﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 15th, 2014 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Dude....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most of oil in Iraq is controlled by Kurds or Shiites, that is all there is to it.

Son of Buddha said:
Even the oil fields in shiite area DO NOT BELONG to the shiites, the oil is ran through a PIPELINE, to oil refineries to be processed from benzine for commercial use these refineries are almost exclusivly under sunni control.. Saddam set it up this way to keep the Sunnis in control of everything.

The actual refined product never touches shiite hands..........even the crude oil never touches shiite hands cause it goes down the pipeline to the Sunnis.
Which is why the largest oil refinery in Iraq is the Bajji oil refinery in Sunni control.

Malcolm wrote:
The Shiites control that oil, and that is a fact. It is how the Iraqi Gvt. (Shiite) makes its money. The refinery you mention? Also controlled by Iraqi Gvt. until a few months ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
A reasonable exit from iraq was given and he didnt blow it, Iraq was stable for many years and they were properly set up to take care of themselves........ the fact is the blame rests solely on the Iraqi Gov, which has a 250,000 standing Army with tanks, heavy armored vehicles and airforce, and yet they lost half their country to 5000 invaders with pick up trucks.

Malcolm wrote:
Obama did blow it, he did not listen to his advisors for political reasons (responding to the American populace's war fatigue); the Iraqi Gvt. was and is a joke, and the proof of this is that the Iraqi's let go of half of Iraq to a brigade of bandits in pickup trucks.


Son of Buddha said:
Your joking right?
It doesnt matter what advisors told Obama cause Mr Obama was only responding to the Iraq goverment demand that all American troops be out of their country by 2011, only thing Obama did was accept the Iraqi goverments demands for FULL sovereignty and the end of all US occupation of Iraq......... of course this also worked out for Obama cause he got to play it off as if he was the one who caused all of the american troops to be brought home.When in fact it was the Iraqi govs demands.

Yes the Iraqi gov is weak..... But they are a sovereign nation and it was about time the US treated them like one........... THEIR elected gov as a sovereign nation voted and said we want all american troops out of our country by 2011......... it doesnt matter if it was right or wrong choice....it was their choice....and it was about time for their choice to be honored

Malcolm wrote:
It was a short sighted decision, Obama blew it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Geographically the sunnis control most the oil in Iraq(baji).

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Sunni are mostly located away from the oil regions.

Son of Buddha said:
The vast majority of the oil fields are the northern sunni triangle, the southern oil fields in the shiite areas have their oil ran trough pipelines that must be sent to the northern refineries for processing...........hence the largest oil refinery in Iraq is the Sunni controlled Bajji oil refinery on route cherry near what was FOB Summeral.

Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iraq " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most of oil in Iraq is controlled by Kurds or Shiites, that is all there is to it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Appropriateness of openly discussing sunyata
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I think it would be very inappropriate to talk about the teachings of emptiness with someone who doesn't have the correct background to understand it correctly. One should understand dependent origination first. I also think that to begin learning Madhyamaka one of the first things to go over and establish very clearly is the meaning of prajnapti, meaning provisional designation or imputation. I think that explaining emptiness in terms of prajnapti is the best way to lay it out for a beginner because it allows you to lay out the meaning of different teachings in a very explicit way, and it is easy to use prajnapti to describe emptiness in a way that is clearly distinct from both absolutism and nihilism, even to a beginner.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends, I learned about emptiness (via the "Heart Sutra") before I knew what dependent origination was, and it filled me with tremendous joy. In, fact, experiencing joy upon hearing of emptiness is a sign described the Prajñāpāramita sūtras of someone who has previously entered the Mahāyāna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Sakyamuni's Negative Karma
Content:
haha said:
No doubt Buddha does not have any negative karma.

But

Even though there is no negative karma (in relation to Sakyamuni Buddha's mental continuum), other people to whom he interacted in his past and present lives were not free from negative emotions. It seemed that those people to whom he had not positive relation they suffered from jealous, hatred, anger with him. How could that be the skillful means? Many people at the time of Sakyamuni Buddha became envious with his fame and because of that they tried to defame him. Even tried to hurt him physically. How could it be the skillful means?


Karma related with his own mental continuum
Karma related with other people's mental continuum

Malcolm wrote:
The sutra above actually discusses how Devadatta's actions are related to the Buddha's skillful means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 8:01 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, there is a solution after all...fielding an all-women army:
A women fighter explained "This is not a myth but reality. I personally met IS fighters face-to-face. Women fighters infringe on their psyche. They believe they won't go to paradise if they are killed by women. That is why they flee when they see women. I saw that personally at the Celaga front. We monitor their radio calls. When they hear a woman's voice on the air, they become hysterical."
http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-kurdish-women-protection-units-wage-battle-against-isis-kobani-1703501 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-isis-jihadis-terrified-fanatical-kurdish-women-soldiers-who-will-deny-them-place-paradise-1468887


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Geographically the sunnis control most the oil in Iraq(baji).

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Sunni are mostly located away from the oil regions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
A reasonable exit from iraq was given and he didnt blow it, Iraq was stable for many years and they were properly set up to take care of themselves........ the fact is the blame rests solely on the Iraqi Gov, which has a 250,000 standing Army with tanks, heavy armored vehicles and airforce, and yet they lost half their country to 5000 invaders with pick up trucks.

Malcolm wrote:
Obama did blow it, he did not listen to his advisors for political reasons (responding to the American populace's war fatigue); the Iraqi Gvt. was and is a joke, and the proof of this is that the Iraqi's let go of half of Iraq to a brigade of bandits in pickup trucks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The problem is really a political one, not a military one. If NATO chose to, they could douse these people with overwhelming force. However, it would cause WWIII because inevitably NATO troops would clash with the 100,000+ Iranian troops that are already in Iraq.

kirtu said:
Where are you getting 100,000 Iranian troops in Iraq?  The BBC and Guardian are reporting 2000 troop specifically to fight IS.  This may be the revenge of Saddam Hussein (Saddam Hussein may have been correct that Iran wants to end Iraq as a political entity).  However if Iranian troops are there only to combat IS then there is no reason why this would inevitably cause a confrontation with NATO troops.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
I mispoke — I mean on the border. However, there are clear Iranian interests at stake because the Shiites control most of the oil in Iraq. If anyone has a stake in oil in Iraq, it is Iran.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Nemo said:
Allowing war profiteers to subvert your good intentions into meaningless mass murder is not skillful either.

You are letting a man with a hammer fix your car. There will be lots of banging and it will sound like something is getting done. But if you know anything about cars it's dumb.

Malcolm wrote:
There are always war profiteers, there always has been, there always will be — it is the nature of the chaos of armed conflict itself.

I am not letting anyone do anything — I voted for Obama the first time because he promised us a reasonable exit from Iraq — but he blew it, and this is the price we are paying now.

Anyway, I vote Green and will continue too for the foreseeable future.

Still, we have no solutions for a situation that is growing increasingly worse by the day.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Nemo said:
I'm so tired of wars...


Malcolm wrote:
Me too...

Karma Dorje said:
Then perhaps it is best not to promote it on a public board, no matter how well-intentioned you may be. You don't influence policy posting here, but your authority as a Buddhist expert may confuse some/many who read your point of view but don't understand the nuance. Worse it can bring out negativity or give cover to negativity in others who do not have as firm a grasp on their own emotions. It's hard to see anything positive come out of promoting military action on a Buddhist forum even if you are correct in your estimation of what is necessary to do.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think positing a pacifist stance in regards to the present mideast situation is skillful. It is easy to say "No war!!!"

But when people are being killed by truly evil people, who have nothing but evil intentions in their hearts even towards their own, well, what can we do? Throw up our hands and claim it is not our problem?

The problem is really a political one, not a military one. If NATO chose to, they could douse these people with overwhelming force. However, it would cause WWIII because inevitably NATO troops would clash with the 100,000+ Iranian troops that are already in Iraq.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Sakyamuni's Negative Karma
Content:


Mkoll said:
That's one point of view, but it is not the Mahāyāna point of view.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't leave us hanging in suspense! What is the Mahayana POV?[/quote]

The Mahāyāna POV is that a Buddha is completely free from karmāvarana, the obscuration of karma. In the Ārya-upāyakauśalya-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, The Buddha explains that even though tathāgatas have no karmic obscurations which can be karmavipaka, they demonstrate karmavipaka otherwise sentient beings will not be able to relate to them. He says:
Because of causes and conditions, an acacia thorn pierced the Tathāgata's foot. That too is the Tathāgata's skillful means, but is not the ripening of karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Sakyamuni's Negative Karma
Content:
haha said:
@ Queen Elizabeth II
Thank you for the link.

Towards the end of the commentary it is indeed stated emphatically:

Kammapilotikaṁ nāma Buddham-api na muñcati.
The Buddha was surely not free from the connection with that deed.

Kammapilotikaṁ evarūpaṁ Lokattayasāmim-pi na vijahati.
The Lord of the Three Worlds surely could not abandon the connection with that deed.

And the moral is, of course, that neither can we, so we had better be careful about the deeds we choose to perform.

Malcolm wrote:
That's one point of view, but it is not the Mahāyāna point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Nemo said:
I'm so tired of wars...


Malcolm wrote:
Me too...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Such distinctions are lost on most people who have not made a special study of the ecology movement.

The very fact that Murray Bookchin was an old left radical has crippled the growth of the Green Party in the US, since most of his followers are in control of it, and they talk more about labor rights than the environment.

Sherab Dorje said:
Like I said:  armchair conservative.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, just a follower of Naess, but as Naess said "The front is long...", meaning that there is a lot of room for different points of view in the ecology movement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
I traveled to Turkish Kurdistan during the peak of the Turkish military crackdown on the PKK.  It was not a pretty sight.


Malcolm wrote:
The PKK are Marxist-Leninists. No wonder the US would not help them, and giving credence to Nemo's contention, may even have organized black ops against their commanders.

Sherab Dorje said:
Were Marxist-Leninists.  Read the ROAR articles I linked to http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=17682&start=60#p256992.  Haven't been Marxist-Leninists for a long time now.  You may even be pleasantly surprised to see what they have become (vibra-massage model armchair).

Malcolm wrote:
Such distinctions are lost on most people who have not made a special study of the ecology movement.

The very fact that Murray Bookchin was an old left radical has crippled the growth of the Green Party in the US, since most of his followers are in control of it, and they talk more about labor rights than the environment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
I traveled to Turkish Kurdistan during the peak of the Turkish military crackdown on the PKK.  It was not a pretty sight.


Malcolm wrote:
The PKK are Marxist-Leninists. No wonder the US would not help them, and giving credence to Nemo's contention, may even have organized black ops against their commanders.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Nemo said:
We needed Turkish bases for Iraq. We had to do some favours. Just like how right now Canadian special forces are on the ground spotting for American airstrikes. What happens and what is in the news are different things Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
You did not clarify whether you were talking about Turkish Kurds or Iraqi Kurds. Nevertheless, this is merely hearsay at this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Nemo said:
That is a nice story, but I was a medic.
In the Canadian Armed Forces, not the US Armed Forces.
In regards to ISIS doubling down on failed policies is not a way out. Bringing only murder by aerial bombardment to the table is ludicrously simplistic. And as you see with the Turks completely ineffective. I am in favour of not releasing the dogs of war until there is a real plan. Murder first ask questions later has only created more problems. Destroying grain storage facilities is sick. We will starve more kids than ISIS will behead.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I am not in favor of continuing the US policies w/regards to the Middle East of the past 70 years either.

I have also agreed that arial bombardment is ineffective and have pointed out that Americans generally do not want to be involved in another war in Iraq, hence the Obama Administration's "strategy".

But I also recognize that NATO/UN should not allow these folks free reign.

Incidentally, your strategy of isolating ISIS hoping they will run out of food, armaments and spare parts will also result in famine, etc. You think they will feed children first? Unlikely.

As far as there being a US program to assassinate Iraqi Kurdish commanders, I won't believe it until I see some proof.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Actually you do, for military vessels.  That's why you don't see Russia (for example) cruising around the Mediterranean with aircraft carriers.  They limit their outings to the Black Sea.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because they require Turkey's permission to pass through the Bosphorus Straights.

But the US does not need to ask any one for permission to sail the Mediterranean Sea. Landing in ports is a different matter.

Sherab Dorje said:
Etc...  So, you see, my armchair is situated uncomfortably close to the reality of ISIL.  A 45 minute boat trip away, to be exact.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, so you really think that without NATO you are safe? Greece and Balkans have been on the front line of the conflict between the West and the Middle East for centuries. If the shit really hits the fan, it is back to NZ for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And supporting US foreign policy is the favorite pastime of armchair conservatives...

Malcolm wrote:
I am not a conservative, I am not a republican, I am not a democrat. I am a registered Green.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Nemo said:
The Kurds will be very reluctant to accept our help. When I was in we were spending huge amounts of resources to assassinate their commanders.

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, I don't know what planet you live on.

Nemo said:
Eventually more murder is not the answer Malcolm. Americans were always the most blood thirsty. Body counts were more important than strategy. 22 American soldiers are committing suicide daily. Drowning in guilt from all the murder. It has to stop. More of the same failed policies is evil.

Malcolm wrote:
Allowing ISIS to continue unchecked is also evil. So what do you suggest? Passivity?

BTW, the suicide rate for US soldiers was 20 a day until 1999. However, suicide rates amongst soldiers who never deployed to Iraq is higher than those who did deploy.

Nemo said:
Among key findings: while suicide rates for soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan more than doubled from 2004 to 2009 to more than 30-per-100,000, the trend among those who never deployed nearly tripled to between 25- and 30-per-100,000.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/03/suicide-army-rate-soldiers-institute-health/5983545/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
But anyway, it is quite obvious that the US wants Syria for two reasons:
1.  Oil

Malcolm wrote:
I have already rebutted this objection.


Sherab Dorje said:
2.  Sea access to the Middle East via the Mediterranean (without having to ask for favors/permission from anybody).  It is much easier and cheaper for them, plus they don't run the hazard of being flanked by Iran.

Malcolm wrote:
We already do not have to ask any one permission to sail in the Mediterranean. It is part of international waters.

Sherab Dorje said:
Coz really, all of this (plus the bases in Turkmenistan) seems to me to just be part of the grand plan to encircle and destroy Iran.

And you reckon that American foreign policy is not pro-active?

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, American foreign policy is hapless and bumbling. There is no grand design. But vilifying the US is the favorite pastime amongst armchair radicals...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 13th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Turkish Kurds are claiming that the Turkish state supports ISIL.  Thing is that Turkey's unwillingness to support the Kurds in Kobane will open a new chapter in their civil war.  "Funny" thing is that Kemalists, that tried so hard to crush Kurdish Nationalism as personified by the PKK, will now become friends with the PKK, united against their common enemy the (until now liberal Islamicist) Justice and Development Party.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what they claim. Pretty must of a CF all around. This, frankly, is why at this point the UN really needs to get involved. NATO ought not try to handle this alone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
On the basis of this, it would mean that Iraq and Syria would be united with the common denominator being occupation and administration by the US (military).
I suggest you examine the history of the Ba'ath party in Iraq and Syria and their (failed) attempt at creating a Pan-Arabic state. That is what I was referring to.
Of course, if the US had offered air support and anti-tank weapons to the only secular force in the region (apart from Assad): the Kurds of Kobane,
We did, do and will do — the main problem in Kobane is the Turks refusing to allow Kurds into Syria to fight ISIS, as far as I understand. Airstrikes are out of the question now because ISIS is in the town.
But, obviously, the US wouldn't want to be seen supporting democratically minded, autonomous, secular forces, would they?  That would be completely out of character.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/09/turkey-isis-syria-kobani-control-jack-kirby " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The main problem is that the Turks want Assad deposed, etc., and refuse to get involved without such assurances. In short, it is a political clusterf, not really a military problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
At this point, national boundaries are a little besides the point since at one time the Ba'athists were intent on uniting Iraq and Syria anyway.

Sherab Dorje said:
Under American rule?

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? Again, the real question is what should be done?

The Obama administration has mounted an ineffective campaign of arial bombardment because there really is no will on the part of the American people to be entrenched in another war in Iraq.

On the other hand, the hawks in the Pentagon, Panetta, and others insist that we have no choice.

The Saudis and Turks seem happy to sit idly by.

The Israelis cannot get involved because it will ignite WWIII.

So, again, anyone have any solutions other than merely flogging the dead horse of US Governmental turpitude?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Greg: do you want the US to put troops on the ground?

Sherab Dorje said:
Are you asking me if I want the US to invade Syria too?

Malcolm wrote:
There are a couple of approaches — the pacifist approach, advocated by Geoff and Nemo, which will allow ISIS to murder lots of people without any restraint; the interventionist approach in which ISIS is stopped but there of course will be more killing or ???

At this point, national boundaries are a little besides the point since at one time the Ba'athists were intent on uniting Iraq and Syria anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Nemo said:
Did you also notice that both the sources Karma Dorje is quoting are former soldiers Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am very familiar with both citations, for years.

As far as I can tell, you and Geoff are advocating "hands off," just allow ISIS to do their thing.

Greg: do you want the US to put troops on the ground?

It seems to me the US will be criticized for whatever it does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
How is it a conspiracy theory to point out that some people are getting extraordinarily wealthy from the constant war preparation?? Where is the money going?

Malcolm wrote:
If you imagine that it is an intentional plan by some nefarious cabal, that is a conspiracy theory.

Karma Dorje said:
How is it a conspiracy theory to point out that the Iraq War was waged with 9/11 as a pretext despite Iraq having no connection with the attack nor any WMD??

Malcolm wrote:
I agree with you of course that the Al Qaeda connection and WMD threat was a pretext, and a shallow one at that. This why I opposed the Iraq war (both of them).

It was Bush family personal business waged on a global scale. We ought to make it illegal for two members of the same family to serve as president in the same generation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, it should be noted that most of the countries where there is intense political instability are in regions of the world where animal sacrifice is still deeply ingrained in the culture.

Sherab Dorje said:
They still practice animal sacrifice here in Greece, just with a Christian veneer.  Here on Lesbos the main one is held in honour of a local form of the Archangel Michael (in his role as general [Taxiarchis] of the heavenly forces) who is considered the protector of the island.
Taxiarchis.jpg
It is a unique icon as Orthodox Christians do not use statues or sculptures at all (unlike the Catholics).  It is said to be moulded from clay mixed with the blood of the monks that were slaughtered in the monastary by pirates during the period of the Ottoman occupation of Greece.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a lot of political instability in Greece.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
It was never the point to pay for the war with oil.  Why do that when you can simply tax the middle class and/or print money? They weren't looking to steal the reserves outright.  They wanted a non-OPEC oil producer with sufficient reserves to keep the taps on and smooth out oil shocks. When you measure cost, it is a zero sum game.  If the US gov't is out USD $1.1 trillion then someone else has it on their balance sheet.  So who is this?  It's a simple matter of cui bono to understand the war rationale. As the 'Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper lays out, 9/11 provided the pretext for a muscular expansion of hard power into a region important for access to petroleum.

Malcolm wrote:
More conspiracy theories. I don't it.
Sorry, this is too much like conspiracy theory thinking to me. I don't believe this. There is no US policy of perpetual war.
Surely you can distinguish de facto policy from stated aims. The US arms budget dwarfs the rest of the world many times over and has since WW2. It has constantly been in use.

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/militaryoperations.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The military budget was vastly reduced under Clinton. Yes, there are hawks in the US government, but there after the cold war ended, we began to wind down our military until 9/11.

When you are talking about control of the world's resources, you don't just sort of bumble along and react.
Yes, often we do. We have bumbled along without clear planning and foresight and have done exactly what you suggest, from Iran/Contra to 9/11.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
If it was just Kristol, it would be of little consequence.  You need to look at the important players:


Malcolm wrote:
All you have done is pointed out a Republican set of policies. Republicans do not represent all of us. Therefore, once again I reject your claim that these policies are US policies in toto. They represent a portion of thinking in the right wing of our political spectrum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, while the ISIS folks are pernicious and should be stopped dead in their tracks by an international coalition, there really are more pressing issues at stake, such as climate change and so on. What is required all around is a perspective grounded in what is good for the biosphere as a whole, not merely we human beings who inhabit it.

Sherab Dorje said:
All these issues are related.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, but it won't be solved by coddling or ignoring petroleum-poor Iraqi Sunni militants who want to relieve Shiites and Kurds of the reserves they hold. In fact, it will just make things worse all around, as far as I can see.

Given that oil in addition to deforestation and coal are three main causes of climate instability, it strikes me that we need a world wide hydrocarbon policy that words to every countries advantage.

On the other hand, it should be noted that most of the countries where there is intense political instability are in regions of the world where animal sacrifice is still deeply ingrained in the culture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
One doesn't need a clearance to analyze why an organization operates the way it does. Particularly when you can look at steering documents like the a Project for a New American Century penned by the very people driving US policy. Outside of the bubble of the US education system and the media echo chamber it is pretty clear what is going on.  The question is really whether one agrees with it or not.

Personally, I don't agree with it and hence I have remained an expat for forty plus years.

Mkoll said:
Sure, one can analyze and speculate all one wants.

Sherab Dorje said:
Or one can just go with the hook, bait and sinker option.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what one side always says of the other. Hardly a position born of equanimity.

In reality, while the ISIS folks are pernicious and should be stopped dead in their tracks by an international coalition, there really are more pressing issues at stake, such as climate change and so on. What is required all around is a perspective grounded in what is good for the biosphere as a whole, not merely we human beings who inhabit it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
One doesn't need a clearance to analyze why an organization operates the way it does. Particularly when you can look at steering documents like the a Project for a New American Century penned by the very people driving US policy. Outside of the bubble of the US education system and the media echo chamber it is pretty clear what is going on.  The question is really whether one agrees with it or not.

Personally, I don't agree with it and hence I have remained an expat for forty plus years.

Malcolm wrote:
Kristol and so on may have driven the Bush administration's policies, but they hardly have been driving American policy for the past forty years.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 12th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
The fifth largest proven reserves at 140 Billion barrels? Easily accessed and easily processed light sweet crude unlike offshore and tarsands oil? Dismissing this component of the calculus for war is curious but not serious.

Malcolm wrote:
Iraq, pre war, produced 2 million barrels a day. Now it is producing 2.8 per day roughly, earning Iraq $89 billion dollars last year.

US investment in the war? Well, the first one sanctioned Iraqi Oil on behalf of Kuwaitis — so that was money tossed away.

The second one? The DOD spend 757.8 billion. Brown University reported that the war cost 1.1 trillion. Well, as you can see, Iraq does not pump enough oil to pay for the US adventure there.

Karma Dorje said:
The policies are very much predicated on Pax Americana which of course hearkens to the Pax Romana. I don't understand why you would argue this uncontroversial point.

Malcolm wrote:
I contest it because I do not think this point of view about the goals of American foreign policy is correct.


Karma Dorje said:
The USSR was an ally during the war and Stalin wanted friendly relations with the West that were rejected by the UK and US after the war as they thought they could better expand their spheres of influence by an adversarial relationship.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one reading of history, there are others.

Karma Dorje said:
The same thing played out after Castro's revolution in Cuba. The US has had a policy of perpetual war preparation and war since WWII.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, this is too much like conspiracy theory thinking to me. I don't believe this. There is no US policy of perpetual war.

Karma Dorje said:
I would argue that there have been few things as foolish and wasteful in humankind than a cold war that need not have been, but for the imperial impulse and the greed and power hunger of a few American and British men.

Malcolm wrote:
As if there was no imperial lmpulse and greed on the part of Stalin and Mao...

Karma Dorje said:
And so it goes in samsara, the rapacity and aggression that the US has advanced its cause by all these years have now hollowed out its middle class, offshored its jobs and left it heavily in debt. Quel dommage.

Malcolm wrote:
Or, the partition of the global economy caused by the cold war created a climate where the US was the main player, since everyone owed us money and we had the infrastructure to meet the worlds industrial needs until the '70's.

There are a lot of ways to look at these historical events.

I still maintain that our foreign policy is and has been reactive for the most part, rather than proactive, unlike communist countries like UUSR and PRC, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 11th, 2014 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Once they own the oil then it is no longer foreign, cf Iraq.

Malcolm wrote:
There is not enough oil in the ground there to make it worth it. The notion that we went to war (twice) in Iraq for oil is basically ludicrous.


Sherab Dorje said:
As for the second, again, no. We are not interested in global hegemony, our nation collectively is basically interested only in maintaining our own materialist living standard.
And the only way to guarantee this is through global hegemony.

Malcolm wrote:
People in the US, unlike say the British Empire or Rome, do not think of ourselves in imperial terms. Rightly or wrongly, we make think we are the best country in the world, but in reality, we, as a nation, have no interest in empire building.


Sherab Dorje said:
The US is selfish, but unlike what people who have no experience with our nation or people think, we are not proactive in our policy, but reactive. 200 years of US Foreign Policy shows this.
I disagree.  I think that US foreign policy has been very proactive, especially from the closing term of WWII and onwards.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Again, our foreign policy was motivated in reaction to the spread of Communism, that is all. Our present global position is an artifact of that. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, US policy has been floundering in a cesspool of indecision and bad decisions. The red threat gave us a focus. In its absence, we don't know what to do.

In reality, the true "imperialism" coming from the US is corporate hegemony, but actually, the corporations owe now more allegiance to the US than any other nation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 11th, 2014 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Which all points to the fact that, here on planet earth, the US is doing everything possible to destabilise the Middle East in order to (ultimately) grab its oil reserves and achieve global hegemony.

Malcolm wrote:
As for the first item, no. US energy policy is aimed at freeing ourselves from dependence on any foreign oil. Hence fracking.

As for the second, again, no. We are not interested in global hegemony, our nation collectively is basically interested only in maintaining our own materialist living standard. The US is selfish, but unlike what people who have no experience with our nation or people think, we are not proactive in our policy, but reactive. 200 years of US Foreign Policy shows this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 4th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
So you're absolutely, 100% certain?

Malcolm wrote:
I have verified to the best of my ability that the statements made the Buddha in Mahāyāna sutras actually apply to śravakayāna texts, otherwise, I would not waste my time defending Mahāyāna. I have done so using inference and textual study, as well as having been a practitioner for half of my life [I am 52, I started practicing Dharma, not just studying it, when I was 26]. Thus I am as certain that Buddha taught Mahāyāna as you are that he didn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 4th, 2014 at 12:57 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are also very important differences between the awakening of hinayāna practitioners and mahāyāna practitioners, but you seem to want to erase all of this. Well, that is a mistake.

Mkoll said:
Do you know that via personal experience?

Malcolm wrote:
Personal experience (direct perception) is not the only criteria of valid knowledge. There is also inference and valid testimony. In this case I am basing myself on valid testimony of the Buddha's statements.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 4th, 2014 at 12:27 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
You are skipping the point I made. These levels and stages, realizations however many folds are beside the point. Buddha has cut a path beyond this from the start. The sangha is not the whole story there are several stories of yogis who got enlightened from one instruction. So doctrines and stages has its place but it's not of universal application.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha was the one who taught the paths and stages to begin with, both in Hinayāna and Mahāyāna.

There are many levels to awakening, awakening, bodhi. There are also very important differences between the awakening of hinayāna practitioners and mahāyāna practitioners, but you seem to want to erase all of this. Well, that is a mistake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Understanding Buddhism without Western Materialism
Content:


Hickory Mountain said:
Or, taking a different angle on my inquiry, what aspects (as specifically as possible) of a Buddhist worldview come into conflict with a Western materialist worldview?

Malcolm wrote:
Rebirth, rebirth, rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 1:41 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
retrofuturist said:
Greetings Malcolm,

Malcolm wrote:
...it is a downfall to study Hinayāna texts at the expense of Mahāyāna studies, for example.

retrofuturist said:
What is a "hinayana text"? How is that defined?

Is it the suttas/agamas, or is it the works of authors of particular schools? Or both? etc.

Maitri,
Retro.

Malcolm wrote:
It means the sutras in the agamas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Even here, however, when this fault is committed if one criticizes Vajrayāna with hostility the fault is great; if one criticizes Mahāyāna with hostility the fault is medium; if one criticizes the śravakayā, the fault is minor.


TRC said:
I really don't think most contemporary Mahayana/Vajrayana practitioners would buy the double-standard prescribed here.

Malcolm wrote:
They [Vajrayāna practitioners] would had they properly studied the commentaries on Vajrayāna samaya written by our lineage masters. These criteria are not my invention.

As far as Mahāyānists go, had they properly studied Buddha's Mahāyāna Sutras they would have seen in such texts as the Bodhisattva Vinaya that it is a downfall to study Hinayāna texts at the expense of Mahāyāna studies, for example.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
It's obviously relevant. Why? Because Suttas have discussions about luminosity wo discussions about all sorts of stages or accumulations. So does Dzogchen, a Mahayana thing. So from a method standpoint, all this Mahayana bluster about bhumis and accumulations is dispensable. If Dzogchen points out luminosity as innate and away from two accumulations and so do Suttas, then buddhas qualities are accounted for not via accumulations but via the innate. Thus, Moggallana and Sariputta's having fallen short of Buddha's level is nothing to do with Mahayana and only to do with their failure to grasp the import of luminosity. In fact, Mahayana also fails to understand this import which is why Dzogchen goes higher in bhumis. This is the most important area for a Buddhist to scrutinize. It's the deepest topic in Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
The clarity of the mind is certainly important, but don't mistake the clarity of the mind discussed in the suttas for the luminosity of Mahāyāna.

All the suttas say about luminosity is that the clarity of the mind is not affected by afflictions, nothing more and nothing less.

Even the suttas however maintain that Buddha qualities arise as a result of the merit of length of eons of the Buddha's career as a bodhisattva.

All you have done here is support the fact that Mahāyāna has a more profound analysis of emptiness as well the luminous nature of the mind, none of which are required for stream entry — the only requirement for which is the understanding and realization of the selflessness of the person, not even an understanding of the selflessness of phenomena is required for stream entry in Hināyāna, whereas for Mahāyāna stream entrants, aka first stage bodhisattvas, it is indispensable to realize two-fold emptiness. Even if a hināyāna stream entrant realizes twofold emptiness, this still does not equate with a bodhisattva's realization of the same because a hināyāna stream entrant by definition lacks bodhicitta.

In short, CW, you are confusing and conflating many things, and are creating a kind of goulash out of the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
For dZogchen two accumulation happens at time of initiation. When luminosity is introduced. Then this is whole path. Suttas have this.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there is not even a mention of the two accumulations in the agamas
And nikayas. Why? Because in Hinayana, the Bodhisattva is held to be an ordinary sentient being, lacking all qualities of wisdom until he attains buddhahood under the bodhitree.

So, in fact your contention is simply incorrect.

Crazywisdom said:
One doesn't need two know about any of that at time of intro.

Malcolm wrote:
That is completely irrelevant to the present conversation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The corresponding texts could have been recorded by different disciples hearing a discourse by the Buddha; further more, disciples can even hear completely different discourses being spoken by the Buddha at the same time with the same tongue. Hence, the single vajra word is heard differently by different disciples, as the Guhyasamaja tantra states.

Bakmoon said:
I'm willing to accept the possibility of corresponding texts being independent recollections of the same event. I've been open to it since the beginning which is why I prefer to use the term common source rather than proto-text, to leave the door open to such a scenario.

My major point is this: Even in this case, there is still a common source between these two corresponding texts, and that common source is the Buddha himself rather than a proto-text.

If the corresponding texts are the result of a proto-text dating prior to sectarian division then one can conclude that the proto-text dates back prior to the split, but if the corresponding texts are independent compositions referring to a single event then one can make the much stronger and more solid conclusion that the texts actually date from the time when the Buddha was still in living memory. In both of these cases ,that of independent texts and that of descent from a proto-text, the final conclusion is that the source of these texts, whether it be a proto-text or the Buddha himself, can be conclusively dated prior to the splitting between the sects.

Comparative methodology uses the split between the sects as the boundary of the absolute latest the common source between texts must date to, leaving the possibility of them being composed well before that, which in any case, allows one to date a large portion of common material in the Nikayas/Agamas to significantly prior to 100 BCE.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha could emanate a hundred different emanations and teach a hundred different people a hundred different things at the same time. For this reason, the attempt to confine Buddhist agamic/nikaya sutras to single events in history is fraught with all kinds of problems. Not to mention that fact that like any teacher, the Buddha, I am sure, would teach the same general thing again and again to different groups of students (or even the same group) in the same place. The notion that two similar texts in the nikayas which clear differences necessarily begin in a single historical event is hugely speculative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 3rd, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
TRC said:
No, quite simply you disagree with Ray, is all this amounts to.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's statements about Hināyāna in Mahāyāna sutra can be read by all who care to learn Sanskrit, Chinese or Tibetan. The same goes for Indian Mahāyāna masters who wrote about the issue extensively.

TRC said:
He as a Vajrayana practitioner has a different view point and clearly he does not believe that the eighteen early schools are Hinayana.

Malcolm wrote:
In his persona as a western scholar, Ray also does not believe that either Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna are Buddha's word in general (what he actually believes I have no idea). His academic writings clearly show that he accepts the Western academic consensus that Buddha did not teach Mahāyāna, Secret Mantra or Vajrayāna irrespective of his personal adherence to these traditions in his own practice.

TRC said:
Furthermore, to think that when Ray wrote his publication that he was not aware the early Indian Mahayana texts claimed the early schools were Hinayana, would be negligible to nil.

Malcolm wrote:
He is certainly aware of these things, that he chooses to ignore them renders his opinion very fanciful.

TRC said:
Therefore, Ray is quite deliberately making a strong statement by disagreeing with them. Why would he do that? Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, he is seeing through the sectarian rivalry that gave birth to the ‘Hinayana’ term. Seeing it for what it is – sectarian rivalry and the subsequent incorrect evaluation of Theravada being equivalent to Hinayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and so therefore, Ray is wrong, no ifs and ands or buts. He might be attempting to redefine the term, but to claim that the Buddha of the Mahāyāna canon did not use the term hinayāna to refer to those schools who eschewed the bodhisattva path is clearly an exaggeration at best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
For dZogchen two accumulation happens at time of initiation. When luminosity is introduced. Then this is whole path. Suttas have this.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there is not even a mention of the two accumulations in the agamas
And nikayas. Why? Because in Hinayana, the Bodhisattva is held to be an ordinary sentient being, lacking all qualities of wisdom until he attains buddhahood under the bodhitree.

So, in fact your contention is simply incorrect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Buddha actually demonstrated to Moggallana how limited Moggallana's abhijna was.

Emptiness as presented in the nikayas and agamas is not as in depth as Buddha's teaching of emptiness in the Perfection if Wisdom. Not only does the Buddha explain this in Mahayana, he also explains this in the Hevajra tantra, the Samputa tantra and Kakacakra, what need to mention Dzogchen?

The Buddha discusses the nature of an Arhats awakening in many Mahayana sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The search doesn't go back far enough. So I can't find it. So I ask what makes this a concrete thing that Arhats are sixth Bhumi. There are lamas who say this, but based on what?

According to this Arhats are 8th Bhumi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;ūmi_(Buddhism)

Malcolm wrote:
Both Arhats and 8th stage bodhisattvas are free from the klesha obsuration, but similarity ends there. The are not equivalent in terms of qualities, merit and many other factors, nit to mention the fact that Arhats do not realize emptiness free from extremes, as Gorampa clearly explains.

Crazywisdom said:
That's what I mean. So says, Gorampa or some other Tibeten guy. Is there a sutra or Maitreya book that says how far Arhats go? So far we have the Mahayana scholars pinning the tail on the donkey. And there's nothing in the Suttas that indicates they don't realize emptiness free from extremes. This is a Mahayanist fiat based on a debate with a subsect that posited permanent bits in the aether. As far as qualities, Buddha was a big proponent of Mahamogallana's qualities for example.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha, in the Pali Canon, demonstrated Moggallan's abhijna was quite limited compared to his own, Moggallana asked Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth.

The simple fact is that profound emptiness is not taught anywhere in the shravaka texts.

Btw, it is the Buddha who explains the differences in the awakening of Arhats and bodhisattvas on the stages, not merely Mahayana scholars like Nagarjuna, though that should sufficient for those who practice Mahayana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
daverupa said:
I'm basically framing Mahayana as an Abhidhamma, now, or rather heap of various Abhidhammas. Why not?

Malcolm wrote:
That is simply not an accurate portrayal of Mahayana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The search doesn't go back far enough. So I can't find it. So I ask what makes this a concrete thing that Arhats are sixth Bhumi. There are lamas who say this, but based on what?

According to this Arhats are 8th Bhumi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bh " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;ūmi_(Buddhism)

Malcolm wrote:
Both Arhats and 8th stage bodhisattvas are free from the klesha obsuration, but similarity ends there. The are not equivalent in terms of qualities, merit and many other factors, nit to mention the fact that Arhats do not realize emptiness free from extremes, as Gorampa clearly explains.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
You know some Mahayanists say the Arhat is 10th not 6th Bhumi.

Malcolm wrote:
No one says this.

Crazywisdom said:
You yourself said there was a Sakya lama who Put Arhats at 10th Bhumi

Malcolm wrote:
I never said this, and there is no Sakya master who makes such a claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
There are also a few seemingly Theravada -leaning folks...

daverupa said:
Well, I labored for a long time under misapprehensions of common ground. Don't worry, Malcolm and others have seen to it. It's a linguistic happenstance, apparently.


Malcolm wrote:
There is a common ground, four noble truths, dependent origination, rebirth, karma and so on. Mahāyāna has all of this, and in addition, it also details the bodhisattva path, profound emptiness, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No, the content is similar, but not parallel. Which suggests different communities collected different traditions of what the Buddha said, and organized them later on.

Bakmoon said:
Just to be clear, you are making the point here that the corresponding texts could have been composed by two different disciples hearing a discourse by the Buddha, correct? I don't want to misrepresent your position.


Malcolm wrote:
The corresponding texts could have been recorded by different disciples hearing a discourse by the Buddha; further more, disciples can even hear completely different discourses being spoken by the Buddha at the same time with the same tongue. Hence, the single vajra word is heard differently by different disciples, as the Guhyasamaja tantra states.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
You know some Mahayanists say the Arhat is 10th not 6th Bhumi.

Malcolm wrote:
No one says this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Are stream enterers "bound" to be liberated within seven lifetimes?  If so, what "binds" them to this fate?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha stated it so in several suttas:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html

Sherab Dorje said:
Can a stream enterer not develop a Bodhisattva motivation after entering the stream?  If not, why not?

Malcolm wrote:
This is an interesting question and is a subject of some debate. The general Theravadin view is that once you have gained stream entry, nothing can turn you aside from the liberation of an arhat within seven lifetimes.

Sherab Dorje said:
Is there any evidence of a Bodhsattva choosing to achieve personal liberation at some point during their "career"?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because of the harsh castigation of such people in Mahāyāna sutras.

Sherab Dorje said:
Is there any evidence that shows that a stream enterer cannot divert from the Arhat path onto the Bodhisattva path?

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, this is a subject of much discussion.

Sherab Dorje said:
We hear of Arhats being "turned on to" the Bodhisattva Path, so it seems their fate is not written in stone.

Malcolm wrote:
This is only after they enter the samadhi of cessation.

Sherab Dorje said:
Isn't the awakening of an Arhat congruent with one of the Bodhisattva stages anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
Only in terms of the elimination of the klesha-avarana. No accumulation of merit is required for the awakening of stream entrants — arhats. Gathering merit in Hinayāna is primarily a job of lay people to attain higher rebirth in samsara. There is no sense one accumulates merit to attain awakening, but the attainment of stream entry itself is considered in Theravada to be the highest merit.

In Mahāyāna merit is accumulated in order to attain the rūpakāya of a buddha. Wisdom is accumulated in order to realize the dharmakāya of a buddha.

Further, while arhats and seventh stage bodhisattvas are equal in terms of elimination of kleśas, they are not equivalent in merit; a seventh stage bodhisattva not only surpasses an arhat in merit, but also in realization. However, even someone who newly has entered Mahāyāna surpasses an arhat in merit, merely for having the actual wish to attain complete buddhahood in order to liberate all sentient beings.

