﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
I suppose to put it in plain English, I believe in the reality of 'spirit'. 'Spirit' is a most unfortunate word, mostly misunderstood and usually maligned, but there is nothing else in English, unfortunately. Tibetans tend to use 'Mind' to denote that reality, the fundamental ground of existence, that which gives rise to everything. There seem to be many here who deny it. It's a shame, but I will put forward the opposing view from time to time, so that those reading will know that there are some don't acquiesce to this notion that the tathagatha is 'only the five aggregates'.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no fundamental ground of existence which gives rise to everything. This idea is a modern import into Buddhism. I mean, it is fine if you subscribe to it, but you won't find it in a Buddhist sutra or tantra.

As Ārya Nāgārjuna put it succinctly;

Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world;
since the Tathāgata has no nature, the world has no nature.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nirvana is a dharma. It is not beyond phenomena, it is a phenomena albeit, an unconditioned phenomena.

jeeprs said:
Where is an 'unconditioned phenomena'? Show me one 'unconditioned phenomena'. This is something I say you cannot do - there is no such thing anywhere.


Malcolm wrote:
There are three kinds of unconditioned phenomena (asamskritadharma) we find in Buddhist texts: space and the two kinds of cessation. Of these two last, one is mere absence of a cause for arising, and the second is nirvana i.e. a cessation which is due to analysis.

In Mahāyāna a fourth is added i.e. śūnyatā, emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
There is reality beyond existence and non-existence.  It can't be spoken of directly because it is not amongst phenomena and so does not exist in the same way phenomena do.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense. All phenomenon [dharmas], both conditioned and unconditioned are included in one skandha, one āyatana, and one dhātu. The skandha is the material aggregate because it includes all material sense objects and sense organs; the āyatana is the mano-ayatana, which includes all minds; and the dharmadhātu which includes all mental factors, as well as the unconditioned dharmas, including nirvana. Nirvana is a dharma. It is not beyond phenomena, it is a phenomena albeit, an unconditioned phenomena.

jeeprs said:
'Not existent' - the source of existence is not among the things that exist. But it is not non-existent - it is not mere absence, mere nothingness, but the 'basis of all samsara and nirvana'. It is not simply nothing, mere cessation, absence, even though it is very easy to interpret that way.

Malcolm wrote:
This, my friend, is very far away from the meaning intended by Rangjung Dorje.

jeeprs said:
That is not 'eternalism' but a re-statement of the perennial idea of 'the eternal' within the human being.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing eternal within a human being. A human beings consists of five aggregates and nothing more. if there something eternal within a human, that would be a self.
avidyā is not held to be the cause of existence in dependent origination, because that would make ignorance/avidyā unconditioned itself.
In other words, it is a metaphysical concept.
You need to examine a clear explanation of the twelve nidanas. Of course, you like everyone, are free to invent whatever Buddhism you want out of whole cloth.

Just don't be so convinced that your pet theories are really the truth (tm).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
It seems like the word 'habit' is doing all the heavy lifting here.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, indeed it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dude said:
How can something that doesn't exist function?


cloudburst said:
the self does of course exist conventionally, allowing it to function. That's what Malcolm actually means when he says "the habit of grasping a non-existent self" in his post. He refuses to admit that explicitly, however if you press the point it will become clear.

Malcolm wrote:
What exists is an imputation of a self. We have to discover if this conventional self is one of the aggregates, all of them, or merely imputed upon them? And if it is merely imputed upon the aggregates, is this imputation veridical or merely functional? If this imputation is not veridical, then this means that the imputation is false and the self being imputed does not exist except as an imputation.

What does not exist is a self which function as a basis for that imputation. The basis for the imputation of a self is the appearance of a person constituted to our senses primarily as a rūpa skandha. We can infer the existence of the other four skandhas if that rūpa skandha gives evidence of being able to think and act. At first, we imagine that person has an identity, such as cloudburst or malcolm; but there is nothing within the five aggregates that will correspond in any way to the designations "cloudburst" and "malcolm".

The term "the habit of grasping a non-existent self" is a very precise way of describing how an imputed self (which does not exist in the aggregates, separate from them, or as one of them) may be an agent while also being a nonexistent. This is precisely the Prasangika method of describing how rebirth functions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


cloudburst said:
noooo, can't be. You are here opposing what you consider to be incorrect veiws, so your own claim is not credible. Nagarjuna did it, Buddha did it, Shantideva, Chandrkiriti, Longchenpa, Rongdzon, Mipham, Mikkyo Dorje, Sapan...

Malcolm wrote:
I am not opposing incorrect views in the manner in which you imagine, the tiered structure of tenets where the ultimate of the lower is the conventional of the higher.

I am here merely pointing out that it is foolish to deny Batchelor status as a Buddhist because we don't like his views about rebirth.

Secondly, many scholars in the past have written many refutations in the past; but in general the only people who have accepted these refutations have been the students of these polemicists, who merely repeat blindly what their masters have told them is "correct view".

One must discover for oneself what a "correct view" might be. One may arrive at some conviction about what correct view is; one might even willing to argue about it a little bit; but in reality, one cannot impose upon others a correct view, even with recourse to citation and reasoning.

In other words, one can only establish correct view for oneself; one cannot establish for others, for example, via a reasoning such as a syllogism (an inference for another).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dude said:
How can something that doesn't exist function?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, now you are screwed. If you cannot accept that functionality of the habit of imputing a non-existence self, which in turn functions as an agent, you need to propose an existing agent to explain rebirth which is not a mere habit of grasping a self, and if you do that, you will end up with a mass of contradictions. For example, you might try and propose consciousness as an agent of rebirth (ala Bhavaviveka), but that presents a lot of problems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


cloudburst said:
Actually, this is an Indian Madhaymaka "game," intially.  See my quote above where Chandrakirti explicitly disagrees with you.

Malcolm wrote:
One citation does not prove that Candrakirti disagrees with me.

Basically, if you assert there is an ultimate unborn entity [the subject of my negation] beyond existence and non-existence [the premise of Vidyārāja's assertion], since such an entity does not arise it does not exist.

Vidyāraja's nirvana is something beyond what he considered the conditioned. Its classic Buddhist eternalism.


cloudburst said:
What is it that you are saying is a waste of time? Refuting incorrect views?

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, pretty much. They are not really refuted through reasoning but are dispelled only through realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, not one person, even Batchelor, denies that Buddha talked about rebirth. There is a lot of disagreement over the what he meant when he did talk about it. For example, Buddhadassa's point of view is that we have to separate what "rebirth" means as a technical term in Dharma, as opposed to what it means in every day speech, asserting that to interpret rebirth as in every day language is violently at odds with the Buddha's real intention. As I mentioned above, Pudgalavadins claimed there is an inexpressible self responsible for transmigration. Jamgon Kongtrul sees clear light or luminosity as the kernal which transmigrates and so on.

dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, has this point ever been definitively clarified by the tradition? Malcolm you say you accept rebirth. How do you define and explain it?

Malcolm wrote:
I understand the mechanism of rebirth in a couple of ways. First, the habit of grasping a non-existent self leads to the appropriation of aggregates in which a self cannot be found. This non-existent self can function as an agent and recipient of karma.

The second has to do with tantric anatomy and principles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dude said:
I maintain that the principles of karma and transmigration (the appearance, disappearance and reappearance in different forms) are irreducible tenets of the Buddha's teaching, to be found in the higher, lower, "earlier and later" teachings with total consistency.
I don't think it's debatable, the words of the sutras are what they are.
To deny this is to slander the Buddha, by the Buddha's own definition : "One who claims the Thus Come One did not say what he said slanders the Thus Come One."

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not one person, even Batchelor, denies that Buddha talked about rebirth. There is a lot of disagreement over the what he meant when he did talk about it. For example, Buddhadassa's point of view is that we have to separate what "rebirth" means as a technical term in Dharma, as opposed to what it means in every day speech, asserting that to interpret rebirth as in every day language is violently at odds with the Buddha's real intention. As I mentioned above, Pudgalavadins claimed there is an inexpressible self responsible for transmigration. Jamgon Kongtrul sees clear light or luminosity as the kernal which transmigrates and so on.

Batchelor is very much in tune with Buddhadassa's interpretation of emptiness and selflessness.

dude said:
Then they should explain what they mean.  What I've seen so far from proponents of this line of thinking is not only unsatisfactory, it's absurd.

Malcolm wrote:
You should read the link to Buddhadasa's teaching. He explains his point of view very clearly. I don't agree with him, but I am not going exile him from Buddhist intellectual history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
cloudburst said:
This is an important point.

Malcolm wrote:
You just proved my point, since Vidyārāja was talking about "ultimately" Nirvana is beyond existence and non-existence. He was not playing into your Gelug "Great Madhyamaka" game where emptiness [an absence] exists conventionally.

cloudburst said:
I think you are wrong, Malcolm, in saying that he is teaching a profound skepticism. He actually sneers and scoffs at the notion of rebirth, and I think much of what he says is harmful. All interpretative views are meant to be refuted by higher views, and eventually by definitive views, so I think we can accept Batchelor as a Buddhist while refuting his incorrect views.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said his skepticism was profound, just that he was skeptical. My point exactly is that we can accept someone as a Buddhist, even if we vehemently disagree with their views even on fundamental principles.

cloudburst said:
If anyone really wants to have this debate, I'm up for it, ( should be moved to another thread, I think) but I think its evident if you read Batchelor, he does actively deny rebirth. This means he denies any meaningful interpretation of karma, and also the existence of course of other realms. So in the  Batchelordharma, there are no thoughts that turn the mind, no future worlds, no renunciation of samsara since it has been incorrectly identified, no bodhicitta etc..., its a travesty.

Malcolm wrote:
His is a very narrow, selective interpretation of early Buddhism. But he is still a Buddhist, and that was my point.

cloudburst said:
Let it benefit those for whom it is beneficial.

Malcolm wrote:
Its a waste of time, actually. All it does is convince one's own disciples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
To be honest, I am tired of debating you so I won't continue the debate any further. If you wish to take that as triumph, feel free to do so. However, I think that article by B. Alan Wallace sums up quite nicely why Batchelorism isn't Buddhism, so I will let that do the talking for me. That said, I must ask, is your personal Buddhism based entirely on philosophy or have you had any direct experience? I ask because if you had any direct experience, I am not sure how you could possibly defend Batchelor, which isn't to say that I think he is defensible purely from a philosophical or doctrinal understanding of Buddhism either.

Malcolm wrote:
I am defending Batchelor based on the principle that Buddha's Dharma robe was cobbled together from patches of rags -- which represents his disciples, and their inability to agree with each other in the future.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
dude said:
I maintain that the principles of karma and transmigration (the appearance, disappearance and reappearance in different forms) are irreducible tenets of the Buddha's teaching, to be found in the higher, lower, "earlier and later" teachings with total consistency.
I don't think it's debatable, the words of the sutras are what they are.
To deny this is to slander the Buddha, by the Buddha's own definition : "One who claims the Thus Come One did not say what he said slanders the Thus Come One."

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not one person, even Batchelor, denies that Buddha talked about rebirth. There is a lot of disagreement over the what he meant when he did talk about it. For example, Buddhadassa's point of view is that we have to separate what "rebirth" means as a technical term in Dharma, as opposed to what it means in every day speech, asserting that to interpret rebirth as in every day language is violently at odds with the Buddha's real intention. As I mentioned above, Pudgalavadins claimed there is an inexpressible self responsible for transmigration. Jamgon Kongtrul sees clear light or luminosity as the kernal which transmigrates and so on.

Batchelor is very much in tune with Buddhadassa's interpretation of emptiness and selflessness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 19th, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Something that has not arisen [unborn] does not exist. If you accept that nirvana is unborn, you also accept that is does not exist. If you propose it exists, your view is no different than Hindus who believe in a permanent, unborn purusha.

Vidyaraja said:
It is not an existent to be found somewhere phenomenally. It is beyond existence and non-existence. Of course on an ultimate level it is beyond words and concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Something beyond existence and non-existence is a non-existent by definition.



The fourth seal is merely that nirvana is peaceful. As we have seen, there are all kinds of Buddhist understandings of nirvana -- many of which flat out contradict each other. Moreover, the fourth seal does not exist in Theravada, it is a Mahāyāna interpolation.
Yes, and if the material world is all that exists, then dukkha is all there is. Nirvana won't be found holding the view that Batchelor has as mentioned in the interview a few posts back, and if somehow it were, I guarantee that the one who awakened will repudiate his former materialist views.
You still have not adequately addressed even a single point I have brought up. Your reasoning is flawed, BTW. Nirvana is merely the cessation of afflictive patterning aka dukkha.


Buddhists for centuries have accused other Buddhists of "corrupting" the Dharma and indulging in superstitions. Still, you would accept Vajrayāna practitioners as Buddhists, no? How about Mahāyāna Buddhists -- they have many things that could be labeled "superstitions" by Thervavadins, for example. Buddhists have accused each of false beliefs and incorrect interpretations for centuries.
All those Buddhists you mentioned accepted that the goal of Buddhism is to transcend the wheel of birth and death, which Batchelor denies.
No, Batchelor accepts that the goal of Buddhism as taught by the Buddha is to transcend birth and death. He also thinks that Buddhism has other, more immediate goals, like living a mindful ethical life based on the eight fold path. What he refuses to do is be drawn into metaphysical debates about such questions as rebirth.

However benign their intentions, their writings may be regarded as “near enemies” of Buddhism.
I think this is just polemics, just as wrongheaded as your fatwas.

You are merely flinging around a reactionary term you have not defined. What kind of materialist is Batchelor: money, cars and sex? Is he a dialectical materialist?


As defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, scientific materialism is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exist.

What Batchelor stated in the interview previously also touches on what is meant by the term.
I don't think you can pin Batchelor down that easily.

Basically, all you have demonstrated in this thread is that you cannot prove that Bachelor views are in contradiction to three of the most basic tenets of Buddhadharma:

all conditioned things are impermanent
all defiled things are suffering
everything lacks a self.

Batchelor accepts the four noble truths:

suffering
cause
cessation
and the path.

He just does not do so in a way that is appealing to Buddhist dogmatists.

Look, I have argued your side of this before and at length and in detail. But it is a losing argument — why? Because there are many things in many Buddhist teachings that have been regarded as heretical by someone.

The fact is, and you are just going to have to accept it — is that there are a large number of people out there who practice Zen and Vipassana who nevertheless do not accept rebirth. There are even many Nicherin Buddhists who deny that rebirth is a fact. When you take this hard position that "this is the really the teaching of the Buddha" you put yourself in a corner. The strength of the Dharma lies in the fact that it is a method of discovering the truth. We don't lay out the truth in the beginning and say "this is what you must confirm in order to be considered a Buddhist." If this were the case, we could not even have the discussion "Early Buddhism and Mahāyāna". Why? Because the Mahāyāna Buddhists themselves introduced heresies into Buddhism, heresies clearly defined in Abhidharma literatures. Then we have the heresies of Vajrayāna. Then Dzogchen. Then Bon. Then Nicherin Buddhism. Then Chan, Zen, etc.

All we can do really is say "That person's Buddhism is not for me". For example, your eternalist disposition is not for me. I am sure that Dzogchen is not to your liking. So what? Some people like Batchelor's "metaphysics free" approach. They would not even explore Buddhadharma otherwise.

We all have ignorance. All of our views are limited. Even the most perfect mental model of how things are is not how things are. This is why it is more useful to focus on the methods of Dharma and discover for ourselves what we can perceive and what we can infer. We really ought not be telling people like Batchelor that they have no right to call themselves Buddhist. It opens up oneself to the same charge. Our conceptual map is not really that relevant to our practice unless it is causing us suffering and preventing us from practicing. I don't think that practicing Dharma has much to do with our conceptual beliefs. Everyone wants to wake up. How is demonizing Batchelor helping you or anyone else given that you are no more an authority than he is, or Wallace, or me?

As far as I can tell, you don't understand Batchelor's point of view very well. I think it comes from his training in Korean Zen. He is putting it out there that there are many questions the answers to which he does not know and does not feel anyone can know without claiming special knowledge. I respect that position. It is really honest. There is a lot of dishonesty in religious discourse. People claiming as truths things they have merely heard or read and not personally experienced is the essence of dishonesty. This is why I find the polemics against Batchelor incredibly dishonest. Not one person who is criticizing Batchelor has any personal experience or realization of these so called "truths" they are enunciating.

For example, in his book Heartwood, Bhikku Buddhadassa completely rejects literal rebirth as a fiction of the Abhidhammists. Are you going to say that Buddhadassa is not a Buddhist? He says elsewhere:
If we use the Kalama Sutta and the Four Criteria, we can strictly apply the Buddha's principle to choose the right things from layers upon layers of garbage. This is not to say that all of the essays and canons are useless, but that the Buddha's principle must be strictly applied to find the right explanations. According to the Four Criteria, anything that is not in accord with the Doctrine [dhamma] and Discipline [vinaya] should be considered as erroneous hearing, memory, speech, and teaching. The doctrine of dependent origination is primarily intended to abolish the concept of a continuing existence and nihilism. Therefore, if the teaching of the doctrine involves man’s transmigration in three lifetimes, then it is unacceptable in accordance with the Four Criteria.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm

So you see, there are a lot of people, intelligent people, who feel that we can interpret Buddha's teaching in such a way that even proposing literal rebirth is actually opposed to Buddha's intention! But of course, according to you, they are not Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
That which transcends time is timeless and unborn, not eternal in the sense of endless time.

