudi Arabia.

The fact is that it is Wahhabi/Salafi money fueling ISIS, mainly from the Saudis. The other point is that the Sunnis in Iraq are, in reality, barely more than 25 percent of the total population (Kurds have always been counted as Sunni for some bizarre reason), and yet they have had an uninterrupted reign of terror in Iraq since the 1979 and actually from well before that, dating back to the Hashemite Kingdom.

In reality the Sunnis in Iraq has historically behaved little better than White South Africans under Apartheid or Southern KKK fanatics towards the majorities under their rule.

For example, many people have claimed that burning apostates is unlawful under Islam —— well it isn't.

Dan74 said:
Haykel...explained he was specifically referring to two groups of people who declare ISIS unIslamic: Muslims he says are “just ignorant” of Islam’s legal and political history, and Christians who engage in what he called “the Christian tradition of interfaith dialogue” and declare Islam a “religion of peace.”

Haykel singled out CNN talk show host Fareed Zakaria as an example of the former, who recently said that ISIS’s public execution of a Jordanian pilot by burning him to death — which at least one prominent Muslim cleric in the Middle East also decried as “away from humanity, much less religions” — is “entirely haram,” or forbidden in Islam.
“That’s actually factually wrong — the burning apostates is in the [Islamic] legal code,” Haykel said.

...

Still, Haykel said his frustration with people of faith who try to disavow religious extremists is not limited to Islam.
“[They] present Islam as ‘Oh, Islam is a religion of peace,’” Haykel said. “Well, what does that mean? I mean, Christianity is sometimes a religion of peace, and sometimes a religion of war, depending on what time we’re talking about. There’s no such thing as a religion of peace.”

Malcolm wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/

And these days we can included Buddhism in the "sometimes a religion of peace, and sometimes a religion of war" given what has happened in Śrī Lanka and Burma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


daverupa said:
This sneaky description is a very deficient caricature of scholastic endeavor with respect to early Buddhism. You must imagine a monolithic edifice to throw your criticisms against, but the reality on the ground does not conform to your wish.

Malcolm wrote:
I qualified my description:
...and in the case of people like Jayarava, etc., I see no such interest at all. They merrily hack away...
I was characterizing deficient scholastic endeavor, not all scholastic endeavor.

Sherlock said:
I really recommend Wedemeyer's work on revealing how Western conceptions of tantric history were often based on little more than hearsay and speculation in Victorian times (!) being repeated as dogma

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, now if we could just extend his analysis to the rest of Western scholarship on Buddhism....

daverupa said:
You keep trying to have your cake and eat it too, Malcolm...


Malcolm wrote:
I will have my cake and eat it too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Sherlock said:
I really recommend Wedemeyer's work on revealing how Western conceptions of tantric history were often based on little more than hearsay and speculation in Victorian times (!) being repeated as dogma

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, now if we could just extend his analysis to the rest of Western scholarship on Buddhism....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's not the object that matters so much, it is the subject. Even your "absolute" sweater which does not use any yarn at all is going to be perceived differently by different kinds of persons and beings, if it is perceived at all. Unfortunately, most people who claim to be wearing the absolute sweater just wind up running around naked, like the proverbial emperor.

dzogchungpa said:
I guess it's all just a bunch of yarn(s), in the end.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, including the one's written by academics. I guess you would call those "letter sweaters."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Now that you mention it, I guess I was thinking of the absolute sweater.




Malcolm wrote:
It's not the object that matters so much, it is the subject. Even your "absolute" sweater which does not use any yarn at all is going to be perceived differently by different kinds of persons and beings, if it is perceived at all. Unfortunately, most people who claim to be wearing the absolute sweater just wind up running around naked, like the proverbial emperor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In general, the mature point of view is that all lineages have their own narratives, which are to be given respect, even if there is some disagreement about the particulars. That way, everyone's sweaters remain whole, even though they might require darning from time to time.

dzogchungpa said:
For me, there is no sweater higher than truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, so how are you going to ascertain the truth of any of these varying accounts? For example, which is more true, a human's perception of liquid as water, or a preta's perception of liquid as puss and blood?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I guess the Sakyas don't understand the sweater thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, it is not that. Sakyapas have a completely different line of transmission than the Kagyus. The Kagyu line is Naropa, Maitripa, Marpa, etc. The Sakya line is Naropa, Phaimthing brothers, the translator Sherab Tseg, Mal lotsawa, Sachen, etc.

Note, that the order I give above it not as sequential as it seems. Not only was Marpa held to be a disciple of Maitripa, from whom the main stream of the Sahaja Mahamudra tradition so held to come from (bypassing Naropa entirely), but also Marpa is held to have encountered Naropa personally.

Mal Lotsawa was not only a direct disciple of Sherab Tseg, but he also received all of the transmissions for Cakrasamvara and Vajrayogini directly from the elder Phaimthing.

Now, it is true that some Sakyas have expressed doubt over whether Marpa directly met Naropa in person, but what should Kagyus care about what some Sakyas think? Likewise, some Sakyas have expressed doubts about whether the Mañjuśrī Lama Tsongkhapa encountered through the mediumship of Lama Umapa was authentic or not, but again, why should Gelugpas care about what some Sakya guy thinks? For example, Taranatha roundly criticizes the Padma Khathang literature in the introduction to Padmsambhava's life story as told by his Indian Guru, Buddhaguptanatha. But why should Nyingmapas care about what some Jonangpa guy thinks? Likewise, Dudjom Rinpoche claims that Lamdre really comes from the Heruka Galpo tantra, a tantra of Yangdag, but in reality, why should Sakypas care what some Nyingmapa guy thinks? You see, it goes on and on like this.

A final example, I have shown really quite well that the thee turnings of the wheel doctrine favored by Nyingmas, Kagyus and Jonangpas really has been employed in a way completely without any consistency with what the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra actually says about it, and have pointed out that in Indian texts there was a complete lack of interest in this idea, and that the source of making fine distinctions about them all stem from a Korean commentary that was translated into Tibetan in the early ninth century. Even though I am very firmly convinced that the way Longchenpa, the Third Karmapa, Buton, Dolbupa, and so on have used this brief statement as a hermeneutical key for unlocking the meaning of the sutras (albeit in very distinct ways) is based on a total mistaken understanding, still, in reality, what do Kagyus, Nyingmapas and Jonangpas care about what some Sakya guy has to say about it? It is sufficient merely to say Kagyu, Nyingma and Jonang hold the three turnings of the wheel as very important; the Gelugpas maintain that the second turning is definitive; and the Sakyapas think that the three turning of the wheel doctrine is totally misunderstood, and even so, it is not very important at all, and that if you assert that it actually refers to three historical epochs in the Buddha's teachings, you wind up with all sorts of knotty contradictions that turn the Buddha into a liar.

In general, the mature point of view is that all lineages have their own narratives, which are to be given respect, even if there is some disagreement about the particulars. That way, everyone's sweaters remain whole, even though they might require darning from time to time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
PorkChop said:
The burden of evidence seems to be a bit unfairly weighted against the traditional accounts. I can think of 3 or 4 examples off the top of my head where speculation by an academic is based on little more than opinion, but is taken as law for discounting traditional accounts that were historically significant.

Malcolm wrote:
It is kind of like scholastic arbitrage, their profit is made off the margins of history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Anders said:
This is typical of so much shoddy scholarship. Putting an = between 'uncertainty' and 'obvious fabrication'.

mañjughoṣamaṇi said:
There is a perverse amount of cynicism running through contemporary academia that seems to both reflect mainstream ideologies and to drive these assumptions.

Malcolm wrote:
It is mostly self-serving cynicism, since it creates controversy, reputations, book sales, as well as salaries (which are admittedly hard to come by).

A sweater can be unravelled by pulling a single strand of yarn. But anyone who wants to wear a sweater understands there is no purpose in unravelling it. Destroying a sweater defeats the value of the garment. Likewise, if you poke and pull enough doubt may be cast on any narrative, but these narratives are the protective garments of traditions, and unravelling them is destructive. As Emerson famously observed, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Vajrayana is not Tibetan Buddhism (and vice versa)
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
The author is not someone I would regard as an authority on the subject but the first half of his post (at least) agrees with my own knowledge ... not that I'm an authority on the subject, either.
His basic points are (1) that Tibetan Buddhism is (logically enough) the Buddhism developed and practiced in Tibet, (2) that Vajrayana (aka tantric buddhism) is an important strand within Tibetan Buddhism but most Tibetan Buddhists do not practice it, instead following a more accessible form of Buddhism (which is still, of course, Tibetan Buddhism), and (3) that Vajrayana developed in India and spread to many other countries, so Tibetan Vajrayana is not all of Vajrayana.

I'm not sure if that is much clearer than the blog post but I hope it helps.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
As to point two: virtually all Tibetan Buddhists, apart from small children, have received major empowerments, and thus hold three vows. They are therefore Vajrayānists.

As to point two, it may be the case that Vajrayāna historically spread to Śri Lanka, Java, China, etc. But apart from Japan, the only place where Vajrayāna is practiced as a primary form of Buddhism is Tibet, Mongolia and the Himalayas, and in communities in India and abroad started by Tibetan exiles. Some might want to include Tendai under the rubric of Vajrayāna but I would not since Tendai subordinates Vajrayāna to sūtra. Shingon however is a Vajrayāna tradition. Its presence outside Japan is very negligible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So now you have moved from a tentative Huineng maybe existed to a full on "Huineng was invented."

Astus said:
On Huineng there is this work: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zTCoXPEXWNwC. As I have said before, in the earliest sources there is only the name and nothing else. It was Shenhui who created the story of Huineng first and then it was further developed by later generations.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, Shenhui created the story of Huineng? You are absolutely certain that he was not reporting an oral history not written down beforehand? You are certain?


Astus said:
There is evidence enough to tell that Shenxiu - later labelled as the founder of the Northern School - was the first Chan teacher to gain fame and he was recognised in the imperial records as well. Then Shenhui launched an attack on the disciples of Shenxiu by fabricating the transmission story of the robe to Huineng. Then other factions came up with their own versions of how the transmission happened, as shown in for instance Adamek's https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dKgl-jPvHiUC.


Malcolm wrote:
You have connected two things in a non sequitur a) The first Chan teacher to gain fame and he was recognised in the imperial records as well b) attack on the disciples of Shenxiu by fabricating the transmission story of the robe to Huineng.

The third thing you introduce is a contemporary source which offers an alternate version. Ergo, there is more to the story than you want to admit.

Astus said:
On the other hand, there is a clear narrative, and clear history. Just accept it and move on. That helps the tradition of Zen. The opposite undermines it. Is that what you want?
Yes, there is a story of transmission developed over a thousand years and debated by numerous factions. There is hardly any clear narrative unless we believe in a single account of our chosen lineage, in other words, we stick to a sectarian bias and accept whatever that group wants us to believe. How can that be called living up to the ideal of realising the nature of mind?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

It may have been debated in numerous different factions, but so what? That merely shows that a) there was a guy named Huineng, b) he transmitted Chan and was a patriarch c) was sufficiently important that people took a stake in various oral histories that surrounded him.

It does not mean however that Huineng never existed, was never an important lineage master, and that all lineages of Chan/Zen surviving today do not come from this single root.

Let me give you another example — the famed Mahāsiddha, Naropa. There are two versions of his story, the Kagyu version where it is reported by Gampopa that Naropa realized mahāmudra, and the Sakya version where it is reported that Naropa did not realize mahāmudra (despite the fact that Naropa's Vajrayogini is among the most profound Sakya transmissions). There are some other differences between the early Sakya accounts of Naropa and Gampopa's account, but the key point is this: Tilopa is recorded by both traditions as having commanded Naropa to give up the accouterments of a Pandita and to adopt the accouterments of a yogi. He was also ordered by Tilopa to desist from debates. Upon his return from his years of study with Tilopa, Naropa took up residence near Nalanda. Some tīrthikas were giving the four gate-keepers of Nalanda a run for their money and the king asks Naropa to intercede. Naropa agrees but finds he is unable to adequately debate the Hindus (perhaps because his scholarship was rusty from his years of serving Tiloopa). Tilopa arrives to save the day, and scolds Naropa for his disobedience. The key difference between these two early accounts is that in the Sakya account, Tilopa is recorded as having predicted that Naropa himself will be unable to realize Mahāmudra for disobeying his guru. Therefore, in the Sakyapa tradition it is a matter of record that Naropa did not realize Mahāmudra. In the Kagyu traditon it is matter of record that he did. Which tradition is correct? Who cares? One follows the tradition to which one belongs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So in our tradition we never dispute the authenticity of texts or lineage accounts?

Malcolm wrote:
Not in the tradition one is practicing, no.

Berry said:
Why ? Isn't that rather like not disputing texts in a religion which becomes fundamentalist?

Malcolm wrote:
Let me put it to you this way — if you wish to question the validity of the sūtras and tantras, go ahead. But I don't think it will help your practice very much.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
So in our tradition we never dispute the authenticity of texts or lineage accounts?

Malcolm wrote:
Not in the tradition one is practicing, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
daverupa said:
Have what reversed? Both quotes seem to me to be saying about the same thing; I'm sorry to be dense, here.

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying to Astus is that there is a clear narrative and a clear history that names Huineng as the sixth patriarch. Just accept it and move on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
daverupa said:
Elsewhere you've stated

Malcolm wrote:
I am writing for a different history, you know, then one we actually received from our tradition.

daverupa said:
So, is
there is a clear narrative, and clear history. Just accept it and move on. That helps the tradition
a basic summary statement you'd agree with for all general cases of secular/communal/academic Buddhist history vs. any given traditional Buddhist narrative about it?

Malcolm wrote:
You have it reversed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: PP verses by Aryadeva
Content:
Will said:
My guess is the three forms of prajna are the basis.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a translation error, Sparham did not follow the commentary. In the commentary it makes it clear that
Remain in equipoise taking a firm position (bca' gzhi) atop the tripartite revelation
Should be read as follows:

The three prepared bases (bca' gzhi) are body, speech and mind. The meaning of teaching/discourse [bka'] is the Prajñāpāramitā that has the nature of the three liberations. Equipoise is upon that.

He has inexplicably disregarded the instrumental after bca' gzhi, or his version of the manuscript has an error where the instrumental was written as a genitive. Anyway, the line should read:

Rest in equipoise upon the teaching with the three prepared bases.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: The Original Vinaya
Content:
Jetavan said:
Has any scholar produced a reconstruction of the "original vinaya" (however short a text that might be)?

Malcolm wrote:
There cannot be a single original Vinaya since Buddha ordained many different groups of monks in many different places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Huh? You are proposing a speculation,"...instead they probably made up two fake disciples to connect Huineng with later generations" as a fact, "...there is no lineage from him."

Astus said:
Let's start with how Huineng was invented by Shenhui only to connect him to Hongren and establish a lineage separate from those of the so called Northern School, i.e. the disciples of Shenxiu.

Malcolm wrote:
So now you have moved from a tentative Huineng maybe existed to a full on "Huineng was invented."




Astus said:
The earliest version of the Platform Sutra, written after the death of Shenhui, does not even mention Nanyue Huairang, who was later mentioned as the teacher of Mazu Daoyi in order to connect Mazu to Huineng. So, I could say that not only the name of Nanyue was added to the lineage of Huineng, but Huineng himself was added to the lineage of Hongren, both by people who wanted to establish their own authority. This is not to say that there might not have been people with names like that, however, it is clear that the lineage connections are later creations. That is, Huineng was not an outstanding disciple of Hongren and all we know about him from fairly contemporary sources is his name, and Nanyue was not a disciple of Huineng and besides his name we know nothing about from the earliest sources - and that source is actually the stele of Mazu.

Malcolm wrote:
Then why do you say "However, it is clear that the lineage connections are later creations." Why is that clear, because you did not find another ancient book in which to confirm this? It seems to me that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on an astonishing lack of evidence for them.

Astus said:
So, yes, we can only speculate if they existed at all or not. What we can know is that the stories and their places in the lineage are creations of later generations, and such lineages were made up in order to claim authority.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually you cannot know that, you can however speculate all you like.

On the other hand, there is a clear narrative, and clear history. Just accept it and move on. That helps the tradition of Zen. The opposite undermines it. Is that what you want?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You conflate two things here: the Platform Sutra and the Sixth Patriarch.
Did Hui-Neng live? Yes? No?
It does not matter if all the details in the book about Hui-nengs life are "correct."

Astus said:
Yes, based on the available texts there was such a person, although there is nothing else known about him besides his name. Heze Shenhui was the first to claim that Huineng was the true heir of Hongren and not Shenxiu. However, no later lineages derive themselves from Shenhui - who might have been a disciple of Huineng - instead they probably made up two fake disciples to connect Huineng with later generations. So, even if Huineng might have existed, there is no lineage from him. On the other hand, it was the Platform Sutra that propagated Huineng as the true heir and made him the one true Sixth Patriarch.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? You are proposing a speculation,"...instead they probably made up two fake disciples to connect Huineng with later generations" as a fact, "...there is no lineage from him."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Last year I got into debate with Jayarava on this forum. When I disagreed with him that Ian Stevenson's research into children with past-life memories had been discredited by the Sceptic Association, he told me 'I might as well be a Jehovah's Witness'.  By then, I had already decided I didn't have regard for his writings - I think they're tendentious and tend towards materialism.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, he absolutely subscribes to wrong view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
buddhology is forensics, lineage and tradition are living and breathing.

Astus said:
Tradition is the idea that certain patterns of thinking and activity are inherited through time without change. Historical research includes investigating such claims, looking into the origin and development of traditions. For instance, through findings in the 20th century it has become obvious that the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch is a later creation and not an account of actual events and teachings. Since all living Zen lineages originate from the Sixth Patriarch, and lineage is the single basis of authority in Zen, it is not at all irrelevant whether the tradition has a historical validity or not, exactly because lineage is a powerful argument only as long as it can be perceived as true.


Malcolm wrote:
You conflate two things here: the Platform Sutra and the Sixth Patriarch.

Did Hui-Neng live? Yes? No?

It does not matter if all the details in the book about Hui-nengs life are "correct."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Kaccāni said:
For the sake of understanding, I rather go with something non-invasive like "deconstruction" instead of destruction or dissection. However, there are other professions ...

Best wishes
Kc

Malcolm wrote:
But that is actually the point, their purported dissections are destructive of their own understanding as well as that of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Reiki
Content:
Vasana said:
Is abhisheka the only way to establish a connection?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Vasana said:
What about Puja?

Malcolm wrote:
No.

Vasana said:
I agree that reiki is not a Vajrayāna system in it's self, just that it utilizes syllables, one of which i still maintain as a variation of Hrih.

Malcolm wrote:
It has no more value that Hrih, i.e. the English letters, HRIH, from a Vajrayāna perspective.

It is best not to conflate systems. Of course, now, someone is going to fabricate a Vajrayāna Reiki, invent an empowerment for it and so on, it is only a matter of time...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


daverupa said:
This sneaky description is a very deficient caricature of scholastic endeavor with respect to early Buddhism. You must imagine a monolithic edifice to throw your criticisms against, but the reality on the ground does not conform to your wish.

Malcolm wrote:
I qualified my description:
...and in the case of people like Jayarava, etc., I see no such interest at all. They merrily hack away...
I was characterizing deficient scholastic endeavor, not all scholastic endeavor. For example, scholars like Richard Saloman and Collette Cox, among others, these are real scholars, characterized by restraint and measure. Contrast their work with the reconstructions of Schopen, and I think you can clearly see the difference. It is obvious that Jayarava is just a Schopen fanboy, and Sujato's objection to Schopen equally applies to this so called "peer-reviewed" scholar, Jayarava Atwood:
If we were to accept Schopen in his more radical moods we would be rendered incapable of saying anything about the Buddha or his teachings, and would be left with no idea as to why there were, in the later periods, such widely spread religious schools claiming inspiration from a common Teacher, sharing a similar lifestyle, and borrowing wholesale each other’s scriptures, at the same time as vigorously arguing with each other over what the scriptures mean.
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/the-ironic-assumptions-of-gregory-schopen/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Noam Chomsky starting from around 4:39

Unknown said:
Unfortunately, ISIS, the Islamic Caliphate, is now…almost…a representative of Sunni…a large part of Sunni Islam…that’s an utter tragedy.

Malcolm wrote:
Earlier, starting around 3:47, he blames two main causes for the rise of ISIS, 1) Allied disruption of Iraq that lead to sectarian violence 2) Saudi Wahhabi funding.

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Reiki
Content:
Vasana said:
So long as a condensed form of the Hrih syllable exists as a Reiki symbol, then the corresponding Buddha-family ,Dakini and activity will always be an energetic part of the process.
Buddhas' emanate in the form of light-rays and the syllables and mantras are invocations and attunements of such.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. For a person who has not received abhisheka there is no connection, no dependent origination has been established, and so on.

Reiki is not and never will be a Vajrayāna system of any kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
daverupa said:
False dichotomies are boring.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a false dichotomy — forensics is dissection. You only do that to corpses. One does not dissect living things, unless one is seeking to remove some illness from them in order to save their lives.

One might argue that Buddhology is just such a kind of surgery, but in general, in surgery, the surgeon has to be interested in saving the patient, and in the case of people like Jayarava, etc., I see no such interest at all. They merrily hack away at the body of Dharma, trying to remove what they perceive to problems and inconsistencies, blind to the problems and inconsistencies they themselves are introducing —— this is, in all cases, because they have not received a proper education in Dharma, and properly followed a master. There is no one more sad than a putative Dharma practitioner who has no master.

One can try to couch the various approaches in the modern historiography of Buddhadharma in "neutral" distinctions such as "etic" and "emic", but these terms are merely subtle insults — at least the way the terms are commonly misapplied in Buddhology these days.

In terms of so called "Early Buddhism", this is merely a hypothetical Buddhism, a largely speculative project of reconstruction. No one ever practiced, practices or can practice such a thing as "Early Buddhism" because there is actually no such thing and there never was such a thing. One can only practice the Dharma one has received from a teacher in the present day along with its traditions and lineages and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, the point is that no amount of study of Buddhist "history" will get you any closer to the Dharma.

Astus said:
At the same time Buddhist schools are happy to establish their authority on historical claims and they regularly transmit stories about events supposedly happened in the past. The very idea of lineage is a claim for historical origins. If it is irrelevant to understanding the Dharma, why not leave all those out?