Moreover, there are clear differences in the content of awakening of the Hinayāna path of the seeing and the Mahāyāna path of seeing — this in fact is the subject of the Abhisamaya-alāṃkara, which details the hidden intent of the Prajñāpāramita sūtras.

Sherab Dorje said:
So who here can say, based on experience, that the Sravakayana is not just another stage on the Mahayana path anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to contextualize the Hinayāna path in relation to the Mahāyāna path, that is fine with me, but I don't think that sits well with Theravadins who generally argue that the awakening in Theravada is every bit as profound and deep as awakening in Mahāyāna. Mahāyānists of course, disagree.

Sherab Dorje said:
I guess that's why the Vajrayana talks about not denigrating followers of the Shravaka and Pratyekabuddha Yana.  Right?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote][/quote]

The sixth root samaya, not to criticize the yānas means that one should not engage in criticizing any of the yānas with hostility, even non-Buddhist teachings. It basically means saying "this or that yāna is not Dharma," this or that is not the teaching of the Teacher, this is not Vinaya, this is not the word of the Buddha, etc. It means that Vajrayānists must accept all of the Hinayāna, Mahāyāna and Secret Mantra canon as our own [it also means that those who have taken Vajrayāna samaya and nevertheless maintain that Mahāyāna sūtra and tantras are not actually the teaching of the Buddha have completely broken their samaya]. It does not however mean that we are forbidden from distinguishing higher paths from lower paths and so on. Even here, however, when this fault is committed if one criticizes Vajrayāna with hostility the fault is great; if one criticizes Mahāyāna with hostility the fault is medium; if one criticizes the śravakayā, the fault is minor. And of course, any Vajrayāna practitioner should recite Vajrasattva daily in case she or he makes some mistake without realizing it.

As long as we never make the claim that Hinayāna is not capable of liberating a person, we are free from samaya fault of criticizing Hinayāna, even if the term itself means "inferior" vehicle. But if someone says to someone "You will not be able to become liberated through following a Hinayāna school such as Theravada, etc." this indeed is samaya downfall.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
TRC said:
I don’t know of any Theravadin who would say that the Buddha did not teach compassion and wisdom. It’s absolutely fundamental. If they are Theravadins, then they have not been within a mile of the Pali discourses. They simply could not form this view if they had. Are you sure that this is not a misunderstood view from the Mahayana that you are projecting onto Theravada practitioners? I have seen similar comments before from Mahayana quarters, which could only be described as ill-informed.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, Buddha universally teaches love and compassion.

TRC said:
I think there is another myth that should be dispelled pronto too: Mahayana practitioners do not have a monopoly on motivation for the liberation of other beings (Dan74 has already alluded to this). I know all the rhetoric that gets plastered around about the superior motivation of Mahayana, but it has absolutely no bearing to the reality on the ground. It is just not borne out on a day to day basis, and this is really  the ultimate test. Quite simply the proof is in the pudding, and I see no evidence of this. If anyone has actual evidence, in the here and now, of the results of the superior motivation of Mahayana practitioners over and above those who are being referred to as Hinayana practitioners, please present it. If you can’t, then it just remains in the rhetoric and sectarian posturing basket IMHO.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference lies in the understanding of the motivation for practice, and the consequences which follow the achievement of final nirvana. In short, it is generally held in the Hinayāna schools that once someone enters parinirvana, their stream ceases. They simply are not there.

There is the second issue, already raised, that if someone attains stream entry, within seven lifetimes they will achieve nirvana, permanent cessation.

TRC said:
So to tie this back into the discussion, the term/label Hinayana (toward Theravada) is simply incorrect. And because it is incorrect it is therefore a pejorative term. This is where the offense is because it does not apply to the Theravada tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not incorrect because the aspiration to the path of arhatship or pratyekabuddhahood satisfies all of the criteria by which a given path is labeled hinayāna. In short, if your goal is to become an arhat, you are a hinayāna pracitioner.
TRC said:
The words of a mature Vajrayana practitioner support this view:
“…  ‘Hīnayāna’ refers to a critical but strictly limited set of views, practices, and results. The pre-Mahāyāna historical traditions such as the Theravāda are far richer, more complex, and more profound than the definition of ‘Hīnayāna’ would allow. ...The term ‘Hīnayāna’ is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hīnayāna identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravāda or any other historical school …"

Ray, Reginald A (2000) Indestructible Truth: The Living Spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism, p.240

Malcolm wrote:
Ray is quite simply wrong — no ifs, ands or buts. All "eighteen" śravaka schools are routinely termed "hinayāna in Indian Mahāyāna texts. These descriptions have very little to do with criteria established by Tibetans (unlike, for example, the distinction between so called prasanga and svatantra, gzhan stong/rang stong, etc. in Madhyamaka). Tibetans are merely following Indian Mahayānistas in their taxonomies.

Even the presentation of the bodhisattva path amongst the śravaka schools is presented from a hinayāna perspective, with a goal to discourage people from forming that aspiration, with a view that the path of the arhat is more practical, more attainable, and involves less suffering for the practitioner.

To put it plainly, all Tibetan Buddhists belong to a hinayāna, or śravakayāna school, Mulasarvastivada. If their practice is based solely on Vinaya, or Abhidharmakośa, etc., and their goal is to become an arhat or a pratyekabuddha, they are hinayāna practitioners.

To make it even more plain — it is the aspiration or bodhicitta to become an arhat or a pratyekabuddha which is labeled "hinayāna," that and and various schools which present that as the ideal path. It is considered especially negative for bodhisattvas to abandon Mahāyāna bodhicitta out of depression or defeatism and turn towards the bodhicitta of arhats or a pratyekabuddhas.  But it does happen, as in the case of people who take bodhisattva vows, but then give up Mahāyāna for this reason or that and enter Theravada.

The day that someone can show me that the primary aspiration of Theravada and most Thervadins is to become a fully awakened buddhas with thirty major and eighty minor marks, with all the ten powers, four fearlessnesses and the eighteen unique qualities of a Buddha, then at that time I will cease to consider Theravada a hinayāna school like the Mulasarvastivadins, Dharmaguptakas, and such extinct schools as the Mahasamghikas, and so on.

But thus far, no one has ever demonstrated to me that Mahāyāna bodhicitta exists in Theravada in general. The issue is not really about love and compassion — we understand that Arhats have limitless love and compassion for sentient beings for as long as they are not in a state of cessation. But when they enter cessation, they abandon sentient beings and that is their primary flaw, among other flaws well described even by such authors as Vasubandhu in the Kośa, such as the possession of non-afflictive ignorance and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
conebeckham said:
There most certainly CAN be the use of channels and winds in Mahamudra,is some way,  even in a path that does not utilize deity yoga or the stages of creation and completion.

Astus said:
The only point I wanted to bring to this topic with mentioning Mahamudra was about the development of Buddhist philosophy in India. The gradual integration of Vajrayana to a monastic environment resulted, among other things, in the "blending of Sutra with Tantra". It also seems to me a natural evolution of things that there appeared some who were critical of Vajrayana and, according to their claim, they superseded even HYT.

Malcolm wrote:
This is s claim made by some Tibetans only.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
TBH, it really doesn't bother me much. I understand the context in which the term is used and I'm used to seeing it.

I'm just saying I think it'd be better off for Buddhists as a whole not to use the term.

But clearly I'm in the minority here.


Malcolm wrote:
You will likely convince most followers of common Mahāyāna not to use that term. But the term Hinayāna is very much built into the way Tibetan Buddhists talk about Buddhism in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
I think the issue is the term itself. You wouldn't like to see people call Mahayana/Vajrayana "The Apocryphic Vehicle". And I wouldn't like to see people calling Theravada "The Inferior Vehicle".

They're both bad terms because in reality, there are very few of us who even live perfectly up to the ideal of Buddha's teaching that is shared in common between Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana. Moreover, neither term is true. So belittling any other school via giving it a derisive label really has no place anywhere but sectarian rivalry.


Malcolm wrote:
Unfortunately, when asked the question why it is preferable to desire to be a buddha over an arhat or a pratyekabuddha, the answer is that the awakening of an arhat or a pratyekabuddha is inferior to that of a buddha and so is their path. Likewise, when answering the question of why one would choose Vajrayāna over Mahāyāna even though the result and motivation is the same, again the answer is that the Mahāyāna path is inferior to the Vajrayāna path.

And from the perspective of Dzogchen, all the eight lower yānas are inferior, mostly in terms of lack of directness in the time it takes a beginner to realize complete buddhahood.

So there you have it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
First of all, what do you mean by a "direct" Mahāmudra path? What are its characteristics, and so on. Then we will see whether or not it is part of Vajrayāna or not.

Astus said:
Direct in the sense that it does not require empowerments or other practices, only the instructions of the teacher pointing out the nature of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, this is not just not true Astus, the basic practice of this approach to Mahāmudra is guru yoga. It may not involve the two stages per se, but it does involve practices such as Vajrasattva, mandala offerings and so on which are characteristic of Vajrayāna practice, i.e., there is still is purification and gathering accumulations. And more importantly, there is the practicing of integrating one's mind with the mind of the Guru based upon so called "direct introduction."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
conebeckham said:
Just guessing but I assume Astus refers to what Kagyupas call the Thar Lam path of Mahamudra, from Saraha, Savari, and Maitripa....that of, for example, the Gangama Upadesa, etc.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure, perhaps. But I wanted to see what Astus thought. Thar lam Mahamudra is still Vajrayāna since it involves Vajrasattva, Mandala offerings, Guruyoga and so on., all of which are unique Vajrayāna practices which are indispensable to that path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
since everyone he cites was already a well schooled Vajrayāna master, his argument is quite weak.

Astus said:
If they were competent Sutra and Tantra teachers, wouldn't that rather strengthen the validity of their assessment of the direct Mahamudra path?

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, what do you mean by a "direct" Mahāmudra path? What are its characteristics, and so on. Then we will see whether or not it is part of Vajrayāna or not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But the fact of the matter is that Maitripa promulgated a cycle of Vajrayogini teachings which is preserved to this day in both Kagyu and Sakya. Saraha wrote a famous commentary on the Buddhakapala tantra, and is credited with being the first master to promulgate the Cakrasamvara tantra and so on. Maitripa also bestowed many empowermen's and teachings on Marpa.

Astus said:
They don't exclude each other. Kagyu has a large number of Tantric teachings besides Mahamudra, just as Gampopa taught both path of means and path of liberation. What the mentioned article attempts to show is that "not-specifically-Tantric" Mahamudra existed already in India, and those who taught it considered it beyond both Sutra and Tantra like Gampopa.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, and since everyone he cites was already a well schooled Vajrayāna master, his argument is quite weak.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Jikan said:
I've heard the esoteric practices of Japan referred to as Vajrayana in everyday speech more than once.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is not accurate and the term never once occurs in any tantras considered Yoga tantra on down; whereas the term guhyamantra occurs in all kinds of tantras down to the Susiddhikara, generally considered to be the root tantra of the kriya tantras. It even occurs in Vinaya texts, PP in 8000 lines, Avatamska, Ratnakuta collection, and so on. The term guhyamantra, like vidyāmantra, is found in texts much earlier than what Western academics consider to be the "tantric" phase of Indian Buddhism (post 8th century).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, Astus. First, there is no such thing as a "sahajayāna" — this is fabricated term. Maitripa taught standard Vajrayāna, as did these other masters, complete with creation stage and completion stage.

Astus said:
A number of teachings by the mentioned Indian masters show something else. See for instance: http://www.academia.edu/5614409/Mathes_2006_Blending_the_Sutras_with_the_Tantras_The_Influence_of_Maitripa_and_his_Circle_on_the_Formation_of_Sutra_Mahamudra_in_the_Kagyu_Schools

Malcolm wrote:
This is how Kagyus want to understand things, attempting to justify their "sutra mahāmudra".

But the fact of the matter is that Maitripa promulgated a cycle of Vajrayogini teachings which is preserved to this day in both Kagyu and Sakya. Saraha wrote a famous commentary on the Buddhakapala tantra, and is credited with being the first master to promulgate the Cakrasamvara tantra and so on. Maitripa also bestowed many empowermen's and teachings on Marpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Why would stream entry be an obstacle to Mahayana motivation?

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that if you make the bodhisattva aspiration, according to conventional Theravadin doctrine, you are denied stream entry, and must remain a normal afflicted person. In their system, a bodhisattva can only become a realized person in their last lifetime, when they become a sammasambuddha.




Sherab Dorje said:
Quite the contrary. I believe that habituation of the mind stream via intentional action overrides the effect of a five minute ritual and cutting a couple strands of hair.

Malcolm wrote:
The rite is merely symbolic, refuge is in the heart. The intent to go for refuge indeed can shut the door to lower realms, especially Mahāyāna refuge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
Sherab said:
The doctrines of radical Muslims are actually mainstream.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so.

http://lettertobaghdadi.com


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:


Astus said:
Didn't what could be called Sahajayana, i.e. Mahamudra teachings, come later, as a further development from Vajrayana? Because it seems to me that it's distanced itself from the energy system established in HYT, and moved closer to established sutra teachings. Well, at least some teachers taught that way ((Saraha), Maitripa, Jnanakirti, Sahajavajra).

Malcolm wrote:
No, Astus. First, there is no such thing as a "sahajayāna" — this is fabricated term. Maitripa taught standard Vajrayāna, as did these other masters, complete with creation stage and completion stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:


Jikan said:
Very banal historical question that may be relevant:  when did the word "vajrayana" actually come into use?  What did it describe when it did come into use?

Malcolm wrote:
mid-8th century, highest yoga tantra practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:


Anders said:
Thanks a lot. Is the principle basically similar then to how the lotus position facilitates firmness of mind, or how one can regulate the mind by regulating the breath? That is to say, basically re-arranging bodily energies to effect the mind. Emphasis on principle, as I imagine the permutations, both theoretical and practical, go a lot further than this.

Malcolm wrote:
The Vajrayāna view is that vāyus of the body are the mind, basically.

kirtu said:
And what are  vāyus?

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Literally, vāyu means wind in the trio of nāḍī, vāyu and bindu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, Vajrayāna is usually understood to indicate HYT, whereas guhyamantra includes lower tantra.

Indrajala said:
You said, "However, you will find that among all the four main Tibetan Buddhist schools, in general this is view that is understood."

Does this equally apply to all Indian forms of Vajrayāna as they existed in India?

Malcolm wrote:
You mean amongst all followers of the niruttaratantras?

Yes, I think so. For example, commentary tantra of the Guhyasamaja, the Sandhivyākaraṇa states:

Bodhicitta becomes vāyu, 
its form exists in space, 
it is the life of all sentient beings,
it is the nature of the five with ten names,
renowned as the twelve links, 
its nature becomes three, 
the bodhicitta called “vāyu”
this is the chief of consciousness.

Further, another commentary tantra, the Vajramālā, makes it very clear that even between the births, the all-basis consciousness is also inseparable with the mahāprāṇavāyu.

In other words, Vajrayāna texts treat our consciousness in terms of its embodiment in a manner very distinct from lower tantra and sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:


Anders said:
Thanks a lot. Is the principle basically similar then to how the lotus position facilitates firmness of mind, or how one can regulate the mind by regulating the breath? That is to say, basically re-arranging bodily energies to effect the mind. Emphasis on principle, as I imagine the permutations, both theoretical and practical, go a lot further than this.

Malcolm wrote:
The Vajrayāna view is that vāyus of the body are the mind, basically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am not including Shingon, nor lower tantra. However, you will find that among all the four main Tibetan Buddhist schools, in general this is view that is understood.

Indrajala said:
You should state such things as otherwise your blanket statements are highly problematic.

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, Vajrayāna is usually understood to indicate HYT, whereas guhyamantra includes lower tantra.

The term vajrayāna primarily shows up only in niruttarayogatantras. So actually, my statement is perfectly accurate and not at all a blanket term, it is highly focused and precise.

Go ahead, do a word search for rdo rje theg pa here and see what titles emerge:

https://www.istb.univie.ac.at/kanjur/xml3/xml/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Personally i believe that the important distinction is not the reference to Theravada vs non-Theravada traditions but that concerning motivation. There are plenty of people following Mahayana traditions with a hinayana motivation and there are plenty of Theravadins following their path yet holding a Mahayana motivation.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot have a Mahāyāna motivation if one has not generated it. That means, for Thervadins, permanently eliminating their chances for stream entry, according to their own concepts. If one is someone who is genuinely generated the Mahāyāna intent for awakening, one won't be interested very much in Theravada naturally.

Sherab Dorje said:
Personally i don't buy the whole "taking refuge as a guarantee against rebirth in the three lower realms" schtick.

Malcolm wrote:
You consider the Buddha's teachings "schtick"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 29th, 2014 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It means that in Vajrayāna,..

Indrajala said:
That is rather essentialist and not really nuanced, as if "Vajrayāna" is a single entity.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not including Shingon, nor lower tantra. However, you will find that among all the four main Tibetan Buddhist schools, in general this is view that is understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 28th, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Sroglung?
Content:
Katharina108 said:
Two years ago I suffered a terrible shock trauma related to violence. Since then I have often panic attacks at night or during daytime. It is so terrible, I can not even move. It is a huge pressure and tightness in my chest. In particular, sound is a very big trigger. When I hear a loud noice, suh as the banging of a door or people yelling, suddenly I can suffer from immense fear and panic attacks. I can relive my source experience I had and I dont feel frightened. It is not that I try to suppress my memories at all. Now I have this kind of physical condition of these panic attacks. They can have all kinds of objects: Noice, bad news etc and they are very irrational. Even though I know this, it is like a terrible condition, that I can't stop and just 'happens'. Before my traumatic experience I did not have any problems and I never experienced these sensations. I dont want to take western drugs. I think it may be a heavy lung condition. I read this article: http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/causes.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;  and the symptoms I have are described as 'srog-dzin lung'.

What is the common treatment for this? Is it the same as what people sometimes call lung disease or is it another kind of disorder?

I am thankful for every input,
Kath


Malcolm wrote:
Common treatments include massage, herbs such as Agar 35, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 28th, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna treatment of embodiment.

Anders said:
Could you give a quick rundown on this?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that in Vajrayāna, the key to awakening lies in human anatomy, not in philosophical speculation. It means that all the qualities of the basis, path and result are complete in the human body, and do not need to be gathered elsewhere. It means that, according to Vajrayāna, that the mind is a function of the body and its anatomy. It means that the classic dualism of namarūpa does not mean that nama and rūpa are inherently different, as philosopher's like Dharmakirti would have it, but rather than there is no state in mind is dissociated from matter. In this respect, Vajrayāna is monistic, though of course in practical discussion, the substance dualism of sūtra dominates even Vajrayāna discussion, obscuring this point for the most part. But when you read texts like the Khandro Nyinthig, or the rdo rje lus sbas bshad by Yanggongpa, it becomes clear that the dualistic approach to mind/body in sūtra and abhidharma is abandoned by Vajrayāna in so far as it explains all of samsara and nirvana are present in the body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
TRC said:
keeping their war economy ticking along as well as more covertly and surreptitiously realising their larger geopolitical agendas.

Malcolm wrote:
War economies only work if you have someone to sell arms to (France and Britain in the two World Wars, for example). In this case, our government has no buyers in the region, apart from Israel. Iraq "buys" weapons from us, but we will never see a penny from those arms that we've "sold" them. All this costs the US Taxpayer billions.

Karma Dorje said:
Yes, but the people in power obviously don't care about the US taxpayer. One can't understand what is happening there by thinking that the American oligarchs have the best interests of the American people at heart. The war economy is a way of transferring wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.  The US doesn't need to export to accomplish this.  They simply need to use all the weaponry they have been producing and replace what they have expended.

Malcolm wrote:
It not all a conspiracy, contrary to popular belief.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:
Jesse said:
I've always felt when saying Buddhas are omniscient, it makes it feel like an un-attainable goal. (enlightenment.) because seriously, omniscience is in the realms of a god, not normal people. It just makes Buddhism feel pretty pointless eh?

kirtu said:
Omniscience isn't attained until after the 10th bhumi.

So we can develop compassion, lovingkindness, generosity, patience, ethical discipline, etc. to a maximum in this body.  That is doable and certainly not pointless.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Factually, tenth stage bodhisattvas are basically omniscient, despite having a slight obscuration. This is why Maitreya states that the wisdom beyond the ninth bhumi is a stage of buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
daverupa said:
And, for what it's worth, a comparison of motive appears: "Save All Beings" <--> "A Shower Of The Way" } similar, and yet different. Maybe some hay is to made here, ecumenically.

Malcolm wrote:
You misunderstand then — "becoming a buddha to benefit all sentient beings" means becoming a buddha in order to show all sentient beings the way to buddhahood. It does not mean "saving" sentient beings in any sort of Christian sense. An arhat entering cessation can inspire by example, but cannot benefit beings beyond his or her lifespan. A buddha on the other hand can always emanate nirmanakāyas.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
TRC said:
I don’t mean the production of arms necessarily for profit, but the huge permanent industrial military complex that the US is now dependent on, and which is fact one of the driving factors keeping America engaged in conflict. That’s the war economy I’m referring to.

But yeah you’re right, it is a massive cost to the tax payer, and that’s the paradox that this dependency has become (as all dependencies are).  It’s the monkey on America’s back that has its roots back in the cold war 1950s and is now hugely detrimental to the US nation (and the world) on so many levels. That’s greed, hatred and delusion for you though.

Malcolm wrote:
The US is engaged in conflicts for many reasons, and a lot of them go back to the failed policies of the breakup of the British Empire, like this one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
It's not an assumption. It's a matter of public record. The US trained the fighters that would later become ISIS in Jordan.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a bit of an exaggeration — yes,a few dozen men trained in 2012 by the US in Jordan later joined the Islamic State, but you make it sound as if the whole command structure of IS was trained by the US and that is not true. Actually, the command structure of the IS is composed mostly of former Baathist officers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Understanding why ISIL beheads
Content:
TRC said:
keeping their war economy ticking along as well as more covertly and surreptitiously realising their larger geopolitical agendas.

Malcolm wrote:
War economies only work if you have someone to sell arms to (France and Britain in the two World Wars, for example). In this case, our government has no buyers in the region, apart from Israel. Iraq "buys" weapons from us, but we will never see a penny from those arms that we've "sold" them. All this costs the US Taxpayer billions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The knowledge obscuration is necessary for buddhahood, since dharmakayā means omniscience.

garudha said:
Not clear. Do you mean something like "Enlightenment can only occur in the context of ignorance", perhaps you're simply (perhaps justifiably) glorifying dharmakayā, or are you saying that a Buddha is personally not Omniscient?

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I mean is that in order to attain buddhahood, one must remove two obscurations, the kleśa-avarana and the jneya-avarana, respectively, the obscuration of affliction and the obscuration of knowledge. Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas, as well as seventh stage bodhisattvas, have completely removed the former; only Buddhas are completely free of the latter.

I think that most of the confusion you are expressing in this thread is a result of not having properly studied the nature of three kāyas. There are any number of resources you can consult to further educated yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
plwk said:
http://www.tbsa.org/arahant.htm

Jikan said:
From that article:
In brief, a Theravada Buddhist can become a Buddha, or a Pacceka-Buddha, or an Arahant according to his choice. So Theravada Buddhism is for all three paths and not for the path to Arahantship only.
According to at least one contemporary Theravada source, there are some who indeed aspire to Buddhahood among those who identify as Theravada Buddhists.  It's for this reason that I stated above that the term "hinayana" doesn't correspond directly to contemporary Theravadin practitioners, regardless of what the doctrine has had to say in the past.  (what this means for the direction of Theravada doctrine and practice is a separate issue--perhaps a good topic for a thread at our sister site, DhammaWheel.)

Malcolm wrote:
I already addressed this issue. Theravada is a Hinayana school, despite the fact Theravadins can choose to become Mahayanists if they like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 10:02 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
plwk said:
http://www.tbsa.org/arahant.htm

Jikan said:
From that article:
In brief, a Theravada Buddhist can become a Buddha, or a Pacceka-Buddha, or an Arahant according to his choice. So Theravada Buddhism is for all three paths and not for the path to Arahantship only.
According to at least one contemporary Theravada source, there are some who indeed aspire to Buddhahood among those who identify as Theravada Buddhists.  It's for this reason that I stated above that the term "hinayana" doesn't correspond directly to contemporary Theravadin practitioners, regardless of what the doctrine has had to say in the past.  (what this means for the direction of Theravada doctrine and practice is a separate issue--perhaps a good topic for a thread at our sister site, DhammaWheel.)

Malcolm wrote:
I already addressed this issue. Theravada is a Hinayana school, despite fact Theravadins can choose to become Mahayanists if they like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:


garudha said:
If Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and the Bodhisattvas are in the "incomparable rightly completed enlightenment",

Malcolm wrote:
The citation does not say that. You are not reading it correctly.

garudha said:
Yes I was taking bits out of context. Thanks for your statement. I have now gone over it again...

1a. I tried to read the Sutra from my own preconception of what it's trying to convey.
1b. I then find, within the text, contradictions which tell me my preconception is incorrect.

2a. I tried to read the Sutra from my how I imagine it would read if my preconception is incorrect.
2b. I then find, within the text, contradictions which tell me my preconception is correct.

Yes, I comprehend that Arhats & Pratyekabuddhas must contemplate the "nescience entrenchment" which  should be eliminated, purified or to become nonexistent.

The purification of this "central channel" results in Buddha-hood, as I have heard, so I do not deny that Shakyamuni Buddha's true-state is inconceivable to me.

Therefore I must defer judgement. However; I personally doubt that this "central channel" can be cleansed via mind-only learning alone. I think the whole-body-including-brain must be in a healthy condition for real progress to occur. I therefore view any experience of non-duality - which does not take into account the whole being of a person - as much a head trick for all the good striving for it would do.

I sincerely believe that cleaning the floor is as decent a meditation, on the road of progress towards "non-duality", as cleaning out ones karma.

Malcolm wrote:
The knowledge obscuration is necessary for buddhahood, since dharmakayā means omniscience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Jikan said:
That's an interesting passage, but it doesn't necessarily speak for itself.  How does it rebut (does it rebut?) what I have been arguing?  How is it warranted as evidence for this purpose?  Help me understand what you're trying to say here.

Malcolm wrote:
It's obvious what dave is saying: following the Mahāyan̄a path is the wrong way to get to Rajagriha, and the Buddha does not approve that Mahāyāna message, but he is not responsible for us wayward Mahāyānists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:


Jikan said:
Yes, precisely:  and who (or what) intercedes in this case?  (still referring to the same parable):  Buddhahood, in one way or another.

Malcolm wrote:
A buddha, not an abstract principle, "buddhahood".


Jikan said:
The doctrine that Buddha is leading all beings to the state of Buddhahood saturates East Asian Dharma.  It's not so uncommon to see it in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism either.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, arhats, etc. Also. The criticism is two fold; one hinayāna practitioners have an inferior motivation; two, the Hinayāna canon does not teach the Mahāyāna path.

Jikan said:
That's why I say that the distinctions among the yanas, which vary by tradition, are just provisional or conventional distinctions.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, knowing that the canon of the Śravakas will not lead to complete awakening, who would follow it? This is why the distinction is extremely important and should be emphasized. Who wants to hang out in the cessation of samadhi for incalculable eons?

Jikan said:
Sure, but what do you make of the parable of the magic city in the same sutra?

Malcolm wrote:
I addressed by pointing out the fact that arhats need to being roused from samadhi to enter Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
You believe the Buddha wrote those texts?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I believe that the Buddha spoke the Mahāyāna, like all sutras, however, they were written down much later.

Mkoll said:
That's a red herring anyway. I'm not talking about the tactfulness of words used in ancient texts, I'm talking about the tactfulness of words used actively by modern people now, in 2014.

Malcolm wrote:
Not a red herring, it is actually very much to the point — the point being is the division of teachings into Hinayāna and Mahāyāna is very much a mainstream part of how Buddhism is explained in Mahāyāna, where the aspiration to awaken without including the aspiration to achieve full Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings is considered inferior [hina]. There is really no way around it. We can say "śravakayāna" and "pratyekabuddhayāna", but in this case what is the difference? In śravakayāna and pratyekabuddhayāna there is no motivation to awaken beyond considering only one's own benefit. When we compare the two, the śravakayāna and pratyekabuddhayāna motivations are inferior to the motivation of the bodhisattvayāna, hence śravakayāna and pratyekabuddhayāna constitute the hinayāna, and that is all there really is to it. One try and explain it all away with speculations about textual history, but in reality, those of us with commitment to Mahāyāna understand things in this way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:


garudha said:
If Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and the Bodhisattvas are in the "incomparable rightly completed enlightenment",

Malcolm wrote:
The citation does not say that. You are not reading it correctly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
Notice how I use the words "publicly" and "public"?

Malcolm wrote:
This is a Mahāyāna forum, correct? The term is used pervasively by the Buddha in Mahāyāna texts, correct? So you would prefer us to use euphemisms?

Basically, the terms śravakayāna and pratyekabuddha yāna are equated by the Buddha again and again with hinayāna.

We can use the term "mainstream" if you like, but this is still just a euphemism for the term hinayāna.

Basically, "hinayāna" is the Buddha's term for śravakayāna and pratyekabuddhayāna. So take it up with him.

Mkoll said:
Saying "mainstream" or "śravakayāna" instead of "hinayāna" would be more tactful.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you tell the Buddha to be more tactful in his Mahāyāna texts. What was he thinking?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
Notice how I use the words "publicly" and "public"?

Malcolm wrote:
This is a Mahāyāna forum, correct? The term is used pervasively by the Buddha in Mahāyāna texts, correct? So you would prefer us to use euphemisms?

Basically, the terms śravakayāna and pratyekabuddha yāna are equated by the Buddha again and again with hinayāna.

We can use the term "mainstream" if you like, but this is still just a euphemism for the term hinayāna.

Basically, "hinayāna" is the Buddha's term for śravakayāna and pratyekabuddhayāna. So take it up with him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
A tactless term with pejorative connotations that those who know better shouldn't use publicly, unless their goal is to increase sectarianism and division between people.

Wikipedia said:
The word Hīnayāna is formed of hīna (हीन):[5] "little," "poor," "inferior," "abandoned," "deficient," "defective;" and yāna (यान):[6] "vehicle", where "vehicle" means "a way of going to enlightenment". The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (1921–25) defines hīna in even stronger terms, with a semantic field that includes "poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible," and "despicable."

...

According to Jan Nattier, it is most likely that the term Hīnayāna post-dates the term Mahāyāna, and was only added at a later date due to antagonism and conflict between bodhisattvas and śrāvakas. The sequence of terms then began with Bodhisattvayāna, which was given the epithet Mahāyāna ("Great Vehicle"). It was only later, after attitudes toward the bodhisattvas and their teachings had become more critical, that the term Hīnayāna was created as a back-formation, contrasting with the already-established term Mahāyāna.[11] The earliest Mahāyāna texts often use the term Mahāyāna as an epithet and synonym for Bodhisattvayāna, but the term Hīnayāna is comparatively rare in early texts, and is usually not found at all in the earliest translations. Therefore, the often-perceived symmetry between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna can be deceptive, as the terms were not actually coined in relation to one another in the same era.[12]

According to Paul Williams, "the deep-rooted misconception concerning an unfailing, ubiquitous fierce criticism of the Lesser Vehicle by the [Mahāyāna] is not supported by our texts."[13] Williams states that while evidence of conflict is present in some cases, there is also substantial evidence demonstrating peaceful coexistence between the two traditions.[13]

Mkoll said:
I like Mr. Williams' idea of "peaceful coexistence." Using the term "hinayana" in public does not move towards that end.

Malcolm wrote:
This all presumes that these speculations by Nattier have any merit.

The term hinayāna is used over and over again in the Mahāyāna canon to describe pejoratively the goals, motivations and practices of those who aspire to the awakening of śravakas and pratyekabuddhas. It occurs in the PP Sutra in 8000 lines, repeatedly in the Ratnakuta collection, in the general sutra section of the bka' 'gyur, as well as many tantras.

Contrary to popular PC sentiment, the term is used over and over again in Indian Mahāyāna commentarial literature.

In order to understand Indian Mahāyāna you have to understand the use of the term hinayāna and how it is universally used.

If you are a not a Mahāyāna practitioner, you don't need to pay the term any heed. If someone is interested to read Mahāyāna, they are simply going to have to deal with the presence of this term in our canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:


garudha said:
Do you find significant fault with the statement "The Mind if all Buddhas is Eternal Buddha" ?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not as it Śakyamuni were one thing and dharmakāya was another. All three kāyas are inseparable.


But the The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala sutra mentions Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas are in the incomparable rightly completed enlightenment which is the absoluteness of the One Vehicle.

garudha said:
"Lord, the Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas ...

Malcolm wrote:
This passage does not mean what you think it means. It is stating that arhats and so on mistake their realization for a final realization, but that nevertheless, their path is included in the "ekayāna". It is basically the same sentiment as in my signature. All Dharmas are included in the Dzogchen Teachings, but Dzogchen is the supreme teaching which surpasses them all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Dancing with Women in Buddhist Temple
Content:
plwk said:
It is clearly a dance during what is known as a feast offering, in which singing and dancing are encouraged at a certain point in the ritual.
Ah...is this standard for all feast offerings to use such music & dancing or upon discretion of the presiding umze or lamas?

Malcolm wrote:
It is at the discretion of whoever is in charge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 27th, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:


garudha said:
So (indirectly) this sutra states that there is a possible enlightenment which does not involve seeing the Tathagatagarbha. What do you make of these "Self-Enlightened" ones who have not seen and what could their attainment be like ?

Malcolm wrote:
These are pratyekabuddhas, and they do not realize complete buddhahood.


garudha said:
"Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. The Tathagatagarbha is not the domain of beings who fall into the belief in a real personality, who adhere to wayward views, whose thoughts are distracted by voidness. Lord, this Tathagatagarbha is the embryo of the Illustrious Dharmadhatu, the embryo of the Dharmakaya, the embryo of supramundane dharma, the embryo of the intrinsically pure dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
So it seems, to me, that Tathagatagarbha refers to Eternal Buddha.
[/quote]

Tathāgatagarbha is a synonym for the unrealized dharmakāya, etc. As I said, the mind of all buddhas is the dharmakāya. They have no other mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Jikan said:
...which is to say that, in the end, there is no "hinayana," just slower and faster practitioners, or rather practitioners with more or less capacity in this lifetime.  That may sound triumphalist, but there it is.

Malcolm wrote:
No, as I explained, there is a Hinayāna, because it has to do with the motivations of the practitioner.

Without intercession, there is no way an arhat will enter Mahāyāna, for example. It is not like an arhat enters cessation and then suddenly realizes his or her path is incomplete.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Jikan said:
Am I alone in thinking that contemporary Mahayana Buddhism makes a much bigger deal out of the distinctions among vehicles than earlier Buddhists did?  and maybe a bigger deal than it need be?

I think Shakyamuni was on the right track in the Lotus Sutra, when he taught that while there appears to be a multiplicity of vehicles to suit the needs of deluded beings, there's really only one vehicle:  the Buddha vehicle

Malcolm wrote:
The ekayāna teaching is taught from the the point of view of Mahāyāna; but it does not address the individual bodhicittas of śravakas, and so on. It may be the case that in the end that arhats are woken up from the samadhi of cessation and set on the bodhisattva path, but it does not mean that there are those who think the path of the bodhisattva is too difficult, egotistical, and so on., and who therefore select a lesser awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: What is "hinayana"? What is it not?
Content:
Jikan said:
I'm not comfortable with the habit of using the term "hinayana" to describe the practice & doctrine of Theravadin practitioners, because it doesn't always correspond.  It's not adequate.  This has been discussed a bit already in this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna describes a motivation behind one's wish for awakening. Simply put, if your actual motivation for awakening does not included the desire to become a Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings, that motivation is hina, inferior. Not only this, it also describes a view of emptiness, an attitude towards śila that prioritizes the benefit of others over concern for the "purity" of one's discipline, and so on.

Now, just as a Mulasarvastivadin (like all Tibetan Buddhist, upasakas to bhikṣus) can be a Mahāyānista, so can a Theravadin.

But Theravada proper is still a Hinayāna school, as is Mulasarvastivada, because one cannot obtain buddhahood through that school's teachings and because the bodhicitta to become a buddha does not exist in its canon. Yes, it is true that there is an extracanonical approach to the Bodhisattva path borrowed from Mahāyāna, but even here it is constrained by a variety of concepts such as the idea that one can only be a bodhisattva if one is predicted by a Buddha and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Dancing with Women in Buddhist Temple
Content:
plwk said:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


What do you think people?


Malcolm wrote:
It is clearly a dance during what is known as a feast offering, in which singing and dancing are encouraged at a certain point in the ritual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
kirtu said:
The list of countries I provided are successful social democracies.    They have bottled and harnessed the capitalist genie in order to keep it working for the people rather than creating a tyrannical economic system where lower classes are deprived of opportunity and in some cases the bare necessities of life (as we see in North Korea on the one hand and in the US currently).

Malcolm wrote:
All boats rise in a high tide. When the oil economy that is propping up the world economy tanks, it will be a different story for everyone...

BTW, I know people in Norway, and all other countries you mention, it is not the cup of tea you imagine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:


kirtu said:
That's a juvenile response.  You introduced the incorrect strawman "so you perfer ...." etc.  Your assertion is nonsese.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Kirt, I don't include the economies you mention under the rubric of "planned" economies. Now, there is no need for you to get all hostile about the fact that I consider all the economies you mentioned to be free market economies. As I said, "free" does not mean "unregulated".

A genuine Socialist economy will be planned to the teeth — and history shows these economies are abject failures.

An unfortunate fact of Social Democracies (and the US is no exception here) is that they permit corporations to externalize many social costs of running their business onto the public sector, which appears to keep prices low, but in reality just cause a mess to be cleaned up later.

Now, I understand you have a deep hatred for the country in which you live, and I feel sorry for you in this respect — it must be painful to be so unhappy, feeling forced to live in a country you despise so deeply. I wish you the speediest possible exit to the country of your choice, where you may enjoy the kind of prosperity everyone deserves, merit permitting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you prefer always failing planned economies then? Because you can't show me one that has not catastrophically failed.


kirtu said:
I absolutely can: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.  There are other nations as well.  Since WW2 the economies of these nations have not failed.  They have been through difficult times but haven't collapsed.  They keep capitalism under control rather than let it run rampant.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that they were planned economies.
Ummmm yes you did, the above statement was in response to this statement of mine:
I see, so you prefer always failing planned economies then? Because you can't show me one that has not catastrophically failed.
"Free" does not mean "unregulated".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:


kirtu said:
I absolutely can: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.  There are other nations as well.  Since WW2 the economies of these nations have not failed.  They have been through difficult times but haven't collapsed.  They keep capitalism under control rather than let it run rampant.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
These are not planned economies by any standard. They are well-regulated free market economies. Venezuela, Cuba, Pre-capitalsit Russia, China, former Soviet Bloc countries etc. are what I have in mind when I mention "planned economies" When talking about planned economies, I am not sure we are discussing or mean the same thing.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:
garudha said:
According to Doctrine of Buddhism such feelings are non-existent and cannot be apprehended.

asunthatneversets said:
That should say: "According to Doctrine of Buddhism such feelings are ultimately non-existent and cannot be apprehended."

However if we grasp at the ultimate then all we end up doing is advocating for a nihilist view.

Jigme Lingpa calls this type of view 'being sealed by a definitive view of emptiness', it can potentially be a major deviation if uncorrected.

garudha said:
Ahhh! You found the perfect book for me. Thanks so much


Malcolm wrote:
You have to understand, the dharmakāya is the mind of the Buddha, that is nondual by definition. As it says in the Avatamska:
The owner of the pure nondual dharmakāya
tames all migrating beings who abide in dualism
with the thunderous clouds of emanations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Markets require proper regulation.

kirtu said:
The Nov 2007 collapse proved that regulators generally don't know what they are doing.  Other incidents (Madoff for example) have demonstrated this as well.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you prefer always failing planned economies then? Because you can't show me one that has not catastrophically failed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is a difference between a regulated market and planned economies. The former fail when regulations fail, as in the 2007 debacle; the latter always fail.