Malcolm wrote:
Something that has not arisen [unborn] does not exist. If you accept that nirvana is unborn, you also accept that is does not exist. If you propose it exists, your view is no different than Hindus who believe in a permanent, unborn purusha.
BTW, there are many people who think Dolpopa's view i.e. gzhan stong, is a corrupt view of Buddhadharma.
Let's use a different enlightened master then. Here is something from Huang Po, brackets are mine:
One, I am not sure that translation you are using is reliable. Two, there are a lot of people who have a big problem with the "true self" and "one mind" language and so on that exists in Zen -- who see it as again, crypto -Advaita.



The fourth seal is that of nirvana, which isn't to be found in materialism.
The fourth seal is merely that nirvana is peaceful. As we have seen, there are all kinds of Buddhist understandings of nirvana -- many of which flat out contradict each other. Moreover, the fourth seal does not exist in Theravada, it is a Mahāyāna interpolation.
What we need to understand about Batchelor, for example, and many Westerners like him, is that they are trying.
Yes, trying to corrupt Buddhism and turn it into a form of secular-atheistic materialism, going so far as making claims that teachings Buddha preached and all Buddhists have accepted historically are superstitions.
Buddhists for centuries have accused other Buddhists of "corrupting" the Dharma and indulging in superstitions. Still, you would accept Vajrayāna practitioners as Buddhists, no? How about Mahāyāna Buddhists -- they have many things that could be labeled "superstitions" by Thervavadins, for example. Buddhists have accused each of false beliefs and incorrect interpretations for centuries.

At the end of the day however, eventually these new heretical Buddhist trends become accepted and canonized.

While it is true that Buddhism is based on direct experience, most Buddhist masters I've read emphasize the need for faith in the possibility of enlightenment and the efficacy of the Buddhist path in order to be successful.
What you need is sraddha which is defined as mental clarity. You need the mental clarity to understand that exploring the Buddha's teachings will help you end your own suffering in this life.


Accepting materialism (nihilism) posing as Buddhism as a new understanding of Dharma isn't generous but erroneous and harmful.
You are merely flinging around a reactionary term you have not defined. What kind of materialist is Batchelor: money, cars and sex? Is he a dialectical materialist?

There is nothing in Batchelor's writings to indicate that he has decided that consciousness is solely a result of material interactions. Merely that he has personally abandoned all metaphysical speculations about rebirth and such questions, and feels that in the context of Buddha's teaching of anatman, Buddha's accounts of rebirth are largely mythological, generated with respect the milieu Buddha was teaching in. I think he even grants that Buddha may have believed these stories. But his point, one to which I now agree, is that the practice of Buddhadharma does not depend on accepting the Jatakas as literally true, or accepting the Buddha's account as having been the first human king in a past life, and so on.

That being said, I imagine that Batchelor probably is a physicalist, but that is different than being a materialist.

Batchelor generally says a perfectly respectable thing: consciousnesses arise based on specific conditions. When you study Abhidharma you will discover that in Abhidharma (as well as Madhyamaka in general) claim that without a sense organ and a sense object, a consciousness cannot arise. It is never said that without a consciousness and a sense organ, the object won't arise, or that the without the sense object, the sense organ won't arise. All these texts clearly state that a consciousness arises only when there is a functioning sense organ and a sense object. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to assert in the context of Buddhism.

So this is another area in which you attempt at blackballing Batchelor fails utterly.

So I can either blackball you for having an eternalist view of nirvana and blackball Batchelor for not accepting the doctrine of rebirth literally or I can be expansive and understand that even though you both suffer from some wrong views, you both are still within the Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
smcj said:
his physicalism does not preclude nirvana. He can experience nirvana whether he believes in rebirth or not, providing he relinquishes his afflictions. His position is that belief in rebirth is irrelevant to the cessation of suffering.
Is not "liberation" freedom from cyclic existence (a.k.a. samsara), the cycle of rebirth? That's pretty fundamental if one buys the original 4 Noble Truths position that dukha pervades all of life.

Malcolm wrote:
You do not have to accept rebirth literally to accept "sarva dukkham". If the solution to suffering in this life is calming the mind with shamatha and developing the insight which burns away afflictions (it is), then what does believing in rebirth have to do with it?

If you have ended your afflictions you won't take rebirth again, according to Buddha's teachings, anyway. So what does it matter? All that matters is that one sees through the matrix of conditions that create your suffering here and now.

This is the minimum requirement.

So, in this thread, we have seen three things:

1) The four seals do not require belief in rebirth
2) Refuge in the Three Jewels do not require belief in rebirth
3) Belief in an eternal unconditioned ultimate is not a requirement to be a Buddhist.

In realty, no beliefs of any kind are required to enter the Buddha's path.

What we need to understand about Batchelor, for example, and many Westerners like him, is that they are trying. They are inspired by the Buddha's example, and they accept what makes sense to them.

Buddhadharma is not about belief and faith. Ultimately, like all Indian yogic paths, it is about personal experience: direct perception and inferences derived from those based on one's practice. It is a personal journey, not one that exists in a catechism. There is no "bible" in Buddhadharma. Rather, Buddhadharma holds a range teachings from belief in an inexpressible self which is neither the same nor different than aggregates [pudgalavadins] to the crypto Vedantic musings of Dolbupa, to the explicit refutation of the unconditioned by Nāgārjuna and the assertion that nirvana is a non-existent [sautrantikas].

So now, Buddhists, you have to make room for a new understanding of Dharma, one that does not include rebirth as a vital central principle. It won't kill you to be generous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
jeeprs said:
is 'the basis' physical? Is it something known to science?

I would have thought that 'the Buddha's opinion', whether he is 'around to tell us or not' is pretty well summed up in the idea of 'dependent origination'. If you take dependent origination out, what remains is not in any way shape or form Buddhism, as far as I can tell.

And 'dependent origination' presumes that 'the cause of existence is ignorance' ( avidya ). I can't see how 'ignorance' is not a metaphysical idea, and indeed the whole basis of dependent origination is not something that Western science would be able to validate.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see Batchelor discarding dependent origination, he states:
The Buddha awakened to a glittering plurality of endlessly arising and vanishing phenomena. No God created it; no Mind underpins it; no Unconditioned lies somewhere outside it. Ethics, meditation and wisdom are not founded on some absolute truth, but grow out of a careful examination of what causes suffering and what brings it to an end.
I differ with Batchelor in that I accept rebirth. But I do not see how the above violates some sacred Buddhist principles resulting in the fatwa Vidyārāja has pronounced above.

BTW, avidyā is not held to be the cause of existence in dependent origination, because that would make ignorance/avidyā unconditioned itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
The unconditioned, i.e. nirvana, which leads to the cessation of suffering, is transcendent.

Malcolm wrote:
Since the Sautrantikas strictly define nirvana as a cessation, a non-existence, would you deny them the claim they are Buddhist because they do not support your eternalist vision of nirvana?

Batchelor feels that his view is dependent origination. He derives that view from the Buddha. Dependent origination is the essence of the Buddhist view for most people.

BTW, there are many people who think Dolpopa's view i.e. gzhan stong, is a corrupt view of Buddhadharma.

So there are two things which are not mentioned in the four seals: belief in rebirth, and belief in a transcendent existent nirvana. These two beliefs of yours are not required in order to consider someone a follower of the Buddha's teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
The path of dharma is so vast and takes such effort to master.

Malcolm wrote:
Seven years, according to Sakya Pandita. Dharma is not rocket science, though we like to pretend it is.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He just has problems with literal rebirth because he is a physicalist, just as you are a substance dualist. From my point of view, you are both wrong.

dzogchungpa said:
What is your take on the issue?

Malcolm wrote:
mind and matter are both products of the same basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
The deathless is not to be found among conditioned phenomena:
...
Batchelor's materialism precludes this. He isn't a Buddhist as he cuts out the very heart of Buddhism. Regarding rebirth, see here:

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are incorrect, his physicalism does not preclude nirvana. He can experience nirvana whether he believes in rebirth or not, providing he relinquishes his afflictions. His position is that belief in rebirth is irrelevant to the cessation of suffering.


Vidyaraja said:
I am not a substance dualist.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure you are -- you accept rebirth don't you? And you accept that nama and rūpa are distinct in kind and substance don't you?

As to what "being in line with the Dharma" means, it is impossible to say what the Buddha's opinion is, isn't it? He is not around to tell us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Prophecy of Buddhism's Downfall in India
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are similar predictions, for example in the Manjushri Root Tantra, if memory serves me correct.

Indrajala said:
When approximately was the first version translated into Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
late 10th, early eleventh century.

Here is one such passage, from chapter 24:

།ཀཱ་བི་ཤེ་དང་བག་ཁ་ལ། །ཨོ་ཌི་ཡ་ནི་ཁོར་ཡུག་ཡུལ། །ཁ་ཆེ་དང་ནི་སིནྡྷུའི་ཡུལ། །ཁ་བ་ཅན་གྱི་མཚམས་ཀུན་དང༌། །བྱང་
ཕྱོགས་སུ་ནི་གནས་བརྟེན་ལ། །དགེ་བའི་སྔགས་ནི་འགྲུབ་པར་འགྱུར། །གང་ཡང་སངས་རྒྱས་སྔོན་གསུངས་དང༌། །ད་ལྟར་ཡང་ནི་གསུངས་པ་དང༌། །མ་
འོངས་སངས་རྒྱས་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང༌། །ཞི་བའི་རྒྱུར་ནི་གསུངས་པ་སྟེ། །ཁ་བ་ཅན་རིའི་ནང་བྱུང་བ། །དེར་ནི་ཐམས་ཅད་འགྲུབ་པར་འགྱུར།
The border lands
Kā vi she, Bag ga la, O ḍi ya;
Ka che (Kashmir) and Sin dhu Land,
all the borders of the Kha ba can (Himalayas)
and in the north are Sthaviras
accomplishing the mantras of virtue,
which all the buddhas of the past said,
and all the buddhas of the present said,
and all the buddhas of the future said,
to be a cause of peace.
Arising in the mountains of Kha ba can,
there everything will be accomplished.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Prophecy of Buddhism's Downfall in India
Content:
Indrajala said:
I found this interesting: On one of his missions to Middle India, the Tang diplomat Wang Xuance is reported to have learned from the abbot of Mahābodhi Monastery about a belief among Indian clergy that when corrupt doctrines eventually eclipse the Indic lands, genuine Buddhist doctrines will continue to fluorish in the peripheral east. In other words, after the disappearance of Buddhist doctrines from India, China would emerge as the new Buddhist realm. If this is indeed a true reflection of views of the seventh-century Indian clergy and not a fabrication of the Chinese Buddhists, it would not only explain the attempts by some of the South and Central Asian monks to authenticate the presence of bodhisattva Mañjuśrī at Mount Wutai, but also the increasing number of Indian and foreign monks making pilgrimage to China.
Tansen Sen, Buddhism Diplomacy and Trade The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400 (Honolulu: Universiy of Hawai'i Press, 2003), 84-85.


Does anyone know of anything similar with respect to Buddhism being transmitted into Tibet?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are similar predictions, for example in the Manjushri Root Tantra, if memory serves me correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Materialism is nihilism, nihilism is against what the Buddha taught, and materialism doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering or nirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
Ucchedavada, often mistranslated as nihilism, is the view that there is a self which perishes at death. But I am quite sure that is not Batchelor's view at all.

Vidyaraja said:
Neither the Buddha himself, nor all the Buddhist masters of the past, nor any Buddhist worth their salt today would call Batchelor a Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
Batchelor practices that portion of Buddhadharma that he can accept. That makes him a follower of Buddhadharma whether you like it or not. He accepts that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, that all afflicted phenomena are suffering, and that all phenomena lack self. He probably also accepts that nirvana is peaceful. In other words, I am quite certain he accepts the four seals. Among the four seals there is not one word that mentions rebirth. He takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

I am quite certain that Buddha, being kinder than you, would find room for Batchelor among his students.

He just has problems with literal rebirth because he is a physicalist, just as you are a substance dualist. From my point of view, you are both wrong.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:


Indrajala said:
Actually, I've discussed this with others, but I think Buddhist monks/nuns in the west will have to learn from past examples and see to their own income. If it means producing cheese or honey on a communal farm arrangement, then so be it.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, so you have a group of people, who decide to wear special colored clothing, and adhere to a moral code and make stuff together. Not the Sangha I imagine Shakyamuni had in mind. But it is ok AFAIC. Chinese travelers reported (with some attitude) of the existence of married Mahāyāna "monks" who farmed for a living in India.

The point I was making above is that temples were positive contributors to the Tibetan economy. That is why the temple system functioned in Tibet (leave aside of course that Lang Darma was assassinated for deciding to tax Tibetan monasteries during the Asian economic crisis of the 840's -- that was a powerful message to Tibetan aristocrats by the newly powerful monastic establishment).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
We are still at a stage where for philosophical topics we are better off relying on Tibetan Geshes (or Western Geshes, but we produce so few).

Malcolm wrote:
This might be true if you are only interested in a very narrow scope of Gelugpa studies.

JKhedrup said:
I don't think my BA, even though it is from a good university, takes me even close to the level of scholarship required of a Geshe lharampa. A PhD might.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference between our system of education and the Tibetan system is that we are trained to self-educate. Tibetans were not. Curiosity is largely discouraged.

Degrees are not a measure of education. Literacy is. The education gap between the average Tibetan and a Geshe, or a Khenpo is huge. The education gap between a Geshe/Khenpo and your average college educated westerner is not so large.

Also, the useful aspect of Buddhism, what is actually needed for liberation is not found in the reams of polemical yig cha that Geshes and Khenpos specialize in.  For most people, studying the niceties of the differences in opinion between scholars of dead Indian Buddhist traditions is just not that important.  It is a great thing to do, but most people in the West are really not that interested in it.


JKhedrup said:
This term yogi has always confused me. If Yogi indicates some sort of level of attainment, I would say only a few would be worthy of that title. If it just means a lay practitioner, I guess it makes sense.

Malcolm wrote:
A yogi is someone who practices yoga i.e. tries to discover their real state through various means. Most Westerners actively engaged in Buddhism and Buddhist studies are yogis i.e. they practice Zen, Vipassana, Creation Stage yogas, Completion Stage yogas, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:


JKhedrup said:
I can think of a lot of easier ways to grab at power rather than donning the robes.

Malcolm wrote:
Its the only way a non-aristocrat who is not a tulku can rise up in Tibetan society, apart from being merchant.

Ecclesiastical hierarchies often balanced and off-set the power of aristocratic hierarchies. but this phenomena does not exist in the West anymore.

Really, what I am pointing out here is that people need to intelligently about what the social implications of a monastic Sangha is in the west, Who is is for, how is it being paid for. While it is easy to understand why ethnic Buddhists such as Cambodians and so on have an interest in having a Vihara in their neighborhood, my experience tells me that second and third generation Asias in the USA are not really that interested in the religion of their forbears.

The point I am making is that in Tibet, for example, Monasteries served a valuable social role; they stored grain, they provided medical services, education and so on. The role they played in Tibet for example was a vital one. But what are monasteries going to do for people here? Evangelize so they can sell their services to a client population that does not really believe in the power of prayer(or if they do, they are probably already Christian).

I personally believe that people are in this headspace of thinking "What are we supposed to do for monastics", but I rarely see anyone asking the question "What real value will supporting a monastic population do for Western Buddhists (who are generally yogis)?" Yes, there is the merit argument, but frankly, this is rather weak.

The monastic sangha is facing a crisis of relevance in western countries. We are already, many of us, just as well educated as any Geshe (with different skill sets of course), and often more so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:


jeeprs said:
I had always assumed that the monastic vocation...

Malcolm wrote:
Is actually very political. When you are not in it for sex, power becomes a primary pursuit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Lindama said:
The awakened ones are carefree in such matters.

Malcolm wrote:
That is just another story.

The point here is that we need to be aware of the fact that we are following narratives, preferring one narrative to another. There is not much meaning to the term "awakened one" if there is no narrative connected with their awakening. This is why there are compelling narratives around the liberations of Shakyamuni, Padmasambhava, Tonpa Shenrab and so on.

If we prefer so-called "early Buddhism" to Mahāyāna, or vice versa, we are giving preference to one story over another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Indrajala said:
The śramaṇa culture was already well-developed.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and was systematically engaged in breaking all kinds of social taboos.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So did Shakyamuni -- like abandoning his family, living in charnel grounds, and so on, wearing dyed winding sheets, etc.

Indrajala said:
Not really. The śramaṇa culture was already well-developed. Many of the Buddha's disciples were already mendicant yogis before studying under him.