Malcolm wrote:
buddhology is forensics, lineage and tradition are living and breathing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Jayarava also seems quite eager to point out that all of these issues have been glossed over by scholars, like when he says in his reddit post "...I realised that many flaws in Buddhist doctrine are plastered over with collusion between Buddhists practitioners and scholars. There's a kind of loose conspiracy to present Buddhism as smooth, when it is in fact lumpy." but far from being something that's ignored, this 'lumpiness' of the texts is in fact the primary thing that these textual scholars investigate. None of these scholars claim that these early canons are these pristine texts that have been perfectly and accurately preserved.

daverupa said:
Indeed, the discussion of early Buddhism is well-underway & the underlined portion above is already well in-view by scholastics... which leaves us with Jayarava's strawman: exposed and loose, wafting away right in front of us.

Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, the point is that no amount of study of Buddhist "history" will get you any closer to the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
conebeckham said:
these were also eventually passsed to Rechungpa as well, from a Mikyo Dorje--not the 8th Karmapa, though.


Malcolm wrote:
Rechungpa's dates are 1085-- 1161. Nyang ral, born in 1124, would have been 37 when Raschung passed. Nyang had a student called man lung pa mi bskyod rdo rje, birth dates unknown, so it is possible that Raschungpa received this transmission from this Mikyo Dorje. Nyang's lineage, the five deity mandala, has the mantra found in the Siddhirajñī text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
conebeckham said:
Malcolm, that's interesting--from the titles, it would seem those texts relate to Gyalwa Gyamtso, perhaps?  I seem to recall Jalandara from a lineage prayer....

Malcolm wrote:
Gyalwa Gyatso also has no named text in the bka' 'gyur nor the bstan 'gyur.

However a quick search shows that one version of Gyalwa Gyatso uses the mantra in the Siddhirajni text. Another version, in the bcom ldan 'das 'phags pa 'jig rten dbang phyug rgyal ba rgya mtsho'i sgrub dkyil dbang chog dang bcas pa thar pa'i lam chen zhes bya ba found in the Sakya Rgyud sde kun btus shows the mantra in given in the first text I described above. So it seems that this form of Avalokiteśvara practice got its nickname in Tibet.

The rgyud sde kun btus lists two different lineages for the practice.

First, goes from Vajradhara, to Avalokiteśvara, Padmavajra the junior, Jalandhara, Vajrapani, Maitripa, Vajrapani, Sumatikirti, Rechungpa, etc. — I think this is the one practiced in Kagyu.

The second, from Amitabha, to Avalokiteśvara, Mitrajoki, Śrīputra, Minyag Dragpa Rinchen and so on. This one does not have an important lineage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
conebeckham said:
I will have to take your word for that, and I do find it interesting.  There are so many different sadhanas and practice cycles associated with Cakrasamvara and Vajrayogini/Varahi, I can't imagine anyone being accomplished in the details of all--though of course, if one is truly accomplished in one, that suffices.  Knowing the details of the individual methods is an interesting side-line, and one I find fascinating and inspiring, personally.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, there are two related texts in the bstan 'gyur that have mantras with ha ri ni sa:

dpal thugs rje chen po'i dbang bskur ba'i man ngag rab tu byed pa zhes bya ba attributed to Jalandhara and supposedly translated by a Tibetan, Prajñākīrti from the oral transmission by the Indian Vajrapāṇi (Gya gar phyag na rdo rje) of Matripa's hand written copy of the text.

The other example is 'jig rten dbang phyug gsang ba'i sgrub thabs termed an oral lineage from Siddhirajni, no listed translator.



And there are no Sarma tantras with these mantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:


conebeckham said:
Also, in Kamtsang, the "arrangement of the mandala" differs greatly between Vajrayogini and Cakrasamvara.

Malcolm wrote:
The full mandala of Yogini has 37 deities. The full mandala of Cakrasamvara has 62 deities. What is the difference? The absence of the heroes. When you subtract the 25 heroes from 62 you come up with 37. Then of course, the essential or mandala of great bliss of Cakrasamvara is Cakramsavara/Vārāhī and the four core dākinīs, Lāma and so on. When you are dealing with just the core deities of Vārāhī, then you have Vārāhī, Lāma, etc. Or you can take it down to one deity, like Naropa's Khecari. But all in all, even the single deity Naropa's Khecari actually contains the entire 62 deity Samvara mandala.

Incidentally, any mantra with ha ri ni sa in it has a Nyingma origin since that mantra is entirely absent in any Sarma tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
Content:
Bakmoon said:
They think of the world of Muslims as being one tribe and the West as being another tribe...

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I'll agree there to some extent, it certainly seems it could do with some sort of reformation..

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Islam as a whole needs a great internal reformation.

Johnny Dangerous said:
But really, what is the conclusion to draw from this sort of sentiment anyway 'be scared of Islam'. I always see people post stuff likenthis as if there's some grand point to be.made...there are alot of moving parts to this debate and simply harping on what's wrong with Islam.strikes me as very short sighted...it cannot describe all.the conditios responsible for modern Jihad movements.

Malcolm wrote:
Wahhabism, that is all the conditions required. When you examine the history of this movement, you will see the roots of ISIS and so on.

Johnny Dangerous said:
BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
Content:
Fa Dao said:
It doesnt matter how I define it..it is clearly defined in the quran and hadiths...

Johnny Dangerous said:
Violence against non believers on a similar level is also in the Torah/Old Testament....it is something othe than just the holy books, believing religion and politics are somehow mutually exclusive motivations is naieve.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, the problem with the Koran is that there is no "new testament."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 23rd, 2015 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
Lingpupa said:
Dear Malcolm,

I can well imagine that you'd like the last word, and that's fine with me. However, from the practitioner's point of view, the situation is really quite simple. Vajravarahi/Vajrayogini plays a part in the two practices of which I have the longest experience. Both of them are from the Kagyu tradition, neither of them is particularly obscure. In one of them she is called Vajravarahi, has a sow's head, and has one mantra. In the other, she is called Vajrayogini, does not have the sow's head, and has a slightly different mantra. I'm sure you appreciate that it would be completely wrong to interchange either the appearances or the mantras between these practices. For my money, that makes the two occurrences slightly different.

If you want to argue that they are nevertheless identical (which was the original poster's question, as I recall, although somebody seems to have manipulated the threads), while being somewhat different, then please be my guest.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference lies in whether the essence and near essence mantras are combined, as in the Om gsum mantra, or whether they are kept separately, as in some other sadhanas and transmissions.

The main point however is that we have two basic forms of one deity. For example, there is a Cakrasamvara in his Sahaja form, 12 armed form, up to a thousand armed form. They are all different forms of the same deity. Likewise, whether we are talking about Naro Dakini, Indradakini (Vārāhī), Maitri Dakini, or Vajravārāhī they are all different forms of the same deity.

In the sadhanas we have in the bstan 'gyur we frequently see this:

/bod skad du/rdo rje phag mo'i sgrub thabs/dpal rdo rje rnal 'byor ma la phyag 'tshal lo/

/bod skad du/rdo rje rnal 'byor ma'i sgrub thabs zhes bya ba/rje btsun dpal rdo rje phag mo la phyag 'tshal lo/

In Tibetan: Vajravārāhīsadhana. Homage to Vajrayoginī.

In Tibetan: Vajrayoginīsadana. Homage to Lady Śrī Vajravārāhī


Or in the Khyāvajravārāhyabhidhanāta-tantrottara-vārāhi-abhibodhiya-nāma
Arising in the center of that is the queen, 
Vārāhī, Vajrayoginī.
My point being is that these two terms are both used for the same deity, regardless of minor differences in mantra formation or appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 23rd, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Always, they both come from the Laghusamvara Tantra.

Lingpupa said:
Sure. But Vajravarahi has the sow's head, Vajrayogini generally not. Whether you call them the same or close but different is up to the way you want to define your terms. It's not very important.

You can argue by that method that she is the same deity as Chakrasamvara. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't - but they look different. The rest is little games.

So not always in every case, just many.

Malcolm wrote:
The presence or absence of the sows head is not relevant. What is relevant is that the mantras are the same, the source tantra is the same, and so on.

Also, Yoginī is the essence of Cakrasamvara. When one practices Yoginī, Samvara is included automatically. The arrangement of the mandala is the same, the manner of the abhisamaya is the same, based on the Yoginīsaṃcarya Tantra, so on and so forth.

Also, when in union with Cakrasamvara, Vajravārāhī is never pictured with a sow's head, as she is always, say, when she is the consort of Hayagriva in Nyingma Tantras.

This is why I am willing to allow that Vajravārāhī in Nyingma is not necessarily interchangeable with Vajrayoginī in Sarma — the Vajravārāhī mantras in Nyingma tantra are not similar at all with the Yoginī/Vārāhī mantras from the Laghusamvara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 23rd, 2015 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In gSar ma, they definitely are interchangeable.

Lingpupa said:
Perhaps. Maybe even often. But not quite always.

Malcolm wrote:
Always, they both come from the Laghusamvara Tantra, and no distinction is made between Yoginī and Vārāhī, Vajrayoginī is Vajravārāhī and vice verse. The only difference between them is the source of the lineage, but not the nature of the deity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 23rd, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Spirit Guides in Buddhism
Content:


M.G. said:
Is there a formal differentiation between a "spirit" and a worldly dharmapala?  (Other than the latter being tamed into protecting the dharma.) That's not meant sarcastically, btw.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, a dharmapāla, as opposed to a lokapāla, is an awakened nonhuman manifesting in a wrathful form to protect the Dharma. A lokapāla is a worldly being who has been bound to protect the Dharma. It is important to make this distinction since it is at the root of the dharmapāla crisis in Gelug.


M.G. said:
This is an important enough point that I'd like to ask for one clarification.

Is the English phrase "worldly dharmapala" generally understood as synonymous with "lokapala?"  When I used the term "worldly dharmapala" I intended to convey the idea of a dharma protector that is not enlightened.

Malcolm wrote:
"loka" means worldly.

Unless one is a powerful  yogi, one should not rely on unenlightened beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 23rd, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Spirit Guides in Buddhism
Content:


M.G. said:
Is there a formal differentiation between a "spirit" and a worldly dharmapala?  (Other than the latter being tamed into protecting the dharma.) That's not meant sarcastically, btw.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, a dharmapāla, as opposed to a lokapāla, is an awakened nonhuman manifesting in a wrathful form to protect the Dharma. A lokapāla is a worldly being who has been bound to protect the Dharma. It is important to make this distinction since it is at the root of the dharmapāla crisis in Gelug.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Spirit Guides in Buddhism
Content:



Barsook said:
Are there spirit guides in Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
No, definitely not.

M.G. said:
Wouldn't this depend on how one defines the term "spirit guide"?
I know of one serious practitioner who claims to have received a direct warning about a planned action from one of the dharmapalas. To my mind, this could be construed as guidance from a spirit.

Malcolm wrote:
Since when are Dharmapālas "spirits", two, since when do Dharmapālas take interest in the affairs of mortals? Third, how are we to know whether this guidance was from a dharmapāla or a māra masquerading as a dharmapāla?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Spirit Guides in Buddhism
Content:



Barsook said:
Are there spirit guides in Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
No, definitely not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
togg said:
Are Vajrayogini and Vajravarahi identical?
( And happy Losar!!! )


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact they are the same deity, same mantra, etc.

Lingpupa said:
Almost. Not interchangeable under all circumstances.

Malcolm wrote:
In gSar ma, they definitely are interchangeable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Sherlock said:
Jayarava is also on the fringes of academia at best.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not an academic and has no training at all in Buddhology or in a traditional Buddhist curriculum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Indrajala said:
So much for an academic discussion.


Malcolm wrote:
What is the use of a discussion predicated on outlandish assumptions and pure speculation which has no basis in fact?

Further, what place does an "academic" discussion harmful to the very root of Dharma have on a forum devoted to Dharma?

There are plenty of places where those more interested in "history" and philology than Dharma can chew the fat.

Indrajala said:
Critics of Early Buddhism have adopted a rhetoric of scepticism in order to dismiss the notion of authenticity. Their arguments are apparently intended to be hard-nosed and unsentimental, but when examined closely they are reminiscent of arguments by denialists of various types, such as those relating to the harmful effects of tobacco, creationism, or the reality of man-made climate change. Just as sceptics characterise the search for authenticity as “Protestant Buddhism”, it seems appropriate to describe this form of scepticism as “Denialist Buddhism”.

Malcolm wrote:
What Sujato fails to point out here is just how much of this "skepticism" purely conjectural and speculative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 8:09 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I take it you are not a Mahayana Buddhist Jayarava?

Malcolm wrote:
He is not a follower of Buddhadharma at all, anymore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Jayarava said:
But I do adduce reasons in an earlier essay. My bad for not linking to it. I can sum that argument up for you in a few quick words. Pratītyasamutpāda says:
imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imass' uppādā idaṃ uppajjati;
imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati. (My emphasis)
None other than Nāgārjuna points out the problem with any version of karma that requires effects to ripen after the conditions have ceased:
tiṣṭhaty ā pākakālāc cet karma tan nityatām iyāt /
> niruddhaṃ cen niruddhaṃ sat kiṃ phalaṃ janayiṣyati // MMK_17.6 //
Which translates as:

"If the action remains until the time of maturation, then it would be eternal
If it ceases, being ceased, how does it produce a fruit?"

Now, Nāgārjuna has a particular solution in mind when he makes this criticism. And Indrajala has already pointed out that other Buddhist sects had their own solutions. Which goes to show that this is not something I've simply made up. It was a problem widely acknowledged in the Buddhist world and many solutions were proposed, and polemics were written criticising them all by Buddhists of different sects. Far from being a shocking modern discovery, this is a boring 2000 year old argument. Though in my view it was never settled satisfactorily.

So I'm sorry that you felt the need to go on the offensive, but you are simply mistaken. The facts are very much on my side. Does this change your mind at all?

Bakmoon said:
How is this a contradiction? Just because the earliest texts don't give an explicit formulation of how the process of Karma works in regards to time doesn't mean that there is a contradiction. It just means that the texts never discuss the matter.

Malcolm wrote:
It is just more of Jayarava's Adharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:


Jayarava said:
And this is the problem with basing your opinions on translations instead of original texts. There really is a contradiction, but the translation you were reading hid it from you. A bit deceptive, eh?

Malcolm wrote:
It still does not necessarily mean what you intend it to mean. It does not indicate that Buddha's birth mother, who supposedly died when shortly after he was born of a caesarean section, was the "mother" referenced in the passage.




Jayarava said:
None other than Nāgārjuna points out the problem with any version of karma that requires effects to ripen after the conditions have ceased:

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, ultimately. Still, Nāgārjuna accepts karmic ripening conventionally, and even presents his favored presentation of how karmas ripen, the position of the Sammityas.

Jayarava said:
Now, Nāgārjuna has a particular solution in mind when he makes this criticism. And Indrajala has already pointed out that other Buddhist sects had their own solutions. Which goes to show that this is not something I've simply made up. It was a problem widely acknowledged in the Buddhist world and many solutions were proposed, and polemics were written criticising them all by Buddhists of different sects. Far from being a shocking modern discovery, this is a boring 2000 year old argument. Though in my view it was never settled satisfactorily.

Malcolm wrote:
See above.

Jayarava said:
So I'm sorry that you felt the need to go on the offensive, but you are simply mistaken. The facts are very much on my side. Does this change your mind at all?

Malcolm wrote:
That facts are not on your side.

One, your reading of that sutta passage involves a large number of unfounded suppositions.

Two, your reading of Nāgārjuna conflates relative and ultimate. What Nagārjuna opines is the idea that the effects of actions are "imperishable", even after the action itself has ceased. In other words, he presents the āvipraṇāśa, his preferred theory. This chapter is sole place in the whole of the MMK where he expressed an preference of opinions.

Now, you might personally feel that Karma and dependent origination are in contradiction, but it is slipshod to invoke Nāgārjuna in defense of your theory, since Nāgārjuna, strictly speaking, ultimately negates arising altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
frank123 said:
My apologies for sounding like a broken record but i am just trying to get my head around that at some time in the future Dzogchen will be the only practice remaining on earth.Surely if it spreads across the whole globe so widely would it be accurate to say that the essence of the teachings will remain but there will not be cultural 'baggage' so to speak remaining.

For example Tibetan terminology will not be so important,the name Dzogchen wont be used to describe our true nature etc but the main essentials will still be intact.I know we cant know for sure but does this outcome seems most probable?


Malcolm wrote:
I have no idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anachronisms in a text do not necessarily point to a late, original composition — case in point, the Illiad.

Certainly the Illiad is filled with anachronisms, nevertheless, the basic facts presented in the Illiad have been born out by archaeological findings.

Then of course there is the issue of whether something some scholar judges to be anachronistic is actually anachronistic.

Bakmoon said:
Anachronisms do not demonstrate that the entirety of a text is late, correct. But they do indicate that the particular example of the text which contains them is.

Malcolm wrote:
And that of course says nothing about the antiquity of the given text in question, merely the example presented.

In any case, everything that Jayarava presents is nothing but one huge ego-flamed speculation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, at that time, Dzogchen too will gave vanished. And when we say life span of ten years, it does not mean everyone has a life span of ten years, it means that there is such violence, that the average lifespan is ten years.

For example, we live now in an age where the life span for humans is considered to be a one hundred. This does not mean everyone lives to a hundred, or that one cannot live longer, etc.

dzogchungpa said:
So what will the average lifespan be when everything but Dzogchen is gone?

Malcolm wrote:
One assumes 100 years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:


alpha said:
If rinpoche's claim is based on kalachakra prophecies than this could only happen in the very distant future, more like thousands of years from now.Because first the islam has to dominate the world and be destroyed and only then we can talk about the right conditions for vajrayana and dzogchen to flourish again or so i understood it.

Malcolm wrote:
More like 450 years from now, that is when the Kalacakra war is supposed to happen. But I don't think this idea is based at all on Kalacakra, but rather a prediction in the srga thal gyur tantra, where it says that Dzogchen teachings will continue to spread until the time when the lifespan decreases to ten years, at which point it will disappear. Given that the notion that the Śākyamuni's Dharma supposed to last 5000 years before it disappears and so on, we can see the inference that Dzogchen will be the last surviving system of Dharma.

dzogchungpa said:
So at that time Dzogchen will be transmitted and practiced by people under the age of 10?

Malcolm wrote:
No, at that time, Dzogchen too will gave vanished. And when we say life span of ten years, it does not mean everyone has a life span of ten years, it means that there is such violence, that the average lifespan is ten years.

For example, we live now in an age where the life span for humans is considered to be a one hundred. This does not mean everyone lives to a hundred, or that one cannot live longer, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Indrajala said:
Then of course there is the issue of whether something some scholar judges to be anachronistic is actually anachronistic.

It all comes down to evidence. You can contest anything, but in the absence of evidence it means nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
And you can propose anything, even an anachronism, but in the absence of evidence it means nothing.

As far as Jayravava's article goes, there is a least one instance of playing fast and loose with the facts. He writes: I've also discussed the contradictory biographical traditions in the suttas (see The Buddha's Biography). There are at least two biographies of the Buddha. In one he is a unmarried youth when he leaves home and his mother is still alive. In another he is a man of 29 whose mother died in childbirth. The youth is found in the Pāli version of the Ariyapariyesana Sutta and the 29 year old in the Chinese counterpart of the same text. Both stories cannot be true and we have no objective way of knowing which is. All we have is a general historical principle that Buddhist stories become more elaborate over time (there is clear evidence of this in the accurately dated Chinese translations). Thus, we usually assume that a less elaborate version of a story is (relatively) earlier than the same story in a more elaborate version.
However, this is incorrect. There is no specific mention of Buddha's mother in this sutta. There is this, however:
"So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.
For example, my father remarried, and has a wife who is not my mother. But I often refer to them as my "parents" out of convenience, though only one of them is actually my parent.

Thus, when Jayarava claims that there are two conflicting bios in the canon, when his claim is closely examined, it is at best a reach based on how he wants to read the term "parents" and "youth". Thus, Jayarava is conjuring up contradictions where none are to be seen, in this case.

Then there is this:
There is the fundamental incompatibility of karma and pratītyasamutpāda. The former demands effects long after conditions have ceased, and the latter forbids it.
This is nonsense, it almost bears no rebuttal since he adduces no reasoning to buttress his absurd claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Indrajala said:
I personally agree that the traditional narrative is highly problematic, which is evident when you see anachronisms in literature which is supposed to represent the teachings of a historical Buddha and early sangha (like mention of writing in the Ekōttarikāgama).


Malcolm wrote:
Anachronisms in a text do not necessarily point to a late, original composition — case in point, the Illiad.

Certainly the Illiad is filled with anachronisms, nevertheless, the basic facts presented in the Illiad have been born out by archaeological findings.

Then of course there is the issue of whether something some scholar judges to be anachronistic is actually anachronistic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 22nd, 2015 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:


alpha said:
If rinpoche's claim is based on kalachakra prophecies than this could only happen in the very distant future, more like thousands of years from now.Because first the islam has to dominate the world and be destroyed and only then we can talk about the right conditions for vajrayana and dzogchen to flourish again or so i understood it.

Malcolm wrote:
More like 450 years from now, that is when the Kalacakra war is supposed to happen. But I don't think this idea is based at all on Kalacakra, but rather a prediction in the srga thal gyur tantra, where it says that Dzogchen teachings will continue to spread until the time when the lifespan decreases to ten years, at which point it will disappear. Given that the notion that the Śākyamuni's Dharma supposed to last 5000 years before it disappears and so on, we can see the inference that Dzogchen will be the last surviving system of Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 21st, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Vajravarahi practice in Kagyupa scho
Content:
togg said:
Are Vajrayogini and Vajravarahi identical?
( And happy Losar!!! )


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact they are the same deity, same mantra, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 20th, 2015 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Did Tibet ever use the Indian calendar?
Content:
Indrajala said:
The Tibetan calendar is calculated on the basis of the Kālacakra Tantra.
It seems though the popular calendar commonly used by Tibetans is very similar to the Chinese lunar calendar. Losar for example just happened, whereas Caitra or Vaiśākha, which are regarded as the start of the year on the Indian calendar, won't be until April or May.

According to Henning's site, there's multiple calendars in use:

http://www.kalacakra.org/calendar/tibcal.htm
However, the month commences from the new moon, as in the Chinese calendar you mention above.
There is a precedent for this in India. If I recall, the calendars of the south have the month commence from the new moon, which is called the amānta method, whereas if it commences from the full moon it is the pūrṇāmānta method. The amānta method is generally understood as occidental and not native to India originally.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetan calendar, while calculated astronomically on the basis of the Kālacakra (specifically the Vimalaprabha), is applied according to the system of 'byung rtsi, i.e. elemental calculation, which originates some time in the 11th century and derives from "China", roughly speaking.