Markets require proper regulation.

What I skeptic of is that notion that economies can be planned. Many have tried, all have failed.

kirtu said:
French mixed market economy has been through many changes but France is still around.  5th largest economy last time I looked.  China still does *not* have an unconstrained market economy and is 2nd.  The US with the 1st largest nominal economy and close to unconstrained markets (certainly the worship of that) failed in November 2007 resulting in a substantial loss of wealth, millions of people lost everything as a result (including me) and the de facto slave class in American, a class with virtually no economic opportunity, swelled.  I personally will be voting with my feet when I recover.

While Marxism did fail, the Marxist criticism of capitalism is basically valid.  Capitalism can only lead to cycles of boom and bust *a fact acknowledged by all economists I know).  The difference is that capitalist economists since the Keynes Revolution have articulated a philosophy and method to contain that damage and manage the cycles.  This was overturned by Chicago School fanatics who are essentially running the economy of the US at the behest of Ayn Randian fanatics in Congress and in the Fed.  More recently Nassim Nicholas Taleb has demonstrated the weakness of impotence of statically driven economics under the condition of an unusual event.  Taleb is a student of Mandelbrot (who was also one of the teacher's of many of the Chicago School and who was certainly associated with the Chicago School through the 60's) and was a very successful mathematical financier who focuses on unusual or Black-Swan events in his speculation.

You could respond that modern finance has used (Taleb would say overused) statistics to minimize risk but they have used other mathematical models as well (causing the infamous Black-Scholes collapse in the 90's).  While professors Merton and  Scholes rightly won the Nobel Prize for their achievement in pricing, most people using their tools and other tools in financial mathematics don't known what they are doing and are just turning a crank (called sausage machine mathematics).  Market economies are also open to collapses which is one reason that social democracies keep it under control.

Kirt


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Communalism and non-Marxist species of socialism are not necessarily so, but the willingness of Marxists to resort of violence generally supplants other non-aggressive socialisms unless those socialisms are supported by a healthy market economy.

kirtu said:
Which is the actual case in all social democracies.  However your skepticism regarding religious communism is excessive.  In fact your skepticism regarding all forms of communism is also.  Otherwise the Indian state of Kerala would not exist (indeed, by American standards it is not supposed to exist but nevertheless does [admitedly a friend of mine from Kerala dismisses the local Communist party there as just another political party like the Democrats ...]).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Having been to Kerala, yes, the Communist Party there is mainly regarded as a nuisance. They are just as corrupt as any other party in India.

As far as religious Communism goes, Communism is sort of a religion.

What I skeptic of is that notion that economies can be planned. Many have tried, all have failed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:


garudha said:
Therefore: there is no enlightenment that could be attained by samsaric beings because (i) there are no differentiated samsaric beings (ii) there are no differentiated Buddhas (iii) there are no defilements to cleanse.

Malcolm wrote:
From the point of view of Buddha (nondual), yes; from the point of view of sentient being (dual), no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Dudjom Lineage Rigdzin Dupa: First English Translation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
still wondering why no one ever sent me a copy of this since I made a donation for it...anyway, NBD.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 26th, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Contesting constant non-dual awareness of Shakyamuni
Content:


garudha said:
Now this is a big problem for me because you're implicating that sentient beings --whose minds are NOT in a state of constant non-dual awareness--...cannot achieve effortlessness until they attain this mythical "non-dual awareness".

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, they cannot. Why? Because they are conditioned by affliction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Bodhisattva's remorse
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Any practice we engage in has to be premised on spontaneity, and not based in feelings/thoughts of hope and fear.

Malcolm wrote:
Any practice we do should be based on the motivation of attaining awakening for the benefit of others. Only Buddhas truly act spontaneously, we are not capable of that.

Sherab Dorje said:
I believe that we are capable of spontaneous acts of love, generosity, compassion, etc...  Our enlightened nature sees to that.  Now it is, of course, true that our negative habitual tendencies can override this natural display, and that cultivating the right motivation helps us habituate our behaviour in a positive direction, but to say that only Buddhas truly act spontaneously is a gross exaggeration.

Malcolm wrote:
In this respect "spontaneous" means free from objects. We are not capable of that, not even a bodhisattva on the stages is capable of that, since they have a very subtle obscuration that causes them to have dualistic perception, albeit on a very subtle level.

Our compassion, etc., no matter how "spontaneous" it is, is always tainted with objectification.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
but in a debate context it does

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, but anyway, if your goal is to become a samyaksambuddha, you will not find any path to realize that result in any Hinayāna canon.

The reasonings supporting this position may be found in Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, chapter 1.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Mahāyāna sutras began to be written down around the same time as Hinayāna sutras, i.e. during the first century BCE and probably earlier.

Bakmoon said:
What about the fact that the Mahayana Sutras often talk about matters in the Sravakayana texts but the converse is never happens? If all the texts are records of the same person teaching that seems rather odd coincidence to me. .

Malcolm wrote:
As it says in the Guhyasamaja, the single vajra word is heard variously by different disciples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Well, I'm happy to have you share your views on the matter. However, what you wrote doesn't in the least mean that socialism/comunism are unavoidably materialist.

Malcolm wrote:
Communism/Marxist Socialism is based on the theory of dialectical materialism.

Communalism and non-Marxist species of socialism are not necessarily so, but the willingness of Marxists to resort of violence generally supplants other non-aggressive socialisms unless those socialisms are supported by a healthy market economy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 9:59 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I hope you are not asking someone to justify the Mahayana view on what constitutes "Hinayana" on a Mahayana site.

daverupa said:
Certainly not. It simply needed clear saying, which Malcolm has accomplished. Please remember this thread is his creation; the discussion has played out in relatively short order, and is now a handy reference going forward.

Malcolm wrote:
At least we dont slaughter each other like the Shiites and Sunnis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
But only one is incomplete? That's the assessment I'm asking about, not contemporaneity.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna teaches the entire path of full awakening, profound emptiness, and so on, features lacking in all Hinayāna canons (which teach only the awakening  of an arhat, superficial emptiness, and so on and so forth) blah blah blah, things you don't believe anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
We're not using the historical Buddha and that Dhamma which was preserved by the early Sangha as our foundation for learning & practice & assessment of teachings since the Dharma they [the monastics] preserved from the Buddha was not complete.
Ah, well then. How has this been assessed?

Malcolm wrote:
By our tradition, which asserts the Mahāyāna canon is a teaching which is contemporaneous with the Hinayānā canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
either we're using the historical Buddha and that Dhamma which was preserved by the early Sangha as our foundation for learning & practice & assessment of teachings, or we're not.

Malcolm wrote:
We're not, since the Dharma they [the monastics] preserved from the Buddha was not complete.

daverupa said:
we can nevertheless say what isn't early enough to be considered a candidate for inclusion in the earliest historical strata...

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Mahāyāna sutras began to be written down around the same time as Hinayāna sutras, i.e. during the first century BCE and probably earlier.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 25th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Bakmoon said:
That would be true if it were only the structure that is parallel. But in fact the contents are in fact parallel.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the content is similar, but not parallel. Which suggests different communities collected different traditions of what the Buddha said, and organized them later on.


Bakmoon said:
The bulk of Sutras found in each Agama and Nikaya have a parallel Sutra in that collection's counterpart, many of these parallel Sutras have significant textual differences,

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly...

Bakmoon said:
The available evidence points towards the common ancestor model

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so:
Interestingly, built into the traditional account of the First Council is the story of one monk who arrived late. He asked the others what he had missed. When they told him how they had formalized the Buddha's teachings, he objected. He insisted that he himself had heard the Buddha's discourses and would con­tinue to remember them as he had heard them.
http://www.lindaheuman.com/stories/Tricycle_Magazine_Whose_Buddhism_is_Truest.pdf


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 24th, 2014 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Bakmoon said:
In my personal experience some kinds of Buddhist communities there really isn't nearly as clear of a line dividing the traditional Buddhists and secular Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure there is: the line is rebirth and its acceptance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 24th, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
The copy model is just contradicted by the textual evidence in front of us.

Malcolm wrote:
Not if the copy was a copy of a canonical taxonomy rather than content, this would lend the illusion of an ur-canon from which there was deviation, when in fact no ur-canon ever existed, contrary to legend.

Bakmoon said:
Of course there are limits to inference, that's why there's a difference between reasonable inferences and unreasonable ones. To reject the use of reasonable inference based on evidence in accepting a position on the grounds that it isn't a definitive proof is to me a very radical skepticism which in any case isn't the point. For most things in life isn't sensible to demand absolute incontrovertible proof, but that doesn't mean that we therefore know almost nothing. Is the common source model absolutely 100% certain? No, but that's where all the evidence points, and it certainly makes the common source model a very sensible and reasonable conclusion based firmly on the evidence, and certainly not mere "...[S]peculative conjecture."

Malcolm wrote:
But instead, here we see that in the case of the origin of the Hināyāna canons, there is very little evidence. So what you are left with a sort of forensic analysis that in the end can tell you nothing at all about the decomposing corpse on the ground in front of you, except perhaps how it died.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 24th, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Bakmoon said:
Where have I claimed that? I think that we can use comparative methodology to say that some parts are older than others, but I never claimed to be able to definitively put anything back all the way to the time of the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Going to play that card, eh? That simply means you don't think anything reported in the Pali Canon was said by the Buddha.





Bakmoon said:
Like I mentioned before, about 80% of the Suttas in the Majjhima Nikaya are also found in the Madhyama Agama. Are you claiming that it is reasonable to suppose this is because the collection that became the Madhyama Agama simply copied texts from the Majjhima Nikaya?

Malcolm wrote:
It is reasonable to suppose that when one group redactors decided to give this and that name to sections of their canon, other groups of redactors chose to model their redaction likewise.


Bakmoon said:
If so,then why aren't the texts the same as in the Majjhima Nikaya? They are the same in terms of substantive content, but textually many of them are quite different.

Malcolm wrote:
Because what was borrowed could merely have been an organizational scheme, not every text within that scheme.

Bakmoon said:
I suppose it is possible that just before the Canons were written down in Sri Lanka and the surviving Gandhari texts were penned that there was a massive borrowing of texts between them and then both the Sri Lankans and the Gandhari's decided to add and subtract a good amount of material all at once from their borrowed texts, but that sounds a lot more speculative and conjectural than saying that the reason why the texts have both strong similarities and significant textual differences is that they are descendents from a common source.

Malcolm wrote:
If you follow Salmond's reasoning, the notion that there was one ur-canon creates more questions that it answers.

Bakmoon said:
2) Like it or not, there is a very large difference between propositions which reasonably inferred from the evidence at hand and propositions which are not. If just after hearing a gunshot person A is found shot in a room with a gun with the fingerprints of person B who was found near by, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, we reasonably can infer that person B shot person A, and this certainty is sufficient to sentence a person to prison.

Malcolm wrote:
This kind of reasoning has put quite a large number of innocent people on death row. Whoops! There are clear limits to inferential reasoning.


Malcom said:
Not all, the ordination lineages all sprang from different people, Mulasarvastivada from Rahula, Theravada from Upali, and so on.
That's true of the ordination lineages of individual persons, but there were several different schools of Buddhism in India, each associated with their own canon. The Vinaya Pitikas of these schools indicate that it took time for them to split up. The Vinayas and the Dipavamsa (which is basically just an addendum to the historical material in the Theravada Vinaya) agree that there were different schools and they split up over time, although they disagree about which groups split from which and in what order.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Why accept any of these accounts as veridical, since they, like the speculations of western scholars, are all contradictory?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 24th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Bakmoon said:
That's moving the goal posts. I never claimed that it is possible to make a detailed non-speculative layering of the entire canon. You made the claim that all we can know about the Pali Canon is that it dates to about the first century BCE, and everything beyond that is "...[S]peculative conjecture.":

Malcolm wrote:
You have been asserting from the start that some parts of the tripitika are definitely the Buddha's own words and some parts are not.


Bakmoon said:
We can reasonably know a lot about the texts prior to the first century BCE. By comparative analysis, we know that those Suttas which have parallels in the Agamas must date at the very latest to the point which the two transmission diverged.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we cannot really know this. For example, it is possible that at one point or another one group borrowed the terminology for their canon from another group and included different sets of texts. There is no reason to assume a common origin for each canon at all — that is a conjecture, which however reasonable it may seem, cannot be proven.

Bakmoon said:
Since the Theravada, Dharmaguptaka, and Sarvastivadin texts have so much overlap, we must conclude that the common core must date at the very latest to the time before these three schools separated, and that is significantly earlier than 100 BCE.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure we can theorize there is a common core, as above. The common theory is that there was the first council, and all Hināyāna sutras were compiled there. In general, one does not dispute this account. However, did this really happen in this way? We simply don't know beyond the assertion that it happened.

Bakmoon said:
The different Vinayas of these three schools disagree about exactly who split from who in what order, but it is quite clear that the point when all three were one was much earlier than 100 BCE.

Malcolm wrote:
Not all, the ordination lineages all sprang from different people, Mulasarvastivada from Rahula, Theravada from Upali, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Name of the practice associated with the Guhyagarbha Tan
Content:
kirtu said:
There is also a 100-deity practice.  I mention it because as I have seen it introduced, the practice is not obviously associated with Shitro (i.e. one could practice it without doing what most people associate with Shitro practices).

Kirt

Bakmoon said:
Could you explain the distinction please? I always thought that Shitro refers to the use of the 100 deities as a body mandala, but from what Malcom said it is also a Deity Yoga practice with the 100 deities as the mandala. What's the difference between Shitro and the 100 deity practice?

Thank you for your time.


Malcolm wrote:
Shitro is not necessarily a body mandala, for example, the Shitro practice connected with the Gongpa Zangthal cycle of teachings. Two mandalas are taught in Guhyagarbha, the peaceful mandala, which is very similar to Guhyasamaja, and a wrathful mandala. They can be practiced together or separately. In the Guhyagarbha major empowerment, they are granted on two separate days and are separate empowerments. In terma systems, they are generally granted on the same day.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
the Illiad, and the Odessey...

Malcolm wrote:
are not oral traditions and never were. They are written accounts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
In the early years when the stories and teachings were just passed down through plain speech rather than chanted texts and the Sutras were first being composed, the texts could very well have been open to including new material for a time before becoming set.

Malcolm wrote:
This is conjecture.

Bakmoon said:
At any rate, you still haven't given me how your traditional understanding can give a parsimonious explanation of texts that have been transmitted with significant variances.

Malcolm wrote:
Different students understand different things and repeat them accordingly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Bakmoon said:
The only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that a substantial number of such variant Sutras are not different Sutras spoken by the Buddha at different times, but in fact variants of an original Sutra which has undergone editing, either through memory, interpolation, or through expanded explanation (like you mentioned, these began as oral texts, and a distinctive feature of oral texts is that they remain open and flexible to change over time).

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, the reality is that oral transmissions tend to resist change more readily than texts. Case in point, the Vedas.

As for the differences, who is to say that Buddha did not teach this in one way to one group of folks, and another way to another group of folks?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcom said:
Or, you can conclude that different groups of monks preserved different sets of sutras, some of which match, and some of which don't. There is no reason, for example, to presume that agamic sutras describing the bardo are not as ancient as other sutras merely because they are not found in the Pali canon — indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Buddha did not teach the antarabhāva merely because the antarabhāva is not well described in the Pali canon. This is merely one example.

Bakmoon said:
I have two point to make in response to this.

Malcolm wrote:
You are objecting to something I am not claiming. My assertion is that you cannot claim that this set of suttas is earlier than some other. I am asserting you cannot layer date these canons successfully.

Bakmoon said:
2) Nowhere have I claimed that the Pali Canon is somehow privileged vis a vis the other early canons. It is merely one of the Canons that has been passed down to today. If something seems to be a later addition into the Pali Canon as demonstrated by comparative analysis with the other early Canons then I personally don't regard it as being Buddhavacana. Similarly I do not automatically reject things only found in the Sutras from the Agamas. Since you brought up the convenient example of the antarabhāva, I might as well mention my take on it.

I have no problem with an antarabhāva. I think that a lot of these kind of distinctions are just about how you write up your definitions, so what one group might call the antarabhāva another might classify as just being part of the life it comes after. A lot of it is semantics. I personally think there is something like an antarabhāva whatever way you want to classify it or call it just from how rebirth is described, near death experiences, etc... I honestly don't know if the Agamas have anything to say on it, but if they do and there is evidence to indicate that it is of sufficient antiquity, then I would be willing to treat the antarabhāva as being buddhavacana.


Malcolm wrote:
When it comes to the Śravaka canons, my main point that we have very little reason to reject this part of the canon in favor of that part of the canon [as does daverupa for example] on the basis of some supposed antiquity that we can only conjecture about.

These texts are rooted in oral transmission, as you mention, they were recited by professionals who selected portions of sutra, abidharma and vinaya to recite. They were written down. We do not have any proof or evidence of when the Agamas were written down Sanskrit for example, but it was definitely post-Ashoka. The unique conditions of the Pali canon meant that is was preserved to modern times in a more or less complete way, and we can clearly identify those parts that were committed to writing in the first century BCE and those parts that were added later. Because of the desolation of Indian Buddhism first by Turks, later by Hindus and Muslims, we have a much less complete record of the canon as it stood, also hampered by the fact that Tibetan Imperial policy decreed that there was little point in further translating Hinayāna texts beyond those sutras that had been translated already --thus the vast majority of Hinayāna material in Sanskrit that was translated into Tibetan is the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya. China lucked out inso far as much that was translated into Chinese was translated fifth century and earlier, when India was still largely dominated by Buddhists politically.

For example, the Sarvastivadins considered the Abhidharmapitika was something embedded with the Sutra pitika, being the focus of advanced discussions of the Dharma by the Buddha. In this respect, then, Abhidharma was something to extracted, a basked with a basket, there are other organization schemes as well. It's expression was the treatises attributed to Arhats concerning various topics. In other words, for whatever reason, different sets of vinaya lineages preserved different traditions about the origin, content and authorship of Abhidharma traditions. We have very little evidence apart from similar and dissimilar texts, and we cannot now understand the precise conditions that lead to the various discrepancies we find in origination legends and so on.

People imagine they can nail down Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna too, but this is equally fraught. I have been studying Buddhist texts, both in the western academic tradition for nearly thirty years and as a practitioner of Vajrayāna for 25. I have decided for myself, based on reading many thousands of books and articles that at this point, that the academic tradition in the west about Buddhism (the burgeoning hermeneutic around that so influential on people like daverupa) largely consists of western academics who spout opinions as unfounded certainties, when in fact their work largely consists of conjectural reconstructions which cannot be grounded in anything anyone truly can regard as factual.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There were many groups of monks, we cannot assume they did not hold different oral transmissions. This accounts for differences as well as similarities.

Bakmoon said:
Of course they had different oral transmissions. That's the whole basis of comparative methodology. But the point is if you trace the oral transmissions back, they cross and have a common source, and you can conclude that material which is found in several different oral transmissions must be from before the different oral transmissions divided.

Malcolm wrote:
Or, you can conclude that different groups of monks preserved different sets of sutras, some of which match, and some of which don't. There is no reason, for example, to presume that agamic sutras describing the bardo are not as ancient as other sutras merely because they are not found in the Pali canon — indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Buddha did not teach the antarabhāva merely because the antarabhāva is not well described in the Pali canon. This is merely one example.

Bakmoon said:
If you look at the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas, the similarities are literally undeniable. Just look at how they are organized for example: There is a Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, and an Anguttara Nikaya, and in the Agamas there is a Dirgha Agama, Madhyama Agama, three Chinese translations of the Samyuktagama, and two translations of the Ekottara Agama. The titles are literally translations of each other.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, but this does not mean that every single text spoken by the Buddha was preserved at the first council. What I am suggesting is that there has always been so called "extra-canonical" teachings, i.e., sutras that for one reason or another were not collated during the first council but which were variously preserved by differing groups of monks in different geographical locations. When emmissaries returned from the first council, monks merely added their own traditions their canon and this accounts for differences in the various Sravaka canons. Further, other differences may be accounted for by differences in memory, and so on.

Bakmoon said:
If you actually look inside of them you find that the individual Suttas and Sutras match up in terms of content. I highly urge interested readers to take a look at Suttacentral.net for themselves. They've listed all of the parallels and such that you can see for yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a point of contention.


Bakmoon said:
One of these is from the Pali Majjhima Nikaya, and the other is from the Chinese translation of the Madhyama Agama. Do you really mean to tell me that it is mere "conjectural speculation" to say that these two texts are almost identical because they stem from a "putative original" text?

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I mean to tell you is that it is entirely conjectural to imagine that the Sutta Nipatta is "early" and that various suttas in the Digha Nikaya are "late", and so on.

Of course, we one can try to conjecture which suttas were taught early in the Buddha's career, and which were taught later in his life, but this is also a difficult thing. A lot of suttas have no location given, and we only have a general idea of where Buddha went and at what time in his career.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are missing my general point, there is really no effective way to layer date oral transmissions. We have an event in Buddhist history (as far as the Pali canon is concerned), i.e. it was committed to writing in the first century BCE. We can speculate many things about the written texts we find there, but it is all speculative conjecture. It is not "history".

Bakmoon said:
You have stated the underline portion several times but you have failed to make an argument in favor of it. It is a bare assertion. Can you make an argument to back up this point? Why do the principles of textual analysis not work for oral texts?

Malcolm wrote:
Simply put, there is nothing to which a date may be assigned.

Bakmoon said:
And it was not just the Pali canon that was written down. The Sarvastivadin, Dharmaguptaka, and many other canons survive in  large fragments. These schools separated prior to when these were written down, and when we compare these texts, they have material in common. From this we can deduce that the material held in common must date prior to the separation.

Malcolm wrote:
There were many groups of monks, we cannot assume they did not hold different oral transmissions. This accounts for differences as well as similarities.


Bakmoon said:
And there is also internal evidence we can use. Different parts of the Pali canon have different dialectical variants, some of which are very similar to the colloquial speech found in the area of Maghadha, and others with a distinct influence from Sanskrit.

Malcolm wrote:
This only tells us about this body of texts in the 1st century CE, it tells us nothing about a putative "original" canon.


Bakmoon said:
We can see different parts of the Canon with different features, and some texts seem to reference or comment on others. Furthermore, these internal correspondences can be line up with the comparative analysis and we find that the chronologies match. It may not be as certain as digging up manuscripts complete with dates, but we can have reasonable certainty about some of the dating.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we really can't, not beyond conjectural speculation.

Bakmoon said:
Also a matter to consider is to see how the material in the texts matches up with what we know archaeologically from the period. The Nikayas/Agamas give a clear depiction of what life was like back then. It depicts India as being a collection of various states vying for power with one another,a barter economy, and many other such things. Remember that the Buddha passed into Parinirvana at a transitional time in the history of India when things were undergoing great social change. The fact that the texts aren't filled with anachronistic portrayals of daily life also can be used to establish validity. Just because we don't have absolute certainty about absolutely everything we say doesn't mean that the entire thing is baseless speculation. There is such a thing as reasonable inference.

Malcolm wrote:
According to people like Schopen, the texts are filled with anachronisms.

But this all avoids the point I am making, we are really not in a position to say which portion of the body of texts first written down in the first century BCE is older or which is younger. Of course, you can use conjecture, and you can claim it is reasonable, but your reasonable conjecture is easily negated by someone else's reasonable conjecture. If nothing else, the history of Buddhology is nothing more than the story of one reasonable conjecture being negated by another reasonable conjecture.


Your assumption is based on a materialist approach to text criticism. Other [i.e. traditional] historical approaches fully accept that Buddha taught the Vibhanga and so on in toto.
How is it materialism? I gave a carefully presented argument with premises and conclusions as why the Abhidhamma doesn't date back to the time of the Buddha himself, and instead of criticizing the initial premises or finding a flaw in the deduction from them, the response is "Your argument comes from materialism."
The fundamental principle upon which you base your argument is material texts, none of which materially date earlier than the first century BCE, and were all written down at the same time, so you have nothing more and a series of conjectures you have formed which stands in contradiction to the traditionally asserted origin of the texts themselves.
If there is a flaw in my initial premises, then let it be pointed out. If there is an error in my deductions from said premises, then let my reasoning be refuted. But if neither the premises nor the deductions are flawed, then my argument ought to be accepted.
You have basically claimed that your argument stands solely on inference, what is "reasonable", but those reasonable inferences are also predicated on a series of judgments about Indian history that are themselves conjectures.
And since we are examining the validity of comparative and internal textual analysis, let's examine the validity of these traditional historical approaches. I have explained how comparative and internal textual analysis works and its methodology. What is the methodology of the historical approach you are using?
I accept the traditional accounts as they stand and operate from those sets of premises.
The Theravada tradition puts the Abhidhamma back to the time of the Buddha, but I think the Sarvastivadin tradition says it was composed by latter disciples, not the Buddha himself. If your approach is to simply follow a chronology passed down by tradition the issue becomes "Do we follow the Sarvastivadin account, the Theravada account, the Dharmaguptaka account, etc..."
[/quote]

The Abhidharma and the Abhidhamma Pitika cannot be equated. They are separate traditions coming from separate schools.

If you are a Theravadin, you follow the Theravadin account of the origin of Abhidhamma, if not then not. It is really quite straight forward and involves no conjecture at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You are making a fundamental error that most people grounded in TEXT make, i.e, assuming that we can analyze what were orally transmitted teachings that were organized before they were written down into bodies of knowledge as if they were TEXTS.

Bakmoon said:
First of all, just because something is transmitted orally doesn't mean that it is not a text. It's just an oral text rather than a written text. It's a strange use of terminology for most people, but especially in India which has a long tradition oral memorized transmission they work very much like written texts.

Can you back up your claim that orally transmitted texts cannot be analyzed? The principles of textual analysis are rather basic postulates such as "If two textual transmissions have material in common, it is most likely derived either from a common source" or "If text A is commenting on text B, then B is older and A is younger". Sure, they are used most often in written texts, but can you demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference between oral texts and written texts that renders this inapplicable? You have asserted this claim and done nothing to back it up.

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing my general point, there is really no effective way to layer date oral transmissions. We have an event in Buddhist history (as far as the Pali canon is concerned), i.e. it was committed to writing in the first century BCE. We can speculate many things about the written texts we find there, but it is all speculative conjecture. It is not "history".

Bakmoon said:
The underlined part doesn't make sense to me. It is true that the Vibhanga and its analogues is based on the Suttas taught by the Buddha combined with explanations and definitions, but that just means that the Vibhanga and its analogues is based on what the Buddha said. It doesn't mean that the Vibhanga and its analogues were spoken by the Buddha, much less the entire Abhidhamma pitika.

Malcolm wrote:
Your assumption is based on a materialist approach to text criticism. Other [i.e. traditional] historical approaches fully accept that Buddha taught the Vibhanga and so on in toto.


Bakmoon said:
That's an argument from silence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is clearly described in the canon that there are three pitikas, not merely two. But according to the modern approach, the third pitika does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Let me ask you, do you think Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha. If not, why?

Bakmoon said:
Do I believe that the Abhidhamma Pitika was spoken by the Buddha? No. The clearest reason for this lies in comparative analysis of the different early canons. There are large differences in content in the canonical Abhidharmic literature of the various early schools. If you look to the portions that actually do match up with one another you find that much of the material in the Vibhanga and its analogues is held in common between the different traditions, and that material is simply a collection of several of the more comprehensive suttas from the Nikayas and Agamas fleshed out with more stock passages, lists of synonyms, and definitions.

As you get further away from this common core material in Abhidharmic literature, the level of textual differences increase between the different versions in different canons. The common sense explanation for this is that the Vibhanga and its analogues are earlier than the other material in the Abhidhamma. And also, if the earliest material is simply a modification of already existing Suttas, it stands to reason that it was composed after these Suttas. From plain common sense, it seems that the Abhidarmic literature developed over time as a systematization and a refinement of earlier material, so no, I don't think it goes back to the Buddha himself.

Malcolm wrote:
You are making a fundamental error that most people grounded in TEXT make, i.e, assuming that we can analyze what were orally transmitted teachings that were organized before they were written down into bodies of knowledge as if they were TEXTS.

The second thing that is telling is that you reject the account of the origin of ABHIDHAMMA because its origin legend (i.e. Buddha taught to the devas and summarized it for Śaruputra) is not shared with Saravastivadins and so on, who have a very different Abhidharma tradition. This rejection is grounded on a tradition of materialist text criticism that originates with Barcuh Spinoza, more or less, which generally rejects all so called "supernatural" accounts.

Moreover, you contradict yourself here:  "if the earliest material is simply a modification of already existing Suttas" and "I don't think it goes back to the Buddha himself".

Even if Abhidhamma is a compendium of passages from sutta,an interpretive scheme, if you hold those suttas were taught by the Buddha, then Abhidhamma goes back to the Buddha. And further, there is no reason to imagine that Buddha did not himself indicate what sort of interpretive scheme should be applied since we have a clear tradition that Buddha taught three pitikas, not merely two.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I simply operate with a different understanding of history than what is accepted by people like daverupa, who basically default to a western materialist read of history.

Bakmoon said:
How is it materialism to use comparative and internal analysis to date texts? I think a lot of it is plain common sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Let me ask you, do you think Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha. If not, why?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Since both Daverupa and I accept historical methodology,

Malcolm wrote:
I also accept historical methodology, it just happens to be a different history and a different method.

Bakmoon said:
I'm sorry, I think I phrased that rather sloppily. I didn't mean to imply that you reject historical methodology. By historical methodology there I meant the use of comparative and internal textual analysis to date texts.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I simply operate with a different understanding of history than what is accepted by people like daverupa, who basically default to a western materialist read of history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Do you mean to say that according to Tantra, it is wrong to learn Sutra as the basis of one's understanding because it is complete? I always thought that in those schools which teach that Tantra has a distinct view that it is a modification and an expansion of the teachings of Sutra, not a simple rejection and replacement.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not wrong to learn sutra, but since each Vajrayāna system is complete within itself, a practitioner does not necessarily need to become expert in the MMK, Cittamatra, Abhidharma and so on.

Someone who plans to be a teacher on the other hand needs to learn all these things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Since both Daverupa and I accept historical methodology,

Malcolm wrote:
I also accept historical methodology, it just happens to be a different history and a different method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
How is it different from the Theravadins who pray the to four kings and so on for protection?

Berry said:
Do they ? Which prayer is that, then ?

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html



Berry said:
In fact, asking someone to protect you is not necessarily theistic.
Mmm, maybe not if one asks another human being for protection from an angry husband - but its theistic if you're asking an invisible deity.

Malcolm wrote:
Then even Theravada is theistic:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.32.0.piya.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
But Mahayana Buddhism treats the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas very differently than how a theist thinks about God

Berry said:
As far as I'm aware, there are Mahayana Buddhists who pray to deities, Buddha's & Bodhisattvas to protect them & look upon them favorably in times of difficulty. How is this different to the prayers of a theist ?

Malcolm wrote:
How is it different from the Theravadins who pray the to four kings and so on for protection?

In fact, asking someone to protect you is not necessarily theistic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 22nd, 2014 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Śravaka canon is not the standard by which Mahāyāna is to be judged, if anything, it is actually quite the opposite.  Those teachings in the Śravaka canon which are contradicted by the Buddha in Mahāyāna are to be set aside.

Bakmoon said:
That's only true for someone who has already accepted the validity of the Mahayana scriptures. For someone who has not yet accepted their validity and is still examining them such an argument is a bare assertion.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as is accepting Buddhadharma in general as valid compared with say the claims of Islam.


Bakmoon said:
Just because something is incomplete doesn't mean that it can't be used as a standard of teaching and interpretation. In Vajrayana the Sutra path in general is seen as being an incomplete system for the attainment of Buddhahood as well. What would the response be if someone came into a shedra and refused to study the Bodhicharyavatara or any of the other Sutra level Shastras claiming that it is wrong to take Sutric texts as the basis of understanding because Sutra is incomplete? I have the sense it wouldn't go over well.

Malcolm wrote:
They would tell you you are in the wrong place, not that your assertion is necessarily false. Shedras are for training teachers, they are not places where everyone must go. If you are a teacher, you must have a broad understanding. If you are a tantric practitioner you only need to understand the system you are practicing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 21st, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


daverupa said:
So, this is what I mean, Bakmoon. Do you see the difference?

Malcolm wrote:
Different history, different facts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 21st, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I already mentioned this in my first post, but I think it really is a good example so I'll use it again. I think that the Prajnaparamita Sutras and the Madhyamaka Shastras are very much in accordance with the early scriptures. They don't contradict any doctrines of the Nikayas/Agamas and they fit very nicely with the underlying worldview of the scriptures.

Malcolm wrote:
The Śravaka canon is not the standard by which Mahāyāna is to be judged, if anything, it is actually quite the opposite.  Those teachings in the Śravaka canon which are contradicted by the Buddha in Mahāyāna are to be set aside.

Otherwise, as Nāgārjuna notes in the Ratnavali, the Śravaka canon is incomplete and one cannot realize buddhahood through following its teachings since there is no presentation of the bodhisattva path, two-fold emptiness and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 21st, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Name of the practice associated with the Guhyagarbha Tan
Content:
Bakmoon said:
What is the name of the practice associated with the Guhyagarbha Tantra? For example, the Chakrasamvara Tantra is associated Chakrasamvara, the Hevajra Tantra is associated with Hevajra, so what is the practice that goes with the Guhyabarbha Tantra? I know that Zhitro is based on the same Mandala but I sort of have the impression that Zhitro is a body mandala rather than a self generation practice? Or does the Guyhagarbha Tantra not have a self generation deity yoga practice associated with it?


Malcolm wrote:
Zhitro.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 20th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Is Tibetan Buddhism world-denying?
Content:


Jikan said:
So, what do you think?  Fair assessment or no?

Malcolm wrote:
Utterly clueless when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 18th, 2014 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, as I said, I have followed a well-planned, nutritionally balanced vegetarian diet (for years), and it is not good for my health. I just happen to be one of those persons who need some amount of animal protein my diet.


gad rgyangs said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence- based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 18th, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if you eat meat as a regular part of your diet, it might be a good exercise to ask yourself why.

Malcolm wrote:
Because I become ill if I don't, having tried to to refrain from eating meat countless times, including eating a so called "balanced" vegetarian diet, I simple get ill. I am more susceptible to infections, colds, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 13th, 2014 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Dudjom Lineage Rigdzin Dupa: First English Translation
Content:
miranda said:
@ Pema Tsultrim

I am based in France, and would like to order a copy of the Dudjom RD , for which I received wang and lung from Tulku Teglo. I send several mail on your website with no answer. I suggest to add 20$ for the shipping charge (which is usually around 15$) please let me know if it is ok for you and I shall send the 40$ as donation on your website.

Waiting to read from you soon, PM or here...

Jean-Marc B

Tsultrim T. said:
Jean-Marc,
If you dont hear anything soon let me know and I might be able to arrange for a copy to be sent to you.

Malcolm wrote:
I also paid for a copy, but no copy was forthcoming...anyway, it is not a big deal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 12th, 2014 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:


boda said:
But I do know the role of the guru.

Malcolm wrote:
Well please explain it to us then, so we can see where you are coming from, shel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 12th, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Bodhisattva's remorse
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Any practice we engage in has to be premised on spontaneity, and not based in feelings/thoughts of hope and fear.

Malcolm wrote:
Any practice we do should be based on the motivation of attaining awakening for the benefit of others. Only Buddhas truly act spontaneously, we are not capable of that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
Motova said:
Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.


Malcolm wrote:
CTR is not responsible for Thomas Rich's actions.

Motova said:
He is responsible for putting a severely deranged person in a seat of authority who was capable of many gross actions. If you don't have any ability to stop this, then you shouldn't be put on a throne and be called a guru. If he was supposedly enlightened enough to frak, drink alcohol, and snort coke without any attachment then you'd think he'd be able to appoint a virtuous regent. Number two is where it all comes down to; it's the highlight of his dharma career. If Thomas Rich was his best student, then that says a lot about CTR's abilities and teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Dylan, it is a long complex story. What matters is this:
According to Diana Mukpo, wife and widow of Trungpa, he ultimately became disillusioned with Tendzin as his heir, and during his final illness he called Tendzin "terrible" and "dreadful", and indicated that he would have gotten rid of Tendzin had he a suitable candidate with which to replace him.[24] Rick Fields, the editor of Vajradhatu's publication the Vajradhatu Sun, wrote that he resigned from his editorial position after Ösel Tendzin and the Board of Directors stopped him from publishing news of the events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Ösel_Tendzin


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
Motova said:
Alcohol and sex is trumped by picking a successor who spread aids around the sangha and raped a person. Why would a realized person pick someone as number two who would do such things? Speaking as someone who is totally new to Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, after reading about number two I totally avoid any of Chogyam Trungpa's material because I have zero confidence in who he was.


Malcolm wrote:
CTR is not responsible for Thomas Rich's actions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
TRC said:
Well my response would remain the same regardless of who made the claims.


Malcolm wrote:
I think we already established the Vajrayāna is not your cup of tea.

TRC said:
What has that got to do with it?

Malcolm wrote:
Everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
You are not following Mr. Dangerous. Alcoholism is not necessarily a moral issue. It is classified as a disease.

The question is not about morality but consensus. Is there a consensus among Buddhist practitioners that a realized person may be an alcoholic? I will venture to guess that there is not. How about you?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a consensus among Vajrayāna practitioners that mere appearances, alcoholism included, may not bear any relation to a person's actual realization. We don't really care what other Buddhists might think. Given that this is the case, there is really no common basis for a discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
TRC said:
Well my response would remain the same regardless of who made the claims.


Malcolm wrote:
I think we already established the Vajrayāna is not your cup of tea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whether or not all his interactions with people were positive is hardly the point. He was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.

TRC said:
Well I happen to think he can. And in fact I'm going to set a higher standard of judgment if he claimed to be realised.

Malcolm wrote:
He, as far as I know, never made any such claim at all. But other high Lamas such as Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse, and so on have made such claims on his behalf.

Then of course there is Drugpa Kunley, Do Khyentse, etc., many Tibetan masters that would hardly externally match your standards of moral conduct for that matter Virupa, Tilopa, Padmasambhava and so on also wouldn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The perhaps the dissonance belongs to you, and not to them. Have you bothered to consider this?

TRC said:
I have no dissonance about Trungpa, that's the point. I don't need to reconcile the paradoxes that exist which others seem to need to. He gave some profoundly deep teachings, which had good results in certain circumstances. His addictions and proclivities led to less than good results in other circumstances. I can accept both dimensions without having to shoehorn it all into being a skilful teaching method, and that all his outcomes were positive - as they clearly weren't. It's others that need to do that.

Malcolm wrote:
Whether or not all his interactions with people were positive is hardly the point. He was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:29 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
A requisite of giving up is having first tried.

Malcolm wrote:
What you seem to be looking for is a quote by CTR along the lines of "I use womanizing and drinking as Dharma methods..."

Of course, you will not find such a quote. But you can certainly find many statements by him which indicate that like his teacher, Khenpo Gangshar, he was interested in pushing his students beyond their limitations. For example, we know that Khenpo Gangshar actively encouraged monks and nuns to leave retreat, have sex, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
then why did he never say so himself?