In any case, the point is that Vajrayāna seems to have responded with violence and taboo sexual practices to ongoing repression on the part of Brahmins. This was rather revolutionary given the long-standing nominal observance of non-violence and brahmacarya on the part of the Buddhist sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
Taboo sexual practices? Like having sex? With real people? Vajrayāna is just more practical, that's all. And in terms of violence, all Buddhists did in those days was appropriate the symbols of ritual violence and procedures that were well known in their culture.

What I think most people ignore is that prior to the rise of Vajrayāna, there was a huge Puranic revolution that popularized and made available many rites and rituals that previously have been the precinct only of ritual specialists i.e. Brahmins. Buddhists used these rites and symbols, even making arguments for why Buddhist homavidhi was more effective than that of traditional Brahmins. The fact is that Buddhist ritual specialists increasingly took business away from Brahmins. In the context of Indian culture, anyone sufficiently expert in the general lines of Vajrayāna ritual, derived from Brahmanic dinācarya anyway, could replace a Brahmanic priest. This was not true in the day of the Buddha. Buddhist rulers for example continued to rely on Brahmin priests for state functions, etc. It is only after the fall of the Gupta that we see the rise in Vajrayāna texts, and this corresponds to the breaking of traditional patron/priest relationships in Northern India, and the replacement of the old order with new Buddhist ritual experts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
anjali said:
"Founder" is colloquial usage. Shakyamuni Buddha turned the dharma wheel once again after the buddha-dharma was forgotten in this world. Some people wish to follow his life model as a monastic. And people have done so throughout the centuries. If Shakyamuni Buddha hadn't lived a monastic lifestyle and founded a monastic order, I doubt any of us would be discussing the prospects of Buddhist monasticism in the West.

Malcolm wrote:
It all depends on who you think really turns the wheel of dharma, i.e., nirmanakāya emanations or the sambhoghakāya.

anjali said:
Does it have to be either/or? Surely you would acknowledge the fundamental role of Shakyamuni Buddha in reestablishing the buddha-dharma in this world? I think most Buddhists would acknowledge Shakyamuni Buddha as the historical root teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Shakyamuni is a historical teacher, and for my tradition, one of thirteen quasi-historical nirmanakāya teachers of great importance. But while important, he is not the most important teacher in my tradition.

That distinction belongs to a character known as "Garab Dorje" who hailed from Oḍḍiyāna. He was not a monk, had no Sangha, and a very small number of successors. He may in fact be entirely a Tibetan fiction, but no matter. For me he is more important than Shakyamuni Buddha.

Even so, even more important than he is the primordial Buddha Samantabhadra, of which he is but an emanation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your Buddhism is not his Buddhism, that is all you can say.



Vidyaraja said:
If his atheistic-materialism (nihilism) is Buddhism, anything can be Buddhism, thus rendering the appellation "Buddhism" a meaningless term.

Malcolm wrote:
He feels his story is squarely grounded in the Buddha's teachings. You feel yours is. You are both interested in liberation from suffering. All that separates the two of you is that you are substance dualist and he is a physicalist. Oh, and he will readily call you a Buddhist, but you deny him (as I have in the past) the same decency -- that's another difference.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Indrajala said:
Vajrayāna in India seems to have indeed incorporated otherwise taboo practices.

Malcolm wrote:
So did Shakyamuni -- like abandoning his family, living in charnel grounds, and so on, wearing dyed winding sheets, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
[Though I will still maintain my position that Stephen Batchelor's brand of secular-atheistic "Buddhism" isn't Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Your Buddhism is not his Buddhism, that is all you can say.


Vidyaraja said:
That said, what is the difference between the self-liberation of Dzogchen and renunciation or transformation? Are not Nyingma monks renunciants and do their practices not lead to transformation (even if that transformation is just awareness of our naturally, spontaneously present enlightened state which is always there?)

Malcolm wrote:
By definition, anyone who practices either Vajrayāna or Dzogchen has abandoned the path of renunciation as their path.


Vidyaraja said:
Also, what is the difference between the self-liberation of Dzogchen and the anupaya or "method-less method" or "means of no-means" of Trika/Kashmir Shaivism?

Malcolm wrote:
Very different stories.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Basically, it is really pretty simple. All yogic paths in Indian religion and its offshoots, whether Buddhist, Jain or Hindu, whether in India or Tibet, or China, etc., accept one thing in common: in order to cease taking rebirth in samsara, one must deal somehow with the kleṣas that drive rebirth.



Vidyaraja said:
That is true, but their views on the means to this can be deeply variant.

Malcolm wrote:
That's the point -- enlightenment, awakening, is just a story. We all subscribe to different stories of awakening. Some people like to imagine that their story is more solid, more real, that the stories of others. Certainly I have been guilty of this.

Basically, the fact that there is a story of awakening at all is the essence of Dharma. What does not matter very much are the details, except to you, the practitioner. If you ask me what story of awakening I like, I will very swiftly tell you that I like the story of awakening as it is presented in the teachings of self-liberation, Dzogchen. I like it more than the story of awakening presented in the path of renunciation or the path of transformation. I like it more than the story of awakening presented in Samkhya, Trika, Vedanta and so on. The vehicle of self-liberation is my preferred story. I can't convince you to accept my story of liberation anymore than I could have been convinced of it when I was committed to Buddhism as a religion by someone else. Likewise, I cannot convince any one here of any story about liberation they are not disposed to believe.

But the one thing we share is that we all subscribe to narrative about liberation otherwise we would not be here discussing these issues. And that is why there is no closed Canon in Buddhism, why there never can be.

Buddhists, like all other religionists, like to think that they are the only ones who have a true story. Among Buddhists, all assert their preferred story of liberation as the best, or most practical, or the only possible, or the most historically accurate, and so on.

We Dharma practitioners demonstrate our commitment to our preferred stories by the choices we make, and the practices we do. But in the end we are merely making a commitment to a narrative of liberation we have decided to accept. And that is completely subjective, personal and non-verifiable. No one's putative awakening is verifiable by any objective, empirical standard -- and in these conversations about liberation we all behave as if there were some objective criteria by which liberation can be measured. This is absurd. Every standard by which we can measure liberation and awakening is a complete and utterly arbitrary mental line drawn in space. All of our narratives of liberation come from space too, just like clouds billowing in the sky.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
anjali said:
I think when most people think of the Buddhist tradition they are thinking of the Buddhism with Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma has no founder. It has no historical origin. That is what you discover when you read Buddhist sūtras carefully, even the so called "early" ones.

anjali said:
"Founder" is colloquial usage. Shakyamuni Buddha turned the dharma wheel once again after the buddha-dharma was forgotten in this world. Some people wish to follow his life model as a monastic. And people have done so throughout the centuries. If Shakyamuni Buddha hadn't lived a monastic lifestyle and founded a monastic order, I doubt any of us would be discussing the prospects of Buddhist monasticism in the West.

Malcolm wrote:
It all depends on who you think really turns the wheel of dharma, i.e., nirmanakāya emanations or the sambhoghakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Who has the correct view?

Malcolm wrote:
The one who is has woken up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
anjali said:
I think when most people think of the Buddhist tradition they are thinking of the Buddhism with Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma has no founder. It has no historical origin. That is what you discover when you read Buddhist sūtras carefully, even the so called "early" ones.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
anjali said:
Since the Buddha was a monk

Malcolm wrote:
There have been a lot of Buddhas, not all of them were monks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Whose enlightenment are you going to accept?
Still working on that one- slowly, slowly. There are such divergent opinions and paths. If one accepts in a general way skillful means perhaps one can accept there are different paths for different practitioners. But of course the more zealous practitioners of the various systems often claim that their methods are unique in offering the full attainment of enlightenment, which leads to all our wrangling.


Malcolm wrote:
Basically, it is really pretty simple. All yogic paths in Indian religion and its offshoots, whether Buddhist, Jain or Hindu, whether in India or Tibet, or China, etc., accept one thing in common: in order to cease taking rebirth in samsara, one must deal somehow with the kleṣas that drive rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Thanks- so it would seem that Secularism could be said to be the dominant force in Scandinavia?
This is interesting.


Malcolm wrote:
Its the dominant force in America too, in the Blue States at any rate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:


JKhedrup said:
As it mentions, though, it is the Evangelical branches of Protestantism that are growing, so as I stated above people conditioned by those schools of religion are very unlikely to be interested in Buddhism anyways.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all besides the point.

The real point of your question is "Are monastics necessary for the continued transmission of Dharma in the West". I think not. It does not mean I am against people taking robes, though in the end it often proves to have been a bad decision.

There is no state support for monastics in the west. This has always served as the precondition for the success of the monastic Sangha. And it still is the condition which supports the the Tibetan monastic establishment. In fact, the only good argument for maintaing the TGIE is that it supports the monasteries in India (otherwise, it will never regain Tibet so is sort of an anachronism). Without it, I think many Tibetan monasteries in India would disappear.

The shifting fortunes of Chinese monasticism has also been tied to the state, even in modern Taiwan.

in the end, the West is a howling wilderness still for Buddhist monasticism. And given that we live in a very degenerate era, I do not think it will be relevant or able to respond to the needs of westerners in the long term.

Still, you can try.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Put your money where your mouth is
Actually KD has extended assistance to Western monastics.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is good. I like a man who carries through on his stated convictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
One may judge incorrectly. The reality is, either Nichiren's claims are true or they aren't, they aren't true for some and false for others. Either enlightenment is real or it isn't. Either Buddhist praxis is efficacious or it isn't.

Malcolm wrote:
Whose Buddhist praxis? Maybe Enlightenment is a total fantasy. Whose enlightenment are you going to accept? That one represented in the Pali Canon, Prajñāpāramitā? Chan? Zen? Pure Land? Nicherin? Dzogchen?

All of these schools have very different ideas concerning the path and the result. Whose is correct?

Again, it comes down to using one's own judgement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
seeker242 said:
Western monks and nuns are an intrinsic part of the 3rd jewel of the 3 jewels! Sangha is called 3rd Jewel for a reason! A Sangha with no renunciates? What kind of sangha is that?! A one that is lacking IMO! I wish there were many more monks/nuns in the west!



Malcolm wrote:
Sangha means all practitioners/or alternatively only realized practitioners (this is the actual Sangha Jewel ".

It has nothing to do with the color of ones clothes or the length of ones hair.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
There are huge Roman Catholic communities in the US, Canada

Malcolm wrote:
Do you have any idea how much real estate the Vatican has for sale in the US? Or how much in decline the Catholic Church is in the US:
Pope Benedict XVI, who announced Monday that he is stepping down from the papacy, has led the Roman Catholic Church during a time of turmoil and change for American Catholics. Nearly one-third of Americans who were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholics. Overall, American Catholic churches lost 5 percent of their membership during the last decade, and the decline would have been much steeper if not for the offsetting impact of Catholic immigrants from Latin America.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pope-benedict-and-the-decline-of-american-catholicism-20130211

Karma Dorje said:
Why would we want to discourage monasticism when there are practitioners that aspire to such conduct?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, step up and start funding Lama Tsewang out in Vancouver. Put your money where your mouth is. That is my challenge to all you advocates of monasticism in the west. If you want a monastic Sangha in the West, then pay for it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
.
Protestantism of the mainline variety is on the decline in North America. I think its influence is generally overstated. Protestatism of the charismatic/evangelical variety's influence is not so important as those shaped by it have little chance of developing interest in Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
You completely missed my point -- as Latinos become americanized, they will also become Protestantized, and if they pick up yoga, Aryanized as well. It is not a religious thing, it is a cultural thing. And you might be surprised to learn this, but in Latin America, Protestantism is the fastest rising form of Christianity:
Home to about eight per cent of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics - more of the faithful than any country outside Brazil - Mexico has seen a slow but steady decline in people who self-identify with the faith. Currently about 82.7 per cent of Mexicans consider themselves Catholic, down from 88 per cent in 2000 and 96 per cent in 1970. Evangelical protestant denominations are believed responsible for much of the drop.

"The Vatican is extremely concerned about competition with evangelicals," Daniel Levine, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies religious movements in Latin America, told Al Jazeera. "They are worried about losing their position as ‘the' spokesperson for religion and morality in the region. It is a big change from a generation ago."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/03/201232593459332334.html

In any event, in the US and in Northern Europe, you absorb the cultural morays if you want to get ahead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For those people who follow Nichiren it is true, for those of us who don't it is not.

Vidyaraja said:
So truth is relative and there is no absolute truth? It seems to me that either Nichiren's claims are true or they aren't.

Malcolm wrote:
Slippery slope there. All one is left with is one's own judgment about what to accept and reject.


Vidyaraja said:
If I revealed a new form of Buddhism wherein violence, theft, lying, and hedonistic indulgence is the path for our advanced Dharma-ending age and millions followed me, would it make that correct or worthy of being considered a form of Buddhism? I'd say no since it contradicts what the Buddha and preceding forms of Buddhism have upheld. There has to be some standard.

Malcolm wrote:
It is interesting to note that in the polemics against Bon, all kinds of standards that are raised and then abandoned when Bon meets them. In the end, Buddhists were just saying "Bon is not Buddhism because we say so".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Monastics provide a field of merit for lay people who do not want to immerse themselves in the practice to practice generosity.  Their conduct and example can inspire.  A diversity of paths benefits the greatest number of beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Most people in the west who do not practice, are also not Buddhists, so they do not care.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Well it depends. I mean, if one trains as a translator, of teachings or texts, can contribute to the running of the centre, becomes a qualified teacher, or serves the lay community, there can be very great benefit.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't need monks or nuns for this. I cannot see at all any valid reason why supporting an ordained person is better than supporting a lay person in the same role. I mean, it is not like westerners are running to monasteries to have rites recited to improve harvests, prevent frosts, etc. The context of supporting monastics to generate merit is lacking. This works in India because Indians in general support sadhus and other kinds of renunciates. It is a part of their culture. America and Northern Europe, the dominate places where there is interest outside of Asia in Buddhism are also Protestant countries. We don't like celibate priests much; we do not trust them culturally, and regard them with suspicion. And especially in Tibetan Buddhism there is a strong tradition of a trained laity who can carry out all the necessary religious roles which may be needed.

Quite frankly, most Buddhist learning is anachronistic -- the study of Abhidharma is great, but is deeply hampered by the medieval India culture that engendered it. The Prajñāparamita tradition is equally obscure and hard to make relevant. Even Madhyamaka is not so useful to most folks. "Why should I support this guy in studying such weird stuff that is not at all relevant to me?" -- this is the question that the monastic establishment must answer in the West.

There are basically four forms of Buddhism spreading in the West:

1) Psychological & Secular Buddhism ala Batchelor, etc.
2) Technological Buddhism i.e. Vajrayāna, Bon, Dzogchen etc.
3) Contemplative Buddhism i.e. Vipassana, Zen, etc.
4) Evangelical Buddhism i.e. Nicherin, Pure Land, etc.

While there are various crossovers between these four, none of these requires the basis of a monastic Sangha.

JKhedrup said:
2)People are meeting a lot of Western monks and nuns who are not qualified or behave badly, but if the standards improved they might be interested in assisting sincere practitioners who have an affinity for the path of ordination.

Malcolm wrote:
Western Buddhists who supports monastics in Asia general do so because of the "cute" factor, or because they have a personal connection with a monastery or a monastic. But it possible because it is cheap.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
If that is the case, how are we to discern which form of continual revelation is true? Nichiren claims that only the Lotus sutra and the chanting of Daimoku can lead to liberation in this degenerate age of the Dharma. If his revelation is true, this invalidates most other forms of Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
For those people who follow Nichiren it is true, for those of us who don't it is not.

Vidyaraja said:
What about Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism devoid of all higher spirituality and regulated to the level of secular Buddhism? Can we say that this is also part of the continual revelation?

Malcolm wrote:
It is part of the history of Buddhism. His books have "entered the canon" so to speak as there are a large number of people who take them very seriously.

Vidyaraja said:
As to Sanderson's theories, I would say they are correct. The imagery in tantra, such as garlands of skulls or deities standing upon lesser deities or third eyes open, are absent from the Buddhism prior to Vajrayana but present within Shaivism. Hatha yoga, kundalini, occult corporeality (like chakras) are also absent from Buddhism prior to Vajrayana but also present within Shaivism. Mahakala for example, a deity absent from prior forms of Buddhism, is Bhairava, the wrathful form of Shiva. I personally respect a good deal of Shaivism, so this isn't a problem for me, but it may be for other Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, the first text to mention cakras is the Hevajra tantra -- even though the idea of nadis is very ancient. The notion of prāṇayāma and pratyahara, etc. are found in the Majjihma Nikaya and so on.

You need to read Davidson's book, he addresses the majority of your concerns quite well.

In this respect, there is a pan-Indian yogic culture, a toolbox of realization if you will, used by all schools who have different understandings of the results of that practice.

Buddha did not reject yoga, for example, he was a yogi. There is very little difference between how practice is described in the Yoga Sutras and what is described in Pali Buddhist scriptures. Though many people imagine that Patañjali was responding to Buddhists, I think this is a naive assumption.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: What do you really think of Western monks and nuns?
Content:
JKhedrup said:
The most neurotic Buddhists I have ever met were monks and nuns.
For true monasticism, where monks and nuns can practice single pointedly, some confidence and support from the lay community is required.

Malcolm wrote:
And of what benefit is this to us? Why is having a monastic sangha a desiderata?