There are two main systems of calendar making in Tibet, Phuglug and Tshurlug; the former is followed by most Tibetans; the latter, by the Karma Kagyu. The Tshurlug new year is one month earlier than the Phuglug system.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 20th, 2015 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Did Tibet ever use the Indian calendar?
Content:
Indrajala said:
Does anyone know if Tibet ever used the Indian calendar based on the 27 or 28 nakṣatras? The month commences from the full moon and has its name derived from which nakṣatra the full moon is nominally abiding in that night. On the Chinese lunar calendar this would be day 15 (day 1 is the new moon). According to this model, the new year will commence on April 3rd or lunar 2/15, which is always the nakṣatra Citrā (as a month name it is Caitra).

If you convert the Chinese lunar calendar into the Indian one used by Amoghavajra in the eighth century it looks like this:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yZipCVPd4X4/VKTR5xagwZI/AAAAAAAAC5M/OvUY1SHtmLI/s1600/T1299%2Btable%2Blandscape-page-001.jpg

It became widely used in astrology and Mijiao/Shingon, especially in Japan, but was never mainstream in either China or Japan. How about Tibet?

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetan calendar is calculated on the basis of the Kālacakra Tantra. However, the month commences from the new moon, as in the Chinese calendar you mention above.

The Tibetans make full use of the nakṣatras based on both the Chinese and Indian systems. For example, the fourth Tibetan Month, Saga, is a corruption of Vaisakha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 18th, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: series of rebirths
Content:
garudha said:
That which has a beginning also has an end.

If someone says "this is/was my final birth" it follows that there must have an original birth.

Q: is there any mention of liberated ones recalling their original or first birth ?

Malcolm wrote:
No, because there is no beginning to birth, only and end.

There is a saying, "samsara has no beginning, but it has an end, nirvana has a beginning, but it has no end."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 17th, 2015 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: The Eleven Nations of North America
Content:
steveb1 said:
OP wrote: "the United States, which I view basically as a monoculture (or really more of a homogeneous barbarism). North America *is* multinational, composed of at least four major cultures (Mexico, which has more than one culture, the lower 48 barbarism, and Canada"

Seems a bit judgmental, particularly in regard to Mexico, which is a culture in wildly barbaric disarray whose government sends and deliberately encourages its poorest, least educated citizens to illegally immigrate to the U.S., to the detriment of both cultures, but especially of the U.S., whose resources are inadequate to handle these waves of illegal colonization. To dismiss the U.S. simply as "the lower 48 barbarism" is inaccurate and itself looks like a form of barbarism.

Malcolm wrote:
It is actually a racist sentiment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma
Content:
Simon E. said:
You are moving firmly into the area of ' prapanca '   imo.

dzogchungpa said:
Horrors.

I beleive it was Richard Hayes who first suggested that 'prapanca' is just the Buddhist word for 'bullshit':
http://www.buddha-l.org/archives/2008-February/009389.html

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I like that. The definition of ultimate truth is "emptiness free from the four extremes of bullshit."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma
Content:
Herbie said:
So there may arise potential conflict between "this buddhisms" doctrines or teachings and the expression of "awakened people".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for example, the conflict between Hinayāna and Mahāyāna, and the conflict between Yogacara and Madhyamaka, and so on. A great deal of the hermeneutics in Buddhism involves negotiating the disparity between "buddhisms" and Buddhadharma.

Herbie said:
"awakened" or "awakening" seems to be the key concept.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Buddhadharma means "The realization and teaching of those who are awake."

Herbie said:
So the question as to the difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has just been shifted to the question of identifying "awakened people" and since the ways of expression of "awakened people" cannot be determined by any buddhism how can "awakened people" be identified?

Malcolm wrote:
That is something we all have to work out on our own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, your upāya is indeed inconceivable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
daverupa said:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.6.02.than.html as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Given Dzogchungpa's ecumenical tendencies (there is a cure for that, BTW), I thought it was apropo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Buddhisms" may contain Buddhadharma or not. It really depends on whether a given school of "Buddhism" produces awakened people or not.

dzogchungpa said:
How can you tell if a given school produces awakened people or not?

Malcolm wrote:
Matthew 7:16


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Can you specify/define what "buddhadharma" stands for?
"Buddha Dharma" is a) the realization of a buddha and his or her expression of that realization.

Herbie said:
OK, thanks.
But then those who claim that "Buddhism" or "all kinds of Buddhism" are not "Buddha Dharma" should have that knowledge directly from a Buddha and should have been able to understand the expression of that Buddha meaning exactly this. Because if they have that knowledge from a "buddhist" teaching (a teaching of any kind of "all kinds of Buddhisms") then "Buddha Dharma" would be included in "Buddhism" and would not be different from "Buddhism".

Malcolm wrote:
"Buddhisms" may contain Buddhadharma or not. It really depends on whether a given school of "Buddhism" produces awakened people or not.

In other words not everything branded as "Buddhism" is Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:


Herbie said:
For me buddhism is manifesting in buddhists, buddhist traditions and institutions and the terms that stand for the concepts of the buddhist system of thought. Therefore I take the term  "buddhadharma" as a synonym for "buddhism".

Malcolm wrote:
They are not— the various kinds of "Buddhisms" may elect to disinclude various aspects of Buddhadharma and often do.

Herbie said:
From your perspective you are certainly right.
But I understand my term "buddhism" as the heading for all "kinds of buddhisms". Also when I am exploring I rely on my 5 senses therefore I have to take the 2 terms as synonyms. Otherwise I feel I would indulge in some sort of speculation.

Malcolm wrote:
You have another sense, the mind.



Herbie said:
Can you specify/define what "buddhadharma" stands for?

Malcolm wrote:
"Buddha Dharma" is a) the realization of a buddha and his or her expression of that realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Madhyamaka stance, represented by Bhavaviveka, is that eating meat that is pure in three ways is permissible since there is no consciousness in the flesh of an animal who has been dead for some time

daverupa said:
...but there is consciousness in the flesh of an animal who has been dead for some lesser time?

Malcolm wrote:
Dave, the point eating meat not pure in three ways mean that you are somehow involved in afflicting suffering and engaging in killing. Basically, what Bhava is saying, is that a) because you were not involved in killing, seeing or ordering meat killed for you, you were not involved in killing b) since it takes a while to dress meat, but the time the (pure in three ways) meat reaches you, there is no fear of being involved in the animals suffering since its consciousness has long since departed its body, whether it is 30 seconds, 10 minutes, half an hour or three days.


daverupa said:
Also, how does this difference of opinion you mention relate to the following passage in the Surangama Sutra:
I use my spiritual power of compassion to provide you with illusory meat to satisfy your appetite.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not relate at all — this text never existed outside of China. We have some evidence that Indian Mādhyamikas more or less absolutely disregarded Yogacara and Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, or where they did give them attention, it was only to explain how their followers had utterly misunderstood them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
While some Mahayana masters continue using a Hinayanist view to explain karma and blame people for eating meat.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with your statement here is that meat-eating is not prohibited in Hinayāna.

The Madhyamaka stance, represented by Bhavaviveka, is that eating meat that is pure in three ways is permissible since there is no consciousness in the flesh of an animal who has been dead for some time, and thus one is not responsible for their suffering at all. Those who follow the Yogacara Sūtras and Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras disagree with this point of view vehemently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 13th, 2015 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:


Herbie said:
For me buddhism is manifesting in buddhists, buddhist traditions and institutions and the terms that stand for the concepts of the buddhist system of thought. Therefore I take the term  "buddhadharma" as a synonym for "buddhism".

Malcolm wrote:
They are not— the various kinds of "Buddhisms" may elect to disinclude various aspects of Buddhadharma and often do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 13th, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Ati yoga deity sadhana
Content:
narraboth said:
Can you qoute what did Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche actually say about 'no transformation to diety'?

Malcolm wrote:
He has given over 500 retreats, he has made this statement literally thousands of times.

narraboth said:
That doesn't mean people outside of his sangha would know what and how exactly he said.


Malcolm wrote:
"if there is any transformation at all, it is anu level..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If Jeff wants to believe that his esoteric Christianity has the same message as Buddhadharma, that is his trip, and his conceptual confusion — but we should stop wasting our time with this.

Sherab said:
When a non-Buddhist takes the trouble to come onto a Buddhist forum to present his view, I usually will respond to show where I disagree with them.  When his reply does not address my points, that would mean that he has no reply to my response and is now arguing for arguing sake.  At that point, I will disengage since he is either being evasive or intellectually dishonest.

Jeff said:
Sherab,

Is there some point that I have not responded to? Also, I consider myself a follower of Buddha and have stated many times before that in my experience I have found his teachings to be correct. While the OP was about a Christian perspective, we could also be having this discussion with certain taoist and Kashmir Shaivisim lineages. A Primoridal lineage is a primordial lineage. The challenge in these discussions is that the group seems to be limited to text or verbal descriptions. With the clarity to directly percieve energy/light/transmissions it would be easier to demonstrate the relative lineages.

Best,
Jeff

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Jeff, you are a perennialist, holding that all the worlds religions hold the same essential truth. Most of us here are exclusivists, holding that the truth was only held and expressed in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Jeff said:
Anyone who has realized emptiness knows that there is nothing that was "created" in the first place.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no teaching of śūnyatā, emptiness, outside of the doctrine of Śākyamuni Buddha. Even where the term "emptiness" be used, it is not the emptiness taught by the Buddhas of the three times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If Jeff wants to believe that his esoteric Christianity has the same message as Buddhadharma, that is his trip, and his conceptual confusion — but we should stop wasting our time with this.

Jeff said:
Malcolm,

I did not start this thread and have responded in the context of the OP. If you are not interested in the OP, why post here?

Best,
Jeff


Malcolm wrote:
Because someone might read your posts and become confused.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Jeff said:
Thank you for acknowledging that in these contexts refuge is similar to the concept of surrender.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not acknowledge that.

Jeff said:
Also, I completely agree that Buddha does not equal Jesus. As I have stated a few times before primordial Buddha is equivalent to the Holy Father.

Malcolm wrote:
You are hopelessly confused about Buddhadharma because you read someone else's hopelessly confused misinterpretation of what "adibuddha" means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Sherab said:
In Buddhism, any surrender is only expedient and temporary.  The final goal is liberation from all dependencies, i.e., true independence.  And you take your place as a Victorious One and become a source of refuge for others who have yet to achieve liberation.

In Abrahamic religions, surrender is absolute and eternal, and any free will you have is subject to the free will of Big Daddy.

Jeff said:
Where do you come up with that? Remember the most high is not some Zeus like old man. A couple of actual quotes from the bible for you...

Psalms 82:5-6
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 14:10-12
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.

Sherab said:
Christians like to claim that the creator is beyond space and time.  Since the created are created within space and time, the created will always be lower than the creator.  If you think that you can be equal to the creator, your Christian friends will think that you have come under the influence of Satan.  So Big Daddy still rules over you whether you like it or not.  Your free will is an illusion.

In Buddhism, the belief in a Creator God is considered as irrational.  The Buddha himself taught that there is no Creator God.  The Buddha taught that the Creator God is deluded in thinking that he (the Creator God) is a creator of the world and the beings therein.

When we follow the path shown by the Buddha, we will one day become Buddha ourselves.  We will become equal to the teacher, Buddha.  We will be truly free and independent.

Malcolm wrote:
If Jeff wants to believe that his esoteric Christianity has the same message as Buddhadharma, that is his trip, and his conceptual confusion — but we should stop wasting our time with this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Ati yoga deity sadhana
Content:
narraboth said:
Can you qoute what did Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche actually say about 'no transformation to diety'?


Malcolm wrote:
He has given over 500 retreats, he has made this statement literally thousands of times.


narraboth said:
3. ati: generate directly from rigpa yeshe

Malcolm wrote:
He would still consider this anuyoga because there is generation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:


Jeff said:
"Buddha alone shows the path to liberation"... No other hope and no other way... That is the definition of surrender to Christ.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, well, you take refuge in Jesus. I will continue to take refuge in the Buddha. However, please do not confuse these two, your refuge is not mine, mine is not yours.


Jeff said:
On paths to liberation...

1 John 1:12-13
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Just remeber that the most high is emptiness, not the Zeus guy that everyone here is so attached to. Is not a buddha sort of a "son of emptiness"?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is not god.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Jeff said:
In Refuge, does not "one give them-self over to something"? Also, are you saying that no where in Dharma texts does it talk about "yielding or giving up power or control". Dropping things like anger and fears?

Malcolm wrote:
Dropping anger and fear gives one control; becoming free of the three afflictions gives one the eight kinds of mastery.

When one takes refuge in the Buddha, one is not giving oneself over or surrendering to the Buddha. One is recognizing that Buddha alone shows the path to liberation. When one takes refuge in the Buddha's Dharma, one is recognizing that Buddhadharma alone is the path to liberation. When one takes refuge in the Aryasangha, one is recognizing that the Aryasangha alone can aid one on the path to liberation.

dzogchungpa said:
Re surrender, have a look at chapter 3 of "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism".

Malcolm wrote:
Can you tell me which Tibetan word is used for "surrender"? I have never encountered it used in a Tibetan or Indian Dharma book and I have read thousands.

I don't read basic Dharma texts in English very often anymore, though I do recall from when I did that Trungpa was definitely into the concept of surrender. I think those Tibetans like their Western students to "surrender"; but I think it has a bit more to do with the Cakravartin model of defeating and then converting people to the Dharma.

There is an idea of entrusting oneself (gtad pa) to the Three Jewels or the Guru, but that is a bit different in my view.

For example, when I entrust my money to a bank for safe keeping I do not surrender to the banker. When I entrust myself to the Three Jewels or my guru for the shelter of refuge, I am not surrendering to them. When someone "surrenders" they are placing themselves at the mercy of another. That is not how I understand my relationship with the Three Jewels nor my Gurus — that is a despotic model, quite common in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and perhaps even Hinduism, but I think it is pretty foreign to Buddhadharma, no matter what Tulku Urgyen and Tsoknyi Rinpoche translators may have said when translating for them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:


Jeff said:
Sounds like the key is surrender.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the key is victory. The word surrender is never used in Dharma texts. Through taking refuge, one becomes victorious over both samsara and nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 10th, 2015 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:


daverupa said:
Can you pick something out from that site that's pertinent here? So far, the Ven.'s summary statement, while trenchant, seems to be in the ballpark.

Astus' comments suggest the same.


Malcolm wrote:
This statement:
According to such texts, the bad karma you accumulate by eating meat is not due to your meat-eating leading more animals to be killed...
Is directly contradicted by the Buddha here, in the Lanka:
If people were to refrain from eating meat, Mahamati, animals would not be slain. For the majority of innocent beasts are slaughtered for the sake of money; few are killed for other reasons.

daverupa said:
...rather, it's because the bad karma entailed in the slaughter of the animal you are presently eating is somehow magically present in the meat itself and will attach itself to you by virtue of your eating it

Malcolm wrote:
Such a sentiment is not found in those Mahāyāna texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 10th, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Fascism started out as a left wing movement. Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist newspaper Avanti for 15 years, a life long socialist, until the Socialist Party in Italy split over participating in WWI against Germany.

Sherab Dorje said:
Started out as, but then developed into a proponent of Corporatism.

Malcolm wrote:
So did communism, look at China.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 10th, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Greg, I agree that we just cannot afford to tolerate fascism in any form -- and I agree that it is far better to err here on the side of caution.

But Jung is dead. However gross his political sympathies were, his writings are not fascist, nor supportive of fascism -- even though fascists may well want to hijack them for their own purposes, just as they have tried to hijack Nietzsche and dozens of other intellectuals. In any case, I honestly do not know what could be gained by exhuming Jung's (already fairly rotten) corpse and putting a 'fascist scum' sticker onto it. There are far more dangerous -- and living! -- characters running around to deal with, aren't there?

Sherab Dorje said:
The discussion has gone beyond Jung and into the realm of defining how Fascism (or Fascist movements) develop.  If anything Jung is a great example of how easily one slides back and forth between conservatism and Fascism.  He also is a shining example of how conservatives share many more commonalities with Fascists, than democrats.

Malcolm wrote:
Fascism started out as a left wing movement. Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist newspaper Avanti for 15 years, a life long socialist, until the Socialist Party in Italy split over participating in WWI against Germany. In reality, fascists and communists are more similar than they are different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Greg, it is time for you to put this on:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It was pretty genuine, a lot of intellectuals like Louis Ferdinand Celine and so on were enthusiastic fellow travelers on the Right who were worried about the rise of communism.

Sherab Dorje said:
I am talking about popular support, not "thumbs up" from right wing intellectuals and heads of industry. Don't confuse the twenty teens with the nineteen thirties.
I am not confusing them in the slightest.  I am pointing to similarities.  Of course we do not have the backdrop of WWI and the general despair associated with that debacle (16 million dead, 21 million wounded) but what you fail to understand since you are a safe distance from this phenomenon, is that Fascism was never defeated in Europe.

Franco continued to rule until he died in 1975.  Salazar ruled until 1968 and was then followed by Caetano until 1975.  Greece had the junta.  Etc...

Even in the "democratic" countries of Italy and Germany power was still concentrated in the hands of Fascist and Nazi supporters.  France had a defacto military dictatorship under de Gaulle until 1969.  Winston Churchill (another military officer) until 1955 and don't even get me started on the so-called "Communist" regimes.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I understand quite well that Fascism never died in Europe.

But my point is simply that like anything, both right and left had their "millions of supporters."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Before Hitler came to power, Mussolini was the darling of the European right, who saw in Fascism a coherent response to Bolshevism. Hitler was able to cash in the European Right's enthusiasm for Fascism, without it, the Vichy Republic could not have happened, not to mention Franco, and so on.

Sherab Dorje said:
Again, I do not disagree with you in general, but you still have not answered the question as to whether their appeal was genuine or contrived.

Malcolm wrote:
It was pretty genuine, a lot of intellectuals like Louis Ferdinand Celine and so on were enthusiastic fellow travelers on the Right who were worried about the rise of communism.

Sherab Dorje said:
Seeing how it worked here in Greece I would wager heavily on the contrived option.  Movements like these need to be bankrolled and encouraged/advertised.  Who does the bankrolling and encouragement?  Mr average Joe Blow?  I personally saw Golden Dawn go from an extreme and unknown fringe group to parliament in a matter of 4-5 years.  Keep in mind that Golden Dawn has existed since 1985.  Their direct ties with the (then) ruling New Democracy party and various high-flying business men are common knowledge here in Greece.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't confuse the twenty teens with the nineteen thirties.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Herbie said:
Either this is your belief or you are joking.

Sherab Dorje said:
Oh... another rebirth denying "Buddhist"?

Malcolm wrote:
Probably not as Herbie introduced himself the following way:
I have joined this forum because I am interested in unconventional linguistic expressions and corresponding psycho-philosophy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Believing in a Christian God
Content:
Redfaery said:
Still, I'm pretty inclined to think that he runs a paradise, just as other gods of desire do. I've seen how faith in him has inspired members of my family and others around me to do truly compassionate things. I mean, I cannot imagine that my grandfather is not in the Christian God's heaven right now. There is simply no other place where he'd be.

Malcolm wrote:
Or he is just a rgyal po spirit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Boomerang said:
It's quite simple. There is no need to rationalize why one eats meat. By compassion, it is quite clear that one should refrain from eating meat unless by eating meat you are really saving the animal, but that's not the case most of the time.
What if you could purify the dead animal's karma by eating it and reciting a mantra?

Malcolm wrote:
Such methods do exist in Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
plwk said:
Has Bhante Dhammanando accurately described on the Mahayana view of karma in the practice of vegetarianism? What do you think?

Malcolm wrote:
No, he has not. He has made a botch of it.

http://www.shabkar.org


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Yes, but I think those that actually supported him (ie were not bullied, harangued, threatened and beaten into supporting him) were an extremely small minority.

Malcolm wrote:
Before Hitler came to power, Mussolini was the darling of the European right, who saw in Fascism a coherent response to Bolshevism. Hitler was able to cash in the European Right's enthusiasm for Fascism, without it, the Vichy Republic could not have happened, not to mention Franco, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
steveb1 said:
Like millions of Europeans, Jung saw in Hitler more than a mere demagogue, but a real promise and potential - a dynamic force for progress and unity.

Sherab Dorje said:
What absolute nonsense.  Millions of Europeans stood against Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc... from day one.  Millions of Europeans saw him as a threat from the very beginning.  You are just engaging in apologetics.

Malcolm wrote:
Well the truth is that millions of Europeans saw "...a real promise and potential - a dynamic force for progress and unity." And millions of other Europeans "...stood against Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc... from day one.  Millions of Europeans saw him as a threat from the very beginning."

So you are both right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I came to the conclusion that the "modern academic critical approach to historiography" with regards to Buddhist texts and the history of Dharma in India is fatally flawed because it is shot with conjecture through and through and rife with speculation.

dzogchungpa said:
Not to mention all the disgruntlement.

Malcolm wrote:
Guys like Davidson and Lopez are definitely disgruntled.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Bodhicitta is a term that etymologically means enlightened mind, so, again, the text states that only the enlightened mind can be the cause of Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
No, here it means cittopāda, "generation of the thought."

Also the term bodhicitta does not really mean "enlightened mind" per se. One, bodhi means "awaken", not illuminate. Second, here citta means thought, hence the term "bodhicitta" in this sutrayāna context means "the thought to awaken." Hence the passage means tending to that thought to awaken through proximity and effort, one attains any of three results of the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of things wrong with that...but mainly the piling of conjecture on top of speculation...

Adamantine said:
I guess part of the fun of the dharma chat-room wheel-of-existence is that over time you may get to see someone who once argued against a view you expressed, eventually come to share it. I recall arguing this very point on Esangha, and at the time you appeared to strongly support the modern academic critical approach to historiography as being the most valid in some way. Or maybe I misunderstood you then, or am misunderstanding now. . .


Malcolm wrote:
I came to the conclusion that the "modern academic critical approach to historiography" with regards to Buddhist texts and the history of Dharma in India is fatally flawed because it is shot with conjecture through and through and rife with speculation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: CG Jung was indeed a Fascist. Discuss.
Content:
Jikan said:
I'm bumping this old thread because I was recently reminded just deeply Jung and those who take inspiration from him (Campbell, Bly, &c) are associated with certain trends in Dharma practice.  And because I forgot to rebut the categorical claim made above that there is no evidence for Jung's fascist-ness, which is documented in McLynn's biography, Carl Gustav Jung.  Here's a summary from an LA Times review of the book:
Jung was profoundly anti-Semitic. The facts concerning his thorough-going prejudice against Jews has become one of the most contentious issues in Jungian scholarship today. McLynn addresses it clearly and straightforwardly. In explaining how some analysts deal with Jung's collaboration with the Nazis, he writes that others "in a kind of version of 'politics should have nothing to do with sport,' say that it is beyond the competence of a psychotherapist, even one of genius, to decide on what is right and wrong in politics,and that Jung followed the correct therapeutic procedure in trying to remain above the fray. But the issue of the society [Society For Psychotherapy, of which Jung was president] and the journal [Zentralblatt, the journal sympathetic to Nazi policies edited by Jung] will not go away. Many of the post-1934 articles in the Zentralblatt go far beyond routine Swiss bourgeois anti-Semitism and contain virulent attacks on the Jews coupled with eulogies of Hitler [while he was still in power]. . . . Jung knew all about the later articles and did nothing. Since he could not claim ignorance, as these articles were edited in Switzerland, he tried after World War II, to shift the blame onto C.A. Maier [his deputy editor], claiming that he did all the editing."