Malcolm wrote:
He did say so himself, many times, just read any of his discourses on the role of the guru.

boda said:
Trust on this level means one cannot maintain one’s ego. One cannot maintain one’s basic existence as “myself.” This self has become completely dedicated, it has completely opened up in surrendering to the world created by the guru. The world that the guru creates is not particularly a pleasant one. It might be very unpleasant, horrific. It might also be beautiful at the same time. The reason the world created by the guru tends to be an irritating one is that the guru goes beyond the role of spiritual friend at this point and begins to act as a dictator. He minds your business completely; he minds every inch of your life. Your guru has the ability to do such a thing, because he knows every inch of your life, of your state of consciousness. He knows the tiniest fragments of your subconscious gossip, he knows all the little freckles in your mental functions. The guru has a complete understanding of all this. Therefore you are highly exposed, fully exposed. For this reason, the tantric tradition is considered very dangerous. The traditional format is that you can either make love to your guru as a divine being or kill him. The analogy is that of a snake in a bamboo tube. When you put a snake in a bamboo tube, the snake has to face either up or down. Relating with the guru is very powerful, too powerful. It is too much having somebody mind your business in that fashion. From that point of view, it is extremely

Malcolm wrote:
Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 930-940). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

boda said:
Maybe I need reading glasses but I don't see where it says he used his drinking or womanizing as a teaching method.

Malcolm wrote:
I give up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
People do a lot of things for reasons other than teaching, and with no methodology whatsoever.

TRC said:
Yes this is the point that people get confused about. Because they can’t reconcile the paradox of Trungpa’s more profound teachings with his obvious fallibility and (self-) destructive behaviour, they prefer to characterise this behaviour as a skilful and premeditated teaching method, to help ameliorate their dissonance.

Malcolm wrote:
The perhaps the dissonance belongs to you, and not to them. Have you bothered to consider this?


TRC said:
Obviously Trungpa was suffering. His alcohol addiction was an overt manifestation of craving/clinging, which is of course the immediate cause of suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
He would never have denied that he was an ordinary, suffering person:
The guru is immediate. For one thing, he is a human being like yourself. He has to eat food and wear clothes like you do, so it’s a direct relationship. And the fact that the guru has basic human survival needs makes the situation more threatening. Do you see what I mean? It is more threatening because you can’t dismiss the guru as being outside of our thing, someone who can survive without our human trips. The guru does thrive on human trips. If we need food, the guru also needs food. If we need a love affair, the guru also needs a love affair. A guru is an ordinary human being, but still powerful. We begin to feel personally undetermined, because the guru minds our trips too closely and too hard.
Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 3136-3140). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
then why did he never say so himself?

Malcolm wrote:
He did say so himself, many times, just read any of his discourses on the role of the guru.

boda said:
Trust on this level means one cannot maintain one’s ego. One cannot maintain one’s basic existence as “myself.” This self has become completely dedicated, it has completely opened up in surrendering to the world created by the guru. The world that the guru creates is not particularly a pleasant one. It might be very unpleasant, horrific. It might also be beautiful at the same time. The reason the world created by the guru tends to be an irritating one is that the guru goes beyond the role of spiritual friend at this point and begins to act as a dictator. He minds your business completely; he minds every inch of your life. Your guru has the ability to do such a thing, because he knows every inch of your life, of your state of consciousness. He knows the tiniest fragments of your subconscious gossip, he knows all the little freckles in your mental functions. The guru has a complete understanding of all this. Therefore you are highly exposed, fully exposed. For this reason, the tantric tradition is considered very dangerous. The traditional format is that you can either make love to your guru as a divine being or kill him. The analogy is that of a snake in a bamboo tube. When you put a snake in a bamboo tube, the snake has to face either up or down. Relating with the guru is very powerful, too powerful. It is too much having somebody mind your business in that fashion. From that point of view, it is extremely

Malcolm wrote:
Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 930-940). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
You're answering a different question, Malcolm, which is your prerogative.

I asked how you knew that it was a "teaching method." If you know what a teaching method is, and you know that Chogyam Trungpa used alcoholism and womanizing as a teaching method, explain how you know this. Or you can answer a different question if that's easier for you.


Malcolm wrote:
I explained this to you — I know many, many of his direct students. He would often times use sexual situations as a teaching method, as well as alcohol. He even used LSD etc.

Trungpa used any method he could to reach people who were hard to reach. He also used these to create situations so that people could go beyond their limitations, which after all is the job of a real teacher of Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

For example, sometimes he would randomly have his driver pull into a stranger's driveway, and have the student get out and knock on the door, he did many things like this all the time. He would burst into people's rooms in the middle of the night at his seminaries, and if you were sleeping alone, without a partner, he would demand to know why and then fix you up with someone.

In any case, it hardly matters now what he did. He has passed on, and a teacher like him will not be seen again for a long while.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The quality of a tree should be known by its fruit, not buy the appearance of its bark.

TRC said:
Perhaps the quality of a tree should be known by all its characteristics, not just the ones we have a preference for.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know about you, but when I eat fruit, I don't care much about the appearance of the tree as long as the fruit tastes good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:


boda said:
What do you mean in saying that Trungpa "uses the methods he does"? Are you suggesting that his drinking and womanizing was a method in his teaching?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, most definitely.

boda said:
How do you know? Please explain yourself, if, you can.

Malcolm wrote:
I know because I know many of his students. For them, his womanizing and drinking helped them go beyond the limitations of spiritual materialism and concretely understand the meaning of Dharma. His students are some of the best Dharma practitioners there are in Tibetan Buddhism. A great many of them have a concrete understanding of Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

The quality of a tree should be known by its fruit, not buy the appearance of its bark.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:


boda said:
What do you mean in saying that Trungpa "uses the methods he does"? Are you suggesting that his drinking and womanizing was a method in his teaching?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, most definitely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)
Content:
boda said:
In my experience there is not even a consensus on what "the Buddhist Dharma produces,"


Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is such a consensus — Buddhadharma, practiced properly, leads to the reduction and elimination of afflictions which cause birth in samsara, i.e. freedom.

In Mahāyāna, one can also traverse the path to omniscience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Jikan said:
Further, we should avoid rejoicing in the works and accomplishments of those who make their business on the ten nonvirtues

Malcolm wrote:
I guess we start with Hollywood then...

Sherab Dorje said:
Or ourselves.

Malcolm wrote:
Is there an echo in here...?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Jikan said:
Further, we should avoid rejoicing in the works and accomplishments of those who make their business on the ten nonvirtues

Malcolm wrote:
I guess we start with Hollywood then...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In order for the world to be a pure land, we do not have do anything except realize it as such. But there is no way to create an outer material utopia.

Sherab Dorje said:
I do not think that ending starvation and malnutrition is utopian in the slightest.  We have ample resources to do so.  Utopian would be to believe that every single person on this globe can live an American middle class lifestyle.  This is just not going to happen.  Anyway, I did not talk about a utopian situation, I specifically stated "somewhat better".  Ending starvation and malnutrition (something that is 100% possible) will make the world "somewhat better". If you really want to create such a place, then you have to convince every person to strictly avoid the ten nonvirtues. Since you cannot force others to avoid the ten nonvirtues, all you can do is start with yourself.
You won't see me disagreeing.

Malcolm wrote:
Greg, there are a number of obstacles to this happening: 7 billion in fact.

There is no way to effect such an outcome without establishing a command economy, and we know where that leads:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
We make this world, not God, not chance, not fate.  We make it, through our actions.  We can make it somewhat better, we can make it somewhat worse or we can transform it into a Pure Land.  It is 100% up to us.

Malcolm wrote:
In order for the world to be a pure land, we do not have do anything except realize it as such. But there is no way to create an outer material utopia.

If you really want to create such a place, then you have to convince every person to strictly avoid the ten nonvirtues. Since you cannot force others to avoid the ten nonvirtues, all you can do is start with yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: time for a long sleep.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Don't waste this precious human birth now that you met the Dharma.

Jesse said:
Often times it doesn't feel very precious, more like a curse, after a curse after a curse.. That's how depression is though.


Malcolm wrote:
It is the most precious possession you have, not easily gained, and easily lost. Use it well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: time for a long sleep.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Don't waste this precious human birth now that you met the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya schools & Precept Schools
Content:
Christopherxx said:
Thanks Malcolm

I know you are really knowledgeable about dzogchen and probably the other traditions within vajrayana.

Do these vehicles/traditions ordain under the vinaya of their regions or do they have precepts or vows or?
*You mentioned two systems of commitments*
*I am guessing the two sets of bodhisattva vows are the brahma net sutra and the asange set?*

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Bhramajala sutra system is largely the as Asanga's and it does not exist in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya schools & Precept Schools
Content:


Christopherxx said:
From what I have been able to gather the Tibetan monks ordain under and follow a version of the vinaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Mulasarvastivada vinaya.

Christopherxx said:
Chinese monks (Although I am not sure which schools) ordain under and follow the vinaya.  If someone could fill us in on which Chinese schools that would be cool.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmaguptaka.

There are two traditions of bodhisattva vows followed in Tibet, Madhyamaka and Yogacara.

There are also two general systems of tantric commitments as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
To tell you the truth, personal preferences are based on habit, which is based on karma anyway, which ultimately arises from ignorance, so...

Malcolm wrote:
Only negative karma arises from ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


daverupa said:
I must have been confused.

Malcolm wrote:
People who follow Wiki to the exclusion of other sources usually are.


daverupa said:
So actually, I accept your term "historical", but the scare quotes must be included.

Malcolm wrote:
Padmasambhava was a historical person.

His name appears in the colophon of many texts in the collection of ancient tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Indrajala said:
There's more to life than religious pursuits.

Malcolm wrote:
Now that you are no longer a bhikṣu, indeed. But for a bhikṣu, there is nothing beyond religious pursuits.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


daverupa said:
The historical Buddha is a communal fact (else e.g. the Etruscans are apparently just a hypothesis, since all ancient history is just speculation, at that point). It is the historical guy.

Malcolm wrote:
So is Guru Rinpoche (a communal fact), just not in your community. He is also a "historical" guy, a Buddha, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Mkoll said:
Kamma is intentional action ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html#part-5: "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."). You could have chosen to follow Zen or Chan Buddhism. You could have waited until you found a Theravada or Nyingma teacher. You could have even chosen to not find a Buddhist sect at all. But you didn't. You made a series of choices and acted (intentional actions) on them and that led to you following Kagyu.

What you've written so far here gives me the impression of being overly deterministic.

Malcolm wrote:
He means karma-vipāka, and it is not overly deterministic — if he had the karma to follow Theravada, etc., he would have met them first, etc. It's about connections, tendrel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
Wayne Verrill said:
I apologize for the long delay in responding to the last post under this topic, but the matter has just come to my attention.  The actual title of Sonam Tsemo's book appears on Volume 3, page 146, line 3 in the Sa-skya bKa'-'bum edition and on Volume 1, page 574, line 3 of the Lam-'bras Tshogs-bshad edition.  The translation of this section is in the Epilogue on page 531.  The actual Tibetan term is rnal-'byor mig, which literally translates as Yoga Eye.  The fact that this is the title is confirmed by many commentators who refer to the root text by this name.  Since Yoga Eye is a bit awkward in English, I took the liberty of changing it to Yogini's Eye, justified on the basis of the Hevajra Tantra being identified as a Yogini Tantra (see pages 290-297 in the translation).  This issue was actually referred to on page 5 of the Translator's Introduction.     .

Malcolm wrote:
It's "eye of yoga" as the Tibetan bears out, and it is not the common title of the text, rgyud sde spyi rnam is the common title. The full title of course is rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa bzhugs so.

The line in question says "rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa rnal 'byor mig", i.e. " The General Presentation of the Divisions of Tantra is the eye of yoga...", etc.

So I have to disagree with your contention that "Eye of Yoga" is the title in that line, rather, it is a descriptive of what the text is supposed to do, i.e. provide an eye on yoga.

Further, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen refers to this text simply by the name rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa in the the rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa dang rgyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa'i stong thun sa bcad.

The Hevajra Tantra is not merely an Yogini Tantra, it is also a yogatantra, for this reason Loppon Rinpoche explains that Hevajra is non-dual tantra based on this passage from Vajrapañjara:
The Hevajra yogatantra
was explained by the Victor first.
Later the yoginītantra
similarly is for the conversion of women.
Loppon Rinpoche adds:
True, it may be called “ḍākinītantra”. That does not contradict a nondual method and discriminating wisdom tantra because discriminating wisdom tantra is necessary in nondual tantra.
When Lowo Khenchen [rgyud sde spyi rnam gsal byed sogs, pg. 18], defines the reason for the name rgyud sde spyi'i rnam par gzhag pa, he states, " Loppon Sonam Tsemo's composition has four synonyms: 1) The tantra division 2) the general presentation 3) an introduction to all tantras 4) the eye of yoga."

However, that does not justify "the yogini's eye" as a title. In fact, the formal title given in the colophon is actually, The General Presentation of the Tantra Divisions, an Introduction to all
Tantras.

If you were to retitle the book, The Eye of Yoga would be a better choice, in my opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Academics don't take practicing Buddhists seriously, especially Tibetan Buddhists.

dharmagoat said:
Understandable really. Devotion and objectivity are poles apart.


Malcolm wrote:
The real problem is that non-pracitcing academics do not really understand the meaning of Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Which is why I ( a non-academic) asked daverupa this question back on page 2......is valid and interesting, especially for those that emphasise the practice of Dharma, rather than its scholastic study. I would be interested in knowing how you reconcile the two poles of scholarship and practice, when they come to the point of conflicting.
...and never got an answer.  Anybody else supporting an academic standpoint can also feel free to answer.

Malcolm wrote:
Academics don't take practicing Buddhists seriously, especially Tibetan Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Sorry, I couldn't remember if it was your translation or not.


Malcolm wrote:
It's good to keep track of these things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Rongzompa:

Now then, in the sravaka system, phenomena do not have the nature of a self. Since is also asserted there is no identity existing in any phenomena, all phenomena are established to be empty and without self, but nevertheless since [all phenomena] are asserted as the nature of subject and object, the category “natureless” is not understood.

Since in the yogacāra system the nature of subject and object are not asserted, the natureless is established; at that time there is no difference between naturelessness and emptiness and selflesness. Nevetheless, since they assert the dependent, arising from cause and conditions, the category of “established as non-arising” is not understood.

Since in the madhyamaka system the ultimate is understood as free from proliferation, non-arising is established. At that time there is no difference between non-arising, naturelessness, [67/b] emptiness and selflessness. Nevertheless, since they assert a true relative truth, the category of “established as homogenous” is not understood.

Since in the system of secret mantra asserts the two truths to be inseparable, homogeneity is established. At that time there is no difference between homogeneity, non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Nevertheless, due to anxiety about not being able to practice uniform behavior and not being able to remove that anxiety quickly, for that purpose they undertake ascetic hardships. Therefore, the category “all phenomena are established to be non-dual” is not understood.

Because the system of dzogchen understands four things for all phenomena— understanding what is to be abandoned; understanding what is to be taken up; understanding what can be left in equanimity; and understanding what can never be actualized, it establishes all phenomena as non-dual. At that time there is no difference between non-duality, homogeneity, [68/a] non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Since that is so, because this establishment of all phenomena as non-dual is the heart of all intimate instructions, therefore, [dzogchen] is “the heart of all intimate instructions”

Malcolm wrote:
When you cite my translations, you should credit me with them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Greg said:
I'd be interested to hear what people think about the idea that a general survey of "Indian Buddhist Philosophy" can dispense with vajrayāna thought completely.

Malcolm wrote:
A bad one.

Greg said:
What would you include, at a minimum?

Malcolm wrote:
All kinds of things, Vajrayāna treatment of embodiment, the impact of the Indian medical tradition on meditation and yoga practices, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Tantric and late Indian Buddhist philosophy
Content:
Greg said:
I'd be interested to hear what people think about the idea that a general survey of "Indian Buddhist Philosophy" can dispense with vajrayāna thought completely.

Malcolm wrote:
A bad one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And I could care less about rightist interpretations of Buddhist social structures.

Malcolm wrote:
The relationship of the monastic Sangha is not the same as the political relationship between a ruler and the people.

Sherab Dorje said:
Yes Malcolm, you're right!

Malcolm wrote:
The point being that the notions of power in political analysis do not actually apply the relationship of the monastic Sangha and the laity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 9th, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And I could care less about rightist interpretations of Buddhist social structures.

Malcolm wrote:
The relationship of the monastic Sangha is not the same as the political relationship between a ruler and the people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Lay people are "subordinate" because their highest merit depends on their support of the Sangha without whom they do not enjoy the same chance for higher rebirth and so on.

Buddha makes it very, very clear, that the ideal is to become ordained and that lay people are inferior.

Sherab Dorje said:
You completely missed my point.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually I did not. I chose not to address it because I could care less about leftist interpretations of Buddhist social structures.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And, it also depends on on the laity having a subordinate and supporting position since the Sangha is not self-supporting and never was.

Sherab Dorje said:
Subordinate?  Are you sure about that?  It seems to me that when you are dependent on somebody for your survival, then they are not subordinate to you, quite the opposite actually.  They have power over you.

Malcolm wrote:
Lay people are "subordinate" because their highest merit depends on their support of the Sangha without whom they do not enjoy the same chance for higher rebirth and so on.

Buddha makes it very, very clear, that the ideal is to become ordained and that lay people are inferior.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
kirtu said:
It was quite successful in the Western world for some 1700 or so years...

Malcolm wrote:
It never went over so well in the US, the Calvinist roots of American culture had little use for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Actually , I just remembered that Buddhism proposes the most radical form of social and economic levelling:  the monastic sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
It is actually a meritocracy: your place and authority are determined by your years in. And, it also depends on on the laity having a subordinate and supporting position since the Sangha is not self-supporting and never was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Of course it is.  Somehow I find it difficult to believe that a world full of Buddhas would have social inequality.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you see a world full of Buddhas? It is easy to make an aspiration, far more difficult to carry it out effectively.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Zhen Li said:
...there's no levelling impulse in it naturally outside of the equality of everyone in Buddha Nature.

Sherab Dorje said:
Gee, is that all?  I have to disagree though, there are countless examples of oaths taken by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to place everybody on the same level of enlightenment.  It doesn't get more "leveling" than that.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but that is not a "social" leveling.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
So your view is that there is no way to parse stratification? It seems, despite academic opinion in general, that academic work nevertheless is making inroads here.

Indrajala said:
In this case are we talking about actual early Buddhism or how the early sangha was portrayed and understood by well-developed Buddhist sects centuries after the Buddha's death?


Malcolm wrote:
He feels that we can analyze the Pali Canon/Agamas and ferret out an accurate representation of early Buddhist life. So do you actually, which is why you spend so much time railing against contracts and saunas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
In all these arguments people continually forget about the influence of current karma in order to justify the status quo (ie samsara).  karmic outcomes are not fixed, they can be changed, otherwise our view of karma does not differ from the largely fatalistic "Hindu" view.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what kind of outcome, i.e., ripened results we are talking about. For example, we cannot fix the outcomes of some dominant results, i.e., being born in a place frequently afflicted by famine. We cannot alter our lifespan, we have limited control over our health (we all age, sicken and die). If we are born with defective sense organs, there is nothing we can do about this. If we are born as an animal, hell being or a preta, there is nothing to be done about it until we have exhausted that karma.

If one is a born as a deva or an asura, there is little motive to practice virtue.

If you are a human being, you can do something about the circumstances of your life, up to a point.

But most humans , ignorant of the force of karma, just continue to spiral into lower realms. So, it may not be the case that karmic outcomes are "fixed", but they might as well be considering the very little that people do to change such results by practicing virtue in this lifetime.

BTW, even hearing the name Bhaisajyaguru Buddha comes about as a result of past karma...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Inequality comes from one's karma, and that's the end of it.

Sherab Dorje said:
And it is sustained by karma, and that's the end of that.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, one's own and no one else's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Inequality
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Inequality comes from one's karma, and that's the end of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And then there are people like Witzel who are better scholars.

Indrajala said:
The relations between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley Civilization are difficult to ascertain and clarify.

One good book in part addressing the subject is The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley.

Malcolm wrote:
We can understand that they engaged in a great deal of trade, like all ancient peoples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Indrajala said:
Malati J. Shendge,...

Malcolm wrote:
...has very little mainstream academic support for her theories.

Indrajala said:
Indian academia is a rough place.

Malcolm wrote:
And then there are people like Witzel who are better scholars.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Indrajala said:
Malati J. Shendge,...

Malcolm wrote:
...has very little mainstream academic support for her theories.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
According to Schopen, there is no evidence, so your statement is rather meaningless.

Indrajala said:
To clarify, the earliest evidence for monasteries we have is late.  Schopen:
The earliest “monasteries” that are known in India – and none of these are pre-Aśokan – are not “monasteries” at all. They are either only barely improved, unorganized, natural caverns or caves, or poorly constructed and ill-organized shelters built of rubble and other cheap materials. Communities living in these environments could not have produced our elaborate vinayas, nor would they have had any use for them. Since such communities had no steam rooms (jentāka), for example, how could they possibly have generated elaborate rules governing their construction and use?
Gregory Schopen, “The Good Monk and His Money in Monasticism of 'the Mahāyāna Period'” in Indian Monastic Buddhism Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaelogical Evidence (New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited), 1-2.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this is entirely speculative. For example, the Vinaya-kṣudraka-vastu clarifies that jentākas [bsro khang] are to be built by lay people for monks. Jentākas are not hard to construct. They are round. They are built by lay people. They do not need to be permanent structures. They are part of Indian health culture. They are mentioned in Ayurvedic texts such as the Caraka Samhita, the Jivasūtra, and so on. So I put it to you that when he claims the early Sangha had no access to jentākas he is full of it, and is ignoring the evidence in front of his face. A stream bath does not have to be built of marble to be effective.



Indrajala said:
Look, when it is reported in Vinaya that monks can use leather shoes if they travel to the Himalayan regions, we do not need to have a sample of carbon-dated leather shoes found in Magadha or somewhere else to understand that some monks wore leather sandals even during the time of the Buddha.
That's not what scholars are really looking for. They're wondering about the monastic steam rooms and legal financial contracts as outlined in Vinaya literature when there is no evidence monks, in the Buddha's time at least, had such bathing facilities or the Magadha economy was mature and literate enough to merit the use of ecclesiastical financial contracts.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course monks has access to bathing facilities. They bathed, just like other human beings. Honestly, this kind of thing really lacks common sense.

I have already voiced by objection to the specious notion that there was no literacy in India during the time of the Buddha.


Indrajala said:
There are some very serious self-imposed limitations when one decides that archaeology is what we are going to base our understanding of the life and time of the Buddha.
As I'm sure you understand, the concern is really that the literature as we have it seems to reflect a post-Buddha time period, especially with respect to financial transactions, literacy, complex monastic facilities (steam rooms, etc.) and so forth. We might speculate that some of it really goes back to the Buddha's time, but who knows.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Given that we do not really have much archaeological evidence at all from the post-Harrappan, pre-stone working era of Indian civilization [roughly 1500 BCE to around 250 BCE, it is little facile to claim what primitive Viharas were like and what facilities were provided by their lay hosts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But Schopen's perspective is really nonsensical since there is plenty of evidence in Sutra as well as Vinaya to paint a portrait of what life was like during the time of the Buddha. There simply is no good and valid reason to discount it.

Indrajala said:
It doesn't necessarily correspond well with archaeological evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
According to Schopen, there is no evidence, so your statement is rather meaningless.

Look, when it is reported in Vinaya that monks can use leather shoes if they travel to the Himalayan regions, we do not need to have a sample of carbon-dated leather shoes found in Magadha or somewhere else to understand that some monks wore leather sandals even during the time of the Buddha.

Deciding that every detail of what is in Vinaya and Sutra must be corroborated with some plastic artifact is absurd, really absurd.

There are some very serious self-imposed limitations when one decides that archaeology is what we are going to base our understanding of the life and time of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


Indrajala said:
He complains that the consensus is, as Schopen has argued, that we cannot know anything with certainly about early Buddhism given the sheer lack of evidence

Malcolm wrote:
But Schopen's perspective is really nonsensical since there is plenty of evidence in Sutra as well as Vinaya to paint a portrait of what life was like during the time of the Buddha. There simply is no good and valid reason to discount it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One cannot do that without some serious conjectural speculation.

Indrajala said:
The chronology of Buddhism is largely established based on historical and literary evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
And very little of that conflicts with traditional accounts of the chronology of Buddhadharma, until we come to guys like Schopen, etc.


Indrajala said:
Sometimes it is pretty straightforward to make time frames given purported prophetic references to historical figures, such as Kaniṣka (c.78-144) of the Kuṣāṇa dynasty in northern India.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, sometimes it is.

Indrajala said:
The early history of Buddhism is problematic of course.

Malcolm wrote:
That is the subject at hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
plwk said:
Basically, we have no accurate records of the historical Buddha.
Not even from the Jains' and Brahmins' sides huh...

Indrajala said:
We need to first establish the textual chronology.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot do that without some serious conjectural speculation.

Even more to the point, one cannot date the accuracy of information merely based on when it seems to appear in some written form. Allow me to give you an example — the first collection of Appalachian old world ballads compiled in the 1920's. It turns out that the orally transmitted Appalachian versions of many ballads are in fact earlier than the versions of the same ballads as recorded by Sir Walter Scott, published in 1803. For example, Barbara Allen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
plwk said:
Basically, we have no accurate records of the historical Buddha.
Not even from the Jains' and Brahmins' sides huh...

Malcolm wrote:
It's pure academic nihilism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And hence for modern scholars, there is no historical Buddha, not even Shakyamuni, which is why some folks (J. Atwood, for example) seriously propose his non-existence.

Indrajala said:
We can assume he existed, but say nothing beyond that given the lack of evidence from that period. Once you understand the evidence-based chronology of Buddhism, you see the earliest possible reference to Buddhism in history is Aśoka's (r. 268–232 BCE) edicts, and even this is contested by some.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks Jeff, I have understood the "evidence" based approaches to Buddhist history for many years. I understand all the arguments and so on.

I think that the methodology of the Schopens and Bronkhorsts of the world is inadequate, and because they are not practitioners, of little value to those practicing Buddadharma. It is precisely this "contested by some" that reinforces my conviction that Buddhology just a collection of conflicting opinions. Of some idle interest occasionally, but not worth talking seriously — a means of distraction for professors who earn a living from teaching survey courses on religion to undergrads.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Heart Sutra -- why study it?
Content:
longjie said:
Pratyekabuddhas do not seem to have their own turning in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra. According to the relevant sutra passage, the first turning is for the sravakas, the second turning is for the bodhisattvas, and the third turning is for all vehicles.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, which is why it is surprising that Asanga makes the equation that he does, which was my point — the paltry sources in the Indian canon that do treat the subject of the three turnings do not do so with anything approaching doctrinal consistency. It therefore really too much to claim that the idea of the three turnings of the wheel really was an important doctrine in the Indian Mahāyāna scene since there are fewer references to it than there is to the idea of tathāgatagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Indrajala said:
Basically, we have no accurate records of the historical Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
And hence for modern scholars, there is no historical Buddha, not even Shakyamuni, which is why some folks (J. Atwood, for example) seriously propose his non-existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
I'm not going to provide a bulwark to the whole field of history and textual criticism in the face of fundamentalist incredulity, Malcolm.

I know historical facts are threatening to the whole endeavor of Mahayana/Vajrayana simply because they demonstrate the lack of historicity vis-a-vis the historical Buddha, but while the M-V-Dharma experiences this threat, and Traditional Theravadan Commentary does as well, the Dhamma remains unmolested.

In any event, your "all or nothing" strawman is fallacious, as I already mentioned. Parsing stratification is not as simplistic or random as you want to portray it.

Malcolm wrote:
Your historical "facts" are merely a bunch of suppositions supported on nothing.

Texts are not like sedimentary layers of rock, though many imagine that is how it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that we cannot deduce from some inferred sedimentation that DN 14, for example, is a spurious sutra and that therefore, the six past buddhas to which it refers are not historical.

daverupa said:
We sure can.

Malcolm wrote:
You can speculate all you like, but speculations are not facts. The fact is that we have a text, and a wide tradition that holds that the Buddha taught on the existence of six prior Buddhas. We can consider these earlier Buddhas historical in just the same we we consider the Buddha historical.

Otherwise, the consequence is that we cannot trust any of the information in the sutras at all, or worse, we must place ourselves in the hands of modern self-appointed "experts" upon whose speculations it will be decided for us what sutras are to be considered valid and what are to be considered spurious.

It is exactly this kind of "scholarship" which is basically harmful to Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
Make a thread about DN 14; we can discuss it's use of the term 'bodhisatta' and how this use seems to have additional layers of meaning that are missing from the term elsewhere in the Canon.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all completely speculative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So if I understand what you are saying, we are to understand DN 14 as a later interpolation that does not represent the voice of the Buddha in any way shape or form, that this sutta is entirely a fabrication?

daverupa said:
The earliest texts are stratified, and reflect ~150+ years of permutation; the "all-or-nothing" approach is of course untenable, but that's a strawman built on a false dichotomy.


Malcolm wrote:
That begs the question, a text is one thing, information another. What I am saying is that we cannot deduce from some inferred sedimentation that DN 14, for example, is a spurious sutra and that therefore, the six past buddhas to which it refers are not historical. Either the Buddha taught on the existence of six past Buddhas (and many more actually, such as Dipamkara) or he did not. If he did not, the sutra and all reference to six past Buddhas must be regarded as interpolations as you have already suggested. But the fact is that you cannot give a rational account for the sophisticated and exhaustive presentation of the six past buddhas apart from your rather tepid suggestion that some author or authors within 150 years of the Buddha entirely fabricated the six past buddhas based on a misunderstanding of their own language and cultural references. Seems rather far fetched to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Heart Sutra -- why study it?
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
In the 3th turning teachings, the Buddha taught about a no-conditioned self...

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually he didn't. For example, in the Y ogācārabhūmi viniścayasaṁgrahanī, Āryāsanga considers that the three vehicles being discussed by the three turnings are really śravakayāna, pratyekabuddhayāna and the mahāyāna, he then quotes the relevant section of the Samdhinirmocana that is the sole mention of a three turnings of the wheel in all the sūtras of the bka' 'gyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
The problem is that traditional accounts show historical development, including the Buddhavamsa, including even the Nikayas & Agamas. Your suggested approach seems to require that this be ignored altogether, with blinders and earplugs if necessary.

Malcolm wrote:
It's not a problem at all. Further, attempts at forming a chronology for this or that text are completely speculative.

We only know this as a historical fact: some three hundreds years after the Buddha's parinirvana, his teachings were written down. This included both Mahāyāna and Hinayāna scriptures.

The reason they were written down, according to all traditional accounts, is that there was some fear that future generations would be unable to maintain them as oral transmissions and so they were committed to text.

It's entirely natural for narratives to be edited and otherwise subjected to some kind of organization, but that organizational activity tells us almost nothing about the contents of the information being organized or how old it might be.

When it comes to such things as the four or seven Buddhas prior to Śakyamuni, while it is true in the MN of Ñaṇamoli/Bodhi, isisattamassa is read as "best of seers" at M i.386, it cannot be denied that DN 14 presents a coherent account of the seven past Buddhas. So if I understand what you are saying, we are to understand DN 14 as a later interpolation that does not represent the voice of the Buddha in any way shape or form, that this sutta is entirely a fabrication?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
The point is whether historical methods render any accurate information, because it is on this basis that the phrase 'historical Buddha' has meaning in the first place - the OP, here, and thus directly to the point.

Now, I consider that historical methods do render accurate information. You seem to think otherwise, calling it a flawed materialist enterprise. So, it seems you must - to avoid hypocrisy - conclude that historical methods in general are flawed, their conclusions are thereby flawed, and therefore that e.g.  history is a mere materialist hypothesis.

Malcolm wrote:
I think that there is a certain approach to history which is rooted in such materialism, and I think modern Buddhology more or less has fallen into that ideological perspective, pretending, as it does, that it will present us with a more objective account of Buddhadharma than has already been presented in traditional accounts like the Buddhavasmsa, for example.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:


daverupa said:
None?

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, no.

Mediterranean history is not really relevant to our aborted discussion, AFIC, that is why I did not respond to Lazy Eye's query.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
One can easily see the "seventh sage" references in the early materials as being an Indian colloquialism for 'the best'...

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, this is one of the most far-fetched theories I have yet seen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 7th, 2014 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Historical Buddha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you don't consider Vipassi, Sikhin, Kanakamuni, etc. to be "historical buddhas"?

daverupa said:
Nope.


Malcolm wrote:
Then we really have no common basis for a discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Title: Historical Buddha
Content:
daverupa said:
Malcolm wrote: daverupa wrote:
The historical Buddha
Which one?
There's only the one, Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you don't consider Vipassi, Sikhin, Kanakamuni, etc. to be "historical buddhas"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Purpose of Monkhood/Nunhood and the Monastic Sangha
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
This is the perfect time for a master like HH to establish as Samye in America.

Malcolm wrote:
I think Tarthang Tulku has already done that:

http://www.odiyan.org " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In actuality, someone becomes interested in Dharma, decides academia is the best place to learn about it, and over the course of time, as their expertise in and appreciation for the opinions of other Buddhologists increases, their faith in Dharma decreases.

dzogchungpa said:
What, in every case? I'd have to see some actual evidence before I accept that that is in fact typical.

Malcolm wrote:
I said it was a common pattern, I did not say it was universal — though it is more likely to be found among those who originally were interested in Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna.

Add this to the fact that Buddhology these days is dominated by people like Gombrich, Schöpen, Bronkhorst and so on with no practical interest in the subject at all...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
He denies that he cares about personal transformation and awakening, or that personal transformation and awakening are possible? I haven't seen that, but I haven't read everything he's written. From what I have seen, he seems sincere in his Buddhist aspirations.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many ex-Buddhist Buddhologists, Tibetologists and so on — it is a common pattern. In actuality, someone becomes interested in Dharma, decides academia is the best place to learn about it, and over the course of time, as their expertise in and appreciation for the opinions of other Buddhologists increases, their faith in Dharma decreases.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Mkoll said:
And unfortunately, here, many of those translations are marred by the imperfect understanding of the scholars who produce them.
That can be true. However, perhaps what you call "imperfect" may often have less to do with the technical skill of the translator and more to do with their colored interpretation. The only way around it is to learn the source language for oneself. Nonetheless, it is still useful to have other translations and perspectives for comparison.

Malcolm wrote:
Imperfect includes both lack of skill in the source language as well as "interpretation".

In the world of Tibetan studies, I am often amazed as the slipshod work for which people receive PhDs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Indrajala said:
The very fabric of the Vinaya, for example, is stained with the eight worldly dharmas: an obsessive preoccupation with presenting a pure image to the laity so as to secure material and social resources.

kirtu said:
This is of course one of your two fundamental theses (the other being that Westerners are culturally incurable of understanding concepts outside of their primary cultural core [a sort of deeply misguided Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis]).

You have fundamentally misunderstood monasticism and the sangha.  Furthermore you have transferred themes from your culture dealing with scarcity and acquisition of resources (the whole economic obsession) onto the sangha.  These are apples and oranges issues.
.... have empowered people politically, financially and socially,
See - this is what I'm talking about.  These are all primarily English language cultural obsessions.  Even the French and Germans don't have quite the same obsessions.  Even the Dutch present this stuff differently.  They just don't have the same focus (and you would expect the French to come pretty close in fact).   Power structures, resources - you have reduced the sangha to a cargo cult.

It would be one thing if you came from a 2nd or 3rd world culture with definite scarcity  and extreme secularism (Americans born and raised in the US will never see this about themselves although 3rd culture Americans raise these issues almost whenever we meet one another - and America is at the top of the heap of the unfortunate societies burdened by actual economic scarcity and occasional life-threatening uncertainty) but you come from a very mild social democracy where true scarcity hasn't been an issue since the great Tommy Douglas began the transition of Canada to a modern nation.  Perhaps these issues really reflect your intense focus on the common issues discussed in English speaking academia?  This is not a personal attack.  Each of our fundamental orientations need to be examined in the light of Buddhadharma because they are all relative truth at best (until we can transform our minds into true wisdom).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhologists could care less about personal transformation or awakening — this is extremely clear. Instead, they obsess about contracts and inscriptions carved in stone, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Mkoll said:
You seem to believe that you must valiantly defend Buddhism against "academic fundamentalism."

Malcolm wrote:
I am not defending Buddhism, I am criticizing the belief that the meaning and value of Buddhadharma can be accessed through an academic tradition largely devoted to forensic dissection.

Mkoll said:
Of course that's a foolish belief. And I think few people hold it, including academics. Even someone with a mediocre knowledge of Buddhism should be able to understand that it's a living path of practice.

But that doesn't mean academic study is something that should be treated with "pointed disdain." Some of it can be quite useful if you aren't on a crusade against it.

Malcolm wrote:
To the extent that translations are produced, and that is about the extent of it. And unfortunately, here, many of those translations are marred by the imperfect understanding of the scholars who produce them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Purpose of Monkhood/Nunhood and the Monastic Sangha
Content:
kirtu said:
However his comments regarding monasticism, aspects of which were often stated in various threads seemed to me to be off.  In particular he seems to think that the main purpose of monasticism is social.

Malcolm wrote:
A warning tale to people who take Buddhology more seriously than Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Mkoll said:
You seem to believe that you must valiantly defend Buddhism against "academic fundamentalism."

Malcolm wrote:
I am not defending Buddhism, I am criticizing the belief that the meaning and value of Buddhadharma can be accessed through an academic tradition largely devoted to forensic dissection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:


Mkoll said:
That's a strawman.


Malcolm wrote:
No, honestly, that's what seems to pass muster these days — if it isn't carved on a rock or a pillar somewhere, it is not counted as historically valid in the Buddhist studies world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Mkoll said:
This one: the "Lord Buddha" that Emperor Asoka was referring to when he had his edicts carved into solid rock in the 3rd century BCE. One of those edicts reads:


Malcolm wrote:
I see, so your "Lord Buddha" has to have his title carved on a pillar, in other word, he must be grounded in some impermanent plastic artifact.

Mkoll said:
What is that supposed to mean?

Malcolm wrote:
Just what it says, i.e., your Buddha must be established by a stone pillar with his name carved in it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
critical thinking, discernment and intellectual honesty are also a path, the difference being that the narrative is always evolving to include new insights and information.


Malcolm wrote:
Intellectual honesty, critical thinking and discernment? That's what you think the academic study of Buddhism is predicated upon? I sure don't.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: English Tantric Texts
Content:
Christopherxx said:
Malcom do you mind me asking why that is.

How does it avoid the trap of just staying in samsara and not progressing?

Malcolm wrote:
The proper way to enter Vajrayāna is through receiving empowerment. There is no other way. You can read this or that book, but without having taken proper empowerment, Vajrayāna texts will not benefit you and can actually give rise to wrong views that will cause you much problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: English Tantric Texts
Content:
Christopherxx said:
Here in the west we want to study, see the merits of something.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna cannot be approached this way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: English Tantric Texts
Content:
Christopherxx said:
So a while ago I started the post "English Mahayana Sutras" and Sherab Dorje did an absolutely incredible post listing all the major Mahayana sutras and links to them for download in English.

I was hoping I could get some kind of similar amazing posts for tantras and the like.  I am really trying to dig in here

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to study Tantras, you must first find a master, receive the required empowerments, only then should you look at tantric texts. And only then after a sufficient amount of training under a qualified master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Do you believe that historical methods tell us anything that is reliable and worth knowing?

Malcolm wrote:
Histories are like kaleidoscopes — they present only a distorted and necessarily limited view of any given subject. There is no such thing as a comprehensive history, much less a true one.

Lo rgyus on the other hand, narrative accounts, serve a contextual purpose for a practitioner to orient themselves within a given stream of practice, and present the origin of a transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
...logic is valued as well as is the ability to correctly perceive transactional reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The only thing about "transactional reality" we need to perceive is that it is fundamentally predicated on delusion.

gad rgyangs said:
but your claim for the veracity of the sutras is a claim made in transactional reality, so it too must be predication on delusion, no?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. The only value relative truth bears is whether it can be adventitiously employed for the purpose of [an imputed] liberation or not. Otherwise, it is of no interest nor bearing on the path.

For this reason and this reason alone do we take interest in "logic", the two truths and so on., "history", etc. History, as we can all see, is a completely malleable subject. People who take it very seriously will find in the end that it is about as satisfying as candy in a dream.