JKhedrup said:
We cannot simply pretend that there is not a problem if we ever hope to get this way of life going here.

Malcolm wrote:
Give a good reason why supporting Western monks and nuns benefits lay people in the West?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Who cares? "Early" Buddhism is not the standard of what Buddhadharma is. "Early Buddhism" is a pedantic reconstruction.

Indrajala said:
The Dharma of the Buddha stems from the figure himself, who is best represented in reconstructions of "Early Buddhism", at least if you accept the mainstream ontology of the present day.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so."Early" or "Original" Buddhism is text-"critically" engendered fantasy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:


Vidyaraja said:
Do you say early Buddhism is not the standard of what Buddhadharma is and that attempting to discern earliest Buddhism is a pedantic reconstruction because you sincerely believe that

Malcolm wrote:
Because I believe that is it merely a pedantic reconstruction.

Vidyaraja said:
I don't have anything against it for this reason, but it seems to me that the tantra of Vajrayana is derived from Shaivist  rather than Buddhist sources as Alexis Sanderson points out in this article:

Malcolm wrote:
Ronald Davidson has pointed out several shortcomings of Sanderson's theories in Indian Esoteric Buddhism.

I like what Dan Martin says, when defending Bon as a form a Buddhism:
"Eventually, and with the help of a very small band of Buddhologists who have been speaking rather too softly over the years, we will find out that Buddhism has always been a religion of continual revelation...the canonizers of Buddhist scriptures, if they were looking for integrity, would have done well to be satisfied with parts of one or two sūtras, much as our contemporary researchers for 'original Buddhism' would have us do. Then we today would be in a much better position, since ninety-nine percent of the Buddhist scriptures could be relegated to that great and greatly ignored category of 'apocrypha', could be safely dispensed with, just as the Bon canon as a whole has itself been pre-dispensed with."
Ppg 211-213 Unearthing Bon Treasures, Brill, 2001.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
I'm no arhat, but I see the wisdom in abandoning the immediate causes for suffering and anxiety. The politics and alternative universes you see in various forms of Buddhism are causes for causes for anxiety.

Malcolm wrote:
The immediate cause for suffering and anxiety is the three afflictions. There are three ways to deal with these: renunciation, transformation or self-liberation.

The latter two require instruction by a qualified guru. The former does not. In my estimation, the latter two are more effective in this day and age, as we have already discussed elsewhere.

The most neurotic Buddhists I have ever met were monks and nuns.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Well the discussion as turned into general Mahayana, but my initial question was wondering which of the present forms would be most recognizable to the earliest disciples of Buddhism and which would be most alien--be it in doctrine, modes of practice, approach, etc. I suppose what is meant by early Buddhism would be Buddhism during the first few centuries of its existence.

Indrajala said:
I think Pure Land Buddhism would be seen as rather alien to the early Buddhists, especially Shinran's ideas.


Malcolm wrote:
Who cares? "Early" Buddhism is not the standard of what Buddhadharma is. "Early Buddhism" is a pedantic reconstruction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You do realize, that if you continue in this vein, whether intentionally or not, you are lending credence to the perception that you have animosity and bias towards Tibetan Buddhism.

Indrajala said:
I'm equally critical of any other form of Buddhism.


Malcolm wrote:
No, you are not, not at all. You may feel you are, but I don't see you spending much time in the Chan/Zen and Pure Land Forums, or the Nicherin Forums criticizing them. Or the Theravada forums, for that matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
Strictly speaking, liberation from suffering is not the same as buddhahood. The point of Vajrayana is rapid progress to buddhahood.

dzogchungpa said:
What do you think the swiftest path to liberation from suffering is?


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, its obvious by his choices. He thinks that being a renunciate is the fastest to achieve liberation from suffering, and all of his comments in this vein are stemming from his conviction in this perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
The point is that if you make grand claims about advanced abilities and rapid spiritual development, then your tradition and members should readily display many good qualities and constant benevolent conduct.

Malcolm wrote:
Then at the very best, I think Vajrayāna fairs quite well in that regard. At the very least, they are no worse than any other tradition within Buddhism.

You do realize, that if you continue in this vein, whether intentionally or not, you are lending credence to the perception that you have animosity and bias towards Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
In other words, the burden of proof is on the people making such enormous claims.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so when are you going to start attacking the Buddha? After all, he made the grandest unsubstantiated claim of all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 16th, 2013 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:


kirtu said:
Now in fact your guru may not be a perfect guru.  Even Jamgon Kongtrul said that "nowadays perfect gurus are rare."  So it may behoove people to read his comments in Ethics on the student/teacher relationship.  This has apparently also been published under the title "The Teacher-Student Relationship" by Jamgon Kongtrul.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Sounds like we are dealing with a not-even-marginally-adequate-in-terms-of-qualities guru here. And the implication of your post could lead one to believe that you disapprove separating oneself from a guru of questionable merits.

Actually, it is really, really easy to learn how to construct a mandala, read a liturgy, perform some mudras, ring a bell, wave a vajra around in the air and play a damaru, etc. Along with that, dress up in some traditional robes, look Tibetan, and walla, now you are a Guru.

The hard part about being a guru is guiding people along the path of Buddhahood when you yourself are not a Buddha — and that is where the pitfalls and dangers lay. Guiding people without conditioning them, helping them to understand and then open up their innate capacity for awakening is not easy. Frankly most so called "gurus" these days are just marketing religion in the name of awakening.

Anyone can learn a ritual or two. Waking up is a different matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 16th, 2013 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: is empowerement necessary for guru rinpoche guru yoga
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
i noticed that there are some webcasts but i dont know where, can you post the link.

malcolm, is this lung thing a bit dogmatic, since the lung transfers the lamas realization, or the seed of that. but isnt it kind of harsh that you can't do any practice without the lung for it. because not everyone has the possibility to receive lungs from lamas, but i dont think its a rule or a law that they cant because the dont have lung practice the dharma.

i have no idea when it is possible to receive lung for padmasambhava guru yoga. i dont even know if in the drikung lineage there is padmasambhava guru yoga. ive seen few on the internet and want to try them to see if my devotion flows more freely to padmasambhava than to jigten sumgön.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in Drikung there is the three roots practice of Yangzab as well as the terma cycles of Nuden Dorje. You can get the transmission for Padmasambhava Guru yoga quite easily in drikung.

You can in the meantime supplicate Padmasambhava by reciting the seven line prayer, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 16th, 2013 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
This is of course different from the Vajrayana model, but it aims for buddhahood, which is separate discussion. Let's first get to liberation from suffering first before proceeding to more lofty goals.

Malcolm wrote:
Unless of course one is interested in Vajrayana right from the start...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 16th, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: is empowerement necessary for guru rinpoche guru yoga
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
i belong mainly to the lineage of drikung kagyu and i havent received the lung or the wang for ngondro but maybe next time i see rinpoche he will bless me with them.

anyway concerning padmasambhava guru yoga, id rather do guru yoga to padmasambhava than jigten sumgon. so is it allowed to practice padmasambhava guru yoga without initiation

Malcolm wrote:
Not without the lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 15th, 2013 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: is empowerement necessary for guru rinpoche guru yoga
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
thats my question. is empowerement and lung necessary for padmasambhava guru yoga's.

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 15th, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Who holds the highest throne?
Content:
Alfredo said:
Thus spake Wikipedia:


Malcolm wrote:
This applies only in Gelug.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 15th, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
The real refuge is the Dharma, because it liberates and technically infallible.
.

Malcolm wrote:
The real refuge is the Dharmakāya, because unlike the Dharma and the Sangha, it is not impermanent.

That aside; as you know, the guru considered the primary refuge in Vajrayāna because that is the person from whom one receives both the ripening empowerments, and more importantly, the liberating instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 15th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
I'm aware folks from Tibetan Buddhism will tend to disagree with this, but then I see how disappointed Tibetan Buddhists can be with their gurus. Some spend years and years with someone only to be emotionally and spiritually devastated.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence the detailed and pointed instructions in Vajrayāna texts about taking extreme care in choosing one's guru; the kind of guru to avoid, and the pitfalls of picking a bad one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 15th, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Indrajala said:
Place faith in the Dharma, not fallible humans.

Be your own teacher.


Malcolm wrote:
That attitude does not work in Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 15th, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's translations
Content:


Nicholas Liber said:
Dowman, on the other hand, in his effort to overcome this obstacle, he's been making use of a more free rendering that includes poetic attitude as a means

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, and this is a huge misunderstanding of Dzogchen texts i.e. that they are poetry. They are not. To the extent that they are in verses is merely an artifact of what we term "didactic verse". It is a good thing Dzogchen texts are not poetry, because were they so, they would be completely impossible to translate in any meaningful way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's translations
Content:
Andreas said:
You should read them carefully and maybe compare it with other exosting translation to form a good opinion.

Malcolm wrote:
I base my opinions on the original Tibetan, not on comparisons with other English translations. Thus far, we are not there yet in terms of universally good translations of Dzogchen texts into English by anyone -- this includes my own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's translations
Content:


Andreas said:
Look at his many translations which had been published in the last years, works from Longchenpa and Vairocana: Eye of the Storm, Vairotsana's Five Original Transmissions

Malcolm wrote:
Already done by Adriano Clemente.

Andreas said:
Maya Yoga: Longchenpa's Finding Comfort and Ease in Enchantment

Malcolm wrote:
Guenther

Andreas said:
Natural Perfection: Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen

Malcolm wrote:
Barron


Andreas said:
Spaciousness: The Radical Dzogchen of the Vajra Heart, Longchenpa's Precious Treasury of the Dharmadhatu
and also :



Malcolm wrote:
Barron and Waldo

Andreas said:
Great Secret of Mind: Special Instructions on the Nonduality of Dzogchen
By: Tulku Pema Rigtsal, translated by Keith Dowman

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, my bad, this is the first original text, never before appearing in English, that he has translated and presented in many years.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that Dowman's translations are better or worse than these earlier ones I have listed. Merely that his follows theirs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
philji said:
Pema. Hi..sorry once again for any offence..these online forum things do have their draw backs... I agree with what you say about people viewing Dzogchen as super sexy etc..... I am just a beginner myself but after  receiving instructions from different teachers I can now begin to see that the instructions for recognising nature of mind are contained in many , many teachings..maybe Ll of them?.. Once you know where to look you see it everywhere..it's quite amazing.... I think some folks including myself view some teachings as inferior .... That's a shame..... Even taking refuge is an introduction to our mind essence is it not?


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Phil:

Dzogchen is not, as is commonly assumed, merely a teaching about the nature of the mind. It is, by itself, a separate vehicle and path to liberation, complete and independent from beginning to end.

Can it be approached gradually, via lower vehicles. Sort of. But it is possible, and in my opinion best, to practice Dzogchen by itself as a complete path. It is not a path for superior people, it is a superior path for inferior people.

Does Dzogchen have some common features with lower yanas such as refuge, and so on. Of course. But it is different in how it approaches such things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
dude said:
Let's move forward as "good friends," neither master nor disciple, but fellow practioners in mutual support to seek the correct path.


Malcolm wrote:
This attitude does not really work in Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Vajrapine said:
In Vajrayana, there is so much emphasis on the guru, Samaya etc. So on top of that feeling of... betrayal I guess?... you have to wrestle with the fear of having initiated a Tantric process and relationship that might be toxic in some sense.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't care what traditional teachers might say. If you find you are in a relationship with an unqualified teacher, drop them like a hot potato, don't look back, and if you are still interested in Dharma, then find another teacher. There are many teachers out there, good ones.

If a teacher has broken his own samayas, then you must not stay with that teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:
miranda said:
Of course yes there is animal fat in the 3 white, but the fat used in sur is another one, which is not from milked products, and not ok for the riwo sang chö.

There is another point which is not clear for me: The musk is  present in regular high grade tibetan incense. And some riwo sang chÖ texts ( at least the Dudjom version of Lhatsun Namkha Jigme's) include nagas among the guests. Meanwhile I never was told not to use those incense sticks in the sang....

heart said:
Yes, I wonder about this also. The riwo sangchö sticks I use smells great and contains musk.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
If you have doubts, just use juniper...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
philji said:
I am sorry if I have offended anyone through my mention of greediness for Dzogchen...I uses I am old Skool and feel the need for purification and accumulation to clear the shit away from my eyes... Having received the introduction to the nature of my mind this accumulation and purification is so much more wonderful....


Malcolm wrote:
If you feel you need purification, etc., great. But you should not extrapolate from your condition to the condition of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
so am i correct that you register in your local dzogchen community that is lead by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and then you have the acces the the archive of webcasts?


Malcolm wrote:
The way it works is like this. You can listen to any open webcast (most webcasts are open) without being a member at all.

If you want to listen to replays, then there is an archive of those online, but you must be a member of the Dzogchen Community to access them and must have a password., etc.

You cannot receive any sort of transmission from a replay, they are intended to help people remember what rinpoche taught.

IN order to receive any transmission, you must be listening live. In your case, your gar is Merigar West. So you purchase your membership through their website.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
i dont think dzogchen outrules mahayana teachings of loving kindness and compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen reveals the fact that compassion is a natural expression of the primordial state. Discover that, and you will discover true compassion. Otherwise, compassion is very partial and selective -- I see this among so called "Mahāyāna" practitioners all the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
philji said:
Everyone is so greedy for Dzogchen

Malcolm wrote:
Is there a problem with wanting to receive Dzogchen teachings right away? Is there a problem with wanting to be introduced to one's primordial state directly? I should think not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
ive read a little bit from his website.

it is still quite unclear if it is possible for me to attend these webcasts.

Malcolm wrote:
Many webcasts are open. You can attend by clicking the following link.

http://www.shangshunginstitute.net/webcast/

He always gives the complete transmission of Dzogchen in every retreat (some people may disagree, but they are wrong).

So you tomorrow morning, receive some lungs etc., and then make sure you attend the next webcast retreat which is open. In the meantime, you join Dzogchen Community so you can buy restricted books, and receive a password to listen to replays of retreats.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
can you be an ordinary semi beginner Dharma practitioner and still receive the direct introduction?

thankyouu

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, just attend the open webcasts by ChNN.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Getting back on track after a failing teacher
Content:
Vajrapine said:
For some years I have followed a teacher in the Tibetan tradition, who simply put has failed.

It has been a very painful process to accept this, and in that process I have lost the drive to practice. It just dissipated. I don't mind practice in theory, but I seem to totally have lost the connection in practice.

I would be immensely grateful for any advice, especially from anyone who has been through a similar experience, on how to get back in the saddle.

VP


Malcolm wrote:
Find a teacher you respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing-out_instruction

if this is what you mean, can you find direct itroduction or pointing out introduction in / from books?

i dont have a mulaguru with whom i study regularly, allthough i just found out that there is a nyingma rinpoche living in my country, allthough in different city.

do the Nyingmapas teach dzogchen to the beginners?


and can you even study dzogchen succesfully with books or is there a requirement for the teacher to introduce it ?

Malcolm wrote:
Just attend webcasts by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. That is the place to start.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 12th, 2013 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: when to start studying and practicing Dzogchen
Content:
KonchokZoepa said:
im quite a beginner meditator, what are the requirements concerning meditation that you can integrate the dzogchen teachings in meditation?


Malcolm wrote:
Direct introduction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's translations
Content:
Jikan said:
Interesting.  Is he revising/updating the translations of others, or simply republishing them wholesale?

Malcolm wrote:
I can't say what his method is -- but he definitely seems to be retranslating texts others have forged ahead before him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 11th, 2013 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's translations
Content:
Jikan said:
I'd like to know what knowledgeable people think of Keith Dowman's translations (of which I have read only a few).  It seems to me he has a unique approach to the work of translation, and there's no question he's productive.

Thoughts?  Recommendations?


Malcolm wrote:
He has not published any original translations for many years. The majority of his published translations are retranslations of texts others have already translated. Rightly or wrongly, this has tarnished his reputation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 9th, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Thank you for your patience with this overly long post. Any insights and comments are most welcome and are always very helpful and interesting additions to a great discussion.

b.f.

Malcolm wrote:
Who knows? I know another person who claims they experienced rigpa by merely being in Tulku Orgyen's presence without him even uttering a single word, before they have even received a single word of Dzogchen, and according to this person, when TU was asked about this experience later on, this person claims that TU confirmed that it indeed was rigpa this person experienced. This person is also not a person who is setting themselves up as a teacher, etc.

The only really important question a person should ask, and then only to themselves "Would I take teaching from this Mr. Bertelsen?" There are three answers, yes, no and "wait and see".

At this point I do not really see what the benefit to this continued discussion is. I certainly think that Mr. Bertelesen would prefer it if we not make him a continued subject of our scrutiny, because as far as I can tell, apart from naively sharing his experience in a book, he is harming no one that I can see. After all, this is just religion and people can believe whatever the hell they want. Some people believe that Trungpa was a horrible person, other people believe he was a saint, for example. The same is true of HHDL. In the end we are merely left with our own judgements and speculations and these judgements and speculations harm us much more than they harm their object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Title: Re: Celibacy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Relax


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Celibacy
Content:
Dronma said:
I don't like the expression "Boss" when we talk about Rinpoche.

dzogchungpa said:
I believe there is a scene in "My Reincarnation" where Yeshi Namkhai refers to Rinpoche as "the boss".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, many of us refer to ChNN as "the boss" on a regular basis. He is our boss.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Unknown said:
In Dzogchen, meditation experiences are not the natural state, if I have understood correctly; you are either having meditation experiences, or you are in the natural state.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, one is to train in the recognition of the "natural state" while having experiences. Bliss, clarity and non-conceptuality are distinct experiences used for this purpose.