McLynn paints an even darker picture of Jung's Nazi sympathies when he discovered that "in 1936 Jung threatened resignation as president [of the Society For Psychotherapy] when the Dutch tried to prevent Nazi sympathizers joining the society. As a calculated snub to his critics, in the same year he appointed Hermann Goering as co-editor of the Zentralblatt. . . . "
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/12/books/bk-41812

Malcolm wrote:
The movie about Jung made him out to be an absolute ass.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Again, from Jackson's introduction: Unfortunately, there is very little way of knowing whether a particular text attributed to a particular siddha—even if that siddha was a historical figure—actually was written by that siddha, so the notion of a “corpus” of texts unambiguously belonging to a specific figure must be regarded with considerable suspicion....
Jackson must be REALLY disgruntled.

kirtu said:
It's just Jackson taking the critical academic stance.  There's really nothing wrong with that.

BTW - what is this intro from?

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of things wrong with that...but mainly the piling of conjecture on top of speculation...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Jackson must be REALLY disgruntled.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, since he is interested in generating historical narratives rather than merely receiving them. People who set out to write history are usually pretty disgruntled.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
conebeckham said:
This is tangential to this thread, but: Ghantapa didn't trace his lineage of Cakrasamvara from Saraha, if I recall.  I think Luipa did trace back to Saraha, via Savaripa.

Malcolm wrote:
Ghantapāda both traces his lineage to Luipa, and he was also a direct disciple of Vajrayogini, hence I said, "directly and indirectly."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I don't know what Saraha was smoking when he taught the Cakrasamvara Tantra Mandala to Nāgārjuna, or wrote the commentary on the Buddhakapala Tantra.

Sherab Dorje said:
I'm not even going to pretend to understand what you are trying to say here!


Malcolm wrote:
What I mean is that the largely disgruntled scholars in the Western Academy pride themselves on iconoclasm and seek out [and often interpolate] examples of iconoclasm in their studies of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Of course, while Saraha is mostly famous to us as the author of various Dohas, he was also great tantric master who is responsible for the promulgation of a number of tantric mandala traditions, Cakrasamvara not least among them, of which he stands at the head. In other words, Saraha was the person who first promulgated Cakrasamvara among humans in this epoch and so all lineages of Cakrasamvara practice must in some way or another trace their lineage to him directly or indirectly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Jeff said:
I apologize if there was confusion in my above meaning. I had meant it is the context of reaching/realizing. Regarding the universe manifesting what is needed, I had meant the combined cause and effect of the needs of sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not surrender to the flows of cause and effect. One sees reality, emptiness, suchness, etc.

Buddhas indeed respond to the needs of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Jeff said:
Malcolm,

It is a matter of perspective. "Full Buddhahood" requires one to surrender to the flows of cause and effect.

Malcolm wrote:
No, "full buddhahood" means being free from causes and effects.

Jeff said:
Or you could say that that the universe manifests a buddha and the kaya form relative to the need.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you couldn't.

Jeff said:
You are taking my above statement out of context. I was describing the process of getting there, not the state itself.

And, yes... I could.

Malcolm wrote:
You said, "...requires one to surrender to the flows of cause and effect."

No.

As for your other statement, the universe does not "manifest" a buddha...etc. The universe is something composed of defiled, conditioned phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Jeff said:
Malcolm,

It is a matter of perspective. "Full Buddhahood" requires one to surrender to the flows of cause and effect.

Malcolm wrote:
No, "full buddhahood" means being free from causes and effects.

Jeff said:
Or you could say that that the universe manifests a buddha and the kaya form relative to the need.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you couldn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
This false consequence is often bandied about, but it is not convincing. Why is this so?

1) What is awakening? It is the direct perception of suchness, the dharmadhātu, etc. This is the direct cause of buddhahood. When that suchness is directly perceived (first bhumi, etc.), it is no longer possible to return to a state of ignorance about it just as a seed singed by fire can no longer produce a sprout.
Although it appears to be, a seed is not an unchanging entity. After a long time, it may lose the ability to germinate, besides, it only becomes a sprout under certain conditions, water,appropriate soil and light. However, if the sprout is really a 'result', then why it is not static and can grow into a plant or tree? On the other hand, if you throw the seed on fire; it becomes dust. The dust, in turn, continues an interdependent transformation process.

Malcolm wrote:
And this reply is just a non-sequitar.

Vajrasvapna said:
In other words, a consciousness singed by wisdom is no longer capable of giving rise to afflictive ignorance. The proximate or indirect causes of buddhahood are the trainings in the paths and stages.
Your argument does not contradict my statement, causality exists only in a conventional manner; because of interdependence.

Malcolm wrote:
Causality does not exist because of interdependence. Interdependence exists because of causality.


Vajrasvapna said:
And wisdom itself burns the stains of the luminous mind as in this quote attributed to Nagarjuna explains: Just as the stains on a fireproof cloth
That is sullied by various stains
Are consumed when the cloth is placed in fire
While the cloth itself is not,
Likewise the stains of the luminous mind
Are consumed in the fire of wisdom;
They are not luminous.
All the sutras on emptiness
Taught by the Victor
Counteract negative emotions;
They do not harm that element [of luminosiry].

Malcolm wrote:
And this luminous mind to which Nāgārjuna (maybe, since the Dharmadhātustava is a very late text and is unattested in the Madhyamaka texts even as late as Candrakīrti and Śantarakṣita) refers, is this itself relative or ultimate? In any case, regardless of your answer, the same text observes:

When one is free from the snare of afflictions
in essenceless samsara, 
because of that there is buddhahood,
which turns into the ambrosia of all embodied beings.
 
In the same way, from all seeds
arise a result that resembles the cause,
what wise person would be able to prove
there is a fruit without a seed?

So, on the contrary, "Nāgārjuna" argues in this text that indeed buddhahood arises from causes. He further says:

Just as without a seed of sugar cane, 
sugar cannot be produced. 
When someone tends the sugar cane seed,
from proximity and effort, 
molasses, sugar, and refined sugar
will arise from that,
Having tended bodhicitta,
from proximity and effort
there is arhatship, the realization of conditions, (i.e. pratyekabuddhahood) and buddhahood
arising and produced from that.



Vajrasvapna said:
So you believe that the alaya is a truly existing entity, since it is the cause of enlightenment?

Malcolm wrote:
The ālaya is empty and from the perspective of the ultimate, it is the dharmadhātu; it is clarity and from the perspective of the relative, it is the ālayavijñāna — these two are inseparable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:


Vajrasvapna said:
The text of the Diamond sutra states that bodhisattva accumulate merit with detached actions, keeping their minds free of concepts of a truly existing entity. Although the text of the Diamond sutra does not say it directly, what is implied is that the Buddha body of merit is already present, the sambhogakaya; so actually the bodhisattva not accumulate any merit. An example, if you have a covered sculpture, the fact that you go slowly discovering the sculpture does not mean that the body of the sculpture was not already there. So bodhisattva will gradually revealing the body of merit already present.

Malcolm wrote:
Is Buddhahood a state one realizes, or a phenomena one passively observes? If Buddhahood is something that already exists within a sentient being, there is no reason for the experience of samsara. The Uttaratantra is very profound, but understood incorrectly, it is results on one adopting a tīrthika view of atman. Viewed another way, it becomes a definitive teaching on the nature of reality. It really depends on how it is understood.

Omniscience has causes and conditions. Even you admit it this in your example. Reality is already there, but unless one removes obscurations to perceiving it, it will never be perceived. Reality is not buddhahood. Buddhahood is the result of seeing reality fully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Another way to prove it, if Buddhahood is produced by cause and effect, this means that enlightenment would be conditioned, so it would not be a permanent state and liberation would not be possible.

Malcolm wrote:
This false consequence is often bandied about, but it is not convincing. Why is this so?

1) What is awakening? It is the direct perception of suchness, the dharmadhātu, etc. This is the direct cause of buddhahood. When that suchness is directly perceived (first bhumi, etc.), it is no longer possible to return to a state of ignorance about it just as a seed singed by fire can no longer produce a sprout. In other words, a consciousness singed by wisdom is no longer capable of giving rise to afflictive ignorance. The proximate or indirect causes of buddhahood are the trainings in the paths and stages.

2) Second, the state of perfect buddhahood, unsurpassed perfect complete awakening (anuttarasamyaksambodhi) is itself defined through the eradication of the two obscurations: the afflictive obscuration and the knowledge obscuration. When these two are eradicated it is not possible for someone to possess them again. Even if their consciousness remains a relative conditioned entity, it is a pure relative conditioned entity characterized by unimpeded knowledge of unconditioned reality. The mind, a conditioned relative entity, does not disappear at buddhahood. If it did, that would be nihilism; nor does it turn into an unconditioned entity itself, because that would involve a contradiction in kind — a conditioned entity cannot become an unconditioned entity and vice versa — as well as eliminating the possibility that there is a continuum between a sentient being and Vajradhara. This is the reason that Sachen Kungpa Nyingpo states in his Nyagma when defining the alāya cause continuum:
"Tantra", because it is the garland of self-knowing from a sentient being through buddhahood, the uninterrupted awareness of the mind itself.
Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen further notes on this passage:
Because all concepts and suffering are complete in the meaning of ālaya, it is the cause continuum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I think the Saraha quote is pretty definitive, irregardless of what Jackson would like to believe.

dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, that Jackson is a real nut. Again, from his introduction: If there is a type of negation in Saraha, Kanha, and Tilopa that seems rather less mitigated by paradox or multiple levels of discourse, it is that related to the three siddhas’ attitudes toward social and religious convention, which are aptly summarized by Groucho Marx’s famous claim, in Horse Feathers, “Whatever it is, I’m against it.” In all three collections of dohas, but especially those of Saraha, there hardly is an Indian personage or practice of social or religious importance that is not subjected to mockery or critique. In the first fifteen verses of his Treasury, Saraha takes on, in succession, brahmin ritualists (S1–2), who are denounced for their pointless recitations and sacrifices; mendicant ascetics (S3–5), who are mocked for their deceit, hypocrisy, and greed; Jain renouncers (S6–9), who are ridiculed for their obsession with physical austerities; Buddhist monastics (S10), who are chastised for their dress-up games, their intellectualism, and their attempt to desiccate the mind through meditation; Mahayanists (S11), who are described as sophists and verbal gymnasts; tantrikas (S11, 14), who are said to be obsessed with mantras, mandalas, and mystic initiations  and practitioners of all kinds (S14–15) who are lampooned for believing that offering lamps or food, going on pilgrimage, or immersing themselves in sacred rivers can purify them of defilement. In other places, Saraha criticizes the self-deception of the alchemists (S51), the absurdities of devoted meditators (S19–20, 22–23, 33, etc.) and the pretensions of scholars (S68, 76, 93) and makes evident his distaste for distinguishing pure and impure on the basis of caste (S46, 56b). Saraha also repeatedly addresses his listener as a “fool” and refers disparagingly to “bestial” or “childish” people who simply don’t understand what is right in front of them. In a similar vein, but less extensively, Kanha and Tilopa, at various points in their dohas, criticize intellectuals (T8), scholars of sacred literature (K1, 29), people who make offerings to deities and visit pilgrimage spots (T19–21), and tantric ritualists obsessed with “chants, oblations, / and mandala rites” (K29). The social and religious outlook of all three is perhaps best captured in Saraha’s injunction: “Throw off / conventional nonsense” (S55).

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I don't know what Saraha was smoking when he taught the Cakrasamvara Tantra Mandala to Nāgārjuna, or wrote the commentary on the Buddhakapala Tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: How does movement arise?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="LastLegend"]I don't think "meditation" is even mentioned in Sutras (correct me if I am wrong). /quote]

You are quite wrong. There is reams of material in the sūtras on meditation [bhavana], concentration [dhyana] and samadhi practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, here is a point. Buddhahood is synonymous with omniscience, but as Kamalashila points out, omniscience must arise from causes otherwise it would arise at all times in anyone.

Vajrasvapna said:
Kamalashila was right, Buddhahood continually arise in all beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Kamalashila's point is rather the opposite, in fact. The sūtra you cite would have been unknown to him, since it never existed in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 6th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Yidam and Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Vairocanābhisambodhi Tantra states: Guhyapati, there are two forms of the deity: pure and impure. The pure form has the nature of realization, free from all characteristics. The impure form possesses characteristics such as color and shape.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Sherlock said:
I don't have the book with me now but I think it was in "Four Contemplations of Dzogchen Semde".

Also another point is maybe that the idea of " nongradual realization" came up in response to practitioners who thought Buddhahood was something created?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, here is a point. Buddhahood is synonymous with omniscience, but as Kamalashila points out, omniscience must arise from causes otherwise it would arise at all times in anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Sherlock said:
The way ChNN quoted that semde text, it seems like it is used as a general reference to students who don't necessarily go through every stage sequentially and sometimes make big leaps but get complacent. He said rimgyispas are better students.

Malcolm wrote:
Which retreat are you referring to?

Anyway, it was a more general question not in reference to any specific teacher's teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Sherlock said:
Well, what about the idea of thodrgalpa and rimgyispa? Thodrgalpas are not cigcarbas but they proceed erratically compared to rimgyipas.

Malcolm wrote:
But have you ever met one? In any case, vyukrantikas (thog rgal ba) are considered those above the path of seeing. Now I have met people I think are above the path of seeing, but none of them ever claim to be vyukrantikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 7:30 PM
Title: Gradual vs. Nongradual
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Having studied widely amongst the four schools, one often comes across controversies about gradual paths vs. nongradual paths, but in all my years I have never met anyone who could claim they woke up nongradually. Is nongradual realization merely a polemical fantasy?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 7:05 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
Adamantine said:
No, but then why the need to disrobe, just convention?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I think it mostly convention. A Vajrayāna practitioner is supposed to follows his or her pratimoksạ vows according to the conventional perception of others. Thus, if they conventionally commit a defeat, well, this is also a breakage of samaya, since one of the samayas is to uphold the lower trainings. The karmic effects of the latter might be purifiable through Vajrasattva, but not the public's perception of you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 11:18 AM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
Adamantine said:
Is it indeed considered possible to purify one's break of vinaya vows using Vajrayana methods?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.

Adamantine said:
But it isn't possible to purify a Parajika with Vajrayana methods? I'm just confused on that point I suppose. Because Tibetan monks still have to disrobe in that case.. Is it that
it's possible to purify in an ultimate sense, but according to conventional custom one
must still disrobe?

Malcolm wrote:
Is there somethung excluded from all faults and downfalss?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
Adamantine said:
Is it indeed considered possible to purify one's break of vinaya vows using Vajrayana methods?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
Buddhism is hard to understand. Maybe I should switch from the Green Tara mantra to the Vajra Guru mantra.

Adamantine said:
I'm not sure how that relates to Sherab Dorje's provocation, but if you do aspire to meet and study with a realized Buddhist tantric master, reciting the Vajra Guru mantra with pure heartfelt aspiration would be good temdrel (auspicious interdependent connection) and it could help you develop the right causes and conditions for that meeting.

Boomerang said:
I meant that I don't understand Madhyamaka, so I should recite the Vajra Guru mantra to find teacher to help me understand.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you should recite the heart sutra. Also, there are many online resources which will help you understand Madhyamaka — but you might want to start with all that "lowly" dualistic stuff first, like Abhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is unlikely that Virupa was anything other than the rough and tumble, tīrthika defeating Mahāisiddha the legends recount:


dzogchungpa said:
You really seem to identify with Virupa.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, sure, he was one of the most important Mahāsiddhas and also the patron saint of drinkers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 5th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Speaking of "Tantric Treasures", here's a passage from Jackson's Introduction: The figures found in these lists are generally acknowledged to be “Buddhists.” Certainly, the legends surrounding them and the words attributed to them have influenced countless Buddhists in India, Nepal, and Tibet for a thousand years; but in their original setting, it is not always easy to separate them out—whether in terms of terminology, rhetoric, or practice—from similar figures in non-Buddhist, especially “Hindu” traditions. They seem quite closely related to Saivite ascetics like the Pasupatas and Kapalikas; tantrikas like the Kashmiri Saivas and Bengali Saktas; or the wonder-working Nath siddhas and Rasa siddhas. More broadly, there are general similarities between ideas and practices found in Buddhist siddha writings and those of other Indian yogic and ascetic communities—from such “textualized” movements as those reflected in the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali and the Samnyasa Upanisads to such seemingly timeless and “unwritten” groups as the Nagas, Kanphatas, and Aghoras. Nor can their possible connections with similar sorts of groups in, for instance, Persia, central Asia, or China be overlooked; the resonance, and possible historical connections, between Indian siddhas and Chinese Chan masters or Taoist immortals suggest an especially intriguing, if uncertain, path for further research. What is more, it is entirely possible that, as suggested long ago by Agehanada Bharati, most of the siddhas actually were pre- or nonsectarian wandering yogins, who appropriated various religious terms without intending to promote a particular religion—yet willy-nilly were appropriated by those very sectarian traditions that they resisted or ignored.

Malcolm wrote:
It is unlikely that Virupa was anything other than the rough and tumble, tīrthika defeating Mahāisiddha the legends recount:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Nirrtix said:
Anyhow, I am curious about this.

odysseus said:
It's a NO – it's not possible.

Nirrtix said:
I am also curious about what many of you think about how some think about the Hindu belief that Buddha is an Avatar of Vishnu.

odysseus said:
Well, for me – it's an honour by the Hindus.


Malcolm wrote:
Not really, the way they put it is that Buddha was an avatar sent to deceive the asuras by teaching them a false doctrine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Herbie said:
What I find most fascinating about these opinions, views and discussions is that the participants seem to believe that there is objectivity involved in terms to which there is no correlate that could be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched.

Malcolm wrote:
If anything is objective, the realization of buddhas and bodhisattvas is objective. That is what is under discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I feel that Hinduism is like an alternate form of the Sravaka path, the difference being that they don't follow Buddha's teachings.

daverupa said:
Did you just say "non-Buddhist Buddhism"?



Malcolm wrote:
I think one can say that the path presented in such texts as the Yoga Sūtras is in many respects similar to the path outlined in the Agamas/NIkayas, but since the view is based in the Saṃkhya system, it does not lead to the same result. Indeed, Saṃkhya occupies a position very much like Abhidharma in Hinduism. Very few people practice it literally, but its core concepts are pervasive, especially in nondual Hindu systems like Advaita and Shaivism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
Yup. Where Buddhism teaches bodhichitta, Hinduism teaches "know your place and don't complain." In that context, bodhichitta is only developed by happenstance.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not developed at all unless you decide to become a Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
2. Never said Buddhism and Hinduism are the same thing. Never said they had the same goal. I only said that ineffable nondual realizations can't be qualified and contrasted, because contrasting them implies they can be described, and nonduality is indescribable.

Paul said:
The part in red is where you make your mistake. You incorrectly say that because something non-dual it is beyond description and discussion and then you conflate two different nondualisms simply because they are non-dual. As has been shown extensively, what is being referred to as being 'non-dual' in Buddhism and other systems is completely different. There is zero reason to conflate them.

Boomerang said:
I said nonduality is beyond scriptures, and Malcolm responded by quoting scriptures. This is what I mean by confusing nonduality with a concept of nonduality. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
I am confused about neither.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
What are the spiritual goals of Buddhadharma?

Mahayana Buddhism = Bodhisattva
Advaita Vedanta = Stop reincarnating

The spiritual goal of Mahāyāna Buddhadharma is buddhahood, the attainment of the three kāyas. Bodhisattvas are those who strive for this goal in order to liberate all beings from samsara. In the process, all afflictions that cause rebirth in samsara are eliminated and power over birth is attained at the eighth bhumi.

From the point of view of Buddhadharma, Advaitans never achieve cessation of rebirth because they do not eradicate the innate clinging to atman, therefore, no matter how profound their samadhi or understanding may be, it is not a cause of freedom from samsara, and at best they attain rebirth in the unconsciousness deva realms.

Boomerang said:
I agree with that. To put it another way, I feel that Hinduism is like an alternate form of the Sravaka path, the difference being that they don't follow Buddha's teachings. So I think Advaita Vedanta is valid the same way Theravada Buddhism is valid.

Malcolm wrote:
It is good that you noticed that relative bodhicitta is absolutely lacking in the Hindu path. Second, you only need to understand ultimate bodhicitta is lacking in the Hindu path, and once having understood that, you will understand why even Advaita will not lead to cessation of rebirth, thus rendering it lower than Hinayāna Buddhism, which does lead to the cessation of [afflictive] rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
It is difficult for some to understand the difference between nonduality and a concept of nonduality. For such people, it's probably best for them to follow one religion and actively avoid syncretism. I'm very grateful to be a person who hasn't encountered that difficulty. However, I don't really see my views as syncretic. I'm able to hold contradictory  views, because I understand that no concept possesses inherent truth or falsity. I never realized how far out that is until I participated in this thread.

Sherab Dorje said:
So you have realised non-duality and are thus capable of mixing and matching and then coming here and preaching to us? And, I never really "took refuge" in a Hindu god. I see them as benevolent entities who have mastered a certain paradigm of spirituality. My overall spiritual goals are more in line with Buddhism than Hinduism.
So you are neither a Buddhist nor a Hindu yet you know that Buddhism and Hinduism are the same thing?

Boomerang said:
1. Never preached anything. If in doubt, re-read the thread.
2. Never said Buddhism and Hinduism are the same thing. Never said they had the same goal. I only said that ineffable nondual realizations can't be qualified and contrasted, because contrasting them implies they can be described, and nonduality is indescribable. Again, re-read the thread.

Love.

Malcolm wrote:
Nondualisms are quite describable. If they weren't, you would not know about them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 2015 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
And, I never really "took refuge" in a Hindu god. I see them as benevolent entities who have mastered a certain paradigm of spirituality. My overall spiritual goals are more in line with Buddhism than Hinduism.

Malcolm wrote:
What are the spiritual goals of Buddhadharma?