For this reason it is far better for people who are practicing a given path to just accept the narrative proper to that path and to ignore others. Since western academic research on Buddhist "history" has no bearing on the path, it is a subject that should be treated with pointed disdain by serious practitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 6th, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
...logic is valued as well as is the ability to correctly perceive transactional reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The only thing about "transactional reality" we need to perceive is that it is fundamentally predicated on delusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure, because it so much better to be slaves to an ever evolving academic fundamentalism...

gad rgyangs said:
you don't have to be an academic to wake up and smell the coffee.

and even within the buddhist traditional world-view, logic is valued as well as is the ability to correctly perceive transactional reality. There is no way to apply logic and correct perception of conventional reality and still believe that the  sutras are accurate transcripts made in real time of someone preaching, except willful stubbornness.

Malcolm wrote:
Whoever said they were made in real time? That is not even an assertion of traditional Buddhist accounts. The sutras were written down, all of them, at a much later time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
rory said:
I really don't understand the rationale here against scholarship. I think everyone here would be laughing if they read a forum where Christians denied the need for biblical scholarship and they didn't need to understand that the gospels were not literally written by John, Mark, Luke etc..

gad rgyangs said:
how DARE you compare Buddhist fundamentalists with Christian fundamentalists! Christian fundamentalists are confused retards, while Buddhist fundamentalists are fundamental because they know their religion is the One True Faith. Sheesh, its like apples and oranges. Only an idiot would believe that the bible is the unedited word of god, whereas everybody knows that every sutra was spoken verbatum by the Buddha exactly when and where it says he did!

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, because it so much better to be slaves to an ever evolving academic fundamentalism...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
[ then there's the section about the pilgrimage of Sudhana who cannot be regarded as a historical figure according to Western methodology.

Malcolm wrote:
But he is a historical figure from a Mahāyāna buddhist pov.

Lazy_eye said:
To come at this text with the goal of seeking historical details about the life and times of the Buddha would be patently absurd.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all.

Lazy_eye said:
My point is that a reader with a historicist outlook is most likely going to be mystified or put off by a text like this, which operates on such a large, multidimensional plane; such a person will more likely find the nikayas appealing.

Malcolm wrote:
In other words, you mean that people whose framework is based on a largely materialist outlook on history will find the nikayas more appealing...but they won't in fact since the Nikayas also contain much material which cannot be accounted for in such a materialist framework, such as Buddha having discussions with Indra, Brahma and so on.

Lazy_eye said:
The ahistorical elements that I'm referring to in the sutras http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf, but to a far lesser extent, whereas Mahayana really brings them out in an big way.

Malcolm wrote:
All that is clear here is that westerners apparently need to alter Buddhist history to make it fit their largely materialist historical worldview.

Of course now we have largely veered off topic because of the suggestion that our structures of authority in Buddhism are predicated on false historical claims.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Not at all. I'm not interpreting anything here, just pointing to obvious differences in narrative mode.

Large parts of the Avatamsaka sutra are not "going on" at any definable time and place. They are happening, in effect, in all times and places, with innumerable Buddhas giving teachings to innumerable sentient beings. This is quite different from the typical nikayan text in which a specific person, Shakyamuni Buddha, went on his alms round on a particular day, met so and so, and delivered this or that teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
The Avatamsaka Sūtra was taught by the Buddha at a very specific time and place, under the bodhitree, after he woke up. It is the first sutra he taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Mkoll said:
This one: the "Lord Buddha" that Emperor Asoka was referring to when he had his edicts carved into solid rock in the 3rd century BCE. One of those edicts reads:


Malcolm wrote:
I see, so your "Lord Buddha" has to have his title carved on a pillar, in other word, he must be grounded in some impermanent plastic artifact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Many of the Mahayana sutras do not. Their mode is ahistorical and atemporal, in effect unifying the "three times". I've been delving into the Avatamsaka this week, for instance, and the idea of coming at it the way one would approach an historical record is simply ludicrous; it's an altogether different kind of text.

Malcolm wrote:
This is merely your interpretive overlay predicated on view of history based largely on an unconscious Western materialist outlook.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
daverupa said:
The historical Buddha


Malcolm wrote:
Which one?

Mkoll said:
I'm quite certain daverupa is talking about Gotama/Shakyamuni/Siddhartha.

Malcolm wrote:
Which one of those?

My point of course being that there really does not exist one sole authoritative narrative by which we may pretend we have found the "true" Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
daverupa said:
The historical Buddha


Malcolm wrote:
Which one?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Indrajala said:
I try to remain unattached to views...

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, you have very strong views, which you present to anyone who will listen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Indrajala said:
If your religious authority is founded on false premises (like the Vinaya being the historical decrees of the Buddha), and modern scholars have demonstrated such premises to in fact be false, then the academy is ignored at one's own peril.

Malcolm wrote:
It has not been demonstrated by anyone that the pratimokṣa was not actually taught by the Buddha. The most one can say is that various different schools present slightly different versions of it.

What one can say is that specific procedures of ordination were not necessarily established by the Buddha directly since they in fact vary from sect to sect — but this fact does not require modern scholarship to recognize since this has been recognized for a long, long time within the tradition by people well studied in the traditional histories of Buddhist schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 5th, 2014 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But they are largely irrelevant to a Dharma person who is not really concerned with what outsiders think.

Indrajala said:
Speak for yourself.

The great thinkers of Indian Buddhism clearly cared a lot about how others thought, especially figures like Dharmakirti.

Malcolm wrote:
He was primarily concerned with proving that the Buddha was an authority. Everything in his intellectual project was subordinated to that aim. I doubt much if he cared what Hindus thought at all, actually.

In practice, polemics, like propaganda, is usually constructed for one's followers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 4th, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Dan74 said:
Sure for an academic paper to get some traction, it should be evidence-based. But evidence can come from a variety of sources. Suttras, commentaries, biographies and other traditional narratives are also possible sources of evidence, if what is studied is how the tradition sees itself. In any case, it is important to distill one's core inquiry - what truly matters to me and why?

Indrajala said:
There are two primary approaches in the field: emic and etic. The former accommodates the traditional perspective quite fine.

Malcolm wrote:
These two approaches exist if you are cultural anthropologist or a linguist.

But they are largely irrelevant to a Dharma person who is not really concerned with what outsiders think. The terms themselves are biased in so far as the so called "etic" approach is considered "scientific" blah blah blah.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
conebeckham said:
There are problems with any institutions, and any authority structures.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, as one will find when burdened with the mundane tasks of running a religion department.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Kayas
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
]Well, if your teacher explained these passages and texts in this way (ie that Great Bliss refers to sexual union), then who am I to question it?

conebeckham said:
Great Bliss does not refer to "Tantric Sexual Union."    .

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not, it refers to nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: buddhist authority structures
Content:
Dan74 said:
You want to tear it down? First turn towards your own aversion, Indrajala. Then tell us again.

Malcolm wrote:
He can't very well make a career in a modern academia (which has proven itself hostile to any version of Buddhist history which does not match the narrative they wish to push in Western colleges) without tearing Buddhadharma down, now can he?

If someone wants to make a career as a Buddhist academic, there are a number of things which are not allowed. First and foremost, one is not allowed to actually give traditional narratives any credit whatsoever.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
he misunderstands the role of a guru in Dzogchen teachings.


Mkoll said:
That seems to be correct. I hadn't spent much time on Dharma Wheel before I figured that the guru (I prefer "teacher") was an essential component of the Vajrayana tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
The word is guru, actually, i.e. one who is heavy with qualities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2014 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Mkoll said:
That's a great passage. for sharing.

Malcolm wrote:
But it has nothing to do with Dzogchen.

Mkoll said:
True. Nonetheless, it's a great passage and I'm glad he shared it.

Malcolm wrote:
The user in question seems to have some issues with authority. Thus, he misunderstands the role of a guru in Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Mkoll said:
That's a great passage. for sharing.

Malcolm wrote:
But it has nothing to do with Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 1st, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Anybody know what exactly is meant by the term ordinariness?

Thanks!

PS  According to this quote any practice this is based in the hope of gaining happiness, or on the fear of continued suffering, is Black Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. "If any teaching you study, reflect upon, or expound becomes an effective remedy against your disturbing emotions..."

Here, there is a clear reference to afflictions. All suffering comes ultimately from afflictions.

What it means is that if you are practicing Dharma out of the eight worldly Dharmas, this is not really Dharma practice at all and will not liberate you from afflictions.

Sherab Dorje said:
Hmmmmm... seems to be a fine line we are drawing here.  The eight worldly include the fear of suffering and the hope of happiness.  Are you saying that what makes it definitive is the fact that it starts with the aim of overcoming the afflictive emotions, rather than the aim to overcome suffering?  That overcoming suffering is a consequence, and not an aim?

Malcolm wrote:
First, the translation is a little off: it is not happiness and suffering, it is bde ba and mi bde ba. Here we can understand it is not sukha and dukha, but more like sparśa and asparśa, things we want to have contact with and things we want to avoid contact with.

The whole point of the Buddhist path is to attain permanent sukha, which is the absence of dukha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 31st, 2014 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Karma in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, tathāgatagarbha was a minor school in India, and it was not taken up with any vigor by so called Yogacarins.

Vajrasvapna said:
The Buddha taught the teachings about noself and emptiness as a antidote to the tendency of people to cling to a illusory conditioned self.
In the 3th turning teachings, the Buddha taught about a no-conditioned self, that is birthless, deathless and eternal.

Malcolm wrote:
No he didn't. The only place in sutra where a "third turning" is mentioned is the Samdhinirmocana sūtra, which has no mention of such an unconditioned self — the idea that Buddha taught such a self just Hinduism in drag.

The three turnings of the wheel are also mentioned by Maitreya in the Sūtrālamkara, but he asserts they were all turned at the same time, not on here, then one there, then another one later on.

Though many generations of scholars in Tibet have concluded that the tathagatagarbha sūtras are part of the "third turning" there is certainly no evidence in the Indian canon that this is so at all. There are actually very, very few references to "a third turning".
It has to do with the question of how the dependent nature shifts from being conditioned to being unconditioned [i.e. the absence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected:see Mahāyānasaṃgraha by Asanga]. In short, there is an unresolved inner contradiction in the way the Yogacara three natures is presented that forces them to be a realist school.
Your statements do not make logical sense to me.
Blame Asanga.



buddha, from the root "buddh", to know, and "dha", absolute, infinite.
Some Tibetan lamas like that kind of logic. If you have in mind the teachings on interdependence, this etymological logic makes some sense.
It is complete nonsense. It cannot be defended in any way. The way most Tibetans etymologize "sangs rgyas" is that "sangs" means to cleanse or purify, additionally "sangs" also means to wake up; and rgyas means "to expand" or "fully". So it means to remove or cleanse afflictions and to expand wisdom, or more simply, "fully awaken".

Budh simply means to awaken; dha means that possessor of that, hence Buddha simply means "the one who has awakened".

Sorry if you were offended, but I tend to call things as I see them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 31st, 2014 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Anybody know what exactly is meant by the term ordinariness?

Thanks!

PS  According to this quote any practice this is based in the hope of gaining happiness, or on the fear of continued suffering, is Black Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. "If any teaching you study, reflect upon, or expound becomes an effective remedy against your disturbing emotions..."

Here, there is a clear reference to afflictions. All suffering comes ultimately from afflictions.

What it means is that if you are practicing Dharma out of the eight worldly Dharmas, this is not really Dharma practice at all and will not liberate you from afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 31st, 2014 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra, dzogchen, & nibbana!
Content:
Christopherxx said:
Hi Malcom,

Can you elaborate a bit?  I am sure there will be many people that will view this post either now in the present or in the future.  Maybe some just for one moment of their Buddhist exposure.  And who knows maybe a good description will help them in their path.

I am sure many will not go out and buy books, etc.  So there is something to be said for giving an effort to help in a skillful way.

Your both obviously quite well read and intelligent.  Time to share and help others with what you've been shared and helped with?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to receive teachings from a teacher who is qualified. Only then will you understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 31st, 2014 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra, dzogchen, & nibbana!
Content:
Christopherxx said:
So recently there has been a lot of information that seems to be going around the same area.

Ajahn Amaro has been describing nibbana as "Awareness" and that seems to be how a lot of masters describe dzogchen's rigpa with Buddhahood being omniscience applied to that?


Malcolm wrote:
It's really not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Karma in Buddhism
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Why you think that so? Could you give me any proof that what they says is wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
Just take this spurious etymology:
buddha, from the root "buddh", to know, and "dha", absolute, infinite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Karma in Buddhism
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
Now you are conflating the Tathāgatagarbha and Yogacara schools.
To me, without the Tathāgatagarbha teachings Buddhism become a nihilistic philosophy.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, tathāgatagarbha was a minor school in India, and it was not taken up with any vigor by so called Yogacarins.
In my perception, Yogacara is a psychological view of the teachings of Prajnaparamita, together with the teachings of Maitreya. It is not a contradiction of the teachings of Nagarjuna.
Yogacara is a realist school. Their position forces them to assert that jñāna is real.
The qualities of wisdom are also mere perception. Some people cling to that experience believing they are real, but they are like illusion also.
It has to do with the question of how the dependent nature shifts from being conditioned to being unconditioned [i.e. the absence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected:see Mahāyānasaṃgraha by Asanga]. In short, there is an unresolved inner contradiction in the way the Yogacara three natures is presented that forces them to be a realist school.
In fact, you misunderstand what I said, let me explain more clearly: I said that the logical method used by Madhyamikas are not ​​compatible with Dzogchen; but depending on how you interpret the different schools, they vision may or may not be compatible with Dzogchen.
It is not the method they are referring to; they are referring the conclusion.
The method of Dzogchen is the direct introduction to mind, one example is how Patrul Rinpoche was introduced by Do Khyentse Yeshe Dorje to the nature of his mind. And it language is similar to Yogacara. In same way, Mahamudra language is similar to Madhyamaka.
Mahāmudra and Dzogchen both make equal use of terminology from Yogacara. Your distinction is dubious at best.

Why you think that so? Could you give me any proof that what they says is wrong?
[/quote]

All kinds of things, from the fake Sanskrit equivalents they supply to incorrect translations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Anders said:
The certainty with which he pronounces his conclusion bears no correlation at all to the flimsiness of his argumentation.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps it is because his argument is so flimsy. Anyway, why would any regard Bronkhorst a greater authority on the Buddha's intent than Nāgārjuna?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The emptiness he taught is the emptiness of dependent origination.

dzogchungpa said:
From Bronkhorst's "Buddhist Teaching in India": The main conclusion to be drawn is that we are not likely to learn much about the teaching of the Buddha from the doctrine of conditioned origination. In its classical form it is not part of the original teaching of the Buddha.
Don't get mad.

Malcolm wrote:
He is presenting his opinion. I don't agree with his opinion. It is unfounded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, as you and I have discussed before, I do not think that the various liberations bandied about by this and that school are even commensurate with one another. That is to say, I don't think non-Buddhists and so on are necessarily in the same mountain range as Buddhadharma, much less climbing the same mountain.

Anders said:
Clarifying assumptions of commensurability would probably go a long way in a lot of these comparative discussions.

I am curious as to how you square off such incommensurability with pronouncements like Samantabhadra claiming even the worldly paths as his vehicles.

Malcolm wrote:
Amazing, wielder of the vajra,
though my vehicles are inconceivable,
they are included in two categories:
samsara and nirvana.
Further, samasara is as follows: 
false view and eternalist view.

And:
Likewise, the countless views of a self are included in two. Those are included in both the eternalist view and annihilationist view. Countless views of self come from those two. Likewise, son of a good family, because you have avoided entering a false path, I have summarized the views of a self and demonstrated them.
While the actual content of different non-buddhist vehicles is mistaken, one can understand that impulse to follow them is an impulse towards liberation from the same tantra:
[S]ince a person living in a nirmanakāya buddhafield of a buddha has set lamps he sees a Buddha from the five lights of wisdom through a slight clairvoyance and experiences five fires.
But since they have no idea what they are experiencing:
He then prepares a log of sandalwood with sesame oil and sets five heaps of fire; and even burns his own body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The reason why I do not express doubt about whether there can be realization of the same ultimate truths by those who do not follow Buddhadharma is that if such people did have the same realization as the Buddha and his followers, they would teach exactly what Buddha and his followers taught, i.e. dependent origination, emptiness and so on.

dzogchungpa said:
So if you decided that the Buddha did not in fact teach emptiness, which I believe was actually your position at one point, then you would hold that his realization was necessarily inferior in some way?


Malcolm wrote:
I never held that Buddha did not teach emptiness. He clearly did teach emptiness even if you only accept Hinayāna sutras as being valid. The emptiness he taught is the emptiness of dependent origination. He also taught freedom from extremes in the Hinayāna sutras even if the full ramifications of that were only fully explicated in the Prajñāpāramita.

Regardless of my past doubts about the authorship of Mahāyāna sūtras, I have always held them as being exemplars of Buddha's intention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
He taught according to the needs, desires and predispositions of his students.  This included having many Hindu students in India right up until his poor health prevented travel.


Malcolm wrote:
Allow me to illustrate a point. For example, I studied Yoga and Samkhya with Ramaswami. If someone should ask me to teach a course on the Yoga Sutras, then I would. I would present its point of view to those students who were interested in it.

When pressed, would I claim that I followed the version of liberation presented in that text? No, of course not, no more than Ramaswami, when pressed, admitted that he was an Advaitan, even though his guru, Krishnamācarya was a Vaiśnava in the Ramanuja tradition (Viśtādvaita).

If I am teachings Ayurveda, I teach Samkhya; when teaching Tibetan Medicine, I teach Buddhadharma. I think that the latter us more profound than the former. But Samkhya has its uses, even if its ultimate view is a problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no awakening outside of Buddhadharma. The best we can hope for those following the yānas of devas and humans is a higher rebirth and eventual contact with the Buddhadharma.

Karma Dorje said:
If there is one thing you like to do, it is to make sweeping and emphatic claims.  After watching several of your volte-face, I can't help but wonder why you don't take a more aporetic stance.

However, you have your disposition and I have mine.  As I said, there is precious little chance of either of us convincing the other of our respective positions.

Malcolm wrote:
There were some things which I hold as deep convictions: dependent origination, emptiness, rebirth and karma. I also deeply hold the conviction that apart form the Buddha and his followers, liberation as understood and taught by the Buddha is not achievable outside of his path. You can examine my posts for the past 20 years, and you will see that I never vary from these points. People like to make a big deal out of some superficial "volte faces" I have shared with you all, but in reality the core of what I understand to be unique about Buddhadharma has not changed in 20 years and will not change since it arises out of my experience of the teachings, as an examination of my posts will show.

The reason why I do not express doubt about whether there can be realization of the same ultimate truths by those who do not follow Buddhadharma is that if such people did have the same realization as the Buddha and his followers, they would teach exactly what Buddha and his followers taught, i.e. dependent origination, emptiness and so on. Since they don't teach Buddhadharma, I question the claim that they have realized what the Buddha realized. I don't think there has ever been anyone on this globe who has ever had realization superior to the Buddha's total perfect awakening, not in any Hindu sects, not in any Jain sects, much less traditional Chinese religion, Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.I do not think they even have partial realization.

Of course there is mundane wisdom in all of these non-Buddhist traditions, no one denies that. But when it comes right down to realizing the nature of reality, as the Rig pa rang shar points out:
As such, also the three hundred and sixty views
can be gathered into four categories. 
Further those can be included
in eternalism and annihilationism. 
Those also can be included in meaningless nihilism.
This is the extent of the worldly views.
and:
Likewise, the countless views of a self are included in two. Those are included in both the eternalist view and annihilationist view. Countless views of self come from those two.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
monktastic said:
I'll share a crazy idea.

If a tradition claims that realization simply cannot be had without a connection to its lineage, then perhaps those who were destined to attain a little realization anyway will not be bothered by this claim that seemingly contradicts their own experience.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the claim that is being advanced. The claim that is being advanced is that Dzogchen refers to the result brought about through a specific path, the Dzogchen path. Mahamudra is a path brought about through its path [principally the two stages]; and Prajñāpāramita through its path [the six perfections].

These three results may be the same in essence, but the reason for the difference in name is that the paths used to reach this result are different.

On the other hand, Buddhism does claim that outside its purview there is no liberation at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...those modern perverts who think that Buddha taught a self and what pertains to a self...

dzogchungpa said:
Such as?


Malcolm wrote:
Its a pretty inclusive statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Absolutely *any* symbol system can be used by a realized teacher to wake their students up.
Nonsense. You have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. In order to prove this, you would have to produce someone who achieved at minimum stream entry through a non-Buddhist "symbol system". Such a person never existed.
In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.
Mahāparinibbana sutta.

The Buddha repeated this statement many times in earlier sutras.
Right view proceeding from yogi pratyaksha can inform any approach.
How are you defining yogic pratyakṣa?
As I have said repeatedly, Buddhist dharma is more explicit and has more methods than any other system I have seen/practiced. However, not everyone has a karmic connection to it. If we can use the traces of sentient beings to hook them into their own awakening, we should. This is the point of infusing other systems with the energy of practice and realization.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no awakening outside of Buddhadharma. The best we can hope for those following the yānas of devas and humans is a higher rebirth and eventual contact with the Buddhadharma.

Does this mean we should stop teaching Yoga Sutras, etc.? No, of course not. But after a certain point it has to become clear to any practitioner where they have confidence and faith. If someone is really a Shaivaite, Vaishnava or even a follower of Franklin Jones, what need would they have to follow Buddhadharma? They've chosen their refuge. It is not our job to change that. But we should not, in a rush to ecumenicism, erase the distinction between Buddhadharma and Sanatanadharma. They do not point to the same reality, they do not have the same assumptions about karma, rebirth and liberation, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
That's not the general Hindu view, if one can even say such a thing exists with the plethora of viewpoints comprised under the rubric "Hindu". Vicara is not intellectualization.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, provide your account of what liberation is in Hinduism as you understand it, and how it is attained. Then we will stack it up against what the Buddha taught and see how it measures up.

One of the difficulties here of course is that even the Buddhist idea of what constitutes rebirth is complete different than the Hindu idea. Ideas about whether karma are also totally different. The notion of a self of course has to be addressed, since this concept is refuted in Buddhadharma (apart from those modern perverts who think that Buddha taught a self and what pertains to a self), and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
conebeckham said:
...and there are some Buddhists, apparently, who think the intellect is sufficient for an experiental understanding of emptiness.

Just sayin'...

Malcolm wrote:
The point of course is that in Dharma, a correct conceptual understanding of emptiness is required to realize emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some people think realization can come about through meditation alone [this is the Hindu view in general].

dzogchungpa said:
Really? That's the HIndu view in general? Did you take a survey or something?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there are some Advaitans who think you can just intellectualize your way to liberation...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
“All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders.”

Paul said:
That's dumb. These are not 'destructive, evil' people...


Malcolm wrote:
Well, the poor guy has no idea what he is waffling on about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Ivo said:
The Dharmapalas can not be made to act on behalf of selfish intentions, but they will respond to someone with pure samaya who has legitimate concerns, even if this practitioner is still a samsaric being (and thus have a mixed motivation). If that was not the case, then only Buddhas would have ben able to invoke them (absurd), and there would have been no point in any dharmapala practices, actually. The motivation of a practitioner on the path is always flawed, since there is still samsaric vision. But the intention to subdue gross violence through wrathful means is a legitimate one in Vajrayana, especially when we are requesting the Dharmapalas for help and not trying to liberate beings ourselves without the proper capacity or qualifications.

Malcolm is right that Dza Rahula should be invoked by all means necessary. As for wrathful yidam practices, these will work only if those doing them are qualified. I have my doubts that requesting a monastery to do that could be effective. At this point in time there are not many such practitioners, H.H. Sakya Trisin is certainly one of them, Chatral Rinpoche most definitely. Making a formal request to Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche about this however is the easiest option, IMHO, although I am pretty sure that he is already doing something about it. A real master performing Kilaya lower activity or something similar can do more than a thousand monastics mumbling mantras and waiting for the tea break.

My personal opinion is that ISIS is a very valid threat to the Dharma, in every possible sense. However this should not be an "us vs. them" situation, although I admit that it can very easily become just that. That's why there is a lot of merit in Greg's posts too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
What we are talking about is whether realization is possible without having the specific conceptual frameworks of Buddhist dharma.  I think that Buddhism provides a particularly clear conceptual framework and corpus of methods to discover the natural state. However, I don't believe those conceptual frameworks to deal with our confusion are of themselves a necessary precursor to realization.

You are free to choose whose opinions you value.  I will continue to follow the words of my guru, as they accord with my experience after putting them into practice.  Anyway, I know there is little chance of common ground on this issue at this time.

Malcolm wrote:
Your Guru was a Buddhist monk correct? A Nyingmapa correct? Someone who spent some time as a Hindu renunciate and then moved on to become a Buddhist practitioner?

This is hardly a ringing endorsement for your view that liberation, freedom from rebirth in samsara, is something your teacher held was possible outside of Buddhadharma.

Some people think realization can come about through meditation alone [this is the Hindu view in general]. But this is definitely not the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha's teaching is that view informs meditation.

Right view is at the head of the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
“All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary. [...] To be free of all authority, of your own and that of another, is to die to everything of yesterday, so that your mind is always fresh, always young, innocent, full of vigor and passion. It is only in that state that one learns and observes. And for this a great deal of awareness is required, actual awareness of what is going on inside yourself, without correcting it or telling it what it should or should not be, because the moment you correct it you have established another authority, a censor.”
— J. Krishnamurti


Malcolm wrote:
Krishnamurti is not an authority on Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma. His opinion is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Karma in Buddhism
Content:
Vajrasvapna said:
I believe Tibetan interpretation of Yogacara is incorrect...

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a Tibetan interpretation. It is the presentation of Yogacara which is found in the Yogacara section of the Tarkajvala of Bhavya.




Vajrasvapna said:
Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche also have simiar view with my "As Mipham Rinpoche states, to believe that tathagatagarbha is a substantially existent thing would contradict the teachings of both Nagarjuna and the Prajnaparamita Sutras. From Mipham’s perspective, there is no contradiction between tathagatagarbha and Nagarjuna’s teachings

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are conflating the Tathāgatagarbha and Yogacara schools.


Vajrasvapna said:
nor is there any contradiction between the teachings of Asanga and Nagarjuna; nor is there a contradiction between Rangtong and Shentong schools of thought.

Malcolm wrote:
Karl B identifies two kinds of presentations of the three natures. The one presented by Bhavya he terms type 1. The one presented in gzhan stong and in a couple of very late Indian texts he labels type 2. He admits that all the so called classical Yogachara authors, Asanga, Vasubandhu, etc., use the the type 1 scheme.

Vajrasvapna said:
In my perception, Yogacara is a psychological view of the teachings of Prajnaparamita, together with the teachings of Maitreya. It is not a contradiction of the teachings of Nagarjuna.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara is a realist school. Their position forces them to assert that jñāna is real.

Vajrasvapna said:
It is curious that despite the Tibetans claim that prasangika represent the view of Dzogchen, Manjusrimitra states that logic is not really satisfactory:

Malcolm wrote:
You are not really understanding what it is about "Prasanga" that Longchenpa, for example, claims to be consistent with Dzogchen. It is not that the means of analysis that is the same, it is the conclusion, i.e., freedom from extremes.


Vajrasvapna said:
Some writers, like Namkhai Norbu, say Manjusrimitra was a scholar of Yogacara and so he used the terminology of this school to explain Dzogchen. I found no Manjusrimitra's biography, except this one:http://www.dharmafellowship.org/biographies/historicalsaints/manjusrimitra.htm. It says he was not a scholar of Yogacara, but an anti-Yogacara: "The Mahapandit Manjusrimitra represented the classical, scholastic tradition of Madhyamaka. He was the uncontested head of the great monastic University of Nalanda, and thus representative of a long historical scholarly line that considered itself the pinnacle of orthodoxy. He viewed anything to do with Yogacara as a false doctrine". If true, then it makes nosense to say that he was just using the term from a school that he advocated earlier.

Malcolm wrote:
Everything on that website should be viewed with suspicion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Transmission may be necessary, but the cult of the guru is sorely mistaken in assuming that their preferred methodology is the only viable mode of transmission for attaining the Way, or Great Perfection.


Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen tradition itself asserts a Guru is necessary:
The virtuous mentor is like a precious jewel which produces everything.
— Soaring Great Garuda
Without an authentic master, like the scripture of a monkey, 
the basis and path will be erroneous, indeed one will be seized by conceptuality. 

Therefore, like applying ferrous sulfate to gold, the precious master
should be paid with a gem of inestimable value.
— The Inner Potentiality

The commentary to this runs:
For example, like applying ferrous sulfate to gold, a guru obtains the empowerment and agamas of the authentic lineage. The guru moistened by the experience of realization and who is diligent in the meaning possesses the qualities that are praised in in the collections of the teachings. If one should meet a guru who is devoted to compassion and is diligent with teaching, he should be seen as teacher who is a great treasure. Make a request that corresponds with the collection of the teachings and please him with a positive attitude. Request the teachings, and thoroughly ascertain the view. One must understand the deviations and obscurations from beginning to end, and one must comprehend what is the point of the meaning.
It is thus axiomatic that in order to practice Dzogchen, one must find a qualified guru and follow that person until one has realized the goals of the path. There is really nothing to discuss with regard to this. People who express opinions contrary to what is stated in the tantras and agamas of Dzogchen about the absolute necessity of following a qualified master are merely expressing their ignorance. By persisting in such opinions, they merely widen the gulf between themselves and the possibility of finding such a qualified master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Now in turn, unless you can assure us that in fact you are speaking from detailed knowledge of having experienced and realized both paths, how can your perspective be anything other than a speculation based on your own suppositions or someone else's opinion?

Karma Dorje said:
Actually, relying on the words of an enlightened guru is not merely someone else's opinion-- it is buddhavacana.

Malcolm wrote:
In other words, someone else's opinion. Further, a guru's words are only buddhavacana to the extent that they correspond with the Dharma, as Sakya Pandita makes very clear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
I am not saying it appears similar on first glance.  I am saying that after years of practicing advaita vedanta and Shakta tantra with a guru, it's clear to me that there is little substantive difference between the resultant contemplations while the symbologies can diverge widely. Equally, it is clear that there are considerably more methods to work with in Buddhist dharma and it is in general more direct.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is mundane or liberative.

Karma Dorje said:
Have you experienced the Hindu nirvikalpa or sahaja samadhi and compared the two or are you speculating based on texts?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not speculating, I am reporting what it is stated in the authoritative texts of the Buddhist tradition. Now, you may not feel that these texts are authoritative, but for me they are and that is the end of it.

When we talk about "insight" we are talking very specifically about the Buddha's experience of Vajropama samadhi and what he reports and teaches. This kind of non-conceptual samadhi, the samadhi of cessation merely creates causes for rebirth in this or that loka, like all mundane samadhis and dhyanas unless one has attained the path of seeing.

Now in turn, unless you can assure us that in fact you are speaking from detailed knowledge of having experienced and realized both paths, how can your perspective be anything other than a speculation based on your own suppositions or someone else's opinion?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference

dzogchungpa said:
How do you know that?

Malcolm wrote:
buddha said so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
I am not saying it appears similar on first glance.  I am saying that after years of practicing advaita vedanta and Shakta tantra with a guru, it's clear to me that there is little substantive difference between the resultant contemplations while the symbologies can diverge widely. Equally, it is clear that there are considerably more methods to work with in Buddhist dharma and it is in general more direct.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is mundane or liberative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:


Anders said:
In either case, the territory is your own mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily so. Take Samkhya for example. Your own mind [manas] is regarded as being inert and non-sentient. The whole Buddhist project, according to a Yoga-Samkhya perspective is just involvement in prakṛīti, at the expense of realizing purusha, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I don't agree since this assumes that one cannot examine a map to understand the layout of two distinct geographical regions.

Karma Dorje said:
Except that in this case you are talking about two maps that use different landmarks to portray a single territory, not a single map of two regions.  Unless one has actually walked the terrain by both routes, it seems pointless to me to merely use one map to invalidate the other. But this is obviously not a discussion that we can resolve one way or another.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't think I agree, the basis and result posited are different, despite that what may at first glance appear to similar terrain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 29th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ajātivāda was borrowed from Mahdyamaka into Advaita by Gaudapada.

But since it is not grounded in dependent origination, even Gaudapada's presentation misses the point.

Anyway, as you and I have discussed before, I do not think that the various liberations bandied about by this and that school are even commensurate with one another. That is to say, I don't think non-Buddhists and so on are necessarily in the same mountain range as Buddhadharma, much less climbing the same mountain.

Karma Dorje said:
Yes, it all hinges on how much the ideas about liberation matter compared with the realization that arises from contemplation.  From what my guru taught and what I have seen in my own experience, the conceptual structures really don't need to be compared with a view to a single correct doctrinal viewpoint, as correct doctrine for each being is a factor of his or her own traces and predisposition.

I think one needs to receive the Mahavakyas from a lineage teacher and practice them to realization before one can comment on their topography relative to Buddhist dharma. I don't think that treating advaita strictly as an intellectual position is of much use.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I don't agree since this assumes that one cannot examine a map to understand the layout of two distinct geographical regions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: A small victory, still more questions than answers
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
You finished the full 111,111 repetitions of the 100 syllable mantra?

Challenge23 said:
My teacher stated that he only wanted 100,000 but other than that, yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Considering that you have had countless past lifetimes, it is a bit much to expect that 100,00 mantras is going to remove the negativity of all of that. However, there are specific signs of accomplishing the practice. If you have those signs, then you have really accomplished the goals of the practice. Counting a number is really not the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Sönam said:
As far as Buddha's teaching is about cessation of suffering, it is the only dharma doing so ... and it cannot be compared to any other dharma. Doing so is a fallacy.

Karma Dorje said:
I think much too much is made of doctrine. Any symbol system can be used by a siddha to wake people up, including Christianity.  It's just that some are more direct than others and some (like Christianity) put a lot of unnecessary doctrinal obstacles in the way.

It is certainly not a fallacy to compare Buddhist dharma with other very similar systems like ajātivāda advaita vedanta, or better yet to practice either or both. Everyone likes to think they have a monopoly on Truth. It creates a lot of unnecessary division.

Malcolm wrote:
Ajātivāda was borrowed from Mahdyamaka into Advaita by Gaudapada.

But since it is not grounded in dependent origination, even Gaudapada's presentation misses the point.

Anyway, as you and I have discussed before, I do not think that the various liberations bandied about by this and that school are even commensurate with one another. That is to say, I don't think non-Buddhists and so on are necessarily in the same mountain range as Buddhadharma, much less climbing the same mountain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: 13 Bhumi model?
Content:
zenman said:
Which school uses the 13 bhumi model? Any good sources/books on this?


Malcolm wrote:
It comes from the mother tantras. In general the path section of Kongtrul's Buddhist Encycopedia should have something on it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Dan74 said:
OK, for me this thread was about using non-Buddhist methods in with Buddhist methods, not following two religions. I gave some examples of folks who did follow Buddhism as well as Christianity and it might be worth giving them a look, but this is not something I identify with, nor have I given it any attention so far.

Malcolm wrote:
It is axiomatically impossible to be both a Christian, in the sense of accepting Jesus as your lord and savior, and a Buddhist.

Dan74 said:
On the other hand, what I've said in this thread is simply that various aspects of other traditions (and for that matter psychology, etc) can be helpful on our path to liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
For example?

Dan74 said:
Whether or not one attends the mass, taking to heart Jesus's teachings and being inspired by his example, is following aspects of Christianity, though one may not call oneself a Christian, nor accept Jesus as lord and saviour.

Malcolm wrote:
That's a stretch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Will said:
Concord paraphrased: What I question is whether such a teacher or guide would necessarily have to be flesh and blood?

Paul said:
Interestingly, in the Zhang Zhung Nyengyud lineage, the first master of the lineage was a deva called Lhabon Yongsu Dagpa and the second was a naga, Lubon Banam. Everyone after that was a human.

Malcolm wrote:
well, depending on how the lineage is counted, also prior to Dzogchen spreading in human dimensions, there were vidyādharas for the nāgas and so on as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The only people who disagree that Dzogchen is the most direct path are people who honestly have no idea what Dzogchen is.

dzogchungpa said:
What do you mean by direct in this context?

Malcolm wrote:
immediate, direct, personal experience of your real state, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Will said:
Concord paraphrased: What I question is whether such a teacher or guide would necessarily have to be flesh and blood?

No, but the realms of the non-physical are chock full of bad entities that delight in impersonating Sages and great Gurus.  An 'ordinary' human guru has a lineage and disciples that can attest to his qualifications, in addition to your own impressions.  The non-physical 'guide' has only your unenlightened self and the assertions from it to help you appraise him.

Malcolm wrote:
This is based upon the fact that ordinary people can only interact on the nirmanakāya level. Therefore, coarse physical contact with a human guru is a necessity for all of us who were not born high bodhisattvas on the stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
LastLegend said:
Dzogchen has a unique way to access it?

Jikan said:
This one.

Dharmakaya is Dharmakaya, realization is realization in whatever school you might practice in.

Dzogchenpas claim that the difference is in the time it takes someone to realize it by different means (Dzogchen being the fastest).  And yes, different schools disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
The only people who disagree that Dzogchen is the most direct path are people who honestly have no idea what Dzogchen is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:


Jikan said:
"Buddhahood is the goal" is the theme in common between Ekayana teachings and Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, Tibetan Buddhism has a whole subscribes the Ekayāna ideal since there is but one result to attain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 28th, 2014 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Keeping Precepts your experience
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Precepts are very difficult for some people.

Malcolm wrote:
Most people can refrain from taking life, lying and stealing.

Sexual misconduct and drinking alcohol, that is a little harder.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Sadhana of Mahamudra (Trungpa)
Content:
Jikan said:
Some time ago I paid a visit to a local Shambhala center, and joined in the practice of the Sadhana of Mahamudra.  There was a brief instruction prior.  It seems to me that there's a lot going on in this sadhana that no introduction can cover.  I'd like to understand this practice better so that next time I have the opportunity to join in, I'll be able to participate more fully.

Does anyone have any audio materials available on this practice that are unrestricted they may wish to make available to me?

Many thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
It's an anuyoga Hūṃ sgrub. Apart from details, that is the main point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:


Konch said:
Well.. According to Dzogchen history if Im not mistaken, Garab Dorje first received the dzogchen teachings not from a human teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Garab Dorje was a nirmanakāya, awakened from birth.

Konch said:
Dudjom Lingpa also comes to mind in this case due to the colourful nature in which he received the dzogchen teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Dudjom Lingpa has many gurus when he was young.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
My personal conviction is that no single tradition, school, lineage, or method may lay claim to an exclusive monopoly on the Great Perfection.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is the name of the result of a specific path, just as Prajñāpāramita is the name of the result of a different specific path, and Mahāmudra the name of the result of yet another path.

If you want to realize Buddhahood under the name of Dzogchen, you need to receive teachings on it and practice that path. Dzogchen is something very specific and very precise and the instructions to realize its path is not found in other schools. It is not a question of whether the Buddhahood in Dzogchen is the same or different than Buddhahood realized in sutra or tantra, it isn't. But the path is quite different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point greg, is that you entered the thread with a patronizing:

Sherab Dorje said:
Instead of looking to subjugate the negativity of others, one would probably be better off in trying to overcome their own mental poisons.
Really?  And here is me thinking that was the whole point of Mahayana Buddhist practice:  identifying and dealing with ones own flaws. Then, we spent three pages trying to keep the page on topic.
Checking ones motivation before engaging in (especially wrathful subjugation) practices is not off-topic in the slightest.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Greg, we were discussing a Vajrayāna practice.

Edited out personal remarks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
The myriad things surely cannot be exhausted by books and humans alone?

Malcolm wrote:
"gcig shes kun grol"


Knowing one thing liberates all things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your point was irrelevant, actually.