Both movement and stillness are the energy of vidyā.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 7th, 2013 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Goddess Marici and Mayajalamahatantra
Content:
Rakshasa said:
Anyone has any info about Mayajalamahatantra which is about Goddess Marici. I've heard that Goddess Marici is the goddess of military arts. Is this tantra found in Tibetan canon?

kirtu said:
I have to check my notes (and this notebook is not with me at eh moment) but I'm pretty sure that in Bari Lotsawa's cycle she appears as a bodhisattva guarding primarily against robbery.

Kirt

Konchog1 said:
Ah, I remember reading (somewhere) that she is a Kriya deity and often prayed to by travelers. The book didn't explain why she was prayed to though.


Malcolm wrote:
For protection against bandits.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 6th, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Yes.


Malcolm wrote:
Rinpoche is not talking about illusory body in this context. He really means that there are thirteen other planets where Dzogchen is present being taught.

duffster1 said:
Hi,so he IS saying Dzogchen is being practiced on other planets?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he is. Over and over again for years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 6th, 2013 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:
Adamantine said:
That said, Dzongsar Khyentse has said (in an online podcast you can
check out) that you don't even strictly need any incense for Riwo Sang Cho, the
visualization is enough if you can't do the physical offering-- at least that's what my memory
says he said!)


Malcolm wrote:
Correct.

And you do not even need to recite a lot of words, use a sang stuff, smudge stick, incense, and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 6th, 2013 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:


WeiHan said:
So all other substances are really just later addition?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.

WeiHan said:
Hi Malcolm,

For a city dweller like me, life is hectic. Juniper or plants are not readily available. The best option is burning an incense stick for the daily sang practice. It is 100 times better than not practicing. I think different people have a different situation.


Malcolm wrote:
Incense is fine as long as it is pure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 6th, 2013 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: ChNN's Yantra yoga: Transmission or no transmission?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Here it is made quite clear that anything within the following book (including the Tsadul Pranayama) can be practiced without Transmission:


Chögyal Namkhai Norbu said:
http://www.yantrayoga.org/store3/books/tibetan-yoga-of-movement-the-art-and-practice-of-yantra-yoga/ presents what we call the Open Level of Yantra Yoga and covers the basic practice of Yantra that anyone can apply with a little training and good will. This is my intention and my hope in opening Yantra Yoga to the world.

Lhug-Pa said:
This also implies that the Four Profound Applications Breathing from the public DVD's (which doesn't even reach Minor Kumbhaka, but even so there must be some benefit from it otherwise it would have been pointless to include in the DVD's), since the public DVD's are of the Open Level of Yantra Yoga as explained above by Rinpoche.


Malcolm wrote:
This book contains:

"Table of Contents:
What is Yantra Yoga?; The Uniqueness of Yantra Yoga; Advice for Practice; Warm-ups; The Nine Purification Breathings; The Five Exercises for Loosening the Joints; The Eight Movements to Purify the Prana; The Five Exercises to Control the Channels; The Five Main Groups of Yantras: The First Group; The Second Group; The Third Group; The Fourth Group; The Fifth Group; The Vajra Wave to Eliminate Obstacles"

As I said, all the yantras apart from the seven lotuses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 6th, 2013 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Anonymity and Trolling
Content:
Thrasymachus said:
This is a nonsense discourse for analyzing forums: anonymous people and their trolling.


Malcolm wrote:
A perfect example of trolling.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Ajahn Sujato on hate speech re:Buddhists in Aus. mosque
Content:


Dan74 said:
At the end of the day there's something a little suss about rubbishing someone else's religion and culture, even if the said rubbishing makes good points.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many cultural practices that are abusive of people -- these should be spoken out against. Customs where rapists have the option to marry their victims to expiate their crime. The binding of women's feet is another such custom. The custom of burning wives you wish to discard. The custom of honor killings. The custom "circumcising" the clitorises of young girls. The custom of denying young women to right to fair education. The custom of abducting young boys and training them as soldiers. I could go on. None of these customs are worthy of defending or ignoring. All of these customs have cultural and religious justifications. All of these customs are brutal indignities that defy basic principles of human decency.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:


WeiHan said:
So all other substances are really just later addition?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Sherab Dorje"

Anyway, i was more referring to the precious metals and stones, sandalwood, silk material, etc.[/quote]

You don't need any of this for Sang offerings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
After all this discussion on suitable ingredients etc... I am going to be a party pooper and say that the thing that is of utmost importance is the internal and secret offering.  Not that the external offering isn't important, but I find it hard to believe that yogis living in caves in remote areas of Tibet had access to all the necessary physical ingredients all the time, yet they practiced because they did have access to the most important ingredient:  their mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Juniper grows everywhere in Tibet. Flour, honey and milk are available to everyone too.

Making sang substance is not a big deal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Ajahn Sujato on hate speech re:Buddhists in Aus. mosque
Content:
uan said:
A theocracy is antithetical to our traditions...

Sherab Dorje said:
Really?  What about Tibet before the Chinese invasion?


Malcolm wrote:
Tibet was never a theocracy. Wrong term. Tibet was not internally organized in this way. If any thing, Tibet was a loose confederation of small, independent Oligarchies, some ruled by monastic interests (who generally functioned much as  corporations do today), others ruled by aristocratic families.

The Lhasa government was a combination of the two, the Khashag consisting of a board made of up of an equal mix of secular aristocrats and monastic bureaucrats (who, like Desri Sangye Gyatso, were not always themselves monks). The Khashag had very little concrete power outside of the immediate precincts of Ü and Tshang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Celibacy
Content:
Unknown said:
It is true that some of the books and DVDs about Yantra Yoga are in the public section of SSI webstore. However, it is necessary for someone to have received in advance, at least, the Guruyoga Transmission from Rinpoche, in order to practice the Pranayamas and the advanced Yantras. Only the preliminary practices are open to all. This I know from Laura Evangelisti during a Yantra Yoga course I followed personally.


Malcolm wrote:
Actually, all the yantras can now be practiced as well as some of the pranayamas by people without having had transmission from the Boss.

What you say used to be the case, but that has now changed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Ajahn Sujato on hate speech re:Buddhists in Aus. mosque
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Or perhaps you are not communicating effectively and need to try another approach.

Sherab Dorje said:
I considered that.  That's why I explained it slightly differently each time.  Now, unfortunately I am limited to expressing myself with written words, so there is only so much I can do (poetry is not my forte)!

I could post photos of dead Muslim children from all over the world, but then I would be accused of being dramatic.

Do you have something else in mind?  I'm willing to try it.


Malcolm wrote:
The problem is that you are having one conversation, and Khendrup is having another. So in fact you are talking past each other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Anonymity and Trolling
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Somebody interested in intelligent and informed discussion will take the views of the other party into account too.


Malcolm wrote:
The commonly accepted definition of a troll is someone who disrupts conversations for sheer enjoyment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Ajahn Sujato on hate speech re:Buddhists in Aus. mosque
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I'm not repeating it four times because I want you to agree with me, I am doing it because clearly you (and others) are not understanding what I am trying to say.


Malcolm wrote:
Or perhaps you are not communicating effectively and need to try another approach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Yes.


Malcolm wrote:
Rinpoche is not talking about illusory body in this context. He really means that there are thirteen other planets where Dzogchen is present being taught.

Nighthawk said:
In this solar system? Hmmmm

Malcolm wrote:
No, not in this solar system, obviously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Ajahn Sujato on hate speech re:Buddhists in Aus. mosque
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Definition of liberal: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
When this philosophy becomes selective, ignoring authoritarianism and traditional values that trample on the rights of others, I decided to refer to it as neo-liberalism. It is a selective application of liberal principles according to the modern laws of identity politics and political correctness, which leads to a peculiar silence that shrilly denounces human rights abuses by some and strategically ignores them by others.


Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, you can't use this — neo-liberalism already has a well defined meaning. It refers to the radical free market ideology that drives corporate globalization.

The far right in the states has coined a term that might exploit to advantage for such people that you describe: libtard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Yes.


Malcolm wrote:
Rinpoche is not talking about illusory body in this context. He really means that there are thirteen other planets where Dzogchen is present being taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:


In the bone yard said:
Master Norbu may be refering to the illusory body.


Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Lotus_Bitch said:
Actually, there is major difference between Tibet and the Andes: water. Water was never in shortage in Tibet. A major river runs right through the center of the country fed by smaller rives on both sides. Tibetan "urban" civilization was entirely clustered around rivers. Indeed, it is supposed that the Zhang Zhung civilization centered around Kailash collapsed because of climate change, pushing the Zhang Zhung tribes into lower part of the what is the modern day TAR where there was more water.

The Andes, by comparison, are really quite dry, so water is much more of an issue for the Incas.
I don't think you could generalize about the Andes like that,  the altiplano sure,  but even then there's the Apurimac river to the West of Cusco with the Urubamba flanking East also.


Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing in Andes that resembles the Tsangpo river.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Ajahn Sujato on hate speech re:Buddhists in Aus. mosque
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is all irrelevant to the Dharma. America is not a Dharma country (Dharmadeśa), Europe is not a Dharma country; though some buddhists might imagine it is a "central" country due to the presence of the few thousand monks.

What we have are squabbles between various worldly people and other various worldly people. Should they avoid violence? Yes.

American foreign policy as been aggressive for decades. Our Government is the Ajatasatru of the modern era.

Dar el Islam has been aggressive for centuries -- and American foreign policy has woken a sleeping behemoth. Of course there are Western educated liberal muslim scholars. They are marginal in their own communities however. What they have to say is drowned in the rising ride of anger the Muslim world has towards the West.

The Buddha made things very clear. When a country is peaceful, minding its own business, caring for its population, then well, if they are attacked it is correct for them to respond. Do America and Europe fit this picture? No.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to us that some Moslems are attacking symbols of western imperialism since they do not yet have the power to attack us en masse directly.

The only sane response to this is for America and Europe to depart the middle east peacefully. If the whole place goes up in flames in the ensuing chaos, there is sadly nothing we can do except provide medical and humanitarian relief. But our experiments in regime changes have been utter failures so far.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
brendan said:
How can you type that but also claim there were social advancements in pre-PRC Tibetan civilisation equal to that of western civilisation who had no Realized Masters or Dharma.


Malcolm wrote:
This has nothing at all do with the whether there are more realized Tibetan masters in Tibet or India.

There are more realized Buddha masters (of Vajrayāna) with the borders of Tibet than without. I was not making any sort of claim about Indian civilization, Tibetan Cvilization, Western Civilization and so on. You were the one who introduced this into the discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


JKhedrup said:
To be frank I am surprised you would quote such a source and give it so much credence.



Lotus_Bitch said:
There is some credence to what Indrajala brought up though. Looking at the Incan civilization, we see that they developed running water, baths, etc.  within similar conditions (of the Tibetans) in the Andes mountians....

http://enperublog.com/2009/07/08/surprising-water-engineering-at-machu-picchu/

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g294314-d553950-Reviews-Inca_Baths_at_Tambomachay-Cusco_Cusco_Region.html

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, there is major difference between Tibet and the Andes: water. Water was never in shortage in Tibet. A major river runs right through the center of the country fed by smaller rives on both sides. Tibetan "urban" civilization was entirely clustered around rivers. Indeed, it is supposed that the Zhang Zhung civilization centered around Kailash collapsed because of climate change, pushing the Zhang Zhung tribes into lower part of the what is the modern day TAR where there was more water.

The Andes, by comparison, are really quite dry, so water is much more of an issue for the Incas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


brendan said:
I understand western civilizations so called achievements are not a manifestation of "right view" and could be seen as being demonic.

Malcolm wrote:
You are making an idiot of yourself by such declarations.


brendan said:
Why? climate change seems to be a direct result of our progress.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no teaching in the Dharma that declares useful things "demonic" or somehow lacking "right view".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
Humour isn't a sin. You should be able to laugh at Hyecho and his silly remark.

Malcolm wrote:
Humor is not a sin; bringing up that citation in the context this discussion shows an appalling lack of proportion.


Indrajala said:
Jeff, you need to study the history of Central Asia a little more carefully: it is certain that this monk's view of Tibetans was jaundiced by the fact that Tibetans (from Lhasa) held sovereignty over large swaths of Central Asia.

Sure, but the Tang history gives detailed observations of the Tibetan culture and habits at the time. Hyecho isn't my only source.

Malcolm wrote:
Consider the source: the Chinese have had nothing good to say about Tibetans since Minister Gar tricked the emperor out of his prized daughter.




Indrajala said:
Naw. I just counter the overzealous hype over Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Jeff -- your participation here was not countering any overzealous hype about Tibet. Anyone reading the thread can see this. What anyone can also see is that someone who claims to be Buddhist monk is casting racist aspersions about Tibetans, which they should not do, just as they should not invent and spread racist myths about Muslims -- which unfortunately happens in Tibet these days a lot. Tibetans happen to be very racist people in general. So when I hear racist things coming out of the mouths of Tibetans about westerners, or Muslims or Chinese people I become equally annoyed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think you are either finding yourself amusing, or you have vastly overestimated the caloric value of yak dung as fuel. Trust me, it does not burn very hot, and it takes a very, very long time to heat water at 13,000 feet.

Indrajala said:
When I was in Ladakh at 3600 metres above sea level I managed to do a quick cold wash sponge bath before getting my clothes quickly back on. Easy enough with a small amount of cold water.

Some descriptions of pre-modern Tibet just make it sound like they weren't trying, even in terms of basic sanitation in monasteries.


Malcolm wrote:
Descriptions of pre- Modern Canada makes it sound like they weren't trying very hard, even in terms of the basic sanitation of Toronto.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Do you think this is funny?

Indrajala said:
Yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Many racists think their quips about the mores (whether true or false) of other people are funny. It's one of the signs by which one can tell one is racist towards a given group of people.


Indrajala said:
It is a little strange that he thinks there were no monasteries nor knowledge of Buddhism in Tibet. He clearly never visited Central Tibet in his travels.
The Tang Chinese didn't seem to think the Tibetans had much Buddhism, either. In the 8th century maybe they had a bit in the aristocratic circles.

Malcolm wrote:
Jeff, you need to study the history of Central Asia a little more carefully: it is certain that this monk's view of Tibetans was jaundiced by the fact that Tibetans (from Lhasa) held sovereignty over large swaths of Central Asia.


Indrajala said:
I think I've hit a sore spot. Some people here are rather emotionally invested in Tibet ... as Tibetan Buddhists?

Malcolm wrote:
No, if you are saying the same thing about blacks, Chinese people, mexicans, etc., I would equally take you to task.

You never spare any occasion to point barbs at Tibetans or their culture on this forum. Its pretty unbecoming conduct for a so called Buddhist monk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
Not too long ago a Tibetan monk commented to me that he felt besides Buddhism, he thinks Tibet never really had much of a civilization.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure your monk friend never went to Tibet and has very little understanding of Tibetan culture and history, having spent his entire life in India (no wonder non-diaspora Tibetans find diaspora Tibetans annoying).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Indeed, if the Tibetans in the more remote and barren areas bathed regularily it would have become a threat to the environment- wood was that scarce and the trees would have disappeared.

Indrajala said:
Naw. An extra dung fire a day for washing wouldn't have been a big deal.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are either finding yourself amusing, or you have vastly overestimated the caloric value of yak dung as fuel. Trust me, it does not burn very hot, and it takes a very, very long time to heat water at 13,000 feet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just read the thread. It's ridiculous and you know it.

Indrajala said:
It is kind of comical, sure, but really my point is that the Tibetans invested a lot of resources into their religion (that's fine) while maybe neglecting things like hygiene, sanitation and infrastructure which they had examples from neighbouring cultures.

The Tang Chinese for instance had mile marker stones which facilitated travel and trade. They also had a limited pension system, baths and other such useful things. The Tibetans could have emulated such projects, but for various reasons it seems they didn't take so much of an interest. In the long-term they invested their resources differently, perhaps neglecting what could have been quite beneficial projects.

Malcolm wrote:
And just exactly what do you know about public works projects and Tibetan civilization? Given how sparsely populated the country was, it is amazing what Tibetans accomplished.



Indrajala said:
I'm well aware of the climate and water issues in Tibet. They still could have taken some of their resources and built public baths. They ultimately didn't. It wasn't a big deal ultimately.

Malcolm wrote:
You are being disingenuous.


Indrajala said:
So this conversation just strikes me as quite racist and narrow minded, with an absence of reflection on the real cultural circumstances, environmental and so on that, that we find these people in.
Was there a pressing need to munch on lice as Hyecho pointed out?

Malcolm wrote:
Do you think this is funny?

Do you have a pressing need to repeat the inaccurate observations of an eighth century Korean out of context?