Boomerang said:
Mahayana Buddhism = Bodhisattva
Advaita Vedanta = Stop reincarnating

Malcolm wrote:
The spiritual goal of Mahāyāna Buddhadharma is buddhahood, the attainment of the three kāyas. Bodhisattvas are those who strive for this goal in order to liberate all beings from samsara. In the process, all afflictions that cause rebirth in samsara are eliminated and power over birth is attained at the eighth bhumi.

From the point of view of Buddhadharma, Advaitans never achieve cessation of rebirth because they do not eradicate the innate clinging to atman, therefore, no matter how profound their samadhi or understanding may be, it is not a cause of freedom from samsara, and at best they attain rebirth in the unconsciousness deva realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
philji said:
Can anyone explain why it is that in the Theravada tradition they strictly follow vows including  not eating after noon, not touching money etc whereas Tibetan monks do not except in certain ocasions. Is it that the Bodhisattva and tantric vows take precedence?

Ayu said:
For the sake of understanding better this topic, I asked a tibetan buddhist novice nun (from Austria) yesterday.
She said, no, there are not different rules in Theravada and Mahayana - at least not to an considerable extent. The reasons why all the tibetan monks and nuns are eating dinner, for example, or wearing sweaters under their robes in winter and all this, are individually. Some have exeption because of health issues, or other reasons.
Mainly you can see that the rules are accomodated to the certain circumstances.
For sure these ordained confess regularly and hold the right view to the best of their capacity.

In my point of view this doesn't reduce the respect they deserve to the slightest.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are different rules, Theravadins do not have a system of Mahāyāna ordination, Tibetan Buddhism does; Thervada does not have a system of Vajrayāna vows, Tibetan Buddhism does. The receipt of these higher vows alters how the lower vows are practiced. Please Sapan's Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes or Kontgrul's Buddhist Ethics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
And, I never really "took refuge" in a Hindu god. I see them as benevolent entities who have mastered a certain paradigm of spirituality. My overall spiritual goals are more in line with Buddhism than Hinduism.

Malcolm wrote:
What are the spiritual goals of Buddhadharma?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I agree. I knew the conversation was over after Malcolm responded to my statement that nonduality is beyond scriptures by...quoting scriptures. I strongly disagree with his belief that nondual realizations can be qualified and contrasted. Nonetheless, I feel that he deepened my understanding of what it means to take refuge in the Buddha, and I'm grateful for that.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure they can — you just have not looked deeply enough into the differences between what Hindus mean by nonduality (advaita) and what Buddhists mean by nondual (nondual) — and this is why it is puzzling to you. You are, in essence, a victim of bad translations and ignorant commentators since you are not reading these things in any primary language.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I thought it was an outgrowth of Theosophy.

Sherlock said:
Exactly. Theosophy is late Victorian New Age; Perennialists are the right-wing end of the spectrum who didn't like the other Theosophists. Today, a lot of support for perennialism still mainly comes from the right, Evola-reading "Traditionalists".

Malcolm wrote:
I always associated perennialism with Aldous Huxley and Huston Smith, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Perennialism is bullshit.

Boomerang said:
Good for you. Now let's try to stay on topic. The thread isn't titled "Let's take potshots at other religions."

Sherlock said:
Perennialism is not a religion. It comes from the fevered dreams of right-wing New Agers who don't want to be with the other New Agers.

Malcolm wrote:
I thought it was an outgrowth of Theosophy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Perennialism is bullshit.

Boomerang said:
Good for you. Now let's try to stay on topic. The thread isn't titled "Let's take potshots at other religions."

Malcolm wrote:
What you seem to be failing to understand is that if you have gone for refuge to the Buddha, you have eschewed other refuges. If you go for refuge to other gods having once gone for refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, you void your refuge in the Three Jewels including losing all the vows that come with going for refuge, you return to the state of a ordinary person, and the virtue that you perform is no longer elevated by refuge in the Three Jewels.

Buddhadharma is a path, and aside from the fact of whether the goals of Buddhadharma and Sanatana Dharma are the same(they're not),  one cannot tread two paths at the same time. One must walk on one or the other. One cannot walk on both. It would be very much like trying to stand on two horses at the same time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


daverupa said:
Boomerang, you seem to have an inability to recognize some simple facts on the ground with respect to the Dhamma; your attempt to be inclusive and syncretistic is perhaps laudable, but at the same time tragically misguided, ensuring that you're bound for inaccurate understandings.

Malcolm wrote:
It's tragic, really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
In the end, what I learned from this conversation is that it's easy for Hindus to see Buddhism as valid, but the reverse is less common. It was a splendid opportunity for spiritual growth, and I thank you all for participating with me.

Malcolm wrote:
Hinduism is "valid" as far as it goes for the attainment of worldly ends and mundane happiness, but in general those who follow Buddhadharma do not think that Hindu means to liberation actually result in liberation.

Boomerang said:
Uh huh. Swami Vivekananda said that although Buddhism and Jainism deny the importance of God, they teach their practitioners to become God, which is just as good in the end.

Love.


Malcolm wrote:
Umm... no. The Buddha taught people how to become buddhas. Mahāvira taught people to starve themselves to death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
In the end, what I learned from this conversation is that it's easy for Hindus to see Buddhism as valid, but the reverse is less common. It was a splendid opportunity for spiritual growth, and I thank you all for participating with me.

Malcolm wrote:
Hinduism is "valid" as far as it goes for the attainment of worldly ends and mundane happiness, but in general those who follow Buddhadharma do not think that Hindu means to liberation actually result in liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 2nd, 2015 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Loving kindness
Content:
philji said:
Thanks Malcolm. Is there a translation that is useable?

Malcolm wrote:
I generally translate byams pa as love, i.e. the wish for another to have happiness. If you love someone, you want them to be happy, correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 2nd, 2015 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: Loving kindness
Content:
philji said:
What would be the closest tibetan word( and literal translation),for Metta. Is it Jampa ?

Malcolm wrote:
yes, བྱམས་པ་or byams pa, pronounced jampa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2015 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
philji said:
I am really enjoying and gaining knowledge about this whole issue, which was my original intention in posting. However I do feel that being mndful of not making fun of  and not slandering the sangha is very , very important something maybe we need to be mindful of here.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to keep in mind that Jeff was deeply disappointed by his experience with the monastic Sangha in Asia — he wrote about it constantly.

Part of the post removed as an ad hom argument. Participants can look up Indrajala's prior posts and/or blog to look into his views and biases, if they wish to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2015 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
lama tsewang said:
i dont think its a good thing to make fun of the teachings

Indrajala said:
No, I'm serious. What is a pāyattika and what is the result to be experienced if not confessed?

Malcolm wrote:
Hell.

However, you do realize that if you are practitioner [and in general all Tibetan monks are], you confess all your misdeeds and downfalls of the three vows daily with Vajrasattva?

Moreover, the bodhisattva approach to following the vows can be flexible as the Buddha states in the Ārya-vinayaviniścayopāliparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
The training of a bodhisattva who has entered into Mahāyāna is said to be modifiable. The training of those in the śravakayāna is said to unmodifiable.
This sūtra also clarifies other issues you seem to be obsessed with.

So again, while it is important to receive and maintain the three vows, the flexibility towards pratimokṣa vow in the Mahāyāna approach to the vows that is not present in the Hinayāna approach to the pratimokṣa vow, in addition to the fact that Mahāyāna vows constitute a separate and more important class of vows, even while taking the pratimokṣa vows as a foundation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2015 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
Indrajala said:
Edit 7 [...]

Malcolm wrote:
You are going to have to explain to me how eating dinner is evil and unwholesomeness.

Indrajala said:
My point is really that almost nobody really believes in things so dogmatically...
You are quite wrong — however, the Buddhas have also provided many means of purifying infractions of vows, especially in Vajrayāna, because in this degenerate age the lower vows in general are very hard to maintain purely.
... Edit 8 [...]

Malcolm wrote:
A Mahāyānist in general should be consuming food with the motivation to achieve buddhahood for the benefit of sentient beings — so as long as that is the case, there is no problem with eating dinner, whether lay or ordained.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2015 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:


Indrajala said:
So, as a monk or even layperson it is actually quite risky, if you really believe in the words of the vinaya, to suggest that "Mahāyāna Bhikṣus needn't be so concerned with these details, since their motivation for practice is more important that adhering to this or that rule."

Malcolm wrote:
As Nagolo Khenchen states in his The Lamp of the Path of Freedom and Omniscience:
Therefore, even though one takes life and does not practice celibacy, such actions can be permissible, but engaging in these actions for one’s own benefit through desire, hatred and confusion is not permitted for anyone. Likewise, making offerings to the Three Jewels and making donations to beggars by stealing the property of the greedy, lying in order to protect sentient beings against being killed and so on, calumny to separate others from nonvirtuous friends, using harsh speech to place those in the Dharma with forceful methods who cannot be swayed with gentle speech, protesting hidden flaws by giving instruction and so on, are permitted.
As I said, the general POV in Tibetan Buddhism is that the ten nonvirtues are permissible if they are to benefit others.

Indrajala said:
So, you state, "One's abiding in a state of virtue or non-virtue derived from receiving any of the three vows is not dependent upon whether anyone else knows about it or not. It is dependent upon whether or not one has taken proper efforts to guard one's vows carefully." However, the whole meaning of "guarding one's vows" and what exactly that is supposed to require is a topic with many diverse opinions historically, and some positions would suggest being incorrect is literally going to send you to hell (wrong view and all that).

Basically, most people just make up their own mind on such issues regardless of what scriptures and Buddhist theorists say, and hope to get on in life.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, nothing you cite contradicts anything that I have said —— and more to the point, it does not contradict the general TIBETAN BUDDHIST point of view on the matter.

Indrajala said:
...some positions would suggest being incorrect is literally going to send you to hell (wrong view and all that).

Malcolm wrote:
This would be the general Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint. The Bodhicaryāvatara states:
Those who wish to guard their discipline
must guard their minds strictly. 
If one does not guard the mind, 
one will not be able to fully guard one’s training. 
Drunk wild elephants
do not cause as much harm as
the harm of Avici caused
by the unrestrained elephant of the mind. 
If the elephant of the mind is always restrained
with the rope of mindfulness, 
all fears will not exist
and all virtue will come into one’s hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 31st, 2015 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Second, this is how it is explained by Vasubandhu.

Indrajala said:
No. I'm simply saying you have your own interpretation, and it is not definitive nor the final word on the matter. .

Malcolm wrote:
It is obviously not merely my opinion, since I provided a quotation from Sapan, Vasubandhu, etc. You on the other hand have provided no citations at all, so we can truly say you are merely voicing your own subjective opinion without any reference to any established authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 30th, 2015 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality is does work out like that, if you happen to believe in karma.

Indrajala said:
This is just your interpretation of karma. It is a subjective religious belief.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a secular humanist forum, this is 1) a Mahāyāna Buddhist forum 2) The Tibetan Buddhism subforum.

Second, this is how it is explained by Vasubandhu.

Now, you might have decided that Buddhadharma is a bunch of religious nonsense, and have no further interest in it apart from getting a degree in Buddhology so you can feed yourself, but I think it is fair to say that most of us participating here take these "subjective religious beliefs" quite seriously.


Indrajala said:
As far as lunch and dinner are concerned, since all Tibetan monks are Mahāyānists, Mahāyāna Bhikṣus needn't be so concerned with these details, since their motivation for practice is more important that adhering to this or that rule.


What a convenient way to move around the goal posts. Here you are preaching the need to guard one's vows carefully, but then make a convenient exception.

Malcolm wrote:
In his discussion of the pratimokṣa vows of Mahāyāna system, Sapan states:
Here, these observances that are concerned
with the elements of evil and unwholesomeness
are mostly kept as in the Disciple's system,
while certain desireless offenses are treated 
in accord with that of bodhisattvas.

Behavior that, in the view both systems,
would cause worldlings to lose faith
is strenuously guarded against; a lapse
is allowed in the Individual Liberation discipline
if the Great Vehicle if it induces worldings to virtue.
-- Rhoton, 2002, SUNY, pg. 46.

In other words, bhikṣus eating dinner is not an issue for a Tibetan Buddhist monastery. Handling gold and money is not an issue as long as it is for the benefit of the Dharma, so on and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 30th, 2015 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One's abiding in a state of virtue or non-virtue derived from receiving any of the three vows is not dependent upon whether anyone else knows about it or not. It is dependent upon whether or not one has taken proper efforts to guard one's vows carefully.

Indrajala said:
Meanwhile in reality it doesn't work like that. Monasteries serve lunch at 12:00pm on the dot and dinner in the evening.

Malcolm wrote:
In reality is does work out like that, if you happen to believe in karma.

As far as lunch and dinner are concerned, since all Tibetan monks are Mahāyānists, Mahāyāna Bhikṣus needn't be so concerned with these details, since their motivation for practice is more important that adhering to this or that rule. Nevertheless, the act of receiving the three vows in itself is a virtue, and one should endeavor as best one can to uphold the three vows, and purify one's downfalls immediately and daily. This is how we practice vowed conduct in Tibetan Buddhism. I don't really care how they do it in other schools, but this question was posed in the Tibetan Buddhist forum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 30th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:


Indrajala said:
Precepts are just social conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
From a Tibetan Buddhist point of view, based  on how we read the Abhidharmakośa:
Morality, good conduct, action and discipline
-- Abhk 4:16a-b, Pruden

Thus the vows are actually a form of action which has results — positive ones when followed, negative ones when broken.

One's abiding in a state of virtue or non-virtue derived from receiving any of the three vows is not dependent upon whether anyone else knows about it or not. It is dependent upon whether or not one has taken proper efforts to guard one's vows carefully.

Phil, you need to read Kongtrul's Buddhist ethics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 30th, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Monastic vows
Content:
philji said:
Can anyone explain why it is that in the Theravada tradition they strictly follow vows including  not eating after noon, not touching money etc whereas Tibetan monks do not except in certain ocasions. Is it that the Bodhisattva and tantric vows take precedence?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is rather large Mahāyāna literature devoted to the comportment of Mahāyāna bhikṣus, one of which can be read in Chang's Compendium of Ratnakuta sutras. In this literature, the Buddha makes it very clear how the conduct of a Mahāyāna bhikṣu contradicts the conduct of a bhikṣu who has not entered Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 7:03 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It will also depend on how much of ChNN's work one has actually read — for example, there are detailed refutations of nonbuddhist tenets in his Precious Vase, in the section on the view.

muni said:
Since Awaken masters' action-speech is for our inner awakening. If these tenets keep us conditioned, dual, its a blessing to throw a light on it.

Malcolm wrote:
The entire point of studying these tenet systems is to remove our doubts, and therefore, our concepts. The purpose of such study is not to increase our concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 6:37 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
muni said:
Since many consider Chogyal Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche as their master,  i like to share this quote. How this text will be percieved depends on the variety of us.


Malcolm wrote:
It will also depend on how much of ChNN's work one has actually read — for example, there are detailed refutations of nonbuddhist tenets in his Precious Vase, in the section on the view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 6:26 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Ayu said:
It has a very different message than what was said some time before in this thread. I think, especially as a buddhist it is important to cultivate tolerance on one side - and stability in practice on the other hand.

Malcolm wrote:
I never entertained the notion that followers of Buddhadharma should not learn from teachers of other schools. While we have a rich analysis of the tenets of others schools, sometimes they seem a little like parodies of them. So it is useful to hear a Yoga master teach on Samkhya and Yoga, an Advaita master teach on Advaita and so on. Nevertheless, one does this in order to understand how these tenets are different from Buddhadharma, in addition to understanding their commonalities.

For example, I myself spent six weeks learning Yoga, the Yoga Sutras, Samkhya and so on from a well respected disciple of Krishnamacarya a couple of years ago. It was a valuable experience because now I can say that I really understand the system of the Yoga Sūtras, Samkhya, and so on, and how they are distinct from Buddhadharma. To study with a tīrthika teacher is not the same as going for for refuge in something other than Buddhadharma. As bodhisattvas, we are supposed to study everything, particularly adhyatmyavidyā, the inner sciences. Of course, the classical inner sciences in Dharma are Prajñāpāramita, Madhyamaka and so on, but we can also consider the study of non-=Buddhist tenet systems to be part of that study. Of course there is a danger, if one is not discerning, that one will become confused  — but as long as one is clear about where one's refuge lies, there there will not be a problem in the end.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 5:40 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
M.G. said:
... I was thinking about whether there might be practical things of value members of one tradition could from learn from the other. I actually do have one Hindu friend who studied meditation with a Buddhist teacher, simply because the quality of instruction was so high.

Kim O'Hara said:
That's a good question and it's one that I would answer in the affirmative. For instance, I have been going along to yoga classes recently for the physical training in much the same way your friend went to Buddhism for meditation. The (very small) bit of Hinduism in the yoga is not any obstacle to my Buddhist practice at all. Nor was the Taoism in the Tai Chi which I took up a few year ago, for that matter.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no problem with learning anything. Just don't forget where your real refuge lies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dreambow said:
So what if Advaita can be traced back to the 8th century? You can still say its based on Shankaras direct experience of  awakening. I don't believe he is necessarily  copying anyone....anymore then some say Buddhism is based on Jainism and subsequent 'scriptures as I believe the Buddha and Mahavira were contemporaries.
If a great teacher is speaking from his own enlightenment, whether you call it empty or a plenum, it matters little about influence. Its just what it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Clearly you are not a practitioner of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Why not? He is a high lama from an ancient Karma Kagyu tulku lineage.

Doesn't mean I am interested...

Adamantine said:
Thought treasures were more of a Nyingma specialty

Malcolm wrote:
These days Karma Kagyus are Nyingma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Please quote me a master who has spent time seriously studying Hindu tantra and Buddhist tantra (i.e. studoies and retreats in both) whp says their fruit is the same. This guy seriously studied both and is very clear that they are different:

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ratnashri/RatnashriBio.aspx

Adamantine said:
Interesting dude..  is Karma Thinley Rinpoche qualified to validate a terma cycle? http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ratnashri/RatnashriTerma.aspx

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? He is a high lama from an ancient Karma Kagyu tulku lineage.

Doesn't mean I am interested...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I am not a scholar, but what I meant was that I have seen reputable scholars cast doubt on the idea that the historical Buddha explicity taught a two truths doctrine. I can look up references if you like. Maybe I'm wrong, is it a slam dunk that he did?


Malcolm wrote:
It all depends on what you mean by "reputable."

In any case, it is a certainty that Buddha taught the two truths in Mahāyāna,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I am not a scholar, but what I meant was that I have seen reputable scholars cast doubt on the idea that the historical Buddha explicity taught a two truths doctrine. I can look up references if you like. Maybe I'm wrong, is it a slam dunk that he did?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So, yes, AFAIC, it really is about what can be expressed words, and this is why the Buddha taught two truths, not merely one.

dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, it's not clear to me that the Buddha taught two truths, but you can believe what you like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, as you know, I am not a big fan of Advaita. And the Dakshinamurti stotra specifically rejects emptiness, so really, why  should I or anyone connected with Buddhadharma take it or Ramana seriously at all?

anjali said:
I can only answer for myself. Emptiness is not the only aspect of the Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is the essence of Buddhist realization.

anjali said:
To the extent that I recognize any aspect of the Buddhadharma in another teaching, to that extent I respectfully take it seriously.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, the Buddha said that whatever is well-spoken is his teaching. We are here concerned about that which is not well=spoken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, maybe it's not about what can be expressed in words.

Malcolm wrote:
As Nāgārjuna famously points out:
The ultimate meaning cannot be explained without relying on convention;
nirvana cannot be attained without realizing the ultimate meaning.
So, yes, AFAIC, it really is about what can be expressed words, and this is why the Buddha taught two truths, not merely one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, I guess it depends on what you meant by "take seriously", but you seemed puzzled by the fact that someone connected with Buddhadharma would take RM seriously, and I thought they could explain it to you.

Malcolm wrote:
I am deeply puzzled by this — I can only conclude it stems from some sort of wishful thinking that is propped up on perennialist tendencies [god, now I sound like a marxist].

I see no evidence at all from anything that Ramana said or wrote that his view is anything other than stock Hinduism of the Advaitan variety. I have no doubt he was a remarkable person, but at this point, since he died 65 years ago, longer than most of us have been alive, why would I accept anything that anyone says about him that differs from what is found in his texts?

I guess I do not understand what is profound in Ramana's teachings. I find the Buddha profound, I find Nāgārjuna profound, etc. But when I read the works of Hindu masters I always find them to be a bit off in one regard or another. So, admittedly, I find it really hard to understand why people who have been introduced to the teachings of Buddhadharma find Ramana profound.

Seriously, I find Vasubandhu more profound that Ramana. In the case of Dzogchen, it is particularly hard to understand why people find Advaita profound given that Śankara is named in the Rig pa rang shar tantra among the sixty wrong views to be rejected, and given that Advaita is refuted in Santarakṣita's Tattvasamgraha and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
LastLegend said:
But since it's Mahayana we are not trying to attain any result.

Malcolm wrote:
Speak for yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Adamantine said:
What's more, for us Buddhists it is good to remember that there are plenty of nonvirtuous people in Buddhist clothes, and many virtuous people in non-Buddhist clothes.


Malcolm wrote:
To quote the Buddha:
Though an Indian trumpet flower has wilted,
it is unrivaled by other common flowers.
Though one of my followers has broken his discipline
he is unrivaled by common tīrthikas.
— Daśacakrakṣitigarbha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
LastLegend said:
This meaning is the reason the Tathagata always says, 'You monks! Know that my expounded Dharma is like the bamboo raft. The honored Dharma must be relinquished, how much more so what is not the Dharma? [/i]

Malcolm wrote:
People who give up rafts in the middle of a flood often drown...

LastLegend said:
Yes.

That's why we should not go near the flood much less get on the raft.


Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm....it's a little for that....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
In point of fact, even the virtue of tirthikas is not a cause for liberation because their virtuous is not transformed by the fact of taking refuge, so it remains ordinary, what need to mention bodhicitta or samaya which are entirely lacking outside the Buddhadharma.

Adamantine said:
Yes, I think I address it a bit on the following post ^^^. I agree, but I also think it helpful to address the positive qualities of other traditions and point out that some of the virtuous practices could in fact be adopted. . not just always belittle them as inferior heretics. For some people's karmic imprints, they will be attracted to these other traditions in this life. . if in dialogue with them, we make aggressive and bombastic claims of their tradition being inferior, or negative, etc. they may develop negative impressions of the Buddhadharma which would be bad imprints for them to carry in future lives. If we are more open and generous, but still honest and clear, they may have positive impressions that could lead them to the Dharma more readily in this or future lives. HH the Dalai Lama seems to do a great job of this, no?

Malcolm wrote:
I have not belittled anything. I have merely pointed out that the ideas and notions about liberation and freedom between Hinduism and Buddhism are not even slightly commensurable.