Sherab Dorje said:
I'm not interested in having to wring complete answers out of you Malcolm.  The show is all yours.

Malcolm wrote:
The point greg, is that you entered the thread with a patronizing:

Sherab Dorje said:
Instead of looking to subjugate the negativity of others, one would probably be better off in trying to overcome their own mental poisons.

Malcolm wrote:
Then, we spent three pages trying to keep the page on topic.

Edited out personal remarks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Yes, well, I think I'm about finished here.

Mkoll said:
Maybe if you were arguing in a different sub-forum, you'd have a good case. But coming from a relatively less biased observer (less biased since I don't practice Tibetan Buddhism though that also means more ignorant of it), it seems as though Malcolm's list confirms the opposing argument.


Sherab Dorje said:
Even if one has the qualities in the list then...  But STILL one needs the correct motivation on behalf of the practitioner.  Somebody may qualify based on the listed qualities, but I may "target" them because their dog crapped on my lawn rather than... in which case...

I fail to see how my reasoning is incorrect and instead of answers I am given smoke screens, so I'm finished here, mainly coz there is nothing left to learn.

Malcolm wrote:
Your point was irrelevant, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: Query Regarding the 'Guru'
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Do you deem it absolutely necessary to establish a direct relationship with a living guru of explicitly human form in order to engage the Way of Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. You cannot receive transmission from a book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
irrelevancies snipped

Malcolm wrote:
I disagree with your assumptions about people's motivations. But usual, you must have some magic crystal you examine which allows you to know with certainty what other people are thinking.

Sherab Dorje said:
Yes,well, I already explained my hypothesis, but you did not answer my question.  The question is (maybe I didn't phrase it clearly):  Do you believe that ego-centred motivation destroys the efficacy of a practice?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what you mean by "ego-centered".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
irrelevancies snipped

Malcolm wrote:
I disagree with your assumptions about people's motivations.

Edited out personal remarks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
ngodrup said:
Therefore, the original post is reasonable.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course it is.



ngodrup said:
Every day at dusk, without fail, Jamdrak would perform a short subjugation ritual and throw a torma-an offering cake, which symbolized a weapon-toward the east.

"Rinpoche, why do you do this every day?" Jokyab asked him.
"Oh dear!" the master explained. "From a country in the east, an evil force will rise up. It will utterly and completely destroy the Buddha's teachings in this snowy land of Tibet and leave the country in pitch-black darkness. This force cannot be stopped, but merely trying to stop it brings more benefit than if I were to chant the ritual for the peaceful and wrathful deities one hundred times and light ten thousand butter lamps. When I throw this torma, I imagine hitting the demon square in the head. It won't help, though; no one can repel this demon. Nevertheless, simply by trying, I will accumulate great merit and purify obscurations on the path to enlightenment."

Malcolm wrote:
— Blazing Splendor, pg. 178

We already know from the Kalacakra that at some point the mlecchas will take over the most of the world. Then we know what happens when Rudracakravartin magically defeats them in 2430.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You may believe as you wish.

Sherab Dorje said:
There are two seperate points being made here, which one are you responding to?

Malcolm wrote:
Both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
I mean they (Christians) are continuing their mission of trying to destroy Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, and are currently re-establishing their mission to destroy Judaism in Europe (again).  Actually the Jews had an infinitely better time under the rule of the Muslim Ottoman Empire than they ever did under a Christian Empire.  But this is an aside, since they are not attacking Buddhists I shouldn't care right?

Malcolm wrote:
You can care if you choose to, but such people are not included in the zhing bcu tshang ba'i bstan dgra, so it would be inappropriate to apply wrathful rites to such people. What is a zhing bcu tshang ba'i bstan dgra, an enemy of the doctrine in whom ten domains are complete? They are someone who would

1) Harm the teachings
2) Despise the Three Jewels, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha
3) Plunder the Sangha
4) Despise  Mahāyāna
5) Harm the person of the Guru.
6) Attack Vajra siblings
7) Cause obstacles in practice
8) Has total lack of love and compassion
9) Lacks samaya
10 Has false views about the result of karma.

I think it is fair to say that the extremists in IS fit the bill. It's not about Islam per se. It is about these kinds of people in general no matter what tīrthika religious group they belong to. That worldly protector some Gelugpas are fond of also fits the bill for such wrathful actions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ordinary aggressors simply do not warrant such rites since they are no threat to the Dharma.

Sherab Dorje said:
All ignorant aggression is a threat to Dharma.  An attack on any sentient being, is an attack on that beings enlightened nature.  An attack on the Triple Gem.

Malcolm wrote:
Greg, the requisites for being considered a subject worthy of being the object of a wrathful rite are pretty specific. Attacking an ant mound just does not qualify that anteater for being the object of such a rite.

Further, the point is that such rites, conducted by people such as H Sakya Trizin and so on, have the power to liberate the consciousness of those demonic beings into the dharmadhātu. This is why we have so many such rites in Tibetan Buddhism in all four schools. They are not there merely for their symbolic value.

Sherab Dorje said:
Again though, what people are failing to see, and what I have been talking about from the very beginning, is that with an ego-centred motivation (and here you were just trying to justify an ego-centred motivation by camouflaging it with the term Dharma) the protector practice is bound to fail.

Malcolm wrote:
You may believe as you wish.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Please note:  if people do not want this thread to end up locked and deleted (like almost every thread that even remotely touches on the subject of Islam) due to sweeping Islamophobic prejudicial remarks then they would do well to refrain from them.

Malcolm wrote:
While Muslims are not ipso facto bad people (quite the contrary), it must be recognized that Buddhism and Islam can barely coexist on the same planet — not because of Buddhist intolerance, but because of the systematic Islamic intolerance of other religions, specially the Salafis. The Saudis have been exporting Salafism for years.

Please keep in mind that Muslims wiped Persia clean of Zoroastrians within the space of 250 years, systematically forcing conversions and so on.

"Allah commanded us, by the mouth of His Prophet, to extend the dominion of Islam over all nations."

— History of the Parsis: including their manners, customs, religion, pg. 15; Dosabhai Framji Karaka, 1884.

Thus far, I see nothing to indicate that this fundamental mission statement has changed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
IS has threatened to destroy a major Buddhist heritage site. They are self-proclaimed enemies of Dharma.

Ukranian and Israeli nationalists have declared no such program, therefore, there is no reason to petition Dharmapalas to defeat them.

Sherab Dorje said:
Exactly.  So because some here see it as a personal threat to their illusory sense of self, they react panic stricken wanting to lash out at a perceived enemy, but since the others (Ukranian and Israeli nationalists) are not a personal threat, they don't care:  self-centred egotistical motivation.

Malcolm wrote:
Threatening the Dharma threatens all sentient beings since the Dharma is the only source of refuge in samsara. Sponsoring wrathful pujas to counter the power of demonic human beings bent on destroying the Dharma is nothing but compassionate and benefits all sentient beings, including the demonic humans who are the object of such pujas.

Ordinary aggressors simply do not warrant such rites since they are no threat to the Dharma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Vajradhara-title
Content:
zenman said:
What is the meaning of the title Vajradhara as in Vajradhara Chogyam Trungpa? Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
It is Vidyādhara and it means "bearer of knowledge".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 27th, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
IS has threatened to destroy a major Buddhist heritage site. They are self-proclaimed enemies of Dharma.

Ukranian and Israeli nationalists have declared no such program, therefore, there is no reason to petition Dharmapalas to defeat them.

Will said:
What about many Muslims being active now in destroying, opposing and being hostile to Buddhism everywhere?  Why confine the Dharmapalas work to just one group?

Jikan said:
I've found the Muslims in my neighborhood and workplace to be supportive of my Buddhist activities--quite the opposite of destroying, opposing, and being hostile to them.  The only opposition I've had has been from the most conservative corners of the "megachurch" movement, and from (weirdly enough!) the author of a recent book on "contemplative pedagogy."  not sure what that was about.

I bring it up because it's important to be very careful indeed with the blanket generalizations.

Malcolm wrote:
I would imagine Will was talking about Talibans in Afghanistan and so on. But nevertheless, we will always be kaffirs...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 26th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
IS has threatened to destroy a major Buddhist heritage site. They are self-proclaimed enemies of Dharma.

Ukranian and Israeli nationalists have declared no such program, therefore, there is no reason to petition Dharmapalas to defeat them.

Will said:
What about many Muslims being active now in destroying, opposing and being hostile to Buddhism everywhere?  Why confine the Dharmapalas work to just one group?

Malcolm wrote:
They are under surveillance


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 26th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And that is why the wrathful practices will fail, because (in this case) they are motivated by selfish egotistical concern.  By hope and fear.  That is why you don't hear anybody asking for practices to overcome the slaughter of innocent Palestinians, or the genocidal actions of Ukranian nationalists, etc...  because they don't feel that these are a threat to their own personal well-being.  Well, sorry to be the one to inform you but protectors are not in the business of fortifying ego.

Malcolm wrote:
IS has threatened to destroy a major Buddhist heritage site. They are self-proclaimed enemies of Dharma.

Ukranian and Israeli nationalists have declared no such program, therefore, there is no reason to petition Dharmapalas to defeat them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 26th, 2014 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
aparajita said:
So, moving right along, does anyone have any suggestions about who might be most effective in performing these practices?

Malcolm wrote:
HH Sakya Trizen, Chatral Sangye Dorje, HH Taklung Tsetrul, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 26th, 2014 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
aparajita said:
I've been thinking of starting a gofundme to raise funds for sponsoring 1,000,000 Dorje Drollo mantras (or maybe Guru Drakphur,) 1,000,000 Vajrakilaya mantras, and 1,000,000 Singhamukha mantras (with the appropriate number of activity mantras too), and a large number of protector offerings. Maybe Palden Lhamo? I'm just guessing here, but it seems like the mamos would be particularly effective in dealing with people who follow a harsh, paternalistic religion (maybe?).

Malcolm wrote:
Not Magzorma, rather Rahula is the appropriate dharmapala for this purpose.

aparajita said:
I'm curious as to why. PM me if that's a better option than replying on here.

Malcolm wrote:
Because Rahula is the Dharmapala for destroying enemies of the Dharma, and IS certainly fits the bill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
aparajita said:
I've been thinking of starting a gofundme to raise funds for sponsoring 1,000,000 Dorje Drollo mantras (or maybe Guru Drakphur,) 1,000,000 Vajrakilaya mantras, and 1,000,000 Singhamukha mantras (with the appropriate number of activity mantras too), and a large number of protector offerings. Maybe Palden Lhamo? I'm just guessing here, but it seems like the mamos would be particularly effective in dealing with people who follow a harsh, paternalistic religion (maybe?).

Malcolm wrote:
Not Magzorma, rather Rahula is the appropriate dharmapala for this purpose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Dual citizenship
Content:
Seishin said:
I think that is a bit of confusion with terminology. UK does allow dual nationality (my wife and several friends and family members have dual nationality). A "British Subject" isn't the same as "British citizen" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gassho,
Seishin

Malcolm wrote:
Interesting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Dual citizenship
Content:


kirtu said:
Not so.  The US went all in on dual citizenship in the late 70's.  Many nations permit dual citizenship like those weaklings the UK, Sweden, France and Switzerland. Ironically Holland and Germany stepped back from dual citizenship during the 70's although Germany now permits some forms of dual citizenship (technically Holland does too again but it's more restricted certainly than Germany or the US).  The weak/strong country concept you are advancing is nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
The UK does not permit you to be a dual citizen. They simply don't recognize that you have abandoned your citizenship unless you make a specific declaration to a British authority even if you for example renounced your allegiance to Britain by becoming a US citizen.

kirtu said:
That's not what the Her Majesty's https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261499/bn18.pdf says:
THE LAW IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
1. A person is a dual national if he or she holds more than one nationality or citizenship at the same time. There are normally no restrictions, in United Kingdom law, on British nationals having the citizenship of one or more other countries as well. So you will not need to give up any other nationality if you become British (but see paragraphs 2 - 4 below). Similarly, if you are a British national and you acquire another nationality, you will not normally lose your British nationality. However, special rules apply to British protected persons and certain British subjects (see Note 1).
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Note one says:
If you are a British subject, you will lose that status automatically if you acquire any other nationality or citizenship (unless you are a British subject by connection with Ireland). If you are a British protected person, you will lose that status on acquiring any other nationality or citizenship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Dual citizenship
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
The U.S. allows her citizens to have dual-citizenship (if they so choose) with about 60 different nations:

Mkoll said:
I've heard that a US citizen who leaves still has to pay taxes to the US gov't, no matter where one goes. Is that true?

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. They have to pay taxes to the US when their income in that foreign country exceeds a certain amount, which is fairly high.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Dual citizenship
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
The U.S. allows her citizens to have dual-citizenship (if they so choose) with about 60 different nations:

http://www.immihelp.com/citizenship/dual-citizenship-recognize-countries.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew about Israel because I have some family members that have done that, but didn't know that Iran was allowed.

Malcolm wrote:
sort of, this is what the State Department says:
Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.
So in a case where another state grants one citizenship through marriage and so on, one can be a "dual citizen", but the website also stipulates that such a person when traveling must enter and leave using their US passport.

It also says:
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
M.G. said:
@Malcolm - That was a very informative answer.

Are there historical evidences of practitioners studying under, say, both Vajrayana and Hindu gurus?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. The Natha tradition grew out of Hindu-Buddhist syncretism and many Nathas followed Buddhist gurus even though they may have begun as Hindus, such as the Indian Buddhaguptanatha, Tārānatha's teacher.

M.G. said:
Interesting.  Were aspects of Hindu yogic practice actually adopted by Buddhists and seen as conducive to liberation?  Or was it more along the lines of learning worldly rites?


Malcolm wrote:
It is not really possible to explore this in a simple post. However, the long and short of it is that the highest Buddhist tantric systems present the body in a way entirely different than lower Buddhist schools such as Theravada and general Mahāyāna, or even lower tantra. In lower schools, things like the three kāyas and so on are exteriorized, but in the highest tantric systems they are understood to be implicit in the very structure of the body itself. The way the body is understood in Hindu systems is really not the same, so no, I do not think one can say that aspects of yoga as understood by Hindus were adopted by Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:


kirtu said:
Not so.  The US went all in on dual citizenship in the late 70's.  Many nations permit dual citizenship like those weaklings the UK, Sweden, France and Switzerland. Ironically Holland and Germany stepped back from dual citizenship during the 70's although Germany now permits some forms of dual citizenship (technically Holland does too again but it's more restricted certainly than Germany or the US).  The weak/strong country concept you are advancing is nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
The UK does not permit you to be a dual citizen. They simply don't recognize that you have abandoned your citizenship unless you make a specific declaration to a British authority even if you for example renounced your allegiance to Britain by becoming a US citizen. Anyway, Kirt, this is off topic.

Traditionally, as you know, you cannot serve two kings, as the metaphor goes, and that was the point. You cannot have refuge in Dharma and also have refuge in Christianity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:


kirtu said:
I personally have denied that one could benefit from the dharma of gods and men but I was wrong.  Some/most people can benefit as long as they are secure in refuge in the Buddhadharma.  So Hindu mantras and some practices, for example, can have a place.  See Mipham's Verses to the Eight Noble Auspicious One's for example.  This includes a constrained invocation of Shiva and Ishvara.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Who ever said there was no benefit in the Dharma of gods and humans? It assures birth in higher realms, as mentioned above.

If you bothered to read the thread carefully you will note that we addressed the issue of mundane practices from Hinduism already.

Weak countries may let you have citizenship in two nations, but if you are a US citizen, you cannot be a citizen of another country, unless you are a minor, but at some point you have to choose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Sönam said:
The fact is that there is more buddhists than follower of buddhadharma ...

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Ironic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Bug in "The Practice of Dzogchen"
Content:


Sönam said:
Yes, it seems they are unequiped to answer ... we have asked the right for a publication they hold the copyright, and it tooks months before they contact their agency in Paris for they contact us.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Snow Lion was sold to Shambhala in May 11, 2012. But I am sure they were in negotiations for a long while before hand. Hence, their lack of response, I imagine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 25th, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
duckfiasco said:
We cannot allow our warm and fuzzy feelings obscure the fact that Buddhadharma is something very precise and specific. It is not a method of "becoming a better person", nor is it a method of "resolving our unresolved issues", nor is it a practice of "mindfulness", nor is it a method of "becoming more compassionate", and so on. All of these things reduce Buddhadharma to the level of pop self-help manuals.
Nor should we negate the very real benefits Buddhism has for ordinary beings to be happy in this world, which can engender faith in them to pursue the path to its completion.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't negate it, but we don't use mundane benefits to to sell the Dharma. If our motivation for practicing Dharma is merely to be happier in this life, then we are not practicing Dharma at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Dan74 said:
So let me get this straight -  a Buddhist who is inspired by stories about Jesus's life and some teachings which help him cultivate kindness, forbearance and compassion, is wasting his time and getting further away from liberation?

I see plenty of potential for people to be inspired by all sorts of stories, teachings, day-to-day occurrences. There is Dharma in all sorts of places if one knows how to see.

Malcolm wrote:
Dan, what is the topic of the thread? "Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices", right?

So, essentially, we are not talking about whether Jesus is an inspiring character for someone, our warm feelings about St,. Francis of Assisi and so on.

We are talking about a technical issues, e.g, for example, whether one ought to sincerely attend a Catholic Mass, looking for redemption, as a Buddhist. In other words, we are discussing the appropriateness of someone who claims to follow Buddhadharma who also asserts that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior.

Someone who has taken refuge in the Three Jewels cannot at the same time take Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. They may imagine that they can, but all they succeed in doing is ignorantly destroying their refuge in the Three Jewels.

This is also the case with teachings such as emptiness and dependent origination. For example, I heard HH Dalai Lama, that bastion of ecumenicalism, state in 2005 in Tucson, AZ, that emptiness was not the business of Christians and that he generally felt that Christians ought to mind their own business. Emptiness, he said, was the business of followers of Buddhadharma, and that is was inappropriate for Christians to be interested in it. Why? Because Christians believe in ex nihilo creation, souls, and so on. Ex nihilo creation and dependent origination are mutually incompatible. One does not need to be a Buddhist to see this, as Lucretius said, ex nihilo nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing" (but we leave all similarity with epicurean materialism here).

It's a little different with Hinduism and Buddhadharma. There are many mundane rites Buddhists can avail themselves of from Hinduism, and have done so for millennia. Even so, it is inappropriate for those who have taken refuge in the Three Jewels to take refuge in Brahma, Shiva or Vishnu and so on because the latter are mundane gods who have not realized the nature of reality and are themselves trapped in samsara, like Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc.

We cannot allow our warm and fuzzy feelings obscure the fact that Buddhadharma is something very precise and specific. It is not a method of "becoming a better person", nor is it a method of "resolving our unresolved issues", nor is it a practice of "mindfulness", nor is it a method of "becoming more compassionate", and so on. All of these things reduce Buddhadharma to the level of pop self-help manuals.

If someone from outside the Dharma wants to enter the Dharma he or she must leave their previous refuge behind. You cannot have two feet in two boats (try it, it is really, really difficult), you cannot serve two masters, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Unknown said:
These are just a few qualities I've observed in some followers of other religions that I could do well to improve in.

Malcolm wrote:
BTW Dan, there are decent people everywhere. That does not take a religion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
M.G. said:
@Malcolm - That was a very informative answer.

Are there historical evidences of practitioners studying under, say, both Vajrayana and Hindu gurus?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. The Natha tradition grew out of Hindu-Buddhist syncretism and many Nathas followed Buddhist gurus even though they may have begun as Hindus, such as the Indian Buddhaguptanatha, Tārānatha's teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Malcolm,

It has validity because in practice many of us are contaminated by spiritual materialism, lack of patience and perseverance. It is a false dichotomy because it doesn't always apply.

As for worldly dharmas, have you transcended worldly Dharmas, Malcolm? Are you sorted, free of neuroses, joyful, resourceful, disciplined, reliable, kind and forgiving, humble, hard-working and undemanding? These are just a few qualities I've observed in some followers of other religions that I could do well to improve in.

Of course we have the Paramitas and wonderful teachings on them. But for some people other teachings may actually resonate better, work better, because of their karma, their strong affinity with another wisdom tradition. I don't think you or I can honestly say that this is wrong, that this cannot be productive and conducive to liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
"Are you sorted, free of neuroses, joyful, resourceful, disciplined, reliable, kind and forgiving, humble, hard-working and undemanding."

Yes, for the most part. Though like any ordinary person I have my strongly afflicted moments.

Those "some people" are not followers of Buddhadharma. They follow other paths.

I can say that other paths are not conducive to the "liberation" we practitioners of Buddhadharma hold to be liberation since this liberation is very clearly defined by the Buddha. Liberation or freedom means being free from afflictive emotions which cause rebirth in samsara. That freedom cannot arise through other paths which encourage a view of soul or a self, or through philosophies which negate the truth of rebirth and karma.

It is true that people have their karmic propensities and are more attracted to this or that religion — it is not our job to interfere with their lives; but the sorrow of samsara is that sentient beings are confused about what will bring them ultimate happiness.

I would suggest strongly that anyone who feels that liberation, as defined in Buddhadharma, can be attained by any other means than realizing the nature of dependent origination and emptiness has not really understood the meaning of the Buddha's teachings on any level.

In other words Dan, other "wisdom" traditions are mundane paths that are not conducive to liberation. They are paths of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Mixing Buddhist and non-Buddhist Practices?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I've seen these sort of discussions get a little heated in the past, because some people feel strongly that our practice should be kept pure and focused under the guidance of a realised master rather than shopping around spiritual materialism style. This view certainly has some validity but I'd add that this is a false dichotomy.

Malcolm wrote:
How can something "have some validity" and yet be "a false dichotomy?"

Dan74 said:
At the end of the day, whatever inspires us and guides us to relinquish all that is unwholesome and to cultivate all that is wholesome, to grow in clarity and wisdom is Dharma, regardless what label it comes with.

Malcolm wrote:
Some Dharma is the Dharma of gods and humans, it isn't liberating, but it certainly can cause people to take higher rebirth in samsara because in general it encourages people to avoid the ten non-virtues.

Unfortunately, non-Buddhist Dharmas (and here we really are only talking about religions in which rebirth is accepted) also are contaminated with incorrect views, so whatever wisdom they lead to will only be mundane and contaminated. As the Buddha pointed out, there is no liberation outside of his Dharma and Vinaya. Someone might point out that there so called independent Buddhas (pratyekabuddhas) but it is held that they do not teach, remaining silent about their realization, hence the Buddha's statement, repeated by him in many sūtras through out his life remains true.

In terms of mixing practices, there is not much point. Someone might respond that Tibetan Buddhism is a mixture of Buddhism and Bon, but this is really a huge overstatement, while it is true that Buddhists adapted some worldly rituals into a Buddhist framwork, such as smoke offerings, and various mundane rites to appease spirits and so on, by no means do they form an essential core of Tibetan Buddhism, since they are palliative rites designed to relieve temporary problems. Buddhism has never had a problem with people continuing to use such practices within the framework of Dharma — we can see this when Buddha instructs Ānanda to rely on brahmins to conduct the Buddha's funerary rites. However, just as you cannot be a citizen of two countries, you cannot have two refuges. One cannot, for example, take refuge in Buddha and Jesus. In other words, there is no reason for a Buddhist who is a former Catholic to take communion since a Buddhist understands that a) there is no such thing as original sin and b) that sins in general cannot be eliminated by washing with water, eating a wafer, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: The Genre of the Western Buddhist Advice Book
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Kalama Sutra. Kalama Sutra everywhere.

Like dude, even the Buddha said to like, you know, do your own thing and believe whatever you want man.

Malcolm wrote:
Right man, (toke), unless you know like someone else is telling you to, then you better not believe it man, cause (toke) you shouldn't believe anything (this s#it is awesome, cough).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 24th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Accepting Yourself
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buy overcoming afflictions and attaining omniscience.

dzogchungpa said:
Where can one buy these overcoming afflictions and attaining omniscience of which you speak?

Malcolm wrote:
Coming soon to Walmart, steeply discounted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 23rd, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Accepting Yourself
Content:
Jesse said:
I think we all have aspects of ourselves we dislike. For a long while I have been trying to accept parts of myself that I truly hate. Thing's like anger, conceit, sexual impulses, greed, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would you accept afflictive emotions? They are afflictive and are the root cause of suffering.

Either you renounce them, transform them or self-liberate them. But you certainly don't accept them. That way just leads to further rebirth in samsara.

M

Jesse said:
I think mainly because we all have a tendency to think we're bad people because we have these afflictions, when that's not really the case. What I meant is to accept that they are a part of me, without feeling like they define me.

Malcolm wrote:
We do bad things, non-vrituous things, because we are afflicted. Afflictions are never a part of oneself but they do define us as sentient beings. If you want to stop being a sentient being and start being an awakening being you have to deal with your afflictions via one of three paths I mentioned.

Why am I a sentient being and not a Buddha? Because I am subject to afflictions. How do I become a Buddha? Buy overcoming afflictions and attaining omniscience. How do I begin? By setting out on one of the three paths, depending on my capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 23rd, 2014 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Accepting Yourself
Content:
Jesse said:
I think we all have aspects of ourselves we dislike. For a long while I have been trying to accept parts of myself that I truly hate. Thing's like anger, conceit, sexual impulses, greed, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would you accept afflictive emotions? They are afflictive and are the root cause of suffering.

Either you renounce them, transform them or self-liberate them. But you certainly don't accept them. That way just leads to further rebirth in samsara.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 23rd, 2014 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What does anyone expect? Paltrul Rinpoche said:
These days have become a time when charlatans are more marketable than the sublime.

Crazywisdom said:
Rinchen Dorje was the drupon in Arizona. He did a six year. Neither he nor Garchen are charlatans. I don't think any drupons are charlatans. I think they have become lax about who they let in. Maybe they need the money.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing in my post which could have led you to infer that I was talking about anyone in Drigung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 23rd, 2014 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


bryandavis said:
I also think the more "strict" a retreat the better.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? Are you speaking from personal experience?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 23rd, 2014 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Appropriateness of openly discussing sunyata
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
...because either you are a fully qualified Guru who can teach the profound teachings to people totally accurately, gauge their readiness, and lead them to realization or you are not.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess there aren't any shades of grey in your world view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 22nd, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What does anyone expect? Paltrul Rinpoche said:
These days have become a time when charlatans are more marketable than the sublime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 22nd, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: The Genre of the Western Buddhist Advice Book
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharma Lite™


Jikan said:
As part of a research project, I'm working my way through a number of advice books, particularly having to do with meditation and mindfulness (think Kornfield, Kabat-Zinn, et al).  I've noticed that many of them share a set of formal characteristics, as though no nominally Buddhist meditation manual can make it into print without hitting a certain number of these marks:

*short sentences, paragraphs, and chapters; extensive use of familiar quotation; minimal use of literary or technical diction; "easy reading"

*encouraging, hand-holding tone; pitched to beginners (all of them, pitched to beginners)

*appeal to science and/or clinical psychology

*simultaneous appeal to "modernity" and to ancient precedents ( ancient sages across traditions agree...)

*quotations from Castaneda, Thoreau, Jung, the Christian desert fathers... appeal to a kind of universalism (attention is trans-cultural, the breath is trans-cultural)

*appeal to simplicity, as defined against ritual practice

*contradiction:  relies on Buddhism as a source of authority or legitimacy, while simultaneously distancing itself from Buddhist traditions and practices beyond a select few


I'd like to know if others are familiar with these texts and might like to offer more particulars, or correctives to what I've put together here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 22nd, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Israel, Palestine, Antisemitism
Content:
Jikan said:
It's true that there is no consensus among contemporary Jews on many aspects of the topic of Israel.  This is in evidence in the writings of such well-regarded thinkers as Judith Butler, for instance--it's not necessary to go to the whackaloon fringes of the interwebz to support this claim.

That said, given that this is a discussion board committed to Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, it's not at all clear why or how this thread is relevant.  Let's find a way to swing the discussion out of the gutter and back to the Dharma, or it'll be locked for good.

Malcolm wrote:
Kill this thread. Despite my complete lack of enchantment for Abrahamic religions, such conversations are worse then useless because apart from expressions of compassion for all involved, what is there really for Buddhists to discuss?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Heart Sutra -- why study it?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... the first bhumi ... was rather common in India, actually.

dzogchungpa said:
How do you know that?

Malcolm wrote:
Oral communication from various lamas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Practices "for" ISIL
Content:
aparajita said:
This might be an odd question, but does anyone know of any practices that would be effective in helping to rid the world of the group that calls itself ISIL?


Malcolm wrote:
Dorje Drollo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Heart Sutra -- why study it?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Could you elaborate a little? I don't have much expertise, but my impression was that most Mahayana paths are spread out over aeons and the ten stages must be completed. And even the first stage is out of reach unless one has renounced the worldly life.

Malcolm wrote:
The Heart Sutra leads to the first bhumi, which was rather common in India, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
AlexanderS said:
What makes you say that?


Malcolm wrote:
It is the most sacred place to all three religions, ergo, it is the one that will most likely be the object of a terrorist attack.

AlexanderS said:
For me it makes less sense that anyone would nuke a place that is sacred to them. I can't see anyone other than religious nutcases being mental enough to use nuclear weapons in the modern world.

Without being that knowledgeable about Islam, I was under the impression that their most sacred place is Mecca.

Malcolm wrote:
The dome of the rock is in Jerusalem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
AlexanderS said:
What makes you say that?


Malcolm wrote:
It is the most sacred place to all three religions, ergo, it is the one that will most likely be the object of a terrorist attack.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Heart Sutra -- why study it?
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Are you referring specifically to Vajrayana, or is this also true in the sutra schools?

Malcolm wrote:
Both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Will said:
While I have no sympathy for and am hostile to the Jihadists, the choice of a homeland by the Jews is odd.  They had other offers and there was even a small counter-Zionist group working for a non-Jerusalem centered nation.

It is curious that Islam has sacred turf - Mecca - as do the Jews of Israel.  Revering a sacred site is normal in all religions, but Buddhists have not, for example, made the Bodhi Tree into a site for nation building.

The priority of sacred dirt for the two groups, to the point of armed conflict, is sad and ridiculous.  So I see no peaceful resolution at all - for now and the next century - at least.


Malcolm wrote:
Ever, that place is going to be the the site of the first use of nuclear weapons since WWII, you mark my words. It's all going down in flames.

AlexanderS said:
What place will be nuked? Mecca, Jerusalem or Bodhgaya?

Malcolm wrote:
Jerusalem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 21st, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Heart Sutra -- why study it?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
The Heart Sutra is a beautiful, profound text, conveying the highest wisdom. But that wisdom is far beyond the attainment of most ordinary practitioners...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not. It is easily attainable of you have the right teacher and the right path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Sherab said:
I am perfectly fine when the evidence presented by science contradicts Buddhist teachings, I just accept it.  I don't see how that necessarily will make me a materialist.

Malcolm wrote:
It means you accept science as your ultimate arbiter of what is true or not. This is fine, but it means you accept science as ultimate truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Sherab said:
Like certain Christians, Muslims do not accept the evolution of man.  As mentioned before, they have no problems with science as long as their is no conflict with their religious teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
But they accept the evolution of everything else.

Sherab said:
That is beside the point.  I mentioned that the true colour of an adherent to a religion will show when science conflicts with its religious teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
So in your case, are you a materialist? I ask because there are any number of Buddhist teachings which are in conflict with science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Sherab said:
Like certain Christians, Muslims do not accept the evolution of man.  As mentioned before, they have no problems with science as long as their is no conflict with their religious teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
But they accept the evolution of everything else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
M.G. said:
@Malcolm (or any other knowledgeable person) - Tibet had a sizable Muslim population. Are there recorded instances of Tibetan Buddhists converting to Islam or Tibetan Muslims converting to Buddhism or of there having been cultural norms, rules, reactions, or stereotypes regarding such conversions?

Malcolm wrote:
There was a small group of Muslim butchers in Lhasa, but that is about it. And no, there was not much conversion either way. Muslims never convert to other religions, or very rarely so, because they can be killed for doing so by any other Muslim.

There is a fair amount of forced conversion in Lhadak, mainly in the form of bride theft.

In a Muslim world, everyone but Muslims are second class citizens at best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Dan74 said:
The Islamic world produced advances in science (eg Alhazen), mathematics (eg Omar Khayyam), arts , architecture and technology which in their time completely eclipsed any parallel developments in Europe. Not just the zero, but words as familiar to us as algorithm and algebra are Islamic imports.

Sherab said:
Adherents to a religion normally do not have problems with science as long as there is no conflict with their religious teachings.  It is when there are conflicts that we see the true colour of a religion and its adherents.  In this regard, I think Buddhism and Buddhists are much more open.

Malcolm wrote:
Islam is actually very science-postive. They regard scientific advances as evidence of God's hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: How Tibetans feel about the occupation of Tibet
Content:
Unknown said:
Three more Tibetans have died of untreated gunshot wounds after Chinese authorities fired on peaceful protesters last week in Sichuan Province and refused to treat the dozens who were injured and detained, according to sources Tuesday.

The bodies of the three, all members of the same household, were returned to their families on Monday after they succumbed to their injuries at the detention center in Loshu township in the Kardze (Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture.

Two protesters had previously died at the detention center on Sunday, one committing suicide in protest against "torture" at the hands of Chinese authorities and another dying of untreated wounds, exile sources had said.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/wounds-08192014131944.html#.U_OqTwfWFTU.facebook


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Will said:
While I have no sympathy for and am hostile to the Jihadists, the choice of a homeland by the Jews is odd.  They had other offers and there was even a small counter-Zionist group working for a non-Jerusalem centered nation.

It is curious that Islam has sacred turf - Mecca - as do the Jews of Israel.  Revering a sacred site is normal in all religions, but Buddhists have not, for example, made the Bodhi Tree into a site for nation building.

The priority of sacred dirt for the two groups, to the point of armed conflict, is sad and ridiculous.  So I see no peaceful resolution at all - for now and the next century - at least.


Malcolm wrote:
Ever, that place is going to be the the site of the first use of nuclear weapons since WWII, you mark my words. It's all going down in flames.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Dan74 said:
Ok, your post started informative and ended... well, disappointingly, to be polite. If Islamic contributions disappeared we would likely be set back scientifically, mathematically in terms of the arts, etc by centuries. Nevermind the barbaric hubris behind the nonchalant dismissal of an entire culture.

Malcolm wrote:
My point is really simple — Islam is not your friend, regardless of whether you have Muslim friends or not. At best, under an Islamic govt., you will be forced to pay a substantial tax just to live in your home as non-Muslim. As a Buddhist, you will probably be killed.


Dan74 said:
Hebrews and Canaanites? So you take the Bible as a historical account of what actually happened? But if you do, you would know that Hebrew prophets condemned their people for not killing the Canaanites and intermarrying with them and accepting their gods.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed. Just as modern radical Islamic leaders condemn the faint of heart among the "faithful" for not bring Jihad to our doorsteps.


Dan74 said:
We, as humanity, are heirs to all of our culture, with its sublime beauty, sweeping achievements as well as its excesses and horrors.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree.

Bascially, the best thing the American Revolution brought about was a form of government in which people were protected from religion. There may be disadvantages to our secular Western society, but our freedom from religion is our greatest strength as a culture. Cultures that are wholly grounded on a religious or ethnic basis are destined for obsolescence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:


Dan74 said:
Ok, you are shifting the argument, Malcolm. So you accept that Islam has made fundamental contributions including algebra? Yes, the Jains had mathematics but the Islamic mathematicians didn't 'steal' Jain work, but developed and advanced their own.

Malcolm wrote:
But they did so on the basis of the numerical system, etc., developed in India. So called "arabic numerals" come from India. Further, most of the contributions of Islamic culture, apart from their own poetry, music and so on, lay in the area of transmitting the knowledge of the Hellenistic world to Europe. Even the Islamic system of medicine is called Unani, which is a corruption of Yavana, i.e. Ionian — Greek.

Dan74 said:
As for killing the apostate, it was a rule much more honoured in the breach, if you check Islamic jurisprudence. Medieval Islamic literature and poetry was indeed much more rich and free than its European counterpart perhaps because apostasy and heresy laws were not applied anywhere near as zealously as the Church and its Inquisition applied theirs.

Malcolm wrote:
That really depends on where you were in the Islamic hegemony, and at what period of history. Georges Bataille has a good analysis of the economic biases that drove the Islamic expansion. In fact they are very nearly the same biases which drove the spread of Christianity and later, corporate capitalism. And your assertion is fallacious — the Zoroastrians were driven from Persia where they were not slain:
Until the Jihad, in the mid 7th century Persia (modern-day Iran) was a politically independent state, spanning from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River[3] and dominated by a Zoroastrian majority.
h[url]ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians[/url]

People should remember the vanished Zoroastrian civilization of Persia before claiming that Islam "treated" non-Muslims better than Christians treated pagans.

In fact, all three Abrahamic religions are fundamentally pernicious which is why the site of their origin is such a total mess and has been for millennia, ever since one band, the Hebrews exterminated another band, the Canaanites.

As far as I am concerned, if Islam and its "contributions" were lost to history like the Zoroastrians, it would be no great loss for humanity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Dan74 said:
a better track record than Christianity

Hieros Gamos said:
That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Dan74 said:
Well, we've all had our ups and downs. But I find the increasingly common criticism and sometimes even wholesale dismissal of everything Islamic facile at best and ignorant at worst.  So many people are simply clueless about the fundamental contributions Islamic cultures have made.

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:


Dan74 said:
Algebra and algorithms were imported from India by way of the Arab world.
I don't think so, Malcolm. Both words come from Al-Khwarizmi's massive treatise. Conner and Robertson in their Mactutor History of Mathematics archive describe the contribution the following way:

Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics#Jain_Mathematics_.28400_BCE_.E2.80.93_200_CE.29

Dan74 said:
Cool, but lets be fair to Islam, hard as it is, in the current climate. Until very recent history it actually had a better track record than Christianity in many many ways.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh nonsense. All these Abrahamic religions are predicated on ethnic cleansing. As far as I know, Islam is the only religion in the world where it is an incumbent duty for the faithful to kill apostates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 20th, 2014 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Sherab said:
One's world view is very important.  It informs and directs one's motivation, attitude and behaviour.  Buddhism recognizes this and that is why the eightfold noble path starts with right view.

The worldview of Christianity/Judaism in my opinion has in general been more subdued than in the historical past because of the progress of science and the liberalization of thoughts.  So to an important extent, the worldview of these religions have been forced into a retreat.  The same however cannot be said of Islam.  It has yet to go through the same process.  Perhaps given time, it will.  Meanwhile, the worldview of Islam in its current form presents a huge obstacle to the resolution of the Middle East problem.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, the Islamic world never had an intellectual movement comparable with the Enlightenment, no Spinoza, no Locke, etc. The fact of the matter is that a crypto-atheism lies at the heart of enlightenment thought. There is quite a good book on this called Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic.

Dan74 said:
I am not sure this is a fair assessment (and btw I don't recall a Buddhist equivalent of Enlightenment either).

The Islamic world produced advances in science (eg Alhazen), mathematics (eg Omar Khayyam), arts , architecture and technology which in their time completely eclipsed any parallel developments in Europe. Not just the zero, but words as familiar to us as algorithm and algebra are Islamic imports. If anything, there hasn't been a sociopolitical development akin to Western democracies with responsible government, but we can see it function pretty well in Indonesia and sort of Turkey, while Buddhist countries aren't doing so well (Thailand, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, etc).

Note that many countries adopted representational participatory democracies without developing them by themselves, like Japan, for instance.

Malcolm wrote:
Algebra and algorithms were imported from India by way of the Arab world.

Dan74 said:
If anything, there hasn't been a sociopolitical development akin to Western democracies

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is because of the Enlightenment, especially the Scottish Enlightenment, and it's atheist impulse drove it. Such a movement could only happen because of the Reformation.