It is a little strange that he thinks there were no monasteries nor knowledge of Buddhism in Tibet. He clearly never visited Central Tibet in his travels.

It appears from his observation that he only passed through the nomadic region in  far Western Tibet upon leaving Kashmir. So his observations must be considered rather suspect if one is to generalize from them as a whole.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


JKhedrup said:
So it seems unfair to target the Tibetans in this regard.


Malcolm wrote:
It is blatantly racist, given the way and the tone in which the subject was raised.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


brendan said:
I understand western civilizations so called achievements are not a manifestation of "right view" and could be seen as being demonic.

Malcolm wrote:
You are making an idiot of yourself by such declarations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Indrajala said:
Honestly, I never expected to see such racial prejudice on this forum.
I don't think you can convincingly argue that this is about race. More just poor quality sanitation and hygiene in a given civilization.

Malcolm wrote:
Just read the thread. It's ridiculous and you know it. It is not as if most people in Western Countries have had hot and cold running water prior to 1940.

The attitude being expressed here is one of total misunderstanding of a) differences in climate between the Himalayas and India; resources availability such as water -- it is not like they bathed with heated water in India, Jeff, they used water as it was from wells and rivers, heated by the sun. Rivers in Tibet are extremely cold even in the summer.

Tibetans made regular use of hot springs where they existed. But most nomads lived in places far away from such volcanically active sites, herding yaks and sheep in the meadows and plains.

In places like Lhasa, the aristocracy could afford more regular bathing, just like in Europe, whereas poorer people could not afford it. Monks, when they bathed, only bathed twice a month.

Just as in Americas during the 16th, 17th, 18th, and much of the 19th century, regular bathing was regarded as unhealthy by much of the Tibetan population, farmers and nomads. It was only after Pasteur that bathing began to take hold in Europe and the US. And daily bathing was not common in the US until after WWII, and in parts of Europe, it is still not common.

Conditions in India are different -- it is hot, people are much hairier -- Tibetans have virtually no body hair in general.

In terms of sewer systems -- Tibet never had large populations apart from in Lhasa to deal with, so it was not an issue for most Tibetans when they came to India and Nepal. Population pressure by the Chinese have forced a lot of Tibetans away from their previous, lowland winter habitations, further, most of the pollution in Tibet has been brought by the Chinese, who now outnumber Tibetans in their own land by quite a bit.

So this conversation just strikes me as quite racist and narrow minded, with an absence of reflection on the real cultural circumstances, environmental and so on that, that we find these people in.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
brendan said:
Washing is just one example.

What about woman and children?

What about medicine, giving practitioners safe infrastructure (sewage systems etc)..

Malcolm wrote:
You really actually have no clue what you are talking about. Your ignorance of Tibetan culture and history is pretty appalling.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Indrajala said:
They didn't see the bathing as worth maintaining it seems.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist monks, according to Mula Sarvastivada Vinaya, were only permitted to bath twice a month.

Also the Tibetans understood quite well the germ theory of disease.

Honestly, I never expected to see such racial prejudice on this forum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 31st, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Do you people have any clue how racist you sound right now?

Have you examined the hygienic habits of 19th century Canadians and Americans in comparison to the hygienic habits of 19th century Tibetans?

Do you seriously think we were actually cleaner than Tibetans prior to the time when most Europeans and Americans had no running water in their homes?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
anjali said:
are realized masters still present in Tibet who can give authentic transmission?


Malcolm wrote:
More than in India, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Sherlock said:
There are many Chinese monastics at Larung and Yachen and many books and commentaries are translated into Chinese that are not available in English. The accuracy of the translations is a different matter, but the content is out there and there is a demand for it.


Malcolm wrote:
The Chinese actually bulldozed major sections of Larung Gar because there were Chinese people there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Thank you malcolm, that is interesting, it does sound what I remember hearing. Don't know about past and future tense in the Tibetan language, if it is always obvious or not.

Malcolm wrote:
In this case it is quite clear in the original text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
cool. great details, etc.
i also heard that there may be a listing of 64 Dzogchen Buddhas in their respective aeons and with their respective buddhafields and world systems.

Malcolm wrote:
Temporally, it is not hard to discern. They are prior to this eon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
mutsuk said:
This is clearly not the case. The meaning of thal-ba is given throughout the commentary as (reduced to) powder, etc. HE Khenpo Jigphun has a long explanation about it, directly related to the title.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think you are over looking the meaning of thal ba as "samatikramatikrānta".

mutsuk said:
Possibly though I doubt it. I prefer to stick to Vimalamitra's intrerpretation in the commentary and the long explanation by HE Khenpo Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
Is Khenpo Jigphun's explanation to be found in his collected works?.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
mutsuk said:
This is clearly not the case. The meaning of thal-ba is given throughout the commentary as (reduced to) powder, etc. HE Khenpo Jigphun has a long explanation about it, directly related to the title.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think you are over looking the meaning of thal ba as "samatikramatikrānta".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, he is referring to the so called "thal ba'i gnas", of which there are thirteen.


mutsuk said:
No, you are mixing these sanctuaries (thal-ba'i gnas) and the pure realms or buddhafields (zhing khrams). There are eight of these sanctuaires only, and thirteen pure realms. Actually pure realms (zhing khams) are a subdivision of these sanctuaries.

Malcolm wrote:
There are thirteen thal bas explained in the sgra thal gyur -- it is very clearly explained:

1. thal ba dbyangs
2. thal ba 'dzin
3. thal ba skyob
4. thal ba brdal ba
5. thal ba'i be con
6. thal ba'i rgyun
7. rab tu thal bas khyab
8. thal ba'i sgra
9. thal ba'i rlung
10. rin po che'i rlung thal ba
11. 'du ba'i thal ba
12. dung ldan thal ba
13. skar ma'i thal ba

Each one is called a buddhafield, because each one also has a teacher, retinue, teaching, etc.

While the commentary on the text indeed glosses "thal ba" as brdal ba in this context i.e. "spread out", however, Norbu Rinpoche maintains that "thal ba" means "beyond".

What the text says is that there are eight types of thal ba'i gnas.

1. 'jig rten khams (durgatiloka)
2. shing khams (kṣetraloka, buddhafields)
3. dam bca' skyobs
4. skyon gnas
5. 'pheb pa'i sa
6. sbyor ba
7. grags
8. song ba'i gnas


We are discussing here class two: buddhafields where Dzogchen is taught.

Perhaps we are talking past each other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche may be referring to the twelve Nirmanakaya Dzogchen Buddhas

Malcolm wrote:
No, he is referring to the so called "thal ba'i gnas", of which there are thirteen. thal ba may mean "galaxy" or it may mean "universe". It is certainly broader than a solar system.

Within these thirteen thal ba are so called "fields" (kṣetras, zhing khams). The term zhing khams is often translated as "pure land", but that is inaccurate -- there are both pure and impure kṣetras. A better term is "buddhafield", since a kṣetra is defined as the field of activity of a given Buddha or bodhisattva. All of the zhing khams mentioned in these thirteen thal bas contain buddhas.

In these thirteen thal bas and their buddhafields it is maintained that Dzogchen teachings are presently found during this epoch.

Nighthawk said:
What is the criteria to get into these buddhafields?


Malcolm wrote:
One assumes merit, just the same as what got into this buddhafield.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Quite the opposite -- Dharma in Tibet, while under siege, has experienced a massive intellectual resurgence, especially in Eastern Tibet, Amdo and Golok -- with thousands of books being published in Tibetan language every year on all subjects.

Indrajala said:
That rather undermines or at least takes away from the arguments of diaspora Tibetans who say Buddhism is being systematically crushed and eradicated from Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
I already mentioned that Tibetans in Tibet do not necessarily like Diaspora Tibetans very much.

For example, in Tibetan communities in this country [US] they tend to stay separate, with the Diaspora Tibetans always suspecting the non-Diaspora Tibetans of being spies.

There are also regional issues.

However, Institutional Buddhism is being suppressed when it represents a political threat to the Chinese, but the Chinese seem to care very little to prevent Tibetan Buddhist literary production as long as it is strictly academic and religious. Of course the non-diaspora Tibetans have developed an entire vocabulary for voicing their complaints to one another, but Beijing seems not to care. if you ever watched modern Tibetan dance music, you will see all kind of coded references to independence, HHDL and so on.

Also when Chinese people become interested in teachers like Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, the Chinese will step in to put it down. They don't seem to care if the Tibetans practice Buddhism -- but they are not happy when the Chinese become interested in it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche may be referring to the twelve Nirmanakaya Dzogchen Buddhas

Malcolm wrote:
No, he is referring to the so called "thal ba'i gnas", of which there are thirteen. thal ba may mean "galaxy" or it may mean "universe". It is certainly broader than a solar system.

Within these thirteen thal ba are so called "fields" (kṣetras, zhing khams). The term zhing khams is often translated as "pure land", but that is inaccurate -- there are both pure and impure kṣetras. A better term is "buddhafield", since a kṣetra is defined as the field of activity of a given Buddha or bodhisattva. All of the zhing khams mentioned in these thirteen thal bas contain buddhas.

In these thirteen thal bas and their buddhafields it is maintained that Dzogchen teachings are presently found during this epoch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 30th, 2013 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, Tibetan Buddhism in India is pretty moribund.

The best work in Tibetan Buddhism by Tibetans is being done in Tibet.

Also the best practitioners and Lamas are in Tibet for the most part, not in India.

The Tibetans in Tibet are not really thrilled with the diaspora Tibetans.

anjali said:
Would you, or someone else also in the know, say more about this? As someone with absolutely no insight into the current state of Buddhism within Tibet, I get the impression that the backbone of Buddhism in Tibet has been broken and that cultural genocide by China is steadily proceeding. Is this not the case? Is Buddhism within Tibet resilient? Or is it fragmented to the point of unsustainability, even though there may be strong pockets of practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Quite the opposite -- Dharma in Tibet, while under siege, has experienced a massive intellectual resurgence, especially in Eastern Tibet, Amdo and Golok -- with thousands of books being published in Tibetan language every year on all subjects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpa & Someone with Tantric Initiation: Difference?
Content:
Kunzang8 said:
Hi

1) What is the difference between someone who is a Ngakpa and someone who has taken higher tantric initiations - don't they have the same Tantric vows and commitments.  I suppose it would be correct to say all Ngakpas are Tantric practitioners but not all Tantric practitioners are Ngakpas?

2) If one is a Ngakpa is it normal for such a person later to decide to become an ordained monk? Or for an ordained monk who for whatever reason later to become a Ngakpa (I'm not talking about reverting to being an ordinary lay person but a Ngakpa in the traditional sense).  Anyone know such examples?

Thanks.



Malcolm wrote:
A lot of people like to wear a stripped robe these days, and call themselves a Ngakpa, but if your mantras have no force and power, then just what is the point of calling yourself a Mantrika? Not much.

Even if you have the formal sngags pa empworment like me, hesitate to call yourself a sngags pa if your mantras have about as much force as wind on a still hot humid summers day.


Adamantine said:
Malcolm, did you encounter many/any ngakpas in your Tibet travels?

Malcolm wrote:
A few.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpa & Someone with Tantric Initiation: Difference?
Content:
Kunzang8 said:
Hi

1) What is the difference between someone who is a Ngakpa and someone who has taken higher tantric initiations - don't they have the same Tantric vows and commitments.  I suppose it would be correct to say all Ngakpas are Tantric practitioners but not all Tantric practitioners are Ngakpas?

2) If one is a Ngakpa is it normal for such a person later to decide to become an ordained monk? Or for an ordained monk who for whatever reason later to become a Ngakpa (I'm not talking about reverting to being an ordinary lay person but a Ngakpa in the traditional sense).  Anyone know such examples?

Thanks.



Malcolm wrote:
A lot of people like to wear a stripped robe these days, and call themselves a Ngakpa, but if your mantras have no force and power, then just what is the point of calling yourself a Mantrika? Not much.

Even if you have the formal sngags pa empworment like me, hesitate to call yourself a sngags pa if your mantras have about as much force as wind on a still hot humid summers day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind
Content:


anjali said:
So, although "mindness" is not your usual translation of sems-nyid, I think it works fairly well.

Malcolm wrote:
Its ok, it just sounds weird to me, and honestly, it does not really convey the genitive sense of sems kyi chos nyid i.e. the dharmatā of the mind, which is in my opinion what the term sems nyid is generally glossing in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sems nyid is a translation of cittatā or citta dharmatā. The tā suffix can mean essence; it can also simply mean "is"; or also "itself" -- as you know it clearly depends on context.

In the example you give above, "the mind essence is the primal nature (prakṛti) of the mind", also redundant, but as you know sometimes tibetan texts are like that.

mutsuk said:
sems nyid as essence of mind does not help much if one comes across sems nyid sems kyi ngo bo yin (the essence of the mind is the essence of the mind). Nyid is a simple reflexive tattva case.

Malcolm wrote:
You can render it this way: the mind essence is the entity of the mind.

In Tibetan it is always redundant, "the mind itself is the essence of mind" is also redundant.

That is why it necessary to look for context.It depends on whether nyid is rendering eva i.e. just so, etc. or tā as in chos nyid.

For example "'DI DAG GIS NI SEMS NYID GZUGS SU SNANG BA NYID DU BSTAN TO" "Both of those are the mind itself (or just the mind, only the mind) shown as appearing as matter/form" This is clearly an "eva" usage.

Here however we have a sems nyid aka sems kyi chos nyid:


SGRON MA GSAL BAR BYED PA ZHES BYA BA'I RGYA CHER BSHAD PA:
RANG GI SEMS KYI CHOS NYID LA GNAS PA NI RANG GI SEMS KYI ROL BA'O "Abiding in the nature [dharmatā] of one's mind is the play of one's mind"

Or
DBU MA RIN PO CHE'I SGRON MA ZHES BYA BA:

GANG GI TSE GZUGS LA SOGS PA'I DMIGS PA RNAMS SEMS LAS PHYI ROL NA MI SNANG BA DE'I TSE RANG GI SEMS KYI CHOS NYID LA NGES PAR GNAS PA'I SEMS NI

GNYIS SU MED PA'I YE SHES ZHES BYA

When the perceptions of matter and so on do not appear external to the mind, at that time the mind that definitely abides in the nature [dharmatā] of one's mind is called "non-dual wisdom".

So basically, the issue is distinguishing sems nyid as cittaiva and sems nyid as a gloss for citta dharmatā -- and sometimes that can be difficult.

For example, if we take your example and apply the principle that sems nyid here means sems kyi chos nyid, your sentence in both instances makes more sense "The dharmatā (nature) of the mind is the primal nature of the mind" and "The dharmatā (nature) of the mind is the essence/entity of the mind". It becomes a little strange if we say "The mind itself is the primal nature of the mind" or "The mind itself is the essence/entity of the mind" -- so the cittaiva does not work here.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen VS Mahamudra..why?
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Maybe I am just an uneducated rube but perhaps someone can explain to me why there is so much dissension. "Theyre the same" VS "theyre not the same". This seems to crop up a lot and I for one just dont get it. On the one hand you have Garab Dorje, Vimalamitra, Vairocana, Manjushrimitra, etc etc up until present day. All great Totally Realized Masters. On the other hand you have Naropa, Tilopa, Marpa, Milarepa, etc etc up until present day..also great Totally Realized Masters. It doesn't take much reading to see that their methods were different...vive la diferance...But ultimately Total Realization is Total Realization, right??? If a person hears/reads about Garab Dorje or Milarepa and one of those strikes a chord in them isn't that the most important thing? Hopefully somebody here can definitively clear this up for me....because I just don't get it


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is, generally speaking, a gradual path, Dzogchen isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
mutsuk said:
However, as far as translation is concerned, I don't know why but in English Mind (sems-nyid) is often (always?) rendered by "nature of the mind". This is actually a definition not a translation. Sems-nyid is "Mind itself" or "Mind" if you want to drop the "itself". Choosing Mind or Mind itself would help avoiding ridiculous renderings when encountering sentences like "sems-nyid sems kyi rang bzhin yin/" -- "The nature of the mind (sems-nyid) is the nature of the mind (sems kyi rang bzhin)", which I guess all here would consider as silly, no?

Malcolm wrote:
Sems nyid is a translation of cittatā or citta dharmatā. The tā suffix can mean essence; it can also simply mean "is"; or also "itself" -- as you know it clearly depends on context.

In the example you give above, "the mind essence is the primal nature (prakṛti) of the mind", also redundant, but as you know sometimes tibetan texts are like that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Clarence said:
Malcolm,

Would you mind explaining the difference?

THanks, C

Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.

dzogchungpa said:
So basically it's atma vidya, no?


Malcolm wrote:
Atmya sthana vidyā


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind
Content:
Jikan said:
In ChNN's diction, "rigpa" is "instant presence":  the recognition of the nature of mind.  "being in it."

the nature of mind (sems nyid) is something like a latent capacity that is unrecognized, right?  so the difference between the two is being in on the secret, getting it, recognizing it?  which is to say, it's a kind of knowledge?