For example, if you have a mountain in the east, and another in the west, do you tell someone that by climbing a mountain in the east, they will ascend the same peak as the mountain in the west?

All I have said is that Hinduism and Buddhism have a different basis, therefore the path is different and the result is different. I have not instructed anyone which mountain they should climb — merely that one cannot climb two mountains at once, and also that one cannot expect to reach the peak of one mountain by climbing another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
LastLegend said:
This meaning is the reason the Tathagata always says, 'You monks! Know that my expounded Dharma is like the bamboo raft. The honored Dharma must be relinquished, how much more so what is not the Dharma? [/i]

Malcolm wrote:
People who give up rafts in the middle of a flood often drown...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 29th, 2015 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Adamantine said:
No, it doesn't make that claim, of course. But it seems that Jigten Sumgon encouraged being open to virtuous practices from any tradition, which has precedent, and is relevant to the OP.

Malcolm wrote:
The OP asked if you could a Buddhist AND a Hindu at the same time.

I replied no, and there is nothing in your reply to him that addresses that issue.

In point of fact, even the virtue of tirthikas is not a cause for liberation because their virtue is not transformed by the fact of taking refuge, so it remains ordinary, what need to mention bodhicitta or samaya which are entirely lacking outside the Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
LastLegend said:
Nagarjuna would say don't know don't care if asked who is conquering who what? Upon my own analysis, I can't reach definite conclusion or assertion about who or what.


Malcolm wrote:
Fortunately, in this respect, we do not depend on our own analysis, but rather, the Buddha's teaching . The Parinirvana Sūtra states:
One who seeks refuge in the Buddha
is a true upāsaka
and should never seek refuge
in other gods. 
If one seeks refuge in the sublime Dharma, 
be free from thoughts of harm and killing. 
If one seeks refuge in the Sangha, 
do not associate with tīrthikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Adamantine said:
On another note, this article is interesting re: Jigten Sumgön’s views on 'outsider' traditions: http://dgongs1.com/2015/01/21/one-for-the-islamophobics/
Jigten Sumgön’s general approach to spiritual views, conducts, and practices is one that attempts to perceive something in terms of what its nature is. In this sense he acknowledges that (1.19) there exists much that is virtuous by nature to be practised in [the systems of] the non-Buddhists too. This stands in contrast to a general opinion according to which “the complete view, conduct, and practise of the non-Buddhists is only something to be abandoned.”

One of Jigten Sumgön’s most basic positions is simply that whatever is virtuous by nature has a joyful result. Such virtue, however, is not confined to the realm of Buddhism alone. As he had pointed out in vajra-statement 1.1, the Buddha did not “invent” his own Dharma, but revealed the ultimate true nature as it is — and that nature exists as it is, independent of whether someone reveals it or not. Therefore, whoever acts in accordance with that nature will receive the respective appropriate results, no matter whether that person is a Buddhist or not, or whether that person has realised “the definite meaning that perceives the truth” or not. In fact, Rigdzin Chökyi Dragpa explains that even animals will enjoy the joyful fruits if they are “temporary [in] possession of … virtuous things to be practised,” such as loving kindness for their offspring.


Malcolm wrote:
This does not mean that tīrthikas have the same realization as those who practice Buddhadharma — it merely means that whoever practices virtue experiences rebirth in higher realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...why  should I or anyone connected with Buddhadharma take it or Ramana seriously at all?

dzogchungpa said:
Why don't you ask Elio and Adriano?


Malcolm wrote:
Why would I?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ramana's statement was not qualified. It was a blanket assertion "Silence (of whatever kind) is the perfect upadesha...", and since this is clearly a defective statement, I don't agree with it. It had no context, unlike the silence of Vimalakirti — whose silence was an answer itself.

anjali said:
Ramana's statement had context, I just didn't provide it. The context is the guru-disciple relationship, and the highest "teaching" of a realized master.

It's from http://bhagavan-ramana.org/ramana_maharshi/private/tw/tw569.html. Specfically, the quote is from discussion about the Dakshinamurti Stotra, Brahma's four sons (who were seekers) and Siva (as their guru). They desired guidance for realisation of the Self. They were the best equipped individuals for Self-Realisation. Guidance should be only from the best of Masters. Who could it be but Siva - the yogiraja. Siva appeared before them sitting under the sacred banyan tree. Being yogiraja should He practise yoga? He went into samadhi as He sat; He was in Perfect Repose. Silence prevailed. They saw Him. The effect was immediate. They fell into samadhi and their doubts were at an end.

Silence is the true upadesa. It is the perfect upadesa. It is suited only for the most advanced seeker. The others are unable to draw full inspiration from it. Therefore they require words to explain the Truth. But Truth is beyond words. It does not admit of explanation. All that is possible to do is only to indicate It.
To provide additional context regarding silence (Talk 231): Silence is never-ending speech. Vocal speech obstructs the other speech of silence. ... The silence of Dakshinamurti removed the doubts of the four sages. Mouna vyakhya prakatita tatvam (Truth expounded by silence.) Silence is said to be exposition. Silence is so potent. For vocal speech, organs of speech are necessary and they precede speech. But the other speech lies even beyond thought. It is in short transcendent speech or unspoken words, para vak.
Also Silence is ever-speaking; it is a perennial flow of language; it is interrupted by speaking. These words obstruct that mute language. There is electricity flowing in a wire. With resistance to its passage, it glows as a lamp or revolves as a fan. In the wire it remains as electric energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of language, obstructed by words. What one fails to know by conversation extending to several years can be known in a trice in Silence, or in front of Silence - e.g., Dakshinamurti, and his four disciples. That is the highest and most effective language.
Of course, you probably don't care what Ramana has to say on the subject of silence. The point of all this was that the silence of a realized master is the best of upadesas for disciples who can hear it.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, as you know, I am not a big fan of Advaita. And the Dakshinamurti stotra specifically rejects emptiness, so really, why  should I or anyone connected with Buddhadharma take it or Ramana seriously at all?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, it amazes me that people think view does not matter when it comes to awakening, or that awakening does not have causes and conditions.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, perhaps you can explain what you meant by https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=15030&p=209120#p209120: The Dzogchen perspective is that a liberation based on causes and effects is incoherent.


Malcolm wrote:
Why do you assume I am always speaking from a Dzogchen point of view?

On the other hand, even the Prajñāpāramita sūtras maintain that all phenomena are in a state of liberation from the beginning. Awakening is realizing that. Such a state of liberation may not depend on causes and conditions, but awakening to that fact is gradual and depends on causes and conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dreambow said:
Malcom, I think its best not to have an overly narrow outlook. I Believe when Ramana Maharshi mentions silence, he means to quieten the mind. He says 'iru'  be or just be. Of course this message is for the ripe only. Just as the Buddha said his message was for those ' with only a little dust in their eyes'

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, it amazes me that people think view does not matter when it comes to awakening, or that awakening does not have causes and conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Silence has a context. ...

anjali said:
No doubt. The knowing silence of a Buddha is not the ignorant silence of a sentient being. From what I can tell, you don't take issue with the words per se of the quote by Ramana on silence, but with how they are understood?

Vimalakirti's knowing silence was an answer to Manjushri's question, and was therefor a teaching. From a certain perspective, Vimalakiri's silence is the true and direct upadesa, as all other verbal teachings merely point to that knowing silence. Also, Vimalakirti's silence was the only answer that could be considered free of fault or defect. ("If you open your mouth, you are mistaken.") Thus, Vimalakirti's knowing silence is the perfect upadesa.

Malcolm wrote:
Ramana's statement was not qualified. It was a blanket assertion "Silence (of whatever kind) is the perfect upadesha...", and since this is clearly a defective statement, I don't agree with it. It had no context, unlike the silence of Vimalakirti — whose silence was an answer itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="monktastic"When a Nyingmapa does more or less the same to all of Theravada, it's because we're right.

And so it goes.[/quote]

I forgot to mention, Theravadins are not generally interested in buddhahood, rather, they tend to be interested in arhatship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
monktastic said:
Somehow it's hard (or just not fun?) to accept that the same might be true for other traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I accept that is true — but what I do not accept is that the basis, path and result of Advaita, or any other nonbuddhist tradition is the same as the basis, path and result of the Buddhist tradition.

I don't need to tell nonbuddhists their result in included in ours. The result they are seeking is completely different than buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, it is hard to take any of this stuff literally.

Malcolm wrote:
Faith is the mother of all good qualities...
— Buddhāvatamska Sūtra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Compare with Vimalakirti:
Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is  baseless.

dzogchungpa said:
I don't know about this Vimalakirti, but here's something from ChNN: Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody.

Malcolm wrote:
It is hard to take this literally when Vimalamitra's commentary on the sgra thal gyur states:
"Great" means that the Great Perfection is free from a basis; but because it is a basis, it is convention for abiding; because it is a path, it is convention of expression; and because it is a result, it is convention of nature.
This seems very consistent with Vimalakirti's statement:
Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is baseless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
daverupa said:
Basically (& allegedly, though really it's well-demonstrated) Vedanta lifts/steals/creatively acquires quite a bit from Mahayana, and then goes off the rails with it while trying to hide that fact. Good times.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, it is the case that Gaudapada rather indiscriminately borrows various kinds of arguments from Madhyamaka and Yogacara in his refutation of satkaryavadins [Samkhya, etc.] and asatkaryavadins [Vaisheshika and so on]; but since he does so without reference to dependent origination and emptiness, and with reference to brahman, etc., he, and his followers like Shankara], indeed "go off the rails."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Is it possible to be enlightened, but not teach Buddhism
Content:
Konchok Namgyal said:
Dipankara  was fully enlightened Buddha and did not teach.......


Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


anjali said:
Care to elaborate which parts you disagree with? Here is the quote reformatted for easier discussion. Feel free to slice and dice.
Silence is the true Upadesa (teachings). 
It is the perfect upadesa. 
It is suited only for the most advanced seeker. 
The others are unable to draw full inspiration from it. 
Therefore they require words to explain the truth. 
But truth is beyond words. It does not admit of explanation. 
All that it is possible to do is to indicate it.

Malcolm wrote:
Silence has a context. In this case, we have to examine Ramana's silence in the context of his speech:
The seer and the object seen are like the rope and the snake. Just as the knowledge of the rope
which is the substrate will not arise unless the false knowledge of the illusory serpent goes, so the
realization of the Self which is the substrate will not be gained unless the belief that the world is
real is removed.
http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/who_am_I.pdf

This is the meaning of Ramana's silence. Compare with Vimalakirti:
Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is  baseless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
Manjusri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into nonduality."

Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.
How is this any different than what I've been saying the whole time about nonduality being beyond words?

Malcolm wrote:
Superficially, it is not — but when you penetrate the Vimalakirti-nirdesha a little deeper you find:
Vimalakirti: Manjusri, when something is baseless, how can it have any root? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is baseless.
This the meaning of Vimalamirti's silence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I remain uncomvinced that Ramana's silence is Vimalakirti's.

anjali said:
Of course. Aside from whether Ramana's silence is Vimalakirti's silence, taken at face value, do you disagree with the quote?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as a matter of fact, i do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

anjali said:
Who could ask for a better teaching on nonduality?! As Ramana Maharshi has said, " Silence is the true Upadesa (teachings). It is the perfect upadesa. It is suited only for the most advanced seeker. The others are unable to draw full inspiration from it. Therefore they require words to explain the truth. But truth is beyond words. It does not admit of explanation. All that it is possible to do is to indicate it. "

Malcolm wrote:
I remain uncomvinced that Ramana's silence is Vimalakirti's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, in two notable places in the Pali canon:
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: [
This is precisely the so called "nondualism" discussed in Mahāyāna.

anjali said:
Indeed. By way of comparison, here is an exchange between Vivekananda and Ramakrishna, who are as "Hindu" as it gets: NARENDRA [Vivekananda] (to a disciple present:) ""Worldly people, who are engrossed in sense-objects, say that everything exists— asti. But the Mayavadis, the illusionists, say that nothing exists— nasti. The experience of a Buddha is beyond both 'existence' and 'non-existence'
RAMAKRISHNA: "This 'existence' and 'non-existence' are attributes of Prakriti. The Reality is beyond both."

Malcolm wrote:
What Ramakrishna says above is a pure Advaitan spin on Samkhya. He is referring here to the Advaitan interpretation of Purusha, aka Brahmin.

So no, Ramakrishna does not "get it", as it were. There is no reality beyond the extremes of existence and non-existence, and this of course is the meaning of the famed silence of Vimalakirti in the non-duality chapter:

When the bodhisattvas had given their explanations, they all addressed the crown prince Manjusri: "Manjusri, what is the bodhisattva's entrance into nonduality?"
Manjusri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into nonduality."

Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.
As we can see, this passage reflects the Buddha's teaching on the inexpressibility cited in the Sutta Nipata.

Further, the Samputa Tantra states:
Not empty, not non-empty, 
there is also nothing to perceive in the middle.
Thus we can see that Ramakrishna's statement does not correspond to the Buddha's teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I respect Bhiku Bodhi, but he is very off base in this article because he lumps Mahāyāna together with Advaita.

daverupa said:
Well, he lumps up any school of thought which speak of non-duality of any kind, and then discusses how non-duality is simply not presented over the course of the threefold training.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, in two notable places in the Pali canon:
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: [
This is precisely the so called "nondualism" discussed in Mahāyāna.

Also:

One who has reached the end
	has no criterion [3] 
by which anyone would say that —
	for him it doesn't exist.
When all phenomena are done away with,[4] 
	all means of speaking
	are done away with as well.
Please compare these two statements with what I have written above.


daverupa said:
This isn't to say that Mahayana and Advaita are discussing the same non-duality, but perhaps this thread demonstrates how the use if that ideation causes certain problems vis-a-vis presenting the Dhamma accurately to e.g. Advaita folk, and perhaps indicates a different tack to be taken.

Malcolm wrote:
The issue is that some western scholars, mainly David Loy, decided to label Mahāyāna a form of nondualism because the term "nondual" is used on occasion, and indiscriminately conflated this with Advaita, Kashmir Shavism and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I respect Bhiku Bodhi, but he is very off base in this article.

daverupa said:
Specifically...?


Malcolm wrote:
Specifically because he lumps Mahāyāna together with Advaita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Buddhist texts say advaya, not advaita. "Not two" instead of "nondual"

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.aspx

Boomerang said:
Advaita means not-two in Sanskrit.


Malcolm wrote:
Actually it means "not-twoness", the tā suffix causes it to have a slightly different meaning that advaya, "nondual".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
Yes, these are all my personal opinions.

Malcolm wrote:
These are not my personal opinions — they are the opinions of very many generations of Buddhist scholars and yogis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
The nonduality (brahman) realized by Advaitans is not the same nonduality (śūnyatā) realized in Buddhadharma. Brahman and śūnyatā are not the same thing at all. Advaitans such as Shankara reject śūnyatā completely, as well as rejecting dependent origination and so on.
The concept of Advaita's nonduality is not the same as Buddhism's concept of nonduality. It's wise for a teacher to discourage a student from mixing both together. Mixing them would likely lead to confusion. Still, none of this has any bearing on nonduality itself. Nonduality is beyond "this is" and "this is not," like those scriptures I quoted earlier say.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "nonduality" that stands alone by itself, somewhere else, or even here.

As I said before, "nondual" is a technical term in Buddhadharma that has many uses. Principally speaking, it refers to an individual's state of consciousness free from subject and object or it refers to the absence of relative dualities such as samsara/nirvana, being/nonbeing, pure/impure, nondual/dual, etc. In the latter case, this absence of dualities itself is predicated on emptiness free from extremes.

Even so, nonduality is a meaningless expression without reference to plurality, so even nonduality cannot bear analysis. For this reason Nāgārjuna, when commenting on his Praise of the Three Kāyas states when commenting on this line, "Not one, not many, becoming the basis for the very abundant benefit of myself and others."
For "not one, not many...." and so on, one and many means one and many i.e., both are nondual. Many means plural. Conventionally speaking "I prostate" to that which is the dharmakāya, neither one nor many. If it is asked "For what reason do we say though it is not one, it is also not many?" Due to that, since it is said "non-arisen from the beginning", that which never arose from the beginning cannot have a phase of being one or many; like space, its nature is completely uninterrupted. Since all phenomena arise in the same way, therefore, what arises where? That which becomes a form of diversity is not seen by anyone, i.e. just as grains of rice arise from rice seed, likewise, whatever arises from emptiness is not permanent nor annihilated. Why? Free of all concepts, the victors see that to be empty and illusory.
The point I am trying to get you to understand is that "nonduality" spoken of by the Buddha, Nāgārjuna, Asanga and so on is nothing like the nonduality spoken of by Shankara, etc. Now of course, many speculate — on the basis of Gaudapada's Agamasaśtra's fourth section — that Shankara was influence by Mahāyāna Buddhism. If so, Shankara sure spends a lot of time in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras trying to prove that he is not influenced by Mahāyāna.

In the above comment, an important point must no be overlooked. Here Nāgārjuna is equating all phenomena's mode of arising with the mode of arising of the non-arisen dharmakāya — which is to say that phenomena do not arise. It is the perception of the nonarising of phenomena which leads to the ultimate attainment of the dharmakāya. That perception of the nonarising of phenomena is the perception of emptiness.

Moreover, Nāgārjuna invokes the principle of likeness of causes and effects — i.e. just as rice arises from rice seed, likewise, just as emptiness is neither permanent or annihilated, whatever arise from emptiness is neither permanent or annihilated, the Buddhas perceive that to be empty and illusory, without any vikalpa, conceptuality or imagination.

There is no permanent substrate which accounts for the arising of phenomena ultimately, and relatively, all phenomena arise because of cause and conditions  —dependent origination — rather than from a creative principle such as Iśvara and so on.

Then of course there is also the fact that Advaita heavily depends on Saṃkhya, the Saṃkya notion of purusha as we can see in the Tattvabodhi and other texts, this is yet another reason why the principle of nonduality in Buddhadharma and Advaita are not commensurable and so do not lead the same realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
Maybe I should clarify. The reason I think Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism's systems are somewhat compatible is that Mahayana Buddhism has the concept of Buddha-nature. I've given some quotations that show similarity between descriptions of Buddha-nature and of the self in Advaita.

Malcolm wrote:
Such equations between tathāgatagarbha and the atman of the tīrthikas are explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Lankāvatara sutra and so on.

Boomerang said:
But anyways, the conceptual systems aren't what really matter. It's nonduality the matters, because nonduality can't be objectified. And if it can't be objectified, you can't say that one nonduality is different than another.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you can say that understandings of the term "nondual" are not commensurable. "Nondualism" in Buddhadharma is predicated on dependent origination. Madhyamaka is the ultimate nondual teaching of the Buddha. However, without the view of dependent origination it is not possible to realize emptiness.

Boomerang said:
Some people think that I'm cherry picking scriptures, but the main reason I think it's possible to be Hindu and Buddhist is that they have a commonality beyond scripture: ineffable nondual realization.

Malcolm wrote:
The nonduality (brahman) realized by Advaitans is not the same nonduality (śūnyatā) realized in Buddhadharma. Brahman and śūnyatā are not the same thing at all. Advaitans such as Shankara reject śūnyatā completely, as well as rejecting dependent origination and so on.

Boomerang said:
I read a scientific paper on people who've had non-symbolic realizations in a variety of traditions. The study showed that people who have only had one realization tend to be dogmatic, and view their realization as the ultimate and only true enlightenment. The first realization gives you a grounded feeling like you've seen the most real reality there could ever be. For people who have had several realizations, that feeling of certainty gets blown out the water, and in turn, they are more open-minded to different theories of enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out, there is only one realization in Buddhadharma that is worth a damn, and that is the realization of emptiness aka śūnyatā. The realization of śūnyatā between a bodhisattva and a buddha is only a matter of degrees, but not substance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Bhikkhu Bodhi said:
One of the most challenging issues facing Theravada Buddhism in recent years has been the encounter between classical Theravada vipassana meditation and the "non-dualistic" contemplative traditions best represented by Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. Responses to this encounter have spanned the extremes, ranging from vehement confrontation all the way to attempts at synthesis and hybridization. While the present essay cannot pretend to illuminate all the intricate and subtle problems involved in this sometimes volatile dialogue, I hope it may contribute a few sparks of light from a canonically oriented Theravada perspective.

daverupa said:
Some interesting context, helpfully pointing out some areas where Mahayana & Advaita Vedanta are more in-line with each other than with Theravada. It's an interesting whirl.

Malcolm wrote:
I respect Bhiku Bodhi, but he is very off base in this article.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Is it possible to be enlightened, but not teach Buddhism
Content:
Simon E. said:
But not all non Buddhist teachings contradict all Buddhadharma. Perhaps you can give examples of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas giving teachings that contradict Dependant Origination for example...


Malcolm wrote:
There are common teachings, such as the four brahma viharas and so on, then there are uncommon teachings such as dependent origination, emptiness and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
You know, Kalu Rinpoche did not speak English.
No he didn't. But he was extremely conversant with the various presentations on emptiness and was generally thought of as a major Shentongpa. That quote is entirely in keeping with his style of teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
No one conversant with Buddhist teaching woukd maintain the possibility that something could both exiist and not exist at the same time. Hence, it must be an error of translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
monktastic said:
http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/mahamud/mahamud.html
The third Karmapa, (Rangjung Dorje), wrote a prayer of aspiration for the realization of Mahamudra in which he said, "It is not existent because even the Buddha could not see it, but it is not nonexistent because it is the basis or origin of all samsara.(6).and nirvana.(7)." It does not constitute a contradiction to say that mind neither exists nor does not exist; it is simultaneously existent and nonexistent.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a contradiction, this is why it is rejected explicitly buy the Buddha and by Nāgārjuna. The four extremes are existent, nonexistence, both and neither. Nagārjuna rejects these in many texts, as does the Buddha in many sutras.

monktastic said:
(Emphasis mine). What I pasted is a direct quote from Kalu Rinpoche. At the very least, the fact that we can so easily refute masters from our own tradition gives me some indication of how seriously to take refutations of others.


Malcolm wrote:
You know, Kalu Rinpoche did not speak English.

I am often amazed at how often bad translations are given canonical status.

To sum up — it is a specific point of fact that in Buddhadharma all four extremes are refuted. It is impossible for a mind to both exist and not exist. Do you really want a citation blizzard?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
Advaita doesn't teach that everything ultimately comes from one source.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact it does. At the level of māya, Advaita supports creation of the universe by Iśvara.

Boomerang said:
I'm not going to give you a crash course in Advaita. I've been doing that for 2 days now and it hasn't done much. If you want to understand the difference between relative reality and absolute reality, message me and I'll recommend some books.