I never said that Buddhist countries had comparable developments; they could not without abandoning key features of our religion. In fact, most of the conflicts between so called Buddhist modernists and traditionalists has exactly to do with whether people place more value on Enlightenment values or Awakening values.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 19th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Towards a resolution in Israel and Palestine
Content:
Sherab said:
One's world view is very important.  It informs and directs one's motivation, attitude and behaviour.  Buddhism recognizes this and that is why the eightfold noble path starts with right view.

The worldview of Christianity/Judaism in my opinion has in general been more subdued than in the historical past because of the progress of science and the liberalization of thoughts.  So to an important extent, the worldview of these religions have been forced into a retreat.  The same however cannot be said of Islam.  It has yet to go through the same process.  Perhaps given time, it will.  Meanwhile, the worldview of Islam in its current form presents a huge obstacle to the resolution of the Middle East problem.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, the Islamic world never had an intellectual movement comparable with the Enlightenment, no Spinoza, no Locke, etc. The fact of the matter is that a crypto-atheism lies at the heart of enlightenment thought. There is quite a good book on this called Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 19th, 2014 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Quick Question Regarding Tibetan Buddhism.
Content:
RickThunderclees said:
Good morning everyone! Had a quick question:

I'm taking a break from reading up on teachings and am exploring the history of different Buddhist traditions. Each tradition is equally beautiful in its own accord and completely fascinating to me. I've been practicing now for over 10 years and it's been nice just objectively reading about each form and tradition. But I've come to the Tibetan form to ask this specific question because I know someone will know the answer.

I've discovered that the first appearance of Avalokiteśvara is in the Lotus Sutra. I questioned this, and did some digging and haven't found otherwise. I assumed the Lotus Sutra was written way after the Tibetan tradition, but this isn't the case. Supposedly the sutra was finished by 200 AD. How did this sutra not make it into TIbetan Buddhism? Is it studied at all within the tradition? You'll have to explain this to me like I'm 5 years old because I really am ignorant of most of Buddhist history, outside of the story of Shakyamuni.

Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
The Lotus Sutra is indeed in the Tibetan tradition. It is not a subject of independent study however and there are no schools formed around it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 19th, 2014 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: How Tibetans feel about the occupation of Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
“Tibetan Buddhism designed by the CCP”
By Woeser

Not long ago, several important incidents took place in succession: 1) Because of a minor explosion at the end of October 2011, of the originally over 300 monks only 6 are now left in Karma Monastery in Chamdo County, Kham, TAR. 2) At the end of 2012, Drongna Monastery in Driru County, Nagchu Prefecture, TAR was closed down, all monk residences were sealed and many monks arrested; subsequently, the Tarmoe and Rabten monasteries of Driru County were also closed down. 3) In December 2013, an official government notice was issued to the famous Labrang Monastery in Sangchu County, Gannan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu Province, requesting to expel all non-local monks studying at the monastery within a three months period.

At the end of 2008, I wrote several essays: “‘Patriotic Education’ in Tibet”, “Another Cultural Revolution is Quietly Sweeping across Tibet’s Monasteries”, “Behind the Curtain of ‘Legal Education’”, “The Intentions Behind Transforming Monasteries into Tourist Attractions”, “The ‘Clean Up’ of Lhasa that is Hidden from the Outside World”. It is evident that the encircling and annihilation of Tibet’s monasteries is continuously moving forward, becoming more and more far-reaching. Just as I wrote at the end of 2008, “the local Party authorities are currently launching the cruelest and most bitter clean up of Tibetan monasteries since the Cultural Revolution. In the Chinese media, none of these “black box operations” are ever mentioned. Another Cultural Revolution is currently sweeping across Tibet. In 1966, Buddhist temples and statues were smashed and monks and nuns expelled, leaving behind a forlorn field of ruins. Now this second Cultural Revolution will completely eradicate any genuine monks and nuns, leaving behind nothing but the shell of monasteries and monks and nuns who are bound to lose their courage and conscience.”

If we have not already forgotten, we must remember how on October 4, 2008, the three main monasteries in Lhasa – Drepung monastery, Sera monastery and Ganden monastery – were attacked by military police in the middle of the night, monks – almost entirely students of Buddhism coming from Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, or Yunnan provinces (officially called “the four Tibetan provinces”) – were arrested at their residences. They were sent to Gormo military prison and repatriated to their hometowns after the Beijing Olympics; none of them were allowed to ever return to the monasteries.

It has always been true that more than half of the monks in Lhasa’s three main monasteries were not locals. This is a 500-year-old tradition, existing ever since the establishment of these three main monasteries, and it is the tradition of 2000 years of Buddhism. This, indeed, also includes monasteries of Chinese Buddhism that have always been inhabited by monks from all across the country. Today, Chinese monasteries have remained the same, monks from different counties and provinces reside there to study, but the monks of Lhasa’s three main monasteries have been expelled and imprisoned by military force. This has hardly ever happened in the history of Tibetan Buddhism, it only started occurring frequently in modern times under the rule of the CCP.

If we have not already forgotten, we must remember the official Tibetan document that appeared on the website of the local authorities at the end of 2008; it was a decision issued by the head of the Kardze Autonomous Prefecture targeting all 18 counties of Kardze Prefecture, stating that the local authorities will carry out the following steps against 10-30% of the monasteries whose nuns and monks participated in the protests: any religious events will be forbidden, the movement and actions of nuns and monks will be strictly controlled; all nuns and monks inside monasteries must once again “officially enrol”, all monks and nuns who do not pass the “patriotic education” examination will be expelled, all monks residences will be demolished. As for those who participated in the protests, in minor cases they will be sent back to their hometowns, in severe cases they will be imprisoned.

Starting from 2011, work groups have been stationed inside over 1700 monasteries in the TAR, employing over 7000 members of staff. Altogether, the official number of registered monks and nuns is 46,000; does this mean that each official stationed in a monastery is responsible for 6-7 monks? The problem is that in Karma Monastery, the birthplace of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, for example, officials currently outnumber monks. So does this mean that the goal of this movement, launched by Chen Quanguo and now already experiencing the third change of shifts, is to step-by-step decrease the amount of monks and eventually close down all monasteries?

Meanwhile, the authorities of “the four Tibetan provinces” are equally encircling and attacking the over 150,000 monks and their monasteries. It is impossible that all these local cadres are simply imitating what officials in the TAR do; no, these are clearly the hard-liner policies coming from the highest level. In fact, it is the continuation and implementation of Mao Zedong’s “Tibet Policies”. Mao once said: “We must also reform all monasteries. After successful reform, there will be a time when the number of lamas is greatly reduced… how should we reform monasteries, you should think of a solution.” (May 7, 1959, Guidelines After Putting Down Tibet’s Revolt). This so-called solution seems to be the model that we can observe in today’s Karma and Drongna monasteries and also in Lhasa’s three main monasteries, it is a model of Tibetan Buddhism designed by the CCP.

Lhasa, January 2014

http://highpeakspureearth.com/2014/tibetan-buddhism-designed-by-the-ccp-by-woeser/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 19th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Appropriateness of openly discussing sunyata
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It's Sutra stuff, there are no limitations on discussing it as far as I know.


Malcolm wrote:
In fact it is a breach of bodhisattva vows to discuss emptiness with those who are not mature enough to handle it or who object to the idea.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Thanks for educating me.

I wonder though, how does this apply to public teachings? I've been to public teachings where emptiness is the subject, and a few people int he audience really do not like it, or find it uncomfortable somehow, find it unacceptable...does this mean teachers are at constant risk of breaking their Bodhisattva vows, unless they somehow vet people who come to teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
I remember HHDL saying that Christians for example, should mind their own business when it comes to emptiness, it is not their school. I think basically, unless some one shows up to a teaching, one does not discuss the Mahāyāna view of reality, but instead one emphasizes dependent origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 18th, 2014 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Help Choosing a School
Content:


Gnosis984 said:
Any suggestions, ideas, any help at all would be most appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
A teacher is more important than a school. Find a teacher you trust.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 18th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Appropriateness of openly discussing sunyata
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It's Sutra stuff, there are no limitations on discussing it as far as I know.


Malcolm wrote:
In fact it is a breach of bodhisattva vows to discuss emptiness with those who are not mature enough to handle it or who object to the idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 18th, 2014 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Lamas and Gifts
Content:
twiz said:
Does a Lama only accept gifts when they are filled with good intentions and from the heart?

Are they able to determine when one is just doing it because they are suppose to/want merit, and reject it (in a polite manner)?

Curious as to how much they may understand one's intentions.

Malcolm wrote:
No.
No.
As to your third question, it depends on how well they know you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 16th, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Dharma should not have a price on it
Content:
LastLegend said:
I can only speak for Vietnamese Mahayana.

Dharma should be free always.

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna stated in the tantras themselves that a fee for the initiation and teachings should be set.

LastLegend said:
In form of money? Or other offering?

Malcolm wrote:
Gold, usually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 16th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Dharma should not have a price on it
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Haven't we had this argument before?  If somebody can remind me of the thread we had it in, then we won't need to repeat it (again).


Malcolm wrote:
Of course, it is a Buddhist board, and all our discussion take rebirth again and again, and will until they exhaust their karma...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 16th, 2014 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Dharma should not have a price on it
Content:
LastLegend said:
I can only speak for Vietnamese Mahayana.

Dharma should be free always.

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna stated in the tantras themselves that a fee for the initiation and teachings should be set.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Dharma should not have a price on it
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is the principle we should employ, as Kenpo Ngalo states in his commentary on Ngondro:
Never arriving with empty hands is a critical point of dependent origination. In particular, when that guru confers empowerment and explains Dharmas, since all the compassion and blessings of all the buddhas of the three times and ten directions along with all the bodhisattvas exist in that sublime guru, the guru is inseparable with all the buddhas. Even bringing him a morsel of food has greater merit than making many hundred of thousands of offerings to others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 15th, 2014 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Zhen Li said:
The anagarika ordination is ancient, not modern.
As far as I know, it's a modernist invention, but the term is used to refer to a renunciant in general. Like gomin, the name doesn't tell us anything...

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Pandita, writing in the mid-13th century, states in his famous summary of Mahāyāna, Clarifying the Muni's Intent (thub pa'i dgongs gsal):
Further the Ārya Sthaviravādīns assert a so-called “gomin upāsaka” since it was stated that “It has been heard from a oral tradition of the Ārya Sthaviravādīns that  “A lay person who has accepted the eight limbs for as long as they live is called a gomin upāsaka”... Since the Vinaya Sūtra is a text of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, neither the brahmacārī nor the gomi [upāsaka] are mentioned. Therefore,that is the reason these two rites do not occur.
So, the tradition is not a modernist invention, and Sakya Pandita [educated by 30 Indian Panditas and fluent in both written and spoken Sanskrit] was clearly familiar with the term in the usage I have supplied.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Anagarika is a fairly recent phenomenon, popularised by Anagarika Dharmapala, so the idea that there's a continuity between that and Gomins (which aren't actually described anywhere as requiring eight vows) is very unlikely in my opinion.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not true. I just have not had time to pull the reference because I am on the road. The anagarika ordination is ancient, not modern.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Teacher as Buddha?
Content:
tlee said:
I think the requisite of seeing the empowerment lama as a Buddha is different depending on your level of accomplishment.

A regular person would see them as a truly existent Buddha.
A seasoned person might see them as a Buddha dependent on factors.

Perhaps there's other meanings to this also. It's not uncommon for tantric rules and teachings to have multiple levels of meaning.
Personally I see the empowerment lama, the teaching, the deity, the Buddha, the vows, the views, the effort I make, etc. all being aspects of the same karmas or on a deeper level the potential of all beings to become a Buddha.  I like my current view of things because it allows me to retain my independent thinking so if it turns out I joined a bad cult I can back out without feeling I've broken my relationship to the Triple Gem. That is the really the only issue with seeing a teacher as a Buddha after all.

Malcolm wrote:
If you find you are taking teachings from a Lama who is not qualified, you can simply leave them and move on. There is no fault.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Teacher as Buddha?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
I'm a little confused about this in practical sense. As far as I know, I have received no HYT empowerments (two Chenrezig initiations), and yet at least one of my practices has guru yoga as preliminary practice as part of the sadhana..additionally, unless i'm mistaken in what I was told, guru yoga is supposed to be a part of  deity sadhana practice period it was there in the initiations themselves...unless I'm not understanding what "guru yoga" actually is, but I think I am. If this is inappropriate to answer publicly, no problem.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are practicing Avalokiteśvara and Mahāmudra indeed, the sadhana has a kind of guru yoga worked in it. If you are practicing Tsembupa Avaokiteśvara, this is actually an HYT practice and presumes that prior to receiving the instruction you have received both a major empowerment of some kind as well as at least a jenang into Avalokiteśvara. The King's tradition Avalokieśvara major empowerment is often used by HH Sakya Trizen for giving this instruction.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: reading recommendations on sound, light, rays
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
The out-of-print Sacred Tibetan Teachings on Death and Liberation by Giacomella Orofino contains extracts from the Union of Sun and Moon Tantra and the Bon The Oral Transmission of Zhang Zhung.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/168469738/Giacomella-Orofino-Sacred-Tibetan-Teachings-on-Death-and-Liberation " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
This tantra (nyi zla kha sbyor) has very little on sounds lights and rays. Indeed, the 17 tantras as a whole have very little on the subject. There are texts in the Zhang Zhung snyan rgyud however that have extensive teachings on the subject, and some of the terma cycles also have a bit more on the subject.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is also no celibate ordination in the Tibetan tradition of Mahāyāna. Celibate ordinations are strictly the domain of Vinaya.

Mkoll said:
Really? I had no idea!

So lamas, geshes, tulkus, etc. don't have to be celibate?

Are their bhikkhus in Tibetan Buddhism or do they go under a different name? They don't have to be celibate either?

Malcolm wrote:
Lamas and tulkus can be bhikṣus, or novices, or upāsakas. Geshes are generally always bhiksus.

In other words, in the Mahāyāna tradition of India and Tibet there is no separate celibate ordination. The celibate Mahāyāna ordination is an innovation of the Japanese Tendai school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


kirtu said:
Ah - you posses vinaya identity.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, I am a full Mulasarvastivada upāsaka, having received that ordination from Luding Khenpo Sr. in 1996.

kirtu said:
Sorry, my lamas are Mulasarvastivada monks.  The lineage follows the Mulasarvastivada tradition (primarily).  Just for me though I have no such restrictions on maintaining practices or vows strictly from within one lineage and will accept whatever is offered by whatever tradition freely.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said one could not do this. I wouldn't bother since there is no need to add anything to our lineage. If someone wants to be celibate, they can simply take the full upāsaka ordination with the intention to follow brahmacarya. If they wish to wear robes or follow the vows of a dge tshul, they may. If they later change their minds about being celibate, they also may, without needing to change anything. If you become a dge tshul however, it is a different matter, and deciding to become non-celibate requires relinquishing one's status as part of the ordained sangha.


kirtu said:
Slipping in the Theravada insinuation is complete nonsense.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? I was referring to the fact that Mulasarvastivada fast day vows (upavastha) are different than Mahāyāna fast day vows.

kirtu said:
The only fast vows I have taken and can retake freely are the Mahayana fast vows.

People are different and some people find these vows to be necessary.  What others do is not so relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with taking fast day vows, but there is no tradition of taking them "for life". They only last a day and a night, whether they are based on the pratimokśa or bodhisattva vow system. There is also no celibate ordination in the Tibetan tradition of Mahāyāna. Celibate ordinations are strictly the domain of Vinaya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Has your memory deteriorated since practicing Buddhism?
Content:
januarysprings said:
As thoughts lesson, one merges into awareness etc has your memory deteriorated or anything else?

What to do?

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, one's memory improves as a result of practicing Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


kirtu said:
We don't have to.  For vinaya purists we can borrow it from the Theravada which you mention later yourself ...

Malcolm wrote:
The Anagarika ordination can only be received from a Theravadin bhikku. It cannot be received from a Mulasarvastivadin bhikṣu. So we can't really "borrow" it because that ordination does not exist in our lineage.

Further, you cannot specify that you are taking the fast day vows "for life", those vows last one day and one night, i.e. dawn to dawn. You can retake it everyday if you want, but...most people are not going to do this. Especially considering that the Mahāyāna fast day vows are more important in our tradition and further, pratimokśa vows are not as important as bodhisattva vows.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: reading recommendations on sound, light, rays
Content:
anjali said:
Hello all,

I'm looking for any English reading recommendations discussing the energy of awareness and it's manifestation as sound, light and rays. Recommendations can be anywhere from detailed scholarly expositions to pith instructions.

Thanks!


Malcolm wrote:
You will find this primarily in descriptions of the bardo. The Bonpos have extensive explanations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 at 9:46 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The gomin ordination simply does not exist in our lineage. It does exist in the Theravada. It may have been practiced in India, but it was never part of the Mulasarvastivadin school, to which we (all Tibetan Buddhists) belong.

Mkoll said:
Hi Malcolm,

Can you describe what this gomin ordination is in Theravada? I've never heard that term used. Perhaps there's another name for it?

Malcolm wrote:
Anagarika. I believe gomin is what they call this ordination in Mahāsamghika.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Sorry, I am not familiar with this terminology. Is this gomin as in cowherd? Or is it a Tibetan term?

Malcolm wrote:
As in Candragomin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 13th, 2014 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


kirtu said:
The 24 hr vow tradition does exist.  One could then extend that by oneself by taking the vow daily for a period.  There are people who do this - this much is not an innovation.

Malcolm wrote:
That is called upavas̄aka and the vow is taken only for a day and a night. But this is not the gomin ordination.

kirtu said:
Gomin ordination: Chod did not exist before Machig nor was nyungnye practiced before Bhikkshuni Palmo created it.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by Chö. If you mean the practice of the offering the body, then this certainly existed prior to Machigma, and is found in such Tantras as Hevajra and so on. What is unique about Chö is primarily Machig's introduction of the use of melody and the Chö damaru, and her explanation of the four māras. And you forget that father lineage Chö does not have these things and comes from Padampa.

As far as the the nyungnye (smyung gnas], there are various kinds of fast rites connected with deities one can find in the Tengyur.

kirtu said:
Gomin ordination may not be introduced to the Mulasarvastivadin vinaya but it may still become a common practice.

Malcolm wrote:
It can't. We do not have that ordination. We cannot rewrite Vinaya to include it.

There are basically eight kinds of ordained people in Mulasarvastivada: lay men and women, lay fast day participants (male and female), male and female novices, and male and female fully ordained persons. However, since there was never any fully ordained bhikṣunis to ordain women with the special probationary vows in Tibet, the Mulasarvastivadin bhikṣuni ordination was never introduced to Tibet and this is why there are no fully ordained Mulasarvastivadin bhikṣunis today, nor has there been any for a thousand years.

Of course, if someone wishes to take the Gomin ordination in Theravada, there is nothing to stop them. But they cannot receive it in Tibetan Buddhism, they must go to Theravada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 12th, 2014 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
kirtu said:
So the gomi genyen tradition has already been revived and there is some expression of it in Europe?

Malcolm wrote:
The Gomin Upāsaka ordination does not exist in Tibetan Buddhism. It is not part of the Mulasarvastivada tradition.

kirtu said:
Okay - but to me this is a bit of wiggling (wiggle to the left, wiggle to the right) .... Kongtrul *does* discuss it in his Encyclopedia (Buddhist Ethics) and it was practiced in India (and you are always pointing back to Indian Vajrayana ....).

And anyway it *does* exist in the form of the 8 vows taken for a 24 hr period (so not gomi genyen per se because that would be for a longer period esp. to include for life).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
The gomin ordination simply does not exist in our lineage. It does exist in the Theravada. It may have been practiced in India, but it was never part of the Mulasarvastivadin school, to which we (all Tibetan Buddhists) belong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 12th, 2014 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Wagner and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Wagner....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 12th, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
The Gomin Upāsaka ordination does not exist in Tibetan Buddhism. It is not part of the Mulasarvastivada tradition.
Sorry, I thought  Kirt was giving me Gomi Genyen as his rendition of "full Genyen".  Our director, who received this, used this term "full Genyen", so I am assuming it is what the translator used when Geshe Jampa Gyatso transmitted it. He does not remember the name in Tibetan though I think I could look it up.

From what he told me today when I inquired it is a lifelong celibacy vow in addition to the normal Upasaka vows.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, sometimes the upāsaka ordination is given as a kind of probationary vow with the understanding that one will try to behave like a dge tshul.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 11th, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Do you mean gomi genyens? A person observing the eight vows of a layperson for extended periods (beyond a day) or also for life
Yes, and in the specific case that comes to mind, it was for life. It was given by (the late) Geshe Jampa Gyatso in Italy to, I believe, a group of several European students.

kirtu said:
So the gomi genyen tradition has already been revived and there is some expression of it in Europe?

irt

Malcolm wrote:
The Gomin Upāsaka ordination does not exist in Tibetan Buddhism. It is not part of the Mulasarvastivada tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 11th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Mind, Clear Light and the Five Aggregates
Content:
whitetiger said:
Greetings,

I hope I"m posting this question to the proper forum.  I have a question about what's often translated as "Clear Light," "Radiant Light" or "Inner Radiance" in Tibetan Buddhism, particularly in the Bardo Thodol.  The Clear Light is the subtlest level of mind and purest awareness, and the "meeting of mother and child lights" results in Buddhahood.  Correct?  But is the Clear Light distinct from and beyond the five aggregates, or is it part of them?  If it's distinct from the five aggregates, does this mean it never incarnates and only new aggregates are born in each life (with the Clear Light untouched by any of it)?  If that is the case, does that explain why the idea of "reincarnation" (as in, same self born again and again) is a fallacy and yet there is a pure awareness that is nevertheless present?

Finally, is the Clear Light the same as "universal mind" which is indivisible and one with all (i.e. no "your clear light," "my clear light," etc. I know it's crude but I don't know how else to put it)?  Does it appear to be divided only when obscured by or tied to an individual consciousness (e.g. an individual person, a Bodhisattva, immortal, god, Buddha, etc.)?

Hope someone can help me understand.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, you must understand that all four schools, Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma and Gelug treat the notion of "clear light" rather differently.

You are mixing two presentations in your post above, Gelug and Nyingma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 11th, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
That's almost 500 years AFTER the original formation of the historiographical approach proposed by Herodotus.


Malcolm wrote:
And Herodotus, as we know, was largely regarded as a fraud.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 11th, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: How Tibetans feel about the occupation of Tibet
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: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I also mentioned other Nalanda luminaries in this thread such as Shantideva, Gunaprabha and Shakyaprabha. Would you consider their influence similarly limited?

Zhen Li said:
There simply isn't evidence that any individual writer (or simply text, since many, including Shantideva, are possibly the product of multiple authors and redactors) had the sort of influence in Indian Buddhism that they did in Tibetan Buddhism. We simply aren't privy to that data - and to what extent eminent scholars were respected in India in the second half of the first millennium may be questioned as well, it may also be questioned as to what extent the pantheonisation of eminent scholars in Tibetan Buddhism is a later development also, but thankfully we have a relatively clear picture of the influence of Atisha in Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, Nāgārjuna comes to mind, as does Maitryeanatha. These two writers were extremely influential on Indian Mahāyāna. Vasubandhu's Kośa more or less eclipsed the study of other Abhidharma texts on the continent. The texts Indian translators chose to encourage their Tibetan and Chinese protégés is a very clear indices of what texts they though important and influential. So for example, Atiśa was an avid enthusiast of Candrakīrti, and within 70 years of Atisha's death in 1052, everything that was attributed to Candrakirti, whether sūtra or tantra, was translated into Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No. All accounts hold that Shantideva vanished into the sky while reciting the wisdom chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatara.

Zhen Li said:
Well, for instance, there is an account in Arts of Asia, Volume 36, p. 127. But I believe I heard the account first by word of mouth from a Kagyu Lama. But like I said, there are multiple accounts, i.e. that after he disapepared he was seen with a wife, or with Nagarjuna, etc. But if textual sources are all that matter to you, then I'm afraid I'm out of luck.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, there really aren't multiple accounts. And there is no account of Santideva hanging out with Nāgārjuna. I think you must have him confused with another siddha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Kalacakra war prophecy
Content:
Will said:
Malcom: intimidation will happen through illusions.
Dates differ, so it could be 400 years away.

It could happen through mind made illusions.  I recall a story about a Tibetan siddha who, as some of the Chinese soldiers approached, made them see something fearsome (I forgot what) and they turned and ran.  So if scores of future bodhisattva siddhas have this power, then it could work, if focused on the leadership of the barbarian military.

Malcolm wrote:
The war with the barbarians happens 1800 years after the conquest of mecca.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Kalacakra war prophecy
Content:
Will said:
At present I do not see how the barbarians would be intimidated, other than through dying.

Of course, Shambhala super weaponry of 300 years hence could produce a non-lethal, but profoundly painful weapon.  Something like that is being developed now.  So paralysis or sleep or total confusion could be effective in rendering the barbarian war machine ineffective.  Let it come to be!

Malcolm wrote:
My statement above is based directly on the relevant passage from the Kalacakra root tantra, as well as the Vimalaprabha commentary which are both translated above,


Will said:
So does my notion of non-lethal weaponry not fit your idea of the war?  Or do you mean some sort of Shambhala siddhis will produce scarifying illusory visions and dreams that will cause the barbarians to forgo war?  Clarify please.

Malcolm wrote:
The passage is pretty clear, intimidation will happen through illusions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Kalacakra war prophecy
Content:
Will said:
At present I do not see how the barbarians would be intimidated, other than through dying.

Of course, Shambhala super weaponry of 300 years hence could produce a non-lethal, but profoundly painful weapon.  Something like that is being developed now.  So paralysis or sleep or total confusion could be effective in rendering the barbarian war machine ineffective.  Let it come to be!

Malcolm wrote:
My statement above is based directly on the relevant passage from the Kalacakra root tantra, as well as the Vimalaprabha commentary which are both translated above,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I would understand it to mean that according to some Yogacarins when arhats enter the final samadhi of nirvana, they are done. There is no possibility for them to enter Mahāyāna and achieve Buddhahood.

zed said:
But it can't be because they have utterly ceased to exist. (?)

Shakya Chogden is saying that Cittamatrins accept that the buddha-essence exists at the time of no remainder. So there must be something there.

Just the bare alaya, perhaps, purified of all the contaminated seeds that cause rebirth in samsara, but lacking any of a buddha's positive qualities as well as any means by which that they could be manifested ?

I am aware that Shakya Chogden holds some unconventional views on Yogacara, but I really don't know whether this is one of them or not.

Malcolm wrote:
No they don't utterly cease, but they remain in a non-afflictive samadhi of cessation forever...and never aid anyone...[according to this idea]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Poll: Kalacakra war prophecy
Content:
Will said:
Around 300 years from now, forces from Central Asia will destroy an Islamic army and thus usher in an era of peace.

Malcolm wrote:
I have ascertained an important point about this. The passage that clarifies everything about this is as follows:
Also the illusory form will war on the Barbarians in the land of Mecca.
Taktsang Lotsawa's states:
[T]hough it appears that life is taken and so on, the passage is saying that there is no war involving the misdeeds of taking life and so on.
My footnote to this passage states:
This passage, wrongly interpreted, could damage interfaith exchanges between Buddhists and Muslims. This passage has been understood by earlier scholars up to the present as indicating that the “war” with the Barbarians in Mecca will be fought in a concrete external sense (See Wallace, 2004, pg. 61), in addition to its inner sense without clarifying the non-violent nature of this war. However, PN, pg. 50, states, annotations in italics, “(For the most part, the four divisions of the Cakrin’s army is an emanation), Also the illusory form (the Cakrin) will war on the Barbarians (in the manner of establishing them in the Dharma through intimidation) in the external land of Mecca; but there is no war (in the manner of taking the lives of Barbarians).” Waldo, pg. 56, 2005, erroneously translates ma kha, i.e.Mecca, as mkha’, i.e. space.
So yes, there is a war, but no lives will be taken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


Indrajala said:
I'll exit this discussion now.

Malcolm wrote:
Good idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
One understands the latter by understanding how it is the former is false. After all, didn't Nāgārjuna quip:

Indrajala said:
And yet the ultimate is understood, i.e., dependently originated, on the conventional. Emptiness is likewise empty, as Nagarjuna explained. To remain attached to the ultimate is as problematic as to be attached to the conventional.

Malcolm wrote:
The conventional only persists as an object of cognition until it has been analyzed. According to your understanding, the conventional is capable with withstanding analysis. It isn't since it is merely the result of mistaken cognitions.


Indrajala said:
No, there isn't. Not for a serious practitioner. And certainly not for a real bhikṣu.
A bodhisattva, as I said, needs to understand reality and operate within it so as to benefit others. This is the purpose behind acquisition of the the pañca-vidyā.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

As has been pointed out, Buddhology is not part of the pañcavidyāsthana  — and further, bodhisattvas do not expend their energy destroying people's faith in Mahāyā̄na etc. You cannot be a bodhisattva and a Buddhologist. It simply cannot be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is, actually. The only thing that prevents it from being so is affliction.

Indrajala said:
If only life were so simple we could remove all afflictions within a few hours of practice.

Malcolm wrote:
It is simple, but it is not easy.



Indrajala said:
That's all just fiction based on loosely real events. Not history.

Malcolm wrote:
It is history, not "just fiction".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:
uan said:
I don't have a reference handy, but I thought according to the Mahayana view, that eventually the (a) Buddha will go and awaken the Arhats and lead them to Buddhahood. But from what is just being discussed, that won't happen, ever. Or is it only for some Arhats and not others. I could be totally wrong in my understanding as well.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one Mahāyāna view, Madhyamaka.

uan said:
What would the Dzogchen perspective be?

Malcolm wrote:
Same as the Madhyamaka view, there are no icchantikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which is predicated on deluded cognitions.

Indrajala said:
Conventional reality and ultimate reality are two sides of the same coin.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a misunderstanding.

Indrajala said:
Without understanding the former, the latter is not understood.

Malcolm wrote:
One understands the latter by understanding how it is the former is false. After all, didn't Nāgārjuna quip:
Since the Jinas have proclaimed Nirvana alone to be true,
what wise person does not imagine the rest to be false?


Indrajala said:
There's more to life than Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
No, there isn't. Not for a serious practitioner. And certainly not for a real bhikṣu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh nonsense. If you study the rnam thars of siddhas and bodhisattvas and emulate their examples you cannot possibly go wrong.

Indrajala said:
If only life were so simple and straightforward as that.

Malcolm wrote:
It is, actually. The only thing that prevents it from being so is affliction.


Indrajala said:
Quite frankly, the Schopens and the Bronkhorsts of the world will just be footnotes in someone else's fashionable academic book in a hundred years. Meanwhile, people who have no idea about anything these sorts of academics wrote or said will still be gaining siddhi and waking up without the dubious benefit of any of their scholarship.
Just because you don't find any benefit in their works doesn't mean the rest of us will not.

Malcolm wrote:
In the end, you will not. Someday you will wake up from the slumber of Buddhology and devote yourself to what is important.


Indrajala said:
You have to recognize at some point that your academic interest in history is not a path. There is no subject called "history" in the pañcavidyāsthana.
That's probably due to cultural reasons. Indian scholars never really valued history so much, which is why they seem to have produced so little of it in the classical periods.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

They produced a great deal of it actually, Ramayāna, Mahābharata, Puranas, etc. But their tradition of history did not grow out of the very Mediterranean anxieties of the Greeks and Romans. Their historiographical sense is quite removed from that of Greco-Roman culture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
Your statement presumes there is some objective external historical reality out there waiting to be verified by scholars.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a conventional reality.[/quote]

Which is predicated on deluded cognitions.


Indrajala said:
You mean the sūtras, śastras and Dharma histories are not sufficient evidence of this?
There's more to the study of history than religious texts.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Sure, but that has nothing to with the Dharma. For example, the title of this thread (not created by you) is "Vinaya is a later fabrication", but this statement is obviously nonsense. Trying to prove that Vinaya for example does not date back to the Buddha because of the insertion of some anachronisms in this or that text no more proves that Vinaya is a "fabrication" then the now disproven contention that Troy in the Illiad never existed. And quite frankly, none of your so called anachronisms have been proven to be such.

All you have really succeeded in showing is what I have maintained in the past, i.e., Buddhology is a tangled ball of conflicting and ever-shifting opinions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
I think studying Buddhist societies which purportedly cultivate the pāramitās, yet evidently do the opposite at times or a lot of the time, is quite instructive. If one does not study the past, then one is doomed to repeat the mistakes of one's predecessors.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh nonsense. If you study the rnam thars of siddhas and bodhisattvas and emulate their examples you cannot possibly go wrong. And since you cannot control the acts of afflicted people, what society does, any society, is largely outside the control of any individual member.

Quite frankly, the Schopens and the Bronkhorsts of the world will just be footnotes in someone else's fashionable academic book in a hundred years. Meanwhile, people who have no idea about anything these sorts of academics wrote or said will still be gaining siddhi and waking up without the dubious benefit of any of their scholarship.

You have to recognize at some point that your academic interest in history is not a path. There is no subject called "history" in the pañcavidyāsthana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Sherlock said:
...going on Jayarava's course.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh right, the reincarnation of the "Buddha was a solar myth" theory of some in the nineteenth century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Sherlock said:
Useful how?

Does it help you complete any of the 6 paramitas?

Indrajala said:
Is that the only measure in which something can be useful?

Discernment of reality as it was or is is a useful aspect of wisdom in my reckoning.

The study of history is a lot of fun and quite enlightening. You get to see how Buddhism actually worked out in real life in the past for real life people.

Malcolm wrote:
As to your question, since the six perfections included pretty much everything meaningful there is to practice and cultivate as a Dharma person, yes.

Your statement presumes there is some objective external historical reality out there waiting to be verified by scholars.

You mean the sūtras, śastras and Dharma histories are not sufficient evidence of this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For this reason, Buddhology is basically useless for Buddhists.

Indrajala said:
Naw. I'm into Buddhology, a Buddhist monk and I find the methodologies useful.

I've written a ton of stuff for my blogs and site on all manner of Buddhist subjects for the purposes of edification and so forth (using Buddhological methods).

Sherlock said:
Useful how?

Does it help you complete any of the 6 paramitas?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it might not have any value for the perfections, but certainly Buddhological will definitely help one gather the six imperfections.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For this reason, Buddhology is basically useless for Buddhists.

Indrajala said:
Naw. I'm into Buddhology, a Buddhist monk and I find the methodologies useful.

I've written a ton of stuff for my blogs and site on all manner of Buddhist subjects for the purposes of edification and so forth (using Buddhological methods).

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't edify anyone. It is a lot of wasted talent better put towards translating sūtra, śastra and commentaries. And a lot of it is just you pontificating about the opinions of other scholars. In other words, it is largely discursive and intellectual, but it has no value for the path. Moreover, it does not help anyone at all.

But you are still young and have (some) time to waste of youthful pursuits. However as Candragomin points out:

Just like the flame of a lamp that is stirred by a strong wind, 
there is no certainty this life remains for an instant longer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
Academia does not strictly equal secular materialism.

Malcolm wrote:
It's method is informed by it and largely caters to it.

For this reason, Buddhology is basically useless for Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
The basic reality at the moment is that there's no evidence that Magahda in the fifth century BCE had writing. The Buddha's sangha was illiterate.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a reality, that is a groundless supposition concocted from your imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:
uan said:
I don't have a reference handy, but I thought according to the Mahayana view, that eventually the (a) Buddha will go and awaken the Arhats and lead them to Buddhahood. But from what is just being discussed, that won't happen, ever. Or is it only for some Arhats and not others. I could be totally wrong in my understanding as well.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one Mahāyāna view, Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I would understand it to mean that according to some Yogacarins when arhats enter the final samadhi of nirvana, they are done. There is no possibility for them to enter Mahāyāna and achieve Buddhahood.

uan said:
Is that a bad thing?

Separate from the above question, is there a point where the arhat consciously makes that choice, or is it a result of a wrong view they are unaware of?

Malcolm wrote:
According to the promulgators of this view, it is an inferior awakening. Hence the term "hinayāna".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 9th, 2014 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
With respect to specimens of pre-Aśoka writing, there are no reliably dated items available.

Educate yourself:

http://indology.info/papers/salomon/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so what? Really, it is quite impossible that Indians did not have writing at the time of the Buddha.


Apart from the fact that this paper is the usual collection of conflicting opinions that Buddhologists are so fond of reciting, your cited paper states:
Can we believe that these dynasties with their legendary riches, and the remarkable intellectual and cultural life of India in the time of the Buddha and Mahâvîra, existed in a totally illiterate sphere?

...Even given the very different cultural role of writing in India as compared to many other ancient civilizations, it is hard to conceive that practical affairs such as the keeping of records and accounts in a fabulously wealthy empire like that of the Nandas could have been kept in order without any form of writing at all, or at least without some alternative system of memory-aids like the Inca quipu . Thus one is tempted to think along the lines of William Bright (cited by Falk, p.290) of some type of writing that was "perhaps used for commercial purposes, but not for religious or legal texts."
My answer is no. The simplest explanation, of course is that Indians used writing only for business, and that even these records vanished easily because of the dampness of the climate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:


zed said:
As I understand, he is saying that in Cittamatra, the dharmadhatu of the meditator's own continuums, i.e., the pole of experience that is luminous and aware, is taken as a the support for meditation (dmigs rten), so whan that continuum is severed, as in the case of nirvana without remainder, there is no more gotra. But bodhisattvas never sever their continuums; they transform (or gradually reveal) the gotra as the dharmakaya.

In Madhyamaka, on the other hand, it is asserted that an arhat's contimuum at the time of nirvana without remainder is not severed. Although the delusional obscurations (nyon bsgrib) have been eliminated, some (or all) knowledge obscurations remain embedded in the alaya.

Reasonable interpretation? Or am I all screwed up?

Malcolm wrote:
I would understand it to mean that according to some Yogacarins when arhats enter the final samadhi of nirvana, they are done. There is no possibility for them to enter Mahāyāna and achieve Buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the discovery recent find of Tamil-Brahmi, possibly dating the 600-500 BCE, casts considerable doubt on the common assumption among Buddhologists that writing did not exist in India during the time of the Buddha.

daverupa said:
3rd or 2nd Century BCE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil-Brahmi#The_script, so what is that, about 300-100 BCE? I heard about http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/article2408091.ece, but...
Mr. Mahadevan described the dating as “interesting” but said “multiple carbon-dates are needed” for confirmation. “If there are several such cases, history has to be re-written because up to now, the scientifically proved earliest date is from Tissamaharama in southern Sri Lanka, where a Tamil-Brahmi script is dated to 200 BCE.” If there is scientific evidence that the paddy is dated to 490 BCE, “we have to sit up and take notice, and wait for confirmation,” Mr. Mahadevan said.
“It is premature to revise the Tamil-Brahmi dating on the basis of a single carbon date, which is governed by complicated statistical probabilities,” Dr. Subbarayalu said.
And, why no records of writing tools and their proper use and care, among the various allowables, at the early strata?

Malcolm wrote:
Writing does not spread over a whole continent for different languages in a single generation. It is a process that takes centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What he is saying is that according to this presentation, such an arhat is effectively an icchantika, and has severed their natural gotra by entering into parnirvana.

zed said:
Which I take to be utter non-existence and consistent with the standard Cittamatra presentation of nirvana without remainder. Right?
I guess it makes sense, given that the natural gotra is held to be the special feature of the six ayatanas. If there are no more ayatanas, then there can no longer be a natural gotra.

Am I right in thinking that only False Aspectarian Cittamatrins assert that all beings possess buddha-essence, which is the truly existent natural purity of the mind?
If so, what do True Aspectarians assert is the buddha-essence? Obviously (?) it cannot be something that is possessed by all beings.

Thanks, Malcolm, for your input.

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is better to put it in terms of classical Yogacara. For example, Dharmamitra states in his Prasphuṭapadā commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkara:
This one the Mahāyāna Madhyamikas describes as difficult to have realization, but the Yogacarin assertion that the icchanthika (rigs chad pa) 'burns the seed' slanders tathagātagarbha.
If you run a search on the term rigs med pa, rather than rigs chad pa, you will find very ample discussion of the concept in the Yogacarin section on the Tengyur.