I get this confused from time to time; if I'm still upside-down on this, I do hope someone will set me right.

heart said:
The nature of mind and the natural state are the same, so recognizing the nature of mind and rigpa is the same.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, rig pa can be called "recognizing the nature the mind". You always have "the nature of mind".

Of course, there are Dzogchen teachings which criticize this approach however, because it is held that buddhahood cannot be found in the mind.

So calling rig pa "the recognition of the nature of the mind" is quite provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:


heart said:
I certainly never heard him do that distinction, nor have I ever heard anyone else do it except for you Malcolm.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
You need to listen more carefully then to what ChNN says, or listen to more retreats.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
In the grand scheme of things...

Malcolm wrote:
In the grand scheme of things there is almost nothing one can do to stem the suffering of others in samsara. Not even Buddha can remove the suffering of others. However, one can remove one's own suffering. And for this reason these sorts of conversations, in the grand scheme of things, are critically important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is not an argument for a lesser evil, in my opinion. It is a very different kind of argument, it is an argument for the greatest good.

Indrajala said:
Potatoh, potatoe.

Malcolm wrote:
You are ignoring the explicit argument that this form of killing, far from being evil, is actually meritorious, and bnefits everyone involved, especially the person being killed. Lesser evil thought experiments never run along these lines.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Clarence said:
Malcolm,

Would you mind explaining the difference?

THanks, C

Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 3:39 PM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Rig pa is not the nature of the mind.

heart said:
really, how come ChNNR says so every single retreat?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
He makes a clear distinction rig pa and the nature of the mind, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
In our world it is often about choosing the lesser of evils.

Malcolm wrote:
This is hardly a Buddhist ethic, Mahāyāna or otherwise.

Indrajala said:
Are you unaware of the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra?
“If the bodhisattva sees a thief about to kill many beings out of a craving for wealth, or about to harm a venerable śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha or bodhisattva, or about to create much karma [for which he will be reborn in] Avīci Hell, seeing such things he thinks, 'If I sever that evil being's life I will fall into hell [naraka]. If it not be severed, then the karma [for which he will be reborn in] Avīci Hell will see him undergo much suffering. I should kill him and fall into hell rather than ever allow him to undergo the suffering of Avīci Hell.' Like this the bodhisattva makes an aspiration and thinks, 'I will have a virtuous or neutral mind towards the being.' Knowing in the future what is to come, he thus generates deep shame and with a compassionate mind severs the life [of the thief]. It is due to these causes and conditions that there is no violation of the bodhisattva precepts, and much merit is produced.”

Malcolm wrote:
That is not an argument for a lesser evil, in my opinion. It is a very different kind of argument, it is an argument for the greatest good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
In our world it is often about choosing the lesser of evils.

Malcolm wrote:
This is hardly a Buddhist ethic, Mahāyāna or otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
...all this seems, well... really, unbelievably, like completely... pointless and lacking any essence.  So sorry for the attitude.


Malcolm wrote:
The suffering of samsara is horrible.

Actually understanding what the term "rig pa" means is important for those who wish to end their suffering, since all Dharma paths, both Hindu and Buddhist, define the cause of suffering as ignorance (avidyā, ma rig pa) and the cause of liberation as knowledge (vidyā, rig pa).

Understanding the distinction between Mahāmudra and Dzogchen is important for those who wish to follow one path versus the other, for whatever their personal reasons may be. For others the distinction may not be important.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Let's see how finely we can split this hair now, shall we?

Clarence said:
It is actually an important difference as Malcolm just showed.

gregkavarnos said:
Yes, I am sure it is, coz now that you know that sems nyid is not Rig pa, well, now you just realised the essential state, whereas up to now you only realised the nature of mind.  That's how important that was.  Right?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you generally going to be this snotty from now on? Or are you just having a day?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Yes, why bother to be precise when dealing with central concepts of practice? It's all just words anyway, man.
Or we can get all anally retentive about it, and split hairs all day about what is (or is not) mind , whether Mahamudra is Dzogchen, whether they differ in terms of practice or not, whether we are talking about ground or sutra mahamudra, etc... and clutter up yet another thread with the same old boring endless repetive and essentially useless distracting  discussion (ie views) since Dzogchen/Mahamudra essentially only requires pointing out for you to get it, and verything else is just (more) verbal flatulance.


Malcolm wrote:
Your reply amounts to repeating what he said:

"It's all just words anyway, man"

In other words, your reply was essentially pointless.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Jikan said:
I'd thought that rigpa was often but not always translated as "nature of mind."

I don't mean to throw the whole thread off track, but... what's the difference between "nature of mind" and "rigpa" in your usage, Malcolm?

Thank you


Malcolm wrote:
The term "sems nyid" is the term translated as the "nature of the mind".

Rig pa is knowledge of your primordial state.

They are not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
heart said:
[

You think perhaps in Dzogchen you realize something different?
My Guru teach both Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

/magnus

Karma Dorje said:
The realization is the same.  The paths are different.

heart said:
This statement just define the relationship between mind and nature of mind (sem and rigpa), equally valid for both paths.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Rig pa is not the nature of the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Yes, and as China becomes a net food importer this will pose a whole new set of additional pressures.


Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Indrajala said:
Look at what a catastrophic failure Gandhi and his team were.



Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not correct.



Indrajala said:
Partition resulted in millions of avoidable deaths and untold suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
Not Gandhi's fault. He actively opposed Partition. In fact the Congress Party was entirely opposed to it.

Partition was brought about by the Mountbatten plan, in response to the Muslim League's demands for a separate state, and almost entirely contrived by the British.

Indrajala said:
The British did a lot of good in India and it'd be nice if people recognized that.

Malcolm wrote:
The harm to India done by the British to India was recognized from the beginning: Edumund Burke in a speech said:
What would you call it? To call it tyranny sublimed into madness would be too faint an image; yet this very madness is the principle upon which the ministers at your right hand have proceeded in their estimate of the revenues of the Carnatic, when they were providing, not supply for the establishments of its protection, but rewards for the authors of its ruin...Never did oppression light the nuptial torch; never did extortion and usury spread out the genial bed. Do any of you think that England, so wasted, would, under such a nursing attendance, so rapidly and cheaply recover?
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/burkee/extracts/chap11.htm


Indrajala said:
They weren't perfect and there were plenty of opportunistic characters, sure, but overall they did more good than harm. If you look at the mess India is in today, you might appreciate how British colonial rule made a lot of sense even back in the day.

Malcolm wrote:
The mess India is today is a direct result of British Mismanagement and interference in India civilization.

Indrajala said:
It was the British who rediscovered many of the Buddhist sites around the subcontinent, too. Their contributions to Indology can't be overlooked.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, someday someone will quip -- "The Chinese contribution to Tibetology cannot be over looked." Hardly even a booby prize, and of little concern to Indians for whom Buddhadharma had been dead for more than a thousand years.


Indrajala said:
That's absurd. The state which has a monopoly on violence has overwhelming authority over the populace.

Malcolm wrote:
The British thought that, and they were wrong in the case of the Colonies, in the case of India and a number of other places.

Indrajala said:
That's just reality.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is conservative defeatism. History does not bear your pessimism out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
oushi said:
Maybe it's not a good moment to ask this, but anyway can someone give a commentary on this:
Listen! You state of pure and total presence,
And all sentient beings of the three realms,
Are clearly shown to be the teacher.
Because you have not seen your mind as the teacher,
Even after 100,000 aeons,
When I, the majestic creativity of the universe,
Manifest as the teacher, you own mind,
You should listen to this message: Your own mind is the teacher.


Malcolm wrote:
You can get Valby's books and see how this is commented on there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
Tibet is controlled by the PRC. The land now belongs to them in practice and by the agreement of the international community. The Tibetans were conquered by force of arms and continue to be subjugated. This is how the real world works unfortunately: the PRC has a monopoly of violence in Tibet, so they run the show.

Malcolm wrote:
Imagine Gandhi telling the Indians to give into the Brits, because the Brits had the monopoly on violence.
Imagine Martin Luther King Jr. telling his congregation to just give in to the Southern Whites because they had a monopoly of violence.
History shows that a monopoly on violence does not guarantee power. In fact is often shows instability.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Indrajala said:
I don't take either side. I do, however, believe the Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism would be best served in India and Nepal unless China suddenly collapses,


Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, Tibetan Buddhism in India is pretty moribund.

The best work in Tibetan Buddhism by Tibetans is being done in Tibet.

Also the best practitioners and Lamas are in Tibet for the most part, not in India.

The Tibetans in Tibet are not really thrilled with the diaspora Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Indrajala said:
it is best to rely, as much as possible, on unemotional observation.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
I don't know where people get the idea I have an aversion to Tibetan Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, go back and read what you write, if you are so puzzled.

You have spent a fair amount of time arguing that Tibetan political incompetence lead to the diaspora; that Tibetan independence is a fruitless cause; that there is no point in trying to preserve Tibetan culture, language and customs; that Tibetans do not really have a right to self-determination because it is inconsistent with Chinese real politik; that Tibetans should basically lie back and enjoy the Chinese rape of Tibetan land, culture and environment since according to you there is nothing they can do about it anyway. When you are met with indignity at your unfeeling proclamations, you then assert that people are "idealistic", unrealistic", and so on. In short you demonstrate cold-heartedness in the name of political pragmatism, and seem to care nothing about the human costs of the political situations you are commenting upon.

You have generally castigated Tibetan Buddhism for being successful in the west, and castigated Tibetan Buddhists for adopting Tibetan Buddhism.

So it is not surprising to me at all that people think you have a negative attitude about Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is a problem with most people. Not Buddhists in particular.

Indrajala said:
Buddhists though, my experience, tend to be even more idealistic than usual.

It is like they dislike war and therefore think it should go away because they find it disagreeable.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to get out more often.

There are many people far more idealistic than Buddhists, such as climate change advocates and so on.

In general, my experience of Buddhists is that they are pretty pessimistic, like you.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Astus said:
Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?

Malcolm wrote:
The definitive source of Dzogchen teachings is a Buddha by the name of Garab Dorje. He taught the tantras of the three series, sems sde, klong sde and man ngag sde. Secondarily, there are the various instructions that attached to these three series, such as the Vima snyin thig and so on. Finally, there are the surviving commentaries on these various texts. Then there are commentaries written by early Tibetan masters such as Vairocana and Nub Sangye Yeshe, etc. Finally there are the commentaries of Longchenpa.

This taken together can be understood as the definitive sources for Dzogchen teachings.

Of course, without a living Guru, one cannot receive transmission into Dzogchen teaching, and without that transmission, all these books are just so much dry tinder.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: What is the Definitive Source?
Content:
Sönam said:
Only confidence can help in this case ... and peoples having recognized there true nature recognize each others, that's the only point.
It is also not a question of being sure of the master, because the one who recognize is You, not the master.
If it is said that this realization is ineffable, it's because it is ... what ever would be the way we try.
Trust me, once, we the energy of the master, you've realized your nature ... doubt is elliminated.

Astus said:
That means there is no way to decide who is or who is not an authentic Dzogchen teacher. Either you recognise someone as such or not, but it's completely arbitrary. Consequently there is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being a realised Dzogchen master.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being realized at all, including the Buddha's claims about his own realization. One either believes it or one does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: HHDL leaving Dharamsala?
Content:
Indrajala said:
All things considered, I think McLeodganj is rather cramped. HHDL gives public teachings and Namgyal isn't really able to accommodate the crowds so well. Some people have to sit upstairs or downstairs and watch a TV monitor.

Malcolm wrote:
Simply put, South India is nicer than North India. The food is better, the people nicer. Mysore is a decent city, Bangalore supposed to be even better.

HHDL is basically a Nyingmapa anyway, so it is fitting for him to be installed in a Nyingma monastery.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
This is a problem I find with a lot of Buddhists. They're idealistic and like to talk about what ought to happen rather than what probably will.


Malcolm wrote:
This is a problem with most people. Not Buddhists in particular.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Who holds the highest throne?
Content:


JKhedrup said:
Traditionally the "pyramid" of the stature of the various lamas went something like this, according to the political structure: Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama, Sakya Trizin, Karmapa, Ganden Tripa.


Malcolm wrote:
Nope, HHDL, Sakya Trizin, Karmapa, etc. There is a text about this by Khyentse Wangpo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
Thank you Malcolm, that's very interesting, as usual. Karma and original sin........hmmmm.....? wondering if the idea of original sin is similar to the idea of "ignorance" in dzogchen......and if Dzogchen thinks that teachers like Jesus removed all the negative karma from all Christians, or that other teachers removed all the negative karma from followers of their teachings? Don't want to keep bugging you Malcolm, if you are busy, but just always wondered about this, if anyone has any teachings on the subject.

b.f.


Malcolm wrote:
No, the teaching of Dzogchen is actually very simple: the difference between a buddha (awakened without the performance of even the smallest virtuous deeds) and a sentient being (wandering in samsara without initially having performed the least non-virtuous deed) is the simple recognition or non-recognition of one's own state.

There is, according to ChNN, no possible way to remove all the negative karma accumulated for countless lifetimes in samsara. So it is impossible that a teacher likewise can do this for one, from the perspective of Dzogchen teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 26th, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing particularly Dzogchen about any of this apart from the citation of Tulku Orgyen's statement.

But as I understand the intent behind this book, it is quite early and is deliberately geared toward an audience that has no knowledge at all of what Dzogchen is or might be, and is therefore intentionally ecumenical.

In reality, there is no relationship between the concept of original sin and karma.


Barney Fife said:
Quotes from "Essence of Mind: An Approach to Dzogchen" by Jes Bertelsen:

"There are many types of continuous exercises. They could be divided into two large main categories. One type is a kind of preparation for meditation: channeling exercises, circulation exercises, and the use of symbolic images (channeling and circulation exercises such as the pineal-hara or yin-yang-breathing described in Presence Meditation, symbols such as a flower or a candle or a yantra in a chakra). The second type is the quintessence of prayer, centered in the heart in the form of a mantra (such as Jesus Christ; Kyrie eleison, Kriste eleison; La illah il allah; Namo amida butsu)
(Kindle location 1122; p. 87)

"The other main reason that these continuous exercises are necessary is our dim Precambrian lethargy, with regard to achieving greater wakefulness. In the West, this feature has been accurately described as original sin. In the East it is called negative karma. These terms indicate that the sluggishness reaches beyond the personal and deeply into our collective hereditary backgrounds. It is a feature that is embedded in evolution itself, in our genes, in the collective unconscious."
(Kindle Location 1026-130; p.80).

"It is self-evidently true that the great enlightened ones on this earth eliminate original sin and negative karma. But it is just as self-evident-- and we all see this, every day in the media-- that this does not help in the least unless each of us as individuals help the process along, with psychotherapy, ethics, prayer, meditation, and continuous exercises.
Even though this earth has seen a long line of radiant, enlightened teachers (Rumi, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Francis, Rabia, Meera, Yeshe Tsogyel, Teresa, etc.), and even though each of them, according to their individual capacity and caliber, takes on original sin and purifies it for all the rest of us, this does not help one bit unless each individual lends a hand, too. Frankly, the world has not become a better place, and people have not improved, since the Buddha and the Christ. Rather the opposite-- when seen from the ordinary levels of consciousness.
Even though there are one billion Christians on the planet, and Christ has accepted the total load of original sin for all these one billion Christians, it doesn't work. It is only when the individual does his share of the work (psychotherapy, prayer, ethical behavior, meditation, and continuous exercises) that it turns out, again and again, that at the right moment, when the mystery opens, the enlightened consciousness has already purified the negative karma and has taken and forgiven the original sin. But this divine function can only unfold when the individual human being has prepared himself or herself through existential transformation.
The old teachers bear witness to the divine power of enlightened consciousness to eliminate original sin and negative karma for oneself and others.
Master Eckhart speaks in the West:
"Indeed, you might well turn away quickly and in a short time from all sins, so strongly and with such true revulsion, and turn so strongly to God that, though you had committed all the sins that ever were or shall be since Adam's time, they would all be forgiven you, together with the punishment for them...."
Master Tulku Urgyen speaks in the East:
"One moment in the purest rigpa can eliminate the accumulation of negative karma from a whole lifetime, or even from several lifetimes.""
(Kindle Locations 1046-1064; p.81-82)

"Up to this point in the book, the description of the spiritual developmental process all the way to the process of enlightenment has been kept within the context of one lifetime, namely the present one. And-- as it is emphasized for instance in both Christian and Tibetan mysticism-- experience does show that it is possible for a person to realize the enlightenment process in one lifetime. However, Indian spiritual traditions (such as Vedanta, Jainism, Mahayana), among others, maintain that the process of spiritual enlightenment usually extends over several lifetimes, and that it is embedded in a more impersonal overarching developmental continuum. This development includes the process of the self through the progressive karma, as well as the collective karmic process at the level of joint consciousness."
(Kindle Location 1368-1374; p.106)

Would anyone be kind enough to offer some incisive Dzogchen commentary on the above passages of Jes Bertelsen's teachings? Possibly Malcolm, or someone with knowledge of the Dzogchen teachings? Thanks!

b.f.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
padma norbu said:
Hmm, I skipped right to 27 minutes in where he says the thangka tradition has it's origins in shamanic culture and psychoactive substance usage, which, if true, is very interesting.