Malcolm wrote:
It may surprise you to know that I have in fact taken teachings from actual Advaitans. I do understand the difference between what Advaita [e.g. Shankara] says on a relative level and what it says on the ultimate level. Both perspectives are dissatisfactory from a Buddhist POV. Neither, from a Buddhist POV is predicated on dependent origination.


Boomerang said:
I already said that there can be no objectivity in a nondual reality, but I don't think you understood.

Malcolm wrote:
I did understand. It is a dodge. The Advaita POV is summed nicely in "One without a second." In Buddhadharma on the other hand, "nonduality", depending on which nonduality one is speaking of, is a subjective experience confined to a person's mindstream. Of course there is an objective nonduality, called "śūnyatā". Śūnyatā is rejected by Advaita [e.g. Shankara].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
Advaita doesn't teach that everything ultimately comes from one source.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact it does. At the level of māya, Advaita supports creation of the universe by Iśvara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Then of course there is the issue of refuge, which I brought up above. Hindus might think they can take refuge in Shiva and the Buddha, for example. But a real Buddhist would never make this mistake.

Boomerang said:
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, and I have no desire to change your mind. I'm only participating in this thread so that everyone knows that it is possible to be Hindu and Buddhist, regardless of what some people may think. Personally, I never took refuge in Shiva, but I do pray to Ganesha, as he's a popular symbol of nonduality in Advaita Vedanta.

There are scriptures that say Buddhists can only take refuge in the Buddha. I have no problem with that, because every symbol of nonduality is a symbol of Buddha's wisdom.


Malcolm wrote:
You did not address the issue I raised.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I cannot be objectified. I neither exist nor do I not exist...

Sherab Dorje said:
Fourth extreme, according to Nagarjuna.

monktastic said:
Well shoot, I guess someone should have told Kalu Rinpoche (sorry, can't use quote functionality on this device). Or maybe it's just impossible to speak about without falling into a trap.

http://www.iol.ie/~taeger/mahamud/mahamud.html
The third Karmapa, (Rangjung Dorje), wrote a prayer of aspiration for the realization of Mahamudra in which he said, "It is not existent because even the Buddha could not see it, but it is not nonexistent because it is the basis or origin of all samsara.(6).and nirvana.(7)." It does not constitute a contradiction to say that mind neither exists nor does not exist; it is simultaneously existent and nonexistent.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a contradiction, this is why it is rejected explicitly buy the Buddha and by Nāgārjuna. The four extremes are existent, nonexistence, both and neither. Nagārjuna rejects these in many texts, as does the Buddha in many sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The only resemblance between Advaita and Buddhadharma is that we both seek to solve the same problem — avidyā. What we understand vidyā to be is completely different.

Is Buddhist nonduality something that humans are able to perfectly describe through language? Is Advaita nonduality something that humans can perfectly describe through language?

First of all, the way the term is used in Buddhadharma and Advaita are very different.

For example, the Tarkajvakla, a famous commentary on Nagarjuna 's MMK states:

Therefore, that which is the inner earth element, that is is the external earth element, that is the meaning of nondual.
Or:
When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects of knowledge are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn't even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness? Since there are no mental discriminations, there is no conceptual clinging of mutual dependence."
Or the Kaumudī, a famous Buddhist tantric commentary, states:
Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness.
It also is understood, as Dzogchungpa point outed, as a consciousness devoid of subject and object, as the Ḍākinīvajrapañjara[-mahā]tantrarājasya pañjikā[-prathamapaṭala-]mukhabandha-nāma
One is a nondual consciousness. 
Two is an apprehending subject and an apprehended object.
These quotes are not exhaustive, but they show that "nondual" in Buddhadharma is really quite different than Advaita.

Boomerang said:
Thank you for the quotations. Here's a quotation from one of my favorite Advaita websites. It's quite similar to your final one:

Reality is you, whole and complete non-dual consciousness. This is the essence of Vedanta’s teachings.

The ways Buddhism and Advaita use the term consciousness aren't exactly the same, but similarities like this are what I'm talking about when I say I can see the same nondual core in both religions. And that's why I'm Buddhist and Hindu. The two religions have more similarities than their attitude toward avidya. You clearly know much more about Buddhism than me, but I think I know more about Advaita than you. Otherwise you wouldn't have even used that last quotation, or made that earlier statement about Advaita positing absolute existence after I said existence and non-existence are mithya.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that in Buddhadharma, nondual consciousness is subjective and personal, not objective and universal. You can't simply cherry pick what you like.

Then of course there is the issue of refuge, which I brought up above. Hindus might think they can take refuge in Shiva and the Buddha, for example. But a real Buddhist would never make this mistake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
This also shows that you don't understand Advaita Vedanta. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you're simply mistaken.

Malcolm wrote:
Mistaken about what? That the view of Buddhadharma and the view of Advaita are not commensurate?

The Dakshinamurti itself criticizes the view of emptiness.

Deham pranam api indryanyapi chalaam,
Budhim cha soonyam vidhu,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Sherab said:
In Advaita Vedanta, non-duality meant being one.  In Buddhism, non-duality simply means not two and not being one.

Boomerang said:
Your understanding of Advaita Vedanta is faulty. I've been speaking against this understanding for a few days now, for example, in this post:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=18560&start=80#p268881

The way Advaita Vedanta works, a student will be taught a series of concepts which progressively introvert the mind. When one concept has done its job, it will be discarded and replaced by another. The student's mind becomes subtler and subtler until eventually all ignorance falls away and nonduality is realized. The people in this thread are picking out individual concepts that are used in the Advaita sadhana, and confusing them to be the whole system.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, I cited the Dakshinamurth for you in full and it is clearly at odds with Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
60 Commentaries on philosophies constitute a thick jungle in which a roaming mind may easily get lost, in its own delusion. Therefore, true seekers of Brahman should, through right efforts, come to experience the Real Nature of the Self.

61 For him who has been stung by the cobra of ignorance, the only remedy is the knowledge of Brahman. Of what use are the Vedas and the scriptures, mantras and medicines to such a victim of poison?[/i]

With that, I don't think there's much more I can contribute to the thread. Love to all.

Malcolm wrote:
Once again, here Advaita and Buddhadharma are absolutely incommensurate, and as I pointed out, it is only Hindus who imagine that Advaita and Buddhadharma are talking about the same thing, i.e., knowledge of Brahman.

The only resemblance between Advaita and Buddhadharma is that we both seek to solve the same problem — avidyā. What we understand vidyā to be is completely different.

Boomerang said:
Is Buddhist nonduality something that humans are able to perfectly describe through language? Is Advaita nonduality something that humans can perfectly describe through language?

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, the way the term is used in Buddhadharma and Advaita are very different.

For example, the Tarkajvakla, a famous commentary on Nagarjuna 's MMK states:

Therefore, that which is the inner earth element, that is is the external earth element, that is the meaning of nondual.
Or:
When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects of knowledge are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn't even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness? Since there are no mental discriminations, there is no conceptual clinging of mutual dependence."
Or the Kaumudī, a famous Buddhist tantric commentary, states:
Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness.
It also is understood, as Dzogchungpa point outed, as a consciousness devoid of subject and object, as the Ḍākinīvajrapañjara[-mahā]tantrarājasya pañjikā[-prathamapaṭala-]mukhabandha-nāma
One is a nondual consciousness. 
Two is an apprehending subject and an apprehended object.
These quotes are not exhaustive, but they show that "nondual" in Buddhadharma is really quite different than Advaita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:


Boomerang said:
60 Commentaries on philosophies constitute a thick jungle in which a roaming mind may easily get lost, in its own delusion. Therefore, true seekers of Brahman should, through right efforts, come to experience the Real Nature of the Self.

61 For him who has been stung by the cobra of ignorance, the only remedy is the knowledge of Brahman. Of what use are the Vedas and the scriptures, mantras and medicines to such a victim of poison?[/i]

With that, I don't think there's much more I can contribute to the thread. Love to all.

Malcolm wrote:
Once again, here Advaita and Buddhadharma are absolutely incommensurate, and as I pointed out, it is only Hindus who imagine that Advaita and Buddhadharma are talking about the same thing, i.e., knowledge of Brahman.

The only resemblance between Advaita and Buddhadharma is that we both seek to solve the same problem — avidyā. What we understand vidyā to be is completely different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
The thing is, smcj, you do not need to diss Nagarjuna at all: insofar as I know, all Shengtongpas do claim to follow and be in perfect accord with Nagarjunian Madhyamaka. You would be the first one to disagree.
From "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" by Khenpo Tsultrim, p.66:
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.
(formatting mine)

Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka is provisional and Great Madhyamaka is definitive according to Dudjom R. You guys have to stop holding up Nagarjuna as definitive if you're going to accept the supremacy of the 3rd Turning as does Dudjom R.

Malcolm wrote:
But I don't accept the three turning scheme the way you, Dudjom Rinpoche, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso and so on present it at all. I prefer another scheme, in my opinion more profound, which is taken from the Sandhivyākarana-tantra:
The pleasing single vajra word
becomes many different [words]
from the perspective of the mentalities of trainees.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You say:

Boomerang said:
You and Malcolm are arguing against a straw man Advaita.



Malcolm wrote:
Then you say:
In a nondual reality there can be no such thing as objective existence.

This is the Advaita we are arguing against:
This world is unreal like the image of a city in the mirror, it exists inside. Due to the power of Maya it looks as if it is manifested outside like in dream we see things outside ourselves. Salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor, who, at the time of self realization, makes one aware that Atma is without second (i.e. one).

Like a tree inside a seed this world is not manifested initially. Later on it gets manifested due to Maya in space, time and various forms. Salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor who like a magician, through his yogic powers, transforms it by his own will.

Who inspires to discriminate between the real 'I' and its imagined, unreal meaning; who imparts direct knowledge of 'You are That' as said in Vedas to his dependents; without direct connection with whom, it is impossible to cross this ocean of birth and death, salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor.॥3॥

Who emanates from eyes and other sense organs like the light of a lamp kept in a vessel with multiple pores; by whose grace, I know that this light only illumines the entire world, salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor.॥4॥

Those who consider themselves as body, life force, sense organs, dynamic intelligence or nothing are deluded like women, kids, blinds and dull-minded. Who ends this great anxiety due to the play of Maya, salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor. ॥5॥

The unborn, unaware self is properly covered due to Maya like Sun and Moon eclipsed by Rahu. It shines forth once all barriers are removed. Who makes it realize that you are one with that slept self, salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor.॥6॥

Self is ever present in various stages of body like childhood, etc., various stages of mind like waking, etc. and unattached. Who always resonates like 'I am That', who reveals himself happily and beautifully on remembering, salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor. ॥7॥

Self sees this world in many forms of himself like action and cause, servant and owner, teach er and disciple, father and son, etc. By whose power, Maya; Self looks to be wandering in dream and waking, salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor.॥8॥

Whatever is seen in this moving and non-moving world is made up of eight forms of Shiva - Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Space, Sun, Moon and Self. On contemplation, there is nothing beyond him, salutations to all pervading Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor.॥9॥

'You are Self of all' is realized by your worship, listening about you, thinking over you, meditating and singing for you. You, the almighty God, are experienced with all your unstoppable grandeur, in eight forms. Salutations to Sri Shiva in the form of preceptor.॥10॥
— Dakshinamurti Stotram https://sites.google.com/site/vedicscripturesinc/home/srishankaracharya/dakshinamurtistotram


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
As in a non-duality, yes.

Sherab Dorje said:
So if one posits an objectively existent reality (ultimate or relative), than can one be said to be expressing a non-dual view?  Somehow, I think not.

smcj said:
Lol, tell that to a Vedantan.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and thus this is a crucial distinction between Buddhism and Vedanta in general. There may be some Buddhists who err in reifying the ultimate indeed, but they are rescued by the fact that there are higher views than those that reify the ultimate as "real" and eventually they will graduate to those when they accumulate sufficient merit to see the error of extreme views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
but it a Great Madhyamaka

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmadhyamaka is a term that has a complicated history. Gzhan stong does not have the trademark on it.

For example, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen writes in his Great Song of Experience:
Freedom from extremes is beyond knowledge, expressions and objects, 
Madhyamaka, Cittamatra and so on,
expressions in words are proliferations...
That view of Great Madhyamaka
is bliss without delusion because it is not a proposition.
This was written 100 years before Dolbupa was even born. In fact the Gelugpas also refer to Lama Tsongkhapa's view as Great Madhyamaka and so on.

Of course, if you examine, you will find the early Nyingma, Kadampa, Sakya and Kagyu uses of the term more consistent with how the term is used in Indian texts. For example Atisha writes extensively about Mahāmadhyamaka. So what does he say? In his Bodhimārgapradīpapañjikā-nāma, his autocommentary on the Lamp of the Path of Awakening, the foundation text for all Lam Rim:
To explain the essence of Master Nāgārjuna's teaching, that is comprehended to be the great madhyamaka [dbu ma chen po] beyond existence and nonexistence, the meaning of Prajñāpāramitā, and it is also taught the same way in the texts of other scholars. As such, it is the intention of Guru Bodhibhadra, and Jetsun Kusulupa. That nectar of Ārya Nāgārjuna satisfied Āryadeva, Candrakīrti, Śantideva and Bodhibhadra, and a little of it was also sprinkled on me. With four great arguments all phenomena are proven to be nonarising —  one should abide in the philosophical conclusion of the great madhyamaka through following the masters of the past.
One never finds the term "great madhyamaka" being used by the Yogacara authors.

One place where the term is used, and I believe is in fact its origin, is that it is used frequently to describe the completion stage in tantric commentaries. But again, its description is not out of line with mainstream Indian Madhyamaka. For example, in the Śrīhevajranāmatantrārthasaṁgraha:
"After that, explain the meaning of the great madhyamaka free from all extremes...."
Or in the Śrīsaṁpuṭatilaka-nāma-yoginītantrarājasya ṭīkā-smṛitisaṁdarśanāloka-nāma:
"Full expansion of qualities" means buddhahood comes from Mantrayāna and great madhyamaka.
Or the Bhagavadd-hevajrasādhana-abhisamayakramārthaprasanna-nāma:
Meditate upon the great madhyamaka
free from all signs.
Or the Śrī-kālacakropadeśayogaṣaḍaṅgatantrapañjikā-nāma:
The nature of completion is called "great madhyamaka".
The Śrī-ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarājasyaṭīkāvohitaṭikā-nāma:
"Madhyamaka" is the essential Dharma and the great Madhyamaka of the Mahāyāna free from the four extremes is the awakening of the fortunate.
Or the Samājābhisamayālaṁkāravṛtti:
Having manifested the great madhyamaka that is immaculate like space...
The Upadeśaniścaya-nāma-śrīguhyasamājavṛtti states:
The neutral recitation is meditating body, speech and mind in the state of great madhyamaka — beyond all extremes of signs, because it isn't anything at all, it is called "neutral".
The Āryamañjuśrīnāmasaṁgītiṭīkāsārābhisamaya states:
"Due to be being free it is like a reflection" — a mere reflection to which there is freedom from clingning, or even being free from the mere designation "reflection" is the great madhyamaka free from the four extremes. For which it is also said:

The diversity is not permanent,
nor is its annihilation proposed;
neither permanent nor annihilated,
also not both —
liberated from all four extremes
that is the reasoning of a mādhyamika.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="smcjSince the transcendent (beyond cause and effect) Wisdom Mind is unborn and never comes into existence it is not subject to the same deconstruction and can be said to be real.
[/quote]

From a Madhyamaka perspective, something that never comes into existence is a nonexistent, and cannot be considered real by Madhyamaka definitions. It is therefore also not immune to Madhyamaka analysis. In this respect too, "wisdom mind" is no different than all the other phenomena that do not arise (which is all of them), and therefore are not real.

The classical  Tibetan refutation of gzhan stong is the Madhyamaka refutation of the unconditioned in the MMK:
If arising, abiding and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established. 
If the condition has never been established, where will the unconditioned be established?
The classical Tibetan refutation of the charge of "rang stong" is the following statement from the MMK:
If there were some thing subtly not empty, there would be some thing to be empty, 
but as there is no thing that is not empty, where is there some thing to be empty?
Finally, the rejection of that the world has a nature:
Whatever is the nature of the tathāgata, that is the nature of the world.
As tathāgata has no nature, also the world has no nature.
In reality, following the opinion of Rongtong Sheja Kunrig, gzhan stong is a kind of transitional view between classical yogacara and madhyamaka, and is in fact little more than a variant of the false-aspectarian yogacara mainly promulgated by Ratnakarashanti.

When I spoke with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso, he did not admit, nor was I pressing the point, that Advaita and gzhan stong were identical: the point was that both systems were structurally similar only in that they asserted the relative was completely unreal and the ultimate completely real. Even though he agreed with this characterization, he strongly emphasized at that time that despite this similarity, Advaita does not have buddhahood as a result. I add this just so you are clear about what I asked, and what he replied.

The other thing that plagues gzhan stong is that unlike classical Indian Madhyamaka, of which two clear trends can be observed — gzhan stong, being largely a Tibetan innovation, has a plethora of interpretations.

Finally, as to the term "mahāmadhyamaka". As I have pointed out several times now, the earliest use the the term in a Tibetan text is by the Nyingma author Kawa Paltseg, the translator from the early 9th century. In his Explanation of The Stages of the View he refers to Mahāmadhyamaka as:
Freedom from the two extremes in the ultimate 
is asserted to be mahāmadhyamaka
The of course we have Naropa's statement in the Abbreviation of the View, translated by Marpa Lotsawa, which paraphrases the Hevajra Tantra:
That thing, samsara, 
that is nirvana, 
that is mahāmadhyamaka.
Now, I am  not very sure why some Kagyus have abandoned to view of Naropa and Marpa, but it sure seems that they have, because the above sentiment is impossible in gzhan stong, where nirvana is by definition empty of samsara, not identical with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
monktastic said:
I have heard it suggested that there is indeed more than one realization that can be appropriately called "nondual," and which feels absolutely final. The idea that "because they're both nondual, they are the same insight," or that they give rise to the same degree of freedom, is no longer so obvious to me.

For someone like me, the best way to evaluate whether two insights are the same, or whether one is "higher" than the other, is to ask people who feel that they've experienced both. For example, among people who have experience the insight that "I am a separate body in a world of other bodies," and "the world and I are one," nobody seems to consider the former a deeper insight. This gives me some confidence.

If there are people who have experienced both "all is Brahman" (or "there is only Brahman"), and "even Brahman is empty," then maybe I can learn something about which of those views is more "accurate" (despite the fact that this word itself means progressively less along the path). I have come across a few individuals (both from a Vedanta background and a Buddhist background) who supposedly have experienced both insights, and their thoughts about whether these insights are the same (and just being expressed from different angles), or one is more freeing, is informative to my practice.

I'd rather not share much about what I learned (for a few reasons), but thought I'd share that this was something interesting for me to investigate.

Boomerang said:
I wouldn't really recommend asking an awakening person to describe their personal experiences. There are some things that can't be explained in words. Could you use words to explain what it's like to experience smells or hear sounds? Furthermore, a person could tell you one thing one day, have a deeper awakening, and then completely change their tune.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, no, not in Buddhadharma. The content of awakening is the same between a first stage bodhisattva and a buddha — the only things that differentiates the awakening of bodhisattvas and buddhas is that a bodhisattva still has obscurations of affliction and omniscience to remove, and a buddha does not. Otherwise, there is no difference in the emptiness they realize. They realize the same emptiness.

For this reason, for example, Maitreyanatha describes sentient beings, bodhisattvas and buddhas respectively as impure, impure/pure, and pure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Adamantine said:
Isn't the main point to take away here that both traditions
acknowledge that their methods - interred in philosophical language or not-
are merely conditional devices to hook disciples in the
right direction, but which shouldn't be confused with the actual realization/destination
which is beyond the capacity of language (or conceptual mind) altogether?

I've heard that Hindus tend to fall away from the fruit in the direction of
Eternalism, and Buddhists in the direction of Nihilism.. Of course the proper
way of Buddhadharma is beyond either extreme.. But realistically, most of us here
are falling in one direction or another.. Let's take stock and look at this soberly.

Boomerang said:
That sums up my opinion. Once nonduality is realized, it becomes apparent that none of the conceptual tools used up to that point are inherently true or false. That's why I feel comfortable saying that Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are both legitimate even though they disagree on various points. Nagarjuna and Shankara were both masters of skillful means.

Malcolm wrote:
"Nonduality" in Buddhdharma is the simple fact that the two predicates of things, "existence" and "nonexistence", are false. That is all and nothing more.

That is not how Shankaracarya understands "nonduality", which is that the nondual state is "one without a second", i.e. existent.

Given that this is so, "nonduality" in Buddhdharma and Advaita are not even remotely commensurate.

Those who think so either do not understand a) Buddhadharma b) Advaita c) Both. In general, it is usually Advaitans who do not understand Buddhadharma who make the mistake of equating the treatment of nonduality in Buddhadharma and Advaita. One thing is for sure ‚ the ancient Indian Buddhist masters were not confused about this distinction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 25th, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
smcj said:
So he predicates the entire question on the idea that, according to Dzogchen, there is a some sort of ultimate ground of being that is not dependent on the minds of being.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he doesn't. But since you don't understand Dzogchen, you remain immune to correction on this critical point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 23rd, 2015 at 1:04 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Boomerang said:
I see no difference between the Advaita concept of Brahman/Atman and the Buddhist concept of Dharmadatu/Buddha-nature.


Malcolm wrote:
This means you have not understood what "dharmadhātu" means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Single Son
Content:
naljor said:
Hi all,
where can I find Tibetan text of short version of the Single Son of all the Buddhas tantra or English translation?

Malcolm wrote:
There are many short versions - do you mean the one from the Khandro Nyinthig?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
conebeckham said:
དོན་སྤྱི་ or "samanyartha" are the words I believe we're discussing.


Malcolm wrote:
These are unreal, if that is what he means, then no.

cloudburst said:
yes, don spyi.

I was confused when you wrote

malcolm said:
Can the vajra master give the student an "introduction to the nature of mind" and have it be a qualified instance of that, even if the insight generated in the student is only one that is a generic image?
This is precisely what is called "the example wisdom."

Malcolm wrote:
I was answering yes to "Can the vajra master give the student an "introduction to the nature of mind" and have it be a qualified instance of that..."