For example, Municandra's Sūtrālaṁkāravṛttibhāṣya states:

If one lacking gotra generates [bodhi]citta, the seed will not "take".


But it is important to keep in mind that the concept of agotra and icchantika comes from the Tathagatagarbha and Yogacarin stream of sutra, specifically the Lanka and the Nirvana. They are a little different from each other. But they are both rejected by Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
tingdzin said:
Again in my opinion, someone who is truly intellectually supple and does not have an ego-investment in one side or the other should be able to argue both sides. And anyone who has the capability to do that but has not come to some supra-intellectual understanding of the Buddha's teaching already has probably missed the boat.

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out once, there is no consensus about anything in Buddhology, it's just a stew of conflicting opinions by scholars in disagreement with each other for a hundred years.

This one says this, that one says that, etc. Vast and confident inferences are made on the basis of a few surviving inscriptions, or the absence thereof.

Schopen, and Jeff, make one of the most basic faults described in archaeology — to whit — pots are not people. Moreover, in a climate like India's, wood structures do not survive much less kutis. The whole argument that there was no organized monastic Sangha prior to Ashoka must be laughed at, since we clearly have evidence in the Vinaya.

For example, as to the charge of anachronism, let it be pointed out that the Illiad contains many, many anachronisms. Nevertheless, it also contains a record of a war that was actually fought in the place where the text says the war at Troy was fought.

It is well known everywhere, and in all traditions, that Buddha's teachings were not written down until a very late date. Many people assume that this is due to the absence of writing in India at that time, but the discovery recent find of Tamil-Brahmi, possibly dating the 600-500 BCE, casts considerable doubt on the common assumption among Buddhologists that writing did not exist in India during the time of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: Does Arhat w/o remainder have any existence in Cittamatr
Content:
zed said:
But since the dharmadhatu (= buddha-gotra) pervades all that exists, then Shakya Chogden seems to be saying that in Cittamatra an arhat without remainder has no existence whatsoever.?

Malcolm wrote:
What he is saying is that according to this presentation, such an arhat is effectively an icchantika, and has severed their natural gotra by entering into parnirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
By no account is this true. You have either erred or been misled.

Zhen Li said:
Sorry, not all accounts. But it is among the various legends about Santideva - some he has a wife, others he lives with Nagarjuna.

Malcolm wrote:
No. All accounts hold that Shantideva vanished into the sky while reciting the wisdom chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatara.

I think you've confused Shantideva with some other siddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Zhen Li said:
As for Santideva, if you would kindly provide a quotation as to what you are referring to, I would appreciate that, but I am unsure what value in practice he held for [non-householder] monasticism at large, considering the fact that by all accounts he became a householder in his later life.


Malcolm wrote:
By no account is this true. You have either erred or been misled.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
rory said:
Blood Bowl hell

Malcolm wrote:
This is a Chinese invention. There is no such hell listed among the eighteen classic hells mentioned in Indian sutras and shastras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
rory said:
Actually the  ancient Greeks and Roman intellectuals scoffed at the thought of taking their myths literally and they were the great innovators of Stoicism, Pyrrhoism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristoteliansim, Epicureanism (which indeed is the ancient basis for materialism) etc These currents travelled to India, but you all seem entirely unaware!

Malcolm wrote:
Standard Western bias at work here again...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Jikan said:
Spinoza's an early materialist, sure, but his claims on history are limited to very particular texts and histories in the Tractatus, which is primarily a philosophical document.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but that is not the point -- he is making a broader claim about any scripture and all "supernatural" explanations, as well as an argument for the primacy of secular history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
rory said:
Well said Ven. Indrajala but this entire conversation reminds me of Harnack in the 19th century and the development of the historical-critical method! Pretty astounding this needs to be replayed for educated Buddhists in the 21st century
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
The development of the historical critical method begins with Baruch Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


Indrajala said:
Perhaps you feel threatened by secular scholarship.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. I simply recognize that Buddhology has severe limits and is basically useless for practitioners. As practitioners, we have our own sense of history and it is more important than what Buddhologists think or believe.


Indrajala said:
This isn't for everyone of course, but then academic literature is not that widely read. I would guess that less than one or two percent of Buddhists in the world know about Schopen, Nakamura, Hu Shi or Lammotte, nor would most really care if you gave them their papers to read. Secular scholarship really only appeals to intellectuals, be they professionals or otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem, quite frankly, is that their ideas are in the air, and a lot of Western Buddhists teachers, for example, Rita Gross comes to mind, who teach a version of Buddhist history derived primarily from Buddhology to people who are primarily practitioners (in this case Vajrayāna) for whom such a view of history is at odds with their practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Chokgyur Dechen Lingpa's short prayer
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Okay, I'll give it a try. I recite the MIgtsema in Tibetan for that reason.

I like your translation the best too. So the mara is singular? Tamer of the mara, not tamer of the maras?

Malcolm wrote:
The name in Tibetan is singular, bdud 'dul means "Māra Tamer, or Demon Tamer. But it can be construed as plural, just as a Lion Tamer tames lions. A Demon Tamer tames demons.

Glad you like it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Chokgyur Dechen Lingpa's short prayer
Content:
Konchog1 said:
I'm comparing the Lotsawa House and FPMT versions of The Prayer to Guru Rinpoche for Removing Obstacles and Fulfilling Wishes

Which do you think is the better translation?

Particularly the first line, དུས་གསུམ་སངས་རྒྱས་གུ་རུ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ༔

The Buddha of past, present and future vs. The embodiment of all buddhas of the three times

Seems it could go either way.

I want to start doing this prayer regularly but I want to be sure I recite a correct version.

Thank you.

Lotsawa House: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/chokgyur-dechen-lingpa/removing-obstacles-and-fulfilling-wishes " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
FPMT: http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=299&chid=1362 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Malcolm wrote:
This is my rendition:

དུས་གསུམ་སངས་རྒྱས་གུ་རུ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ༔
dü sum sangye guru rinpoche
To the Buddha of the three times, Guru Rinpoche,

དངོས་གྲུབ་ཀུན་བདག་བདེ་བ་ཆེན་པོའི་ཞབས༔
ngödrub kün dak dewa chenpö shyab
to the lord of all siddhis, venerable Great Bliss

བར་ཆད་ཀུན་སེལ་བདུད་འདུལ་དྲག་པོ་རྩལ༔
barché kün sel düdul drakpo tsal
to the one who removes all obstacles, Powerful Fierce Tamer of Māra,

གསོལ་བ་འདེབས་སོ་བྱིན་གྱིས་བརླབ་ཏུ་གསོལ༔
solwa deb so jingyi lab tu sol
I offer a supplication, please grant your blessings.

ཕྱི་ནང་གསང་བའི་བར་ཆད་ཞི་བ་དང༌༔
chi nang sangwé barché shyiwa dang
Pacify all outer, inner and secret obstacles.

བསམ་པ་ལྷུན་གྱིས་འགྲུབ་པར་བྱིན་གྱིས་རློབས༔
sampa lhün gyi drubpar jingyi lob
and bless me so that my wishes are effortlessly accomplished.

Reciting the Tibetan is better, then you are reciting Guru Rinpoche's words, the actual words of the Sambhogakāya, not the paltry words of some translator like me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the assumptions upon which you base your research are founded on the naive secular materialism of the late 17th and early 18th century Enlightenment thinkers such as Spinoza.

Indrajala said:
My personal approach is not materialist. I'm comfortable accepting the reality of mysticism and supermundane experiences having their roles to play in the development of history, especially in the case of Buddhism where visions and religious experiences are quite common, even expected. That being said, modern academic work demands an evidence based approach, so attributing historical processes to subjective unseen forces, or deferring to the testimonies of prophets and mystics just doesn't cut it. I'm sure you understand why.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because Buddhology is materialist in its viewpoint and methodology.

Indrajala said:
The evidence approach yields a lot of results. It isn't conclusive, but nevertheless it is a productive approach. Believing in rebirth because there is evidence for the phenomena is probably more reliable than believing in the testimony of someone you have developed faith in.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for the phenomena. Stevenson's "science" was not at all rigorous.

Indrajala said:
As for Schopen's contention that monastic communities are all post-Ashoka, he hasn't a shred of proof for this.


He's basing his arguments on literary evidence and archaeological developments. There might have been small communities, but not the well-developed monastic systems we see described in middle-period vinaya literature.

Malcolm wrote:
Just how many bhikṣus ordained under the Buddha?

Indrajala said:
There is no reason to assume that Ananda, for example, never experienced frostbite in the Himalayas and that this story is necessarily a fabrication. The world was colder then. India was cooler and wetter at that time than it is now, especially after five centuries of increasing deforestation.
If you want to believe in the story, go for it.

Malcolm wrote:
We have no reason not to believe it.



Indrajala said:
But the problem with the approach you have decided to follow is that it is cynical, and assumes that everything is a fabricated lie.
I've never framed it in those terms. It is more a matter of "fiction". Buddhist literature is largely fictional...

Malcolm wrote:
fiction |ˈfikSHən|
noun
literature in the form of prose, esp. short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.
• invention or fabrication as opposed to fact: he dismissed the allegation as absolute fiction.
• [ in sing. ] a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so: the notion of that country being a democracy is a polite fiction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I'd rather read the Vinaya itself than his work to form an opinion.


Malcolm wrote:
This is indeed strikes the heart of the issue. Much of modern opinion in Buddhology is formed and preserved by people who read other people's opinions and then repeat them. For example, Jeff often repeats the opinions of Bronkhorst and Schopen as if they were gospel truths.

People really need to understand the Buddhology is not the study of Dharma. It is the study of something invented by Buddhologists themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
So, it isn't so binary, Malcolm. There's a lot of middle ground between being a secularist materialist, and completely accepting as literal truth everything your Buddhist scriptures of choice say.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the assumptions upon which you base your research are founded on the naive secular materialism of the late 17th and early 18th century Enlightenment thinkers such as Spinoza.

You are suggesting for example, by invoking scientists like Stevenson and Sheldrake that "Science" is the arbiter of truth for Buddhists.

This, in my opinion, is the wrong way to go about it.

For example, one might conclude from archaeology that Indians had no temples prior to meeting the Greeks. But in fact we know that they did because 1) such structures get mentioned 2) when Indians first tried to work stone ( perhaps under Greek influence) with engineering principles based on wood construction, with obvious limitations on heights and sizes of structures. But this shows of course that Indians were quite used to building large wooden structures.

As for Schopen's contention that monastic communities are all post-Ashoka, he hasn't a shred of proof for this. We know that by the time of Ashoka there were so many people representing themselves as Buddhist monks that he felt compelled to disrobe many many thousands of mendicants. Moving camps do not leave much trace. It is like asserting that there are no communities on the high plains of Tibet because the nomads there live in tents. But in fact there is a sophisticated culture there, complete with economic standards, trade, large mobile monasteries and so on.

There is no reason to assume that Ananda, for example, never experienced frostbite in the Himalayas and that this story is necessarily a fabrication. The world was colder then. India was cooler and wetter at that time than it is now, especially after five centuries of increasing deforestation.

But the problem with the approach you have decided to follow is that it is cynical, and assumes that everything is a fabricated lie.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 8th, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


Indrajala said:
Such binary thinking I find problematic.

Malcolm wrote:
You think now that you can have your cake and eat it too, but you will find out that it is not so easy. In the end I predict that you will settle for secularist interpretation of Dharma (Buddhism lite tm) that rules out all "supernatural" elements, including rebirth and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I am not so sure. Because if one was a Buddhist (Mahayana particularly) one would accept this.

If one does not accept this, then one has to dismiss HUGE portions of the Pali and Sanskrit canons as utter fakery. It is a slippery slope.

Indrajala said:
There's another option: read it as religious literature meant to convey truths, ideas, values and so forth.

That's what I do.

Malcolm wrote:
Then clearly you are not reading these texts as they were intended ( regardless of who you think authored them), and are repurposing them for your own use. This is fine, but just be clear with people what you are up to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Then obviously Jeff does not accept the Buddha is omniscient or has the capacity to have such special knowledge.

Indrajala said:
Is there a third option? Like later individuals put words in the mouth of the Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
You can't have it both ways, i.e. that the Buddha has the capacity to know the future, including future actors, but arbitrarily decide that this and that is an example of a later author's interpolation.

In other words, if you are going to be a secularist, you will have to go the whole way, following in the path of people like Jayarava Atwood, Richard Hayes and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I am not so sure. Because if one was a Buddhist (Mahayana particularly) one would accept this.

If one does not accept this, then one has to dismiss HUGE portions of the Pali and Sanskrit canons as utter fakery. It is a slippery slope.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is a problem. This is why I suggested to Jeff that the roots of his present line of inquiry were to be found in the secularism of Spinoza.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
And why do you imagine that it is impossible that Buddha cannot know the future nor predict such and such a person will born here or there?
This is a characteristic of the fully enlightened Buddha. The ability to penetrate perfectly past and future lives, and individual karmas of each and every sentient being. I am sure V.I. knows this.

Malcolm wrote:
Then obviously Jeff does not accept the Buddha is omniscient or has the capacity to have such special knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you are a heretic, but I don't think there is any wisdom or truth in your quest for secular "historical" knowledge.

Indrajala said:
I find it quite edifying and rewarding. It might not work for everyone of course.

Pursuit of the truth is, in my opinion, a worthy path.

Malcolm wrote:
In the end, you will just sit around with other scholars over the gutted corpse of what you imagine to be "Buddhist History", sucking its bones and licking your chops, satisfied with a job well done. Then you will die have wasted your life in pursuit of "truth" that is useful to no one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


Indrajala said:
The intention behind Buddhist scriptures was to convey truths and ideas, not describe historical events. They might be loosely based on earlier true events at best.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Jeff. The intent of Buddhist scriptures is precisely to communicate historical events, as well as truths and ideas.

Indrajala said:
Assuming the author had the same stūpa in mind, the historical Buddha is positioned in what is now modern northern Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, which is far from Magadha in what is now largely Bihar state in India. Kaniṣka was famous and influential enough to merit having a prophecy about him on the part of the Buddha in canonical literature (recall that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was in use in Nālandā). Again, this just illustrates the fact that Śrāvakayāna literature is full of anachronisms which demonstrate it to be ahistorical and fictional.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a few weeks on foot. Totally possible.

And why do you imagine that it is impossible that Buddha cannot know the future nor predict such and such a person will born here or there?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One has to understand that Dharma history and secular history do not have the same aims. The point of the latter to explain the sources of living lineages; the point of the latter is strictly forensic analysis, like examining a corpse.


Indrajala said:
In any case, I prefer the evidence based approach. Call me a heretic, but it just strikes me as truer than religious understandings of history.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you are a heretic, but I don't think there is any wisdom or truth in your quest for secular "historical" knowledge.

I think that the scholars like Schopen could really care less if Dharma survives as a living tradition or not. In my view, this negates the value of their contributions completely.

You really do need to read Spinoza's Tractatus. In it you will find the root of your present enterprise, and you will understand it has nothing to with the survival of Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
[

Historical is in written with the intention of constituting accounts of events that actually took place.

Malcolm wrote:
Then the documents in question fit your definition of "historical document".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
My view of history is likewise secular, simply because the evidence based approach works best in the study of history. It doesn't explain everything, but produces a solid working model upon which you can build on. Mystical experiences and magic, which I don't actually deny, are difficult to fit into an evidence based approach to history as they're too subjective.

Malcolm wrote:
One has to understand that Dharma history and secular history do not have the same aims. The point of the latter to explain the sources of living lineages; the point of the latter is strictly forensic analysis, like examining a corpse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
[ They're not historical documents and should not be understood as such.

Malcolm wrote:
They are indeed historical documents. For example, you can read many conflicting accounts of the Second World War, does this mean that those documents are not "historical"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:



Indrajala said:
You really have no argument against my assertions.

Malcolm wrote:
I have many, actually, but I have better things to do with my time.

If you wish to be a disciple of Spinoza, that is fine with me, but it is not Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In other words, Sujato's point, one I fully agree with, is that it is hasty to make assumptions about a body of literature one has not thoroughly examined.

Indrajala said:
You can extract what you need from it to prove your point: like the development of banking protocols by the sangha administration, etc.

If you're going to attack Schopen, actually cite his work and something you disagree with.

Malcolm wrote:
As to your first point — like economics, much of what passes for fact in the Academy follows from the kinds of assumptions one makes. In the case of Shopen, his assumptions largely stem from a materialist view of history.

There is no need — qualms about Shopen's approach to Buddhist history have frequently been voiced by his colleagues in the Academy, largely due to his limiting insistence that everything must be tied to some archaeological find.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I don't have Schopen's work as I left it behind due to flight weight but if I did I'd check the Bibliography and body of work to see if he quotes Kunkyen Tsonawa's Vinaya commentary "Rays of the Sun".

Indrajala said:
Schopen's point is to reconstruct the chronological development of Vinaya literature in India, not propound the practical and useful qualities of the monastic system as understood by Tibetans.

Malcolm wrote:
Hard to do if you haven't read it all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
They are full of fictional stories.

Malcolm wrote:
And you divined these accounts are fictional based on what supernatural faculty?

Or, as is so often the case, is this merely an expression of your opinion on the matter?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
Indrajala said:
Do you realize how enormous the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya literature is?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I look at it frequently in my job a as scholar and translator of Tibetan texts. It is very difficult and has lots of obscure terms.

In other words, Sujato's point, one I fully agree with, is that it is hasty to make assumptions about a body of literature one has not thoroughly examined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Mkoll said:
So it's not a title:

Malcolm wrote:
I have two Tibetan titles, loppon (ācharya) and sman pa (doctor).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
WuMing said:
So it's not a title, it's his name? Or is it some kind of species of which Malcolm is the only member?

Now I'm more confused.
Namdrol is his Dharmaname and la is a Tibetan honorific to show respect.

Mkoll said:
Ah, much clearer now, thanks.

So Malcolm, how did you get your Dharma name?

Malcolm wrote:
I received my refuge name from HH Sakya Trizin, Kunga Namdrol aka Vimuktānanda.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


Indrajala said:
This observation is actually applicable to Buddhist sanghas. The orthodox ideal is subverted to acquisition and retention of internal power, which is not merely for personal status, but actual real life acquisition of resources and funds from the laity. The vinaya literature constantly illustrates an obsession with maintaining outward purity to keep the offerings rolling in, whereas internally these same authors of the literature were drafting sangha-banking regulations for their own gain. Archaeology and history also reveal they were hardly following the śramaṇa model, where you wander the world, learn, teach and try to gain wisdom in the process..

Malcolm wrote:
Considering that Schopen bases all of his opinions about such things in the Vinaya as preserved in Tibetan, do you have sufficient skills in Tibetan to read what he read to ascertain what he says?  Because I will tell you, I frequently check the opinions of Western academics, as well as their Tibetan translations, and quite frankly they often perform rather poorly and suffer from inadequate exposure and experience both with the language (since many of their published pieces are graduate level work) and with the subject matter itself. Graduates programs train Western students of Buddhist studies to prioritize the opinions of western professors over traditional sources, much as you do. Indeed, Buddhist Studies in the West has largely become a game of reading the work of Westerners in reference to their often superficial forensic analysis of this corpus of texts. Really, it's a pity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Similarly, much of the Vinaya commentarial literature, at least that I have read, is extremely practical and plausible with regard as to how these systems developed back to the Buddha's time.

Indrajala said:
This is an emotional argument and not one based on historical evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is based on historical evidence, the text itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I do not understand sentiments such as these to be anything other than harmful to the Dharma.

M

Indrajala said:
Better that sympathetic Buddhists start addressing such questions than hostile outsiders seeking to undermine Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Tīrthikas cannot undermine Buddhadharma, Buddha made it plain only we can do that.

Giving into the Western Academic forensic narrative of Buddhist History is simply buying into a version of Buddhism that never existed anywhere on the ground.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
rory said:
libel.

Malcolm wrote:
Libel is very hard to prove in the United States.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I also do not dismiss V. Indralajala's ideas without considering them. He knows well that I bought Schopen's book in India and read it. I don't quote from it because it was too heavy to carry back in the plane. Some points were interesting, but hardly definitive. I'd rather read the Vinaya itself than his work to form an opinion.

Indrajala said:
Ideally one reads both the original material alongside text critical works by modern scholars. The results can be disenchanting for some (like seeing how banking procedures were introduced by rich monks in India and then attributed to the Buddha), but nevertheless the historical truth is desirable.

Malcolm wrote:
Debt is a concept one finds even in the Rig Veda and so on. It is highly unlikely that "banking", much like writing, is a post "Buddha" institution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:28 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
rory said:
I have no interest sitting around swapping personal opinions.


Malcolm wrote:
That is all academic scholarship is, a bunch of personal opinions.


Indrajala said:
When it comes to scholarship, the evidence based approach is a lot more reliable than the faith-based one.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on your goals: if your goal is to get a job as an academic writer and teacher, you have to kowtow to the Spinozaists in Buddhists studies. If you wish to understand the Dharma itself, then a faith-based approach is a desideratum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


JKhedrup said:
My suspicion is that many who dismiss the entire Vinaya Pitaka haven't even read it.

Malcolm wrote:
For example, Gregory Schopen.

Indrajala said:
How silly. Read his papers. He's clearly read the Vinaya literature in great detail.

Gregory Schopen. Indian Monastic Buddhism Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaelogical Evidence. New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.
Schopen’s work contains much that is interesting and informative, but little that could be called inspiring. His writing is characterized by wit, scandal, and good yarns. Unfortunately, it is not always characterized by consistency, and we should examine some of his fracture lines. He rests his arguments heavily on the authority of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, a text he cheerfully admits to not having fully read.

Malcolm wrote:
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/the-ironic-assumptions-of-gregory-schopen/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:
rory said:
I have no interest sitting around swapping personal opinions.


Malcolm wrote:
That is all academic scholarship is, a bunch of personal opinions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
nichirenista said:
In today's world, particularly the West, the image of a Buddhist monk being militant, and of some being "armed to the teeth" and ready to attack rivals, is unimaginable, if not shocking.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not so sure about that:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Vinaya is a later fabrication
Content:


JKhedrup said:
My suspicion is that many who dismiss the entire Vinaya Pitaka haven't even read it.

Malcolm wrote:
For example, Gregory Schopen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
rory said:
Well it turns out the Vinaya is a later fabrication...

Sherab Dorje said:
Source?

rory said:
Malcolm: Just as I was rightly chastised for not calling Ven.Khedrup by 'Venerable' ; you need to address Ven. Indrajala as 'Venerable, calling him 'Jeff' is gross disrespect.'

Malcolm wrote:
I have to do no such thing.

Whoever chastised you for not calling Khedrup "Venerable" is wrong.

In the blog article you quote, Jeff states:
This effectively undermines any claim by living Buddhist traditions to having the true tradition of the historical Buddha. This is unlikely to be easily accepted, but nevertheless it is increasingly the consensus of specialist scholars in the field of Buddhology, like Bronkhorst as quoted above. Secular scholarship in any case is effective at challenging Buddhist beliefs about their own textual and lineage histories, though few Buddhists seem to really appreciate and accept this.
I do not understand sentiments such as these to be anything other than harmful to the Dharma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
rory said:
Well it turns out the Vinaya is a later fabrication...

Sherab Dorje said:
Source?

rory said:
here you go:This is Ven. Indrajala's blog, duly footnoted with the latest scholarship
https://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2014/08/anachronisms-in-buddhist-sravakayana.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Again, [Gregory]Schopen remarks that the “earliest 'monasteries' that are known in India – and none of these are pre-Aśokan – are not 'monasteries' at all. They are either only barely improved, unorganized, natural caverns or caves, or poorly constructed and ill-organized shelters built of rubble and other cheap materials.”8 This would therefore mean that any mention of the Buddha or his contemporaries residing in any vihāra of notable scale would be anachronistic. In fact, Bronkhorst quoting Schopen points out that the earliest references to a vihāra system appear “only in Kharosṭḥī records of a little before and a little after the Common Era, about the same time that the first indications of permanent monastic residential quarters begin to appear in the archaeological record for the Northwest, and this is not likely to be mere coincidence.”9


Most vinaya literature providing complex rules and regulations for running monastic institutions can be understood as a much later development by clergy with quite different lifestyles from their predecessors. Consider for example how the Buddha is quoted in sūtra suggesting a śramaṇa does not sleep under the same tree twice10 with the clearly later vinaya literature which regulates living arrangements in large monasteries with slaves and taxed peasants (the vinaya recognizes the institution of slavery, which is why slaves cannot join the sangha).

Malcolm wrote:
Schopen's scholarship is not at all definitive when it comes to these issues for many reasons. He just happens to be Jeff's latest scholastic infatuation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Recognising reincarnations
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So you believe that hereditary religious leadership is better than the tulku system?  Or do you prefer the Gelug model?

PS  The Dalai Lamas are tulku, are they not?

Malcolm wrote:
I think the Gelug model is best for the West.

HHDL is a tulku, however, the Fith Dalai Lama's recognition was fraudulent, according to his autobiography, and every one from the 8th to the 13th was selected by a lottery operated by the Qing dynasty Ambans.

M

Sherlock said:
Well, the 5th didn't pick the belongings of the 4th correctly. Maybe it was the 4th's recognition that was politically motivated to cement relations with the Mongols and the 5th really was a continuation of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Malcolm wrote:
Who knows? Why speculate? What we know is that despite the fact that the 5th's recognition was fraudulent, he was a great master, one of the most important in Tibetan history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Ley Lines
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Similarly, one cannot but be moved by visiting the Yarlung Valley in central Tibet.
Thanks Malcolm, would you say that pilgimage can be of particular benefit for Buddhists?

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely.

tellyontellyon said:
I'm interested in what you said about 'power places', what is the Buddhist understanding of what makes these places powerful?

Malcolm wrote:
Just as there are places in the body which have more functions that others, there are also places on the earth where there is more "function" than others.

tellyontellyon said:
Do you think that practicing in a power place is better, or could it also be a place to encounter obstacles/demons etc? Is it a good idea to meditate/practice in non-Buddhist spiritual centres/power places? e.g. some of the neolithic sites?

Malcolm wrote:
Practicing in ancient sacred sites has plusses and minuses. Sometimes local guardians in these places can be very heavy and strong, hard to placate. But the plus side is that one can have deeper experience. Also places where great siddhas have meditated have power. For example, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu stated to me personally in 1992 that if one does six days of good quality practice at Khandroling (located in Western Massachusetts) this is equivalent to doing six months of retreat in other places.

tellyontellyon said:
I know there are guardian and protector deities that we often see statues of in monasteries etc. are these particularly needed in the power places?

Malcolm wrote:
We have to distinguish between local guardians and Dharmapalas. Usually, some guardians one sees will be representations of powerful worldly Guardians like Nyenchen Thangla, the Tenma, and so on., as well as the four directional Kings and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 7th, 2014 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Music time
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

Malcolm wrote:
Joe Strummer bought me a pint once.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Ley Lines
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
is there evidence that they are aligned or arranged in lines or patterns from site to site.

Malcolm wrote:
108 stupas were erected in Tibet on the pattern of the body of a giant ogress.

tellyontellyon said:
Also, do you think that some places are just more 'spiritual' or somehow more conducive to spiritual practice than others?

Malcolm wrote:
Some places are clearly more powerful than others. For example, once Oḍḍiyāna and Shambhala (modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan) were major sites of Buddhadharma, boasting a high civilization. Now they are places of incredible violence.

Power places are places where both positive influences as well as evil influences can be heightened.

Similarly, one cannot but be moved by visiting the Yarlung Valley in central Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
rory said:
Well it turns out the Vinaya is a later fabrication...

Sherab Dorje said:
Source?

Malcolm wrote:
She has fallen for Jeff's arguments about Vinaya. She has no idea that thousands of lines of teachings of the Buddha are contained within Vinaya, that it is not just a collection of 200 some odd rules.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
anjali said:
...therefore, none of the upper level stuff exists either.

Malcolm wrote:
Other than conventionally. In Vajrayāna, it is understood that everything that appears is an appearance of pure consciousness [ jñāna, ye shes ].

anjali said:
As a practitioner, I totally get that everything that appears is an appearance of pure consciousness, and that that pure consciousness is empty. In terms of analysis, though, this issue of indefinite decomposition is still left unresolved. In doing a little research, the view that,

Malcolm wrote:
...we break pots into shards, shards into gross particles, gross particles into subtle particles

anjali said:
seems to be a Vaibhasika view. From p. 53 of Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gonchok's Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayba's Root Text on Tenents, By Daniel Cozort According to the Vaibhasikas and perhaps some Sautrantikas, the basic elements that comprise gross objects are so-called "indivisible particles. " These tiny or "subtle" particles are for them the principal units of impermanent physical entities, the "building blocks" for gross objects. Hypothetically, these particles are indivisible because they are too minute to be physically subdivided. They are too small to have directions, so that we could not say they have sides to the north, south, east, or west.
Vasubandha (and others) demonstrated that gross objects can't be made up of subtle particles. Essentially, the classical argument is that spacial objects must be composed of spacial parts. And because spacial parts are always extensive, they can always be further divided.

Malcolm wrote:
Vasubandhu's analysis ends at mind. Candra's ends at the impossibility of establishing even mind.

But it not the case that any Buddhist analysis of particles is carried out ad infinitum


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
anjali said:
...therefore, none of the upper level stuff exists either.

Malcolm wrote:
Other than conventionally. In Vajrayāna, it is understood that everything that appears is an appearance of pure consciousness [ jñāna, ye shes ].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point which I mentioned holds true: when the particle one is decomposing ceases to be perceived through analysis, that perceived absence is the emptiness of that particle.

anjali said:
Agreed. As practitioners we only need to analytically decompose a particular form into enough parts such that the original form is no longer perceived.

Still, wouldn't you also agree that we can shift the level of analysis from the original form to its parts, and demonstrate that they too are empty through further decomposition? And that we can can, at least theoretically, continue to do that indefinitely? Otherwise we would eventually arrive at partless parts, no?

Malcolm wrote:
well, we break pots into shards, shards into gross particles, gross particles into subtle particles, and then subtle particles disappear under analysis, because it turns out they are impossible since they are defined as partless. What are particles composed of? Nothing, as far as anyone can tell. So they are either real or unreal. Madhyamaka suggests that in the end they are unreal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
nichirenista said:
No. I choose to follow the only correct Buddhist path. No one forces it on me.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a committed sectarian, as I said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Recognising reincarnations
Content:


kirtu said:
As I said, using the verb "believe" (or in this form "think" in this context) is not relevant.  I have no idea why HHPR recognized him.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe HHPR was hoping that Segal would remember where his past incarnation found all that terma paint.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Recognising reincarnations
Content:
kirtu said:
I quoted the relevant sections to you when we had this discussion on eSangha.

Malcolm wrote:
That was years ago.


kirtu said:
Ok.  Although I think using the verb "believe" misses the point.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
So you think Steven Segal is a true blue Nirmanakāya?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Recognising reincarnations
Content:
kirtu said:
I was startled when a Sakya lama said to me flat out that tulkus were nirmanakayas.

Malcolm wrote:
He can believe whatever he wants. I'll do the same.

kirtu said:
The Red Book (history of the Nyingma, Dudjom Rinpoche) talks about the purposes of tulkus in several places.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not talking about the purpose of Tibetan reincarnations.

kirtu said:
The basic job of a tulku is to benefit beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes of course. I don't really believe most of the people recognized as tulkus are emanations of the Sambhogakāya. You can if you like, it is up to you, not me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
nichirenista said:
I politely disagree.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure, you are a committed sectarian, you have to disagree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: The Sin of Slandering the Dharma by Jacqueline Stone
Content:
nichirenista said:
I've read several sources where Nichiren says only his practice is the valid practice in the age of Mappo.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it is obviously nonsense, the product of a febrile imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Sectarianism is a poison.
Content:
Jikan said:
This is how I've been taught, and the limited experience I've had has borne this position out.

Am I wrong on this?  Is there a time and a place for sectarian polemic?

for reference, see:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=17254 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
There is never a place for blind bias. There is always a place for reasoned analysis and critique.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
anjali said:
Which leaves us in a infinite regress situation.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a limit to how far you can decompose a particle. The point is that Madhyamaka and Yogacara reject the limit proposed by Sautrantika, i.e. partless particles. The point which I mentioned holds true: when the particle one is decomposing ceases to be perceived through analysis, that perceived absence is the emptiness of that particle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Recognising reincarnations
Content:


Jikan said:
I think Sherab Dorje raised an interesting issue some time back that I'd like to bring us back to:  the question of whether or to what degree the tulku system as developed in Tibet offers an efficient way to identify and train teachers and leaders when resources are scarce.  Thoughts on this?

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily. Two major schools of Tibetan Buddhism do not operate this way: the largest, Gelugpa and as well as Sakya.

kirtu said:
You are on thin ice here as both Gelug and Sakya recognize and train tulkus.  Neither are completely devoid of tulkus although the relationship with the recognition can be different.  You in fact note this wrt Sakya sub-sects.  Your example wrt the office of the Dalai Lama is strained at best.  In fact Gelug tulkus can indeed be sought (other than the Dalai and Panchen lamas).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Most so called "Sakya" tulkus are Nyingma reincarnations trained in Sakya through circumstances of region. The Zimog tulkus of Nalendra are a notable exception to this. As I said most of the Sakya tulkus come from East Tibet, which is very removed from Central Tibet. Even here, Sakya in Derge belongs to Ngor, not Tshar, and Sakya monasteries in east Tibet were under the adminstration of Ngor. Of all four schools, Sakya has the least number of tulkus.

AFA Gelug is concerned — there may be an effort to find Tulkus, but the administration of Gelug is in the hands of educated geshes, not reincarnations, for the most part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
It is around the same point as the statements that anjali transcribed.  Maybe anjali remembers the time mark?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind is not a material thing, so it cannot be divided in the same way as a finger.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
In the video he is explaining the statement:  form is emptiness, emptiness is form.  He seems to be talking only in regards to physical phenomena having a limit, at another point he explains that mind can be reduced indefinitely.

Malcolm wrote:
What precisely does he say?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Commentary on the 51 Mental Factors?
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Thank you, Malcom.

I have located a beautiful translation of the work suggested by you. Naturally, you are quite correct in recommending a direct return to the original beast, for what could be more rewarding than to cultivate one's own unique mode of understanding by grappling with the very source itself? However, I still wish it were possible to locate a manuscript in which most of the grappling had been done for me - a highly delusive notion, but a notion nonetheless!



Malcolm wrote:
It is really not that difficult a subject: there basically four groups of mental factors; universal, positive, afflicted and negative.

10 you cannot be without. All positive minds in samsara consist of 22 mental factors (10 universal, ten positive, plus vitarka and vicara), the minimum number of mental factors and afflictive mental state can have is eighteen, and so on.

The mental factors operate in groups, not individually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: The limit of compounded phenomena
Content:
anjali said:
As best I can make out, here is what Khenpo said from 37:29-39:16...
But this is not your mind, this is your cut finger. So, eventually become empty. Do you understand that? Ok. If you understand that, that is emptiness.
This analysis doesn't seem right.

Malcolm wrote:
Fundamental to the analysis of the two truths is that when an object is subject to ultimate analysis, it does not remain as an object of cognition. What he is saying, perhaps not so well, is that at a certain point there remains no object at all which can be identified as a finger, no finger remains before the mind to be apprehended as such. That objectless state of mind is called "recognizing emptiness".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Commentary on the 51 Mental Factors?
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Greetings.

I am currently seeking a decent commentary on the 51 mental factors listed within the yogācāra abhidharma. Even better would be a commentary on the 100 dharmas of Vasubandhu. I am currently in possession of three fine works on the subject (viz, "Know Your Mind" by Sangharakshita, "Living Yogacara" by Tagawa Shun'ei, and "Shastra on the Door to Understanding the Hundred Dharmas" by Master Hua), but I am wondering whether there might not be a single volume containing a balanced, comprehensive, systematic exposition of the 51 mental factors (or the 100 dharmas) which is neither too abstruse and pedantic nor too vague and simplistic. Scholarly tomes such as "Buddhist Phenomenology" are certainly not what I am looking for in this case, and neither are watered-down introductory texts intended for general audiences. On the contrary, what I am looking for is a penetratingly detailed analysis crafted specifically for the serious practitioner, preferably authored by a seasoned practitioner.

All in all, I am looking for something thorough, rigorous, detailed, comprehensive, systematic, and genuinely insightful... yet pragmatically geared and practically informed.

Critical but real.

I might be asking too much, but it is worth a shot.

I am hoping that somebody might be able to point me in a promising direction!

Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
Abhidharmakoshabhaṣyam by Vasubandhu, Why settle for anything less?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Blessing" here just means the power of one person to inspire another to follow the path in some way. That's all. There is no Dharma called "blessing", no magical force called "blessing". If there was, the Buddha, being compassionate, would have blessed us all into nirvana long ago.

Astus said:
That makes sense. Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
I should add, it can also be the power of an object such as a statue, book, incense, stupa, etc., to induce the same effect. But again, there is no Dharma called "blessing", no magical force called "blessing".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: What is Blessing?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Byin rlabs means quite literally "conferral [rlabs] of power [byin]."

Byin is defined in Tibetan as "the ability or power to transform the minds and vision/appearances of another."

The word Byin rlabs is defined in Tibetan as "the power to remain in any subject of the Dharma of the Noble Path."

Astus said:
Thank you. Does that mean then that a blessing is inducing insight/realisation/enlightenment in another being directly (instead of through giving instructions)? If so, what is being communicated/transferred between one being/thing to another? What connection exists at the time of receiving a blessing?

Malcolm wrote:
"Blessing" here just means the power of one person to inspire another to follow the path in some way. That's all. There is no Dharma called "blessing", no magical force called "blessing". If there was, the Buddha, being compassionate, would have blessed us all into nirvana long ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:


sherabpa said:
Yet nobody says the lower tantra path is as easy as the higher tantra path.  Lack of difficulties is precisely one of four superiorities of tantra over paramitayana, and by implication of the higher over the lower paths.  There is superior and inferior, but not effective and ineffective, and superior means the four superiorities.

Malcolm wrote:
superior = more effective
inferior = less effective
higher = more effective
lower = less effective
easy = more effective
difficult = less effective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Sanderson: Phowa etc. are directly from Saivism
Content:
sherabpa said:
When he says that only Guyhamantra is appropriate for the present times...

Malcolm wrote:
Here, Guhyamantra does not mean lower tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 4th, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Teacher as Buddha?
Content:


Will said:
If one has confidence in the buddhadharma and cultivates according to what is there taught - such as 'guru is the Tathāgata himself', then one does so.  It has nothing to do with being 'in secret mantra'.

Malcolm wrote:
Will, you can either choose to understand special emphasis and necessity of a guru as explained in secret mantra, or you can argue with it. It's up to you.

Will said:
I prefer to choose a third way; ignore secret mantra and 'understand special emphasis and necessity of a guru' as taught in Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you can if you like, but the fact is that the relationship with a guru is different in secret mantra than it is in Mahāyāna. It is a much more potent relationship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 3rd, 2014 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Teacher as Buddha?
Content:


Will said:
If one has confidence in the buddhadharma and cultivates according to what is there taught - such as 'guru is the Tathāgata himself', then one does so.  It has nothing to do with being 'in secret mantra'.

Malcolm wrote:
Will, you can either choose to understand special emphasis and necessity of a guru as explained in secret mantra, or you can argue with it. It's up to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 3rd, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Teacher as Buddha?
Content:
Will said:
Mahayana also posits the guru as Buddha, as in this quote from Avatamsaka Sutra, ch. 39:
As for the good spiritual guide, he is just the Tathāgata himself.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, while it is true that in Mahāyan̄a and even in Hinayāna, the idea of a guru is to be found, nevertheless, it is only in secret mantra that one is to regard one's (qualified) teacher as an actual Samyaksambuddha.