It is not a universal, since universals cannot be perceived experientially since they do not exist.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Sources for 'Early Mahayana'
Content:
Indrajala said:
The Brahman heartland was the Kuru-Pañcāla region highlighted in red. Gandhāra, Bactria and much of what is now Afghanistan was not. The northwest (referring to these latter regions) was especially cosmopolitan after Alexander, having plenty of Greek and Persian influences and peoples, many of whom were to adopt Buddhism and not use Sanskrit initially. If these had been Brahmanical strongholds as you misunderstand them to be, then they would have used Sanskrit from the start. However, we find Buddhists using languages like Bactrian and Gāndhārī instead. There are inscriptions of refuge verses found in Bactrian fashion using Bactrian script:

Malcolm wrote:
I am not talking about Bactria [Afghanistan], I am talking about Pakistan, around the Indus river valley east. In other words, the eastern side of the the Hindu Kush.

I never said either that Buddhists began using Sanskrit from the beginning, merely that a push to Sanskritize is evident from the beginning.

The Sarvastivadins wrote their canon down in Sanskrit, and this more than anything accounts for the widespread adoption of the Sarvastivada Abhidharma by most schools who were not connected with the proto-Theravada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Sources for 'Early Mahayana'
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We see a move towards Sanskritization even during the Buddha's day. For example, there is a passage  [I believe it is the Majjihma Nikāya] recounting how two Brahmin disciples of the Buddha derided another monk who only knew vernacular for being unable to distinguish between long and short vowels when he recited the Sūtras.


Indrajala said:
Even if that is referring to Sanskrit phonetics, it isn't a historical record, and was probably inserted much later on because too many monks were not reciting things in the desired fashion.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is a historical record, don't be daft — your assertion that it is an interpolation is entirely arbitrary.


Indrajala said:
These two earned the censure of the Buddha for sure, but we can see the roots of Sanskritization even in the Nikayas from this example.

The Pali cannon is also a late period development (see Schopen quote above), and according to Norman it was a translation of something else.

So, your point doesn't stand.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course the points stands, because the same story is preserved in other canons.



Indrajala said:
When the Sarvastivadins set their canon down, they set it down in Sanskrit for the obvious reason I stated — it was the language of the educated all across India.
Was it Sanskrit from the first day or did they adopt it later on?

Malcolm wrote:
It was set down in Sanskrit, from day one.


Indrajala said:
In particular, if you hold that Sarvastivada come from the region of what is now Pakistan and the Punjab, this is the traditional homeland of the Vedas and according to the accounts you follow, a Brahmanical stronghold.
You misunderstand the geography. Let's look at the map:

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't. Let's look at a map —— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration_hypothesis#mediaviewer/File:Early_Vedic_Culture_%281700-1100_BCE%29.png


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
prsvrnc said:
“In the original mahamudra tradition, the earliest masters literally sang the disciples into enlightenment with poems called dohas.  The mind’s natural condition was directly pointed out by the master, who then gave instructions to negate any artificial activity during meditation.  Realization of the mind’s awakened wisdom was a consequence of these pointing-out and nonmeditation instructions.  This is ESSENCE MAHAMUDRA.

Later in the tradition, mahamudra practitioners first learned to refine the ordinary mind through mastering traditional generation-stage and completion-stage tantric practices, and then they took up mahamudra either concurrent with or following completion-stage practice.  This is TANTRIC MAHAMUDRA.

Still later in the tradition, practitioners first refined the ordinary mind through mastering standard concentration and special insight meditation, and after some degree of mastery had been achieved, mahamudra was then introduced.  This is SUTRA MAHAMUDRA.

Thus, mahamudra can be a sutra, tantra, or essence practice, depending on which practices are used to refine the coarse and subtle levels of the mind before essence instructions are given to address the very subtle mind.”

^^ AHH, I think this does clarify my Q.  Mahamudra, then, I think singularly refers to realization at level of very subtle mind.  in other words, a direct cognition of emptiness at level of first arya brumi, then, is not a mahamudra realization, even though it is realizing the nature of mind on one level.

Malcolm wrote:
From where are you taking the above quote? The person who wrote it seems to be unaware that the dohas are the songs of realization gained through practicing the two stages. Mahāmudra in reality only refers to the result of the two stages or guru yoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Ayu said:
If somebody feels to have a good connection to Hinduism, is it possible to practice it together with Buddhism?


Malcolm wrote:
I already answered this question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
conebeckham said:
དོན་སྤྱི་ or "samanyartha" are the words I believe we're discussing.


Malcolm wrote:
These are unreal, if that is what he means, then no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan language--indispensible in Tantra?
Content:
Konchok Namgyal said:
It was explained to me like this :
Even though you should do these practices in Tibetan you should also understand what it is you are saying.
The blessings flow through the language much as they do through the lineage.
especially the Mantras, the intonation and vibration of them  effects body, speech and mind.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a translator, you should practice in Tibetan.

If you are with a Tibetan Lama doing a group practice, you should practice in "Tibetan", even if it sounds awful (it does).

If you are by yourself, you should practice in English, because just as mantras pronounced improperly will only delay your practice; just as mumbling your sadhanas will delay your practice; chanting liturgies in phoneticized "Tibetan" only results in making sounds which at best only vaguely resemble Tibetan, sounds which you do not understand, nor will be understood by anyone who is a Tibetan speaker, and thus you will merely cause obstacles for yourself.

This does not mean one should not take pains to learn Tibetan, which is the only proper way to learn how to pronounce it. This does not mean that certain prayers like the seven line prayer, the Migtsema, the short Barceh Lamsel and so on should not be recited in Tibetan — of course they should -- it is easy to learn how to properly pronounce a few lines of Tibetan. This does not mean one can practice a chod liturgy in English (attempts have been made but they all suck). But as a general rule English speakers who do not know Tibetan should practice in English apart from the above noted exceptions, that at least is my opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
cloudburst said:
According to your understanding, is that initial experience mediated by means of a generic image?

Malcolm wrote:
In the sense that words are abstractions, I suppose so. The words indicate the meaning of that experience.

cloudburst said:
We may have a different understanding of the meaning of generic image... for example, in my understanding, even example clear light in the mind of a tantric practitioner on the path of accumulation would be mediated by a generic image.

Since you said the experience of the word empowerment itself was the example wisdom, I am wondering if you believe this experience itself is mediated by a generic image, in a way similar to the experience of a yogi's example clear light.

thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
What is the underlying Tibetan or Sanskrit word you are using for "generic image"? What I am saying is that the example wisdom is a pratyakṣa, not an analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:


cloudburst said:
Does that include initial recognition being through means of a generic image?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between the fourth empowerment and direct introduction. They both involve inductions of specific experiences.

The fourth empowerment is an introduction based on the induction of a specific experience in the student, likewise, so is direct introduction.

Though it is called the "word empowerment", the actual fourth empowerment is not truly contained within words such as "this is like space...", etc. But when combined with this or that specific experience, the fourth empowerment/direct introduction introduces the student to the nature of their minds experientially, and then it can be called the word empowerment because the nature of that experience has been described to them in a way that they understand the experience that they have had. That experience itself is the example, wisdom, not the words.

cloudburst said:
According to your understanding, is that initial experience mediated by means of a generic image?

Malcolm wrote:
In the sense that words are abstractions, I suppose so. The words indicate the meaning of that experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan language--indispensible in Tantra?
Content:
Lobsang Damchoi said:
Would like to pose a question--this is primarily for Westerners who do solo practice of the higher tantras on a regular basis, but I'm interested in anyone's views: your genuine gut feelings, as well as whatever advice you may have received from teachers.

Is it a really serious disadvantage to one's personal progress and realization if one practices in the vernacular? I know lamas frequently mention the blessings of using Tibetan. But, IMHO Westerners have something that may compensate in some measure: a strong. almost visceral connection to the sound of Sanskrit. (At least it seems to be true in my case.) And Sanskrit is, after all, the original for most of the tantras we practice. If one is going to learn a 2nd, 3rd or 4th language for dharma practice, why not Sanskrit (if it's a practical alternative based on surviving sources)?

Also, is it really practical, where there are many complex referents and highly detailed imagery, to expect that the Tibetan  will have the same practicality and power as one's native language?

In a recent book the author compared doing tantric sadhanas in a non-Tibetan language to being blind -- is it really that bad? Should I hand in my tantrika card until I'm fluent in Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
You should practice in the language you understand, rather than be a parrot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Sources for 'Early Mahayana'
Content:


Indrajala said:
The custom towards adopting Sanskrit was initially localized around the more heavily Brahmanical areas.


Malcolm wrote:
We see a move towards Sanskritization even during the Buddha's day. For example, there is a passage  [I believe it is the Majjihma Nikāya] recounting how two Brahmin disciples of the Buddha derided another monk who only knew vernacular for being unable to distinguish between long and short vowels when he recited the Sūtras. These two earned the censure of the Buddha for sure, but we can see the roots of Sanskritization even in the Nikayas from this example.

When the Sarvastivadins set their canon down, they set it down in Sanskrit for the obvious reason I stated — it was the language of the educated all across India. In particular, if you hold that Sarvastivada come from the region of what is now Pakistan and the Punjab, this is the traditional homeland of the Vedas and according to the accounts you follow, a Brahmanical stronghold.

Plus, a very large proportion of monks in the time of the Buddha were bhramins, and so on and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Nirrtix said:
Even if a sort of blend of the beliefs?

Jetavan said:
http://threeroyalwarriors.tripod.com/index.html.


Malcolm wrote:
Thus is a very strange website, based on some serious misconceptions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between the direct introduction of Dzogchen and the fourth empowerment, none whatsoever.

M

cloudburst said:
Does that include initial recognition being through means of a generic image?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between the fourth empowerment and direct introduction. They both involve inductions of specific experiences.

The fourth empowerment is an introduction based on the induction of a specific experience in the student, likewise, so is direct introduction.

Though it is called the "word empowerment", the actual fourth empowerment is not truly contained within words such as "this is like space...", etc. But when combined with this or that specific experience, the fourth empowerment/direct introduction introduces the student to the nature of their minds experientially, and then it can be called the word empowerment because the nature of that experience has been described to them in a way that they understand the experience that they have had. That experience itself is the example, wisdom, not the words.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 18th, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
cloudburst said:
Malcolm, it seems that you are saying that vidya is the same as example wisdom.

Mother's Lap said:
How does example wisdom correlate/differ with vidya?

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same.


cloudburst said:
Further, example wisdom is an insight, by means of a generic image, into the nature of the mind generated through the introduction by a vajra master.

prsvrnc said:
Can the vajra master give the student an "introduction to the nature of mind" and have it be a qualified instance of that, even if the insight generated in the student is only one that is a generic image?

Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely what is called "the example wisdom."

cloudburst said:
would this be a fair assessment of what you are saying?


Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between the direct introduction of Dzogchen and the fourth empowerment, none whatsoever.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, the point is that 'Buddhist' and 'Hindu' are words, and you're arguing about what people should take them to mean.

Malcolm wrote:
They are signifiers that indicate where you find your refuge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One cannot go for refuge to the Buddha and also go for refuge to some other god.

Sherlock said:
You can make offerings to different deities but taking refuge in the three jewels means you recognize that there is no other way to liberation except Buddhadharma. If you think some other path leads to liberation and you go after that, then you break your refuge vows.

Ayu said:
I heard long Lamrim-lectures about the meaning of taking refuge to Buddha, taking refuge to Dharma & taking refuge to Sangha. I never heard this excluding statements. Maybe my ears were closed, but this sounds rather christian like: "You should not have any god besides Me." (?)

Malcolm wrote:
It says in the Vinayakārikā:
If who has gone for refuge to the Buddha
should serve one with a different aspect, 
the lucidity of their minds shall become disturbed, 
and based on that where can there be a result?
The Parinirvana Sūtra states very unambiguously:
One who seeks refuge in the Buddha
is a true upāsaka
and should never seek refuge
in other gods. 
If one seeks refuge in the sublime Dharma, 
be free from thoughts of harm and killing. 
If one seeks refuge in the Sangha, 
do not associate with tīrthikas.

Ayu said:
In our course there is one follower of Kriya-Yoga as Lamrim-student since four years. Our Geshe doesn't force her to convert. She attends also initiations and is like a full member of our sangha.
But i suppose, she didn't take refuge, because her heart beats for Kriya Yoga, it's her home.

Malcolm wrote:
Without taking refuge, you cannot enter Mahāyāna, let alone Vajrayāna. If this person never took refuge, she never received bodhisattva vows, and never received samaya, and in short, never received an initiation or an empowerment at all. Of course, what is likely the case is that she took refuge, etc., but damages her refuge continally through confusion. This common, which is why the Buddha spoke about it and why it is reflected in the Vinakarika I cited above.

Ayu said:
On the contrary I heard it is rather dangerous to cut off all your own roots to follow buddhist path in an artificial manner. One should keep in contact with ones own roots and all the aspects of ones being.

Malcolm wrote:
It is one thing to respect the religion of your ancestors, it is quite another to be confused about refuge.

The issue of Gorakṣanātha was raised. It is true he is counted among the 84 siddhas. It is said he was raised in a Buddhist family and later converted to Shaivism. It is a little unclear what his story is. But this anomaly sheds light on Hathayogapradipika's criticism of the Buddhist siddha Nagabodhi, showing that in such yogic circles there was definite tension between Hindus and Buddhists.

In the example of Mahasiddha Virupa, it was unclear to everyone whether he was Buddhist or Hindu. In order to find out, he was dragged in front of the King of Benares. When it was ascertained he was a Buddhist, he was condemned to death, bound in chains and flung into the Ganges. Houdini-like, he escaped. There are other episodes in his biography which illustrate that Buddhist siddhis circulated among non-Buddhists as part of their vratya, their yogic discipline, to challenge their own realization. In another episode of Virupa's life, after having been invited to be the leader of a royal panel of non-Buddhist panditas,  when it was discovered the book to which he prostrated was the Prajñāpāramitā in 8000 lines, the king (a different one) ordered him to bow to a Shiva linga. Virupa replied that is was inappropriate for an elder brother to prostrate to the younger, and warned the king that it was not going to go well. The kind insisted that Virupa prostrate to this linga, and after he prostrated to it, it shattered, eliciting a complaint from Shiva himself. Virupa was so skilled at conversion through magical displays, eventually Avalokiteshvara interceded and asked Virupa to cease terrifying people with his powers.

We can understand from all this that it is not appropriate for those who have sought refuge in the Three Jewels to seek refuge elsewhere. So the answer to the question "Can one be a Buddhist and a Christian", "can on be a Buddhist and a Hindu", "can one be a Buddhist and a religious Jew" is no. Just as one cannot serve two kings, but must bear allegiance to one above any other, likewise, one cannot belong to Buddhadhama and so some religion and expect any kind of result from from the former, as it clearly states in the Vinaya stanza above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Major empowerments
Content:
Punya said:
I can't really explain the context of this but if someone asked you to supply a list of any major empowerments you have received what are they likely to mean? What would normally constitute major and minor empowerments?

I assume Kalachakra and Lamdre are major empowerments but can someone give some examples in each of the main Tibetan traditions?

Thanks Punya

heart said:
In the Sarma tradition it seems it have to be a 2 day empowerment to be considered major. This is not really the case in the Nyingma tradition, it is a lot more complex matter.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
A dbang chen in gsar ma and snying ma are the same. Guhyagarba is one example, there are many others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Is is possible to be Buddhist and Hindu?
Content:
Nirrtix said:
Even if a sort of blend of the beliefs? I know that some beliefs in Buddhism you can believe in god or gods, both are Karma based, and have some similar teachings.

I know this may seem like an odd idea, but Thich Nhat Hanh a Zen Mon wrote Living Buddha Living Christ, and thought both were compatible. I believe it is on the Buddhist side at least.

Anyhow, I am curious about this.

I am also curious about what many of you think about how some think about the Hindu belief that Buddha is an Avatar of Vishnu.

thank you,
Nirrtix


Malcolm wrote:
One cannot go for refuge to the Buddha and also go for refuge to some other god.

The Hindu idea that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu is a pernicious legend, since it portrays Buddha was emanating solely for the purpose of tricking the asuras and leading them astray.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
So Sarma 4th empowerment also leads to a buddhahood that does not return to the cause?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is the practice of the an example wisdom introduced at the time of empowerment. This leads to buddhahood in one life, or seven or at most sixteen.

The level of insight experienced in Vajrayāna completion stage practices involve the experience of levels of mind more subtle than is possible in sutra meditation of plain śamatha and vipaśyāna, which is another reason why it is more rapid than sutra meditation.

Mother's Lap said:
How does example wisdom correlate/differ with vidya?


Malcolm wrote:
It is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There really is no mahāmudra that can be spoken of outside of tantric practice. Sutra mahāmudra is using dohas to illustrate and prepare one for the true result mahāmudra realized via the practice of the two stages. The word "mahāmudra" does not occur in even one single sūtra.

Sherab Dorje said:
The term "Sutra Mahamudra" is normally used to delineate the gradual approach from the sudden.

As for Mahamudra, some say that it is equivalent to Tathagatagarbha, and there's plenty of mention of that in the Sutras.

But this leads me to ask the question:  Do you believe that the nature of mind can only be uncovered via Tantra?  Do you think that the level of insight needed to experience the state, does not exist in Sutta and Sutra techniques?

Malcolm wrote:
The term "sūtra" mahāmudra, according to Kongtrul and even Gampopa himself, is used for the teaching given to those people who are incapable of practicing Vajrayāna for this or that reason but who are nevertheless interested in Mahāmudra. They are taught śamatha and vipaśyāna, the experience of which is clarified by quotes from dohas, etc.

But without the example wisdom as well as the profound dependent originations arranged by the guru at the time of empowerment, this sūtra mahāmudra cannot go beyond the common practice of the six perfections.

There are many terms for the state of buddhahood in various systems. The meaning is the same, but the means differ, and the length of time to the result as well.

The means of realizing mahāmudra is the two stages and or guru yoga. It is the practice of the an example wisdom introduced at the time of empowerment. This leads to buddhahood in one life, or seven or at most sixteen.

It takes three incalculable eons at minimum to progress to buddhahood via the sūtra path.

The level of insight experienced in Vajrayāna completion stage practices involve the experience of levels of mind more subtle than is possible in sutra meditation of plain śamatha and vipaśyāna, which is another reason why it is more rapid than sutra meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 17th, 2015 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Being introduced to the nature of mind -- ?
Content:


prsvrnc said:
Here is another question I'll look for (to get the specifics with regard to):  How does one distinguish between the nature of mind that is felt to be realized during an initiation and the Mahamudra “introduction to mind” that is given separately?  (Yes, perhaps the latter is also a form of an “initiation” — I’m just trying to get the vocab and references, straight.)

Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference. Some schools, notably the Sakyapas, maintain that such direct introductions however merely reinforce the example wisdom introduced during empowerment.

prsvrnc said:
I think something that is related is the fact that shamatha and vipashana are cultivated one time around relative to sutra teachings, and then another pass of the same type of cultivation occurs when tantra is officially entered.  This correlates with generation and completion stage respectively. The nature of mind is identified twice, so to speak -- one time with the course level of mind, upon which one becomes an arya bodhisattva and enters the first ground; the second time is with the subtle mind of clear light at the end of the isolation of mind wherein one enters path of seeing in tantra and achieves the illusory body.  So, Mahamudra is going to be practiced differently, depending upon what level of "nature of mind" one is intending to access -- i.e., whether with the course or subtle mind.

Malcolm wrote:
There really is no mahāmudra that can be spoken of outside of tantric practice. Sutra mahāmudra is using dohas to illustrate and prepare one for the true result mahāmudra realized via the practice of the two stages. The word "mahāmudra" does not occur in even one single sūtra.

prsvrnc said:
Can the vajra master give the student an "introduction to the nature of mind" and have it be a qualified instance of that, even if the insight generated in the student is only one that is a generic image?

Malcolm wrote:
This is precisely what is called "the example wisdom."


prsvrnc said:
My guess is that being introduced to the nature of mind isn't necessarily a one time occurrence but probably has a decisive start but occurs repeatedly until... well, buddhahood.  But that is just my educated guess.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a one time occurrence, in a real sense, that must be repeatedly cultivated until buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Spirits - are these considered to be formless beings?
Content:
mutsuk said:
yep, sorry, 'byung po indeed


Malcolm wrote:
Here, however the direct translation of 'byung po as elementals is a little misleading. They are not spirits like undines, salamanders and so so connected with the element water, fire, etc. They are rather autochthonic entities, that is the sense of "bhuta" here.

They are formless in that they do not have physical bodies, though the rich representation of them, especially in Tibetan astrological and medical paintings, represents an attempt to show their class by giving them recognizable attributes.

As tingzin notes there is a bit of slippage between the term deva and lha, but when classified in Tibetan medicine and Ayurveda, the deva-bhutagraha is still a formless spirit which causes the person affected to wear white, be obsessed with purity, to speak in Sanskrit and so on. There are many such "deva" possessed people in Hindu ashrams and yoga centers around the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Sources for 'Early Mahayana'
Content:


Indrajala said:
Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism Handbook of Oriental Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 46.

He suggests that it was the mundane matters related to dealing with brahmanized royal courts that is is what drove Buddhists to adopt the language of a community often hostile to them:
They did not do so because they liked Sanskrit, or because they liked the Brahmins whose language it was. Nor did they do so for some inherent quality that this language supposedly possesses. They did so because they needed to defend their interests at the royal courts in Sanskrit. They had to use Sanskrit at the courts because Brahmins had been able to secure themselves a central place at the courts by way of their indispensable skills, not because rulers had supposedly “converted” to Brahmanism. This, as far as I can see, is the most plausible explanation of this otherwise puzzling change of language.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not puzzling in the least. Buddhists in India switched to Sanskrit because it was the language of educated persons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Sakya Trizin - Chakrasamvara Body Mandala - Boston 4/201
Content:
alexprice said:
Lama Migmar and the Sakya Institute for Buddhist Studies are happy to announce this special event in the Boston area on the weekend of April 11-12, 2015.

For the first time in the West, HH Sakya Trizin Rinpoche will bestow the Chakrasamvara Body Mandala empowerment on the afternoon of Sunday April 12. This event is restricted to those who have already received the Chakrasamvara major two-day initiation from HH or another a Sakya-lineage lama. If you attended the Chakrasamvara initiation with HH in Boston in May 2011, you are qualified to attend. Registration for this event is now open at http://sakya.net.

Malcolm wrote:
It has to be the Ghantapada five-deity major empowerment, not just any Cakrasamvara major empowerment. Not even Luipa or Krishancarya's tradition will count.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Spirits - are these considered to be formless beings?
Content:
prsvrnc said:
How are spirits classified in Tibetan Buddhism?

asunthatneversets said:
What we usually think of as "spirits" in the west are called bhutas in India... I'm not sure what the Tibetan translation of that term would be.

mutsuk said:
This is 'byung ba in tibetan (elemental forces).

Malcolm wrote:
'Byung po, i.e. Elementals