Malcolm wrote:
It's is total nonsense, of course. The orgins of thangkha art are well understood and documented, being a form of canonical painting formalized over more than a millennia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
In the end they might last longer in the game than the USA.

Malcolm wrote:
I doubt it -- I vote China the country most likely to degenerate into provinces run by warlords -- they are halfway there (again) already, and things are only being very tenuously tied together by an increasingly moribund and irrelevant Communist Party leadership.

They do not have the resources the western hemisphere has, they do not have the technology, their environment is ruined, there is massive social unrest with frequent riots, and their political system is moribund as well, as noted above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:


Vasana said:
By all means we have to be mindful and cautious about these things, especially if we have seen the detrimental effects they can have on some people, but we must also be open to the possibility that used under proper guidance ,in a ceremonial ritualistic setting, with careful intent,prayer,mantra,meditation, there can be benefit and merit to the path, even if it is only a temporary vehicle for some, a medicine for others, and a guru of boundless wisdom and compassion for others.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever its benefits may be, the "shaman"'s path is a worldly path, and does not lead to liberation in the sense that those who follow Buddhadharma understand the term "liberation", which specifically means freedom from rebirth in samsara at its most basic level.

Actually, Beyer makes this quite clear in the beginning of his book about Ayahausceros, citing an example of a huge magical war that lead to the death of some his friends on one side at the magical hands of other of his friends on the other side.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
China doesn't need to improve its image anyway. It has the world by the balls financially and industrially.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really -- they are facing a credit bubble, a real estate bubble, their industries are actually operating at losses in general, all to prop up a growing consumer class.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:


Vasana said:
And Malcom, this is why i'm here. To learn from those of you with valuable advice and to disregard the Forum/Buddhist elitism many other people display.
.


Malcolm wrote:
The bardo of dharmatā itself has nothing to do with other beings -- it is a direct experience of the ultimate reality of your own state. You can also have that experience in this life, but not with drugs -- they just get in the way because they alter how you directly perceive things, they alter your sensory apparatus and nervous system. And that, from the point of view of directly experiencing your own state, is negative.

Of course, if you want to talk to plants on the other hand, well, then ayahuasca seems to have some positive qualities in that respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Vasana said:
The reason i mentioned Ayawaska and a perception of the Bardo/ astral plane is because it is known to dissolve our normal barriers of ordinary perception .Maybe i am using too many syncretic terms interchangeably without elaborating enough but i think there's a lot to be learnt from the knowledge and connection to the world ,other beings and transcendental states that ayawaska can act as a catylyst for.

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to actually understand the Bardo I suggest you place yourself at the feet of a Dzogchen master and learn what he has to teach you. You are just engaged in a lot of intellectual speculation, and some of us have been there years before you, and actually may have some useful advice for you to follow. But it is up to you.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
padma norbu said:
Supposedly, she was medically dead, though.


Malcolm wrote:
Medically "dead" to a Tibetan physician might not be quire the same thing as medically dead to a Western one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
smcj said:
So who were they financed by and why?
Sandoz patented LSD in 1945. If they still have the patent they would benefit. If it is in the public domain, then nobody could make a killing. It would be like aspirin. I don't think you can patent a plant.

I heard that the head of Harvard psychiatry (or psychology?) wants to make MDMA a prescription drug for couples therapy. But a German company patented it in 1915, along with a lot of other forms of amphetamine, so the it has run out. Thus no push by big pharmaceuticals means no legislative action.

Hard to see who would benefit financially from a study like that. But that doesn't mean the there aren't other agendas in play.


Malcolm wrote:
The patent ran out on LSD in 1968.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
padma norbu said:
Malcolm, the follow-up question for clarity's sake... Chagdud Tulku's mother was a famous delog. As a child, she apparently "died" for several days and came back to write about her experiences traveling through the bardos and hells, etc. with Tara as her guide (the book "Delog" is available on Amazon). Who's to say that was real or DMT other than her? I read it and I can't say I actually believe it anymore than any other OBE experience I've ever read about.


Malcolm wrote:
IN every instant in her book she is talking about the bardo of rebirth, not the chos nyid bar do. Those with clairvoyance can perceive the beings in the bardo of rebirth and that is who she is universally talking about.

There is another famous Delog, Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen, also has many similar descriptions. I have not really studied this kind of literature in detail. I don't think we really need to consider it an OBE since she never actually experienced total death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am merely reporting to you what the Dzogchen tantras which first present the concept of a bardo of dharmatā say about it.

padma norbu said:
I know and thanks for that. I wish you would respond to my assessment of that rather than repeating that you are citing tantras.
Malcolm wrote:
"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

padma norbu said:
I know, which is why I posed the question I posed.

Malcolm wrote:
A person who is liberated will not experience the bardo of dharmatā at all.

A person who is not completely liberated will experience the bardo of dharmatā after the separation of their mind from their body. The proposed mechanism by which this occurs is the adoption of a mental body which experiences the bardo. But this only occurs after one loses consciousness during the detachment of the consciousness from body i.e. the total disengagement of consciousness from this body, resulting in total physical death. If one does not recognize one's appearances in this bardo, then one continues on the next bardo, the bardo of rebirth i.e. srid pa'i bar do.

It does not matter at all what hallucinations a person has when they are dying, it is not the bardo of dharmatā by definition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I could cite any number of tantras which clearly explain that that the bardo of dharmatā does not occur until the complete separation of the body and mind. Since the body is not longer a factor, any sensory distortion created by any chemistry in the brain is irrelevant. It might make dying easier, but it has not effect on the bardo of dharmatā and its experiences of sound, lights and rays.

padma norbu said:
So, then, it's as I said: you basically have to have faith in what someone else has said. I'm not sure how you could exactly make the distinction of "separation of mind and body" in this instance, anyway, since a DMT experience, especially at the time of death, could very definitely be considered 'separation of mind and body.'

I'm not arguing for DMT in any way, just something that occurs to me as I read your apparently definitive statements. We live in a nondual reality we experience as duality in our everyday world, so what is "separation from the body?"

Malcolm wrote:
I am merely reporting to you what the Dzogchen tantras which first present the concept of a bardo of dharmatā say about it.

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure, these two studies were paid for by all the companies lining up to sell Ayahuasca, LSD, etc.

gregkavarnos said:
So who were they financed by and why?


Malcolm wrote:
The Norwegian study as sponsored by "...the Research Council of Norway. The authors, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Bolstridge report no relevant financial relationships." You can look that up yourself, nothing dodgy I can see.

I cannot find information about who may have funded the Spanish study. But it looks like a pretty straightforward academic study to me, also published in the same journal as the Norwegian study.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Vasana said:
I propose that correct application of Ayawaska from a dharma perspective can actually provide first-hand, direct experience and understanding of the Dying process while still alive in incarnation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, actually, I cannot go along with this. Why? Because in fact there is no need for Ayahuasca to have this understanding, and in fact, while there may be many salutary benefits of ingesting psychedelics, insight in the bardo of dharmatā is just not one of them.

There are two systems of bardo explanation: one that comes from the new translation schools -- it is very brief, mainly concerns the moment of death, and so on. The second comes directly from the tantras of Dzogchen and concerns the visionary experience called dharmatā-antarabhāva i.e. the interval existence of dharmatā or chos nyid bar do. Taking psychedelics such as acid, dmt, shrooms, etc., simply will not cause you to understand what this experience is.

It is not, as is commonly imagined, related to the fact that the brain apparently releases large quantities of DMT when one dies. Why? Because the experience of the bard of dharmatā occurs after the separation of the body and mind.

Instead the experience of the dharmatā is indicated with a detailed system of twenty-one introductions; none of which require ingesting anything whatsoever. In fact, they require that you are sober and paying attention.

In the system (Dzogchen) from which the bardo of dharmatā comes from there is only one valid use for psychedelics, as I have mentioned elsewhere -- and that is demonstrating to oneself that the mind is not a fixed unalterable substance. Once you have gained that insight, that is all the insight any Buddhist text in any tradition has ever suggested that you can derive from psychedelics. Now then, I am not saying that there are no other benefits to be gained from tripping -- but they are not benefits described in nor recognized by any form of Buddhism.

M

padma norbu said:
Thanks for this explanation. And, not to be a dick or anything, but where's the proof for this statement: "It is not, as is commonly imagined, related to the fact that the brain apparently releases large quantities of DMT when one dies. Why? Because the experience of the bard of dharmatā occurs after the separation of the body and mind." ? I just recently read that, upon death, the DMT release causes a profound sense of time-distortion which causes a person to seemingly remain alive hours and even days after his body is dead. Since nobody knows precisely where consciousness is located, I'm not sure how anyone could definitively state whether or not the bardo is experienced after separation of body and mind or whether the mind is simply caught up in a DMT-fuelled experience. I suppose at some point you have to have faith in what someone else tells you or in your own perception of "the astral plane" / "bardo" what-have-you.

Malcolm wrote:
I could cite any number of tantras which clearly explain that that the bardo of dharmatā does not occur until the complete separation of the body and mind. Since the body is not longer a factor, any sensory distortion created by any chemistry in the brain is irrelevant. It might make dying easier, but it has not effect on the bardo of dharmatā and its experiences of sound, lights and rays.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Vasana said:
I propose that correct application of Ayawaska from a dharma perspective can actually provide first-hand, direct experience and understanding of the Dying process while still alive in incarnation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, actually, I cannot go along with this. Why? Because in fact there is no need for Ayahuasca to have this understanding, and in fact, while there may be many salutary benefits of ingesting psychedelics, insight in the bardo of dharmatā is just not one of them.

There are two systems of bardo explanation: one that comes from the new translation schools -- it is very brief, mainly concerns the moment of death, and so on. The second comes directly from the tantras of Dzogchen and concerns the visionary experience called dharmatā-antarabhāva i.e. the interval existence of dharmatā or chos nyid bar do. Taking psychedelics such as acid, dmt, shrooms, etc., simply will not cause you to understand what this experience is.

It is not, as is commonly imagined, related to the fact that the brain apparently releases large quantities of DMT when one dies. Why? Because the experience of the bard of dharmatā occurs after the separation of the body and mind.

Instead the experience of the dharmatā is indicated with a detailed system of twenty-one introductions; none of which require ingesting anything whatsoever. In fact, they require that you are sober and paying attention.

In the system (Dzogchen) from which the bardo of dharmatā comes from there is only one valid use for psychedelics, as I have mentioned elsewhere -- and that is demonstrating to oneself that the mind is not a fixed unalterable substance. Once you have gained that insight, that is all the insight any Buddhist text in any tradition has ever suggested that you can derive from psychedelics. Now then, I am not saying that there are no other benefits to be gained from tripping -- but they are not benefits described in nor recognized by any form of Buddhism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The outcome of a study depends on who funds the researchers and why.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure, these two studies were paid for by all the companies lining up to sell Ayahuasca, LSD, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
smcj said:
We found no relation between lifetime use of psychedelics and any undesirable past year mental health outcomes, including serious psychological distress, mental health treatment (inpatient, outpatient, medication, felt a need but did not receive), or symptoms of panic disorder, major depressive episode, mania, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, or non-affective psychosis.
The outcome of this study would be radically different if my old high school buddies had been included.

Malcolm wrote:
I have friends from high school with whom I did enormous amounts of psychedelic drugs. In every case those who have psychological problems would have had those problems whether they had done such drugs or not. And those who today are balanced, normal functioning people [the majority of my friends from high school] would have been normal, balanced functional people whether they had done those drugs or not. But they would be a little less open minded and kind, I think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:
Indrajala said:
Your naive statement above is illustrative of idealism rather than a firm grasp on the political reality.

Malcolm wrote:
My statement is neither naive nor idealistic.

China can certainly ensure the wellbeing of its billion people whether or not it has political control over Tibet.

Incidentally, I was not suggesting that the Chinese would ever voluntarily leave Tibet -- they are too foolish to make that wise choice.

They are going to plunge Asia, and the rest of the world, into war if they continue their presently unsustainable policies in the region.

My observations have nothing to do with Tibetan Nationalist politics (I am not Tibetan so their nationalism is not my fight). My observations have more to do with limits on human growth, preserving delicate environments and flora and fauna in them, etc.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Also, in terms of mental health:
So what did the study find? Ayahuasca users were found to measure significantly lower than the controls on all nine psychopathology scales, including significantly less somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, and phobias. The ayahuasca users scored significantly lower than controls on measures of worry, shyness, and fatigability and weakness. And ayahuasca users scored significantly higher than controls on measures of self-transcendence and spiritual orientation, including on such items as transpersonal identification, self-forgetfulness, sacredness of life, altruism, subjective well-being, and mission in life. “Taken together,” the authors state, “the data point at better general mental health and bio-psycho-social adaptation in the ayahuasca-using group compared to the control subjects.”
http://www.singingtotheplants.com/2012/08/new-ayahuasca-study/

Further, psychedelics are not innately harmful, as many studies have shown and as this one reinforces, just published on monday:
We found no relation between lifetime use of psychedelics and any undesirable past year mental health outcomes, including serious psychological distress, mental health treatment (inpatient, outpatient, medication, felt a need but did not receive), or symptoms of panic disorder, major depressive episode, mania, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, or non-affective psychosis. In addition to not being significantly different from no association, in all cases the calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were small (for all, psychedelic use aOR ≤1.2). Stratifying by age, gender, past year illicit drug use, or lifetime extremely stressful event did not substantially change the results of any of the logistic regression analyses. Likewise, lifetime use of LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, or peyote, or past year use of LSD, was not associated with a higher rate of mental health problems. There were a number of weak associations between use of any psychedelic or use of specific psychedelics and lower rate of mental health problems; these results might reflect beneficial effects of psychedelic use, relatively better initial mental health among people who use psychedelics, or chance “false positive” findings. Our results are consistent with assessments of the harm potential of psychedelics [28], [29] and with information provided by UN, EU, US, and UK official drug education programs [15], [30]–[34], insofar as these sources do not conclude that psychedelics are demonstrated to cause lasting anxiety, depression, or psychosis.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063972#authcontrib
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/psychedelics-mental-health-problems_n_3785772.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:
Vasana said:
Any thoughts on the other points i raised?

gregkavarnos said:
My opinion is that Ayahuasca is as sentient, sacred, or as special as any other plant.  That's what I think.

Malcolm wrote:
Ayahuasca is not one plant. It is two or more: Banisteriopsis caapi mixed with Diplopterys cabrerana, Psychotria viridis, or Psychotria carthaginensis — plants that contain DMT.

If you are interested in being more informed about the uses, culture and religious significance of Ayahuasca, I suggest you secure Steven V. Bayer's (author of The Cult of Tara ) recently published Singing to the Plants: A Guide to Mestizo Shamanism in the Upper Amazon. You can also examine the author's website: http://www.singingtotheplants.com, more information.

He writes there:
The ayahuasca drink has several primary actions: it is a hallucinogen, emetic, purgative, and vermifuge. In fact, there is reason to think that the ayahuasca vine was first used for its emetic, purgative, and vermifuge activities. Even today, the ayahuasca drink is often called, simply, la purga, and used to induce violent vomiting, with hallucinations considered side-effects; indeed, ayahuasqueros are sometimes called purgueros. But the emetic effect of the ayahuasca drink has spiritual resonance as well; vomiting shows that the drinker is being cleansed. La purga misma te enseña, they say; vomiting itself teaches you.
And:
Rather, for the shaman, ayahuasca is a teaching plant; it is through the hallucinogenic power of the ayahuasca drink that the hundreds of healing plants, including the plants used for magical attack and defense, reveal their appearance and teach their songs; it is through the power of ayahuasca that the shaman can see distant galaxies and planets, the wellbeing of distant relatives, the location of lost objects, the lover of an unfaithful spouse, and the identity of the sorcerer who has caused a patient to become sick. It is the ayahuasca drink that nurtures the shaman’s phlegm, the physical manifestation of shamanic power within the body, used both as defense against magical attack and as a container for the magic darts that are the shaman’s principal weapon.
http://www.singingtotheplants.com/what-is-ayahuasca/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 25th, 2013 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: China destroys the ancient Buddhist symbols of Lhasa Cit
Content:


Indrajala said:
If China was to walk out of Tibet tomorrow the well-being of a billion or more Chinese people would be compromised.

Malcolm wrote:
This windup is a totally indemonstrable assertion, one I suspect that arises from your not-very-subtle aversion towards the oft-touted "popularity" of Transhimalayan Buddhism amongst a very small section of upper middle-class white boomers in the US and Europe.

The wellbeing of the Chinese population would in no way will be compromised if the Chinese Govt. were to vacate its present western holdings.

As it stands, the Chinese Govt. is foolishly pushing Asia towards a resource war. A war in which everyone will lose, and there will be no winners at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
kirtu said:
Of course merit making is unnecessary for realizing Buddhahood.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Sapan is rolling in his grave.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
Are you suggesting these Lamas taught a position that differers from Tsongkhapa's as a type of skilful means, or is this support for your claim that Gelugpas do not hold any views?
Geshe Gyaltsen passed away in 2009. This discussion has lasted long enough that, we're he still alive, I'd drive down to see him and get clarification. If at some point I can access a geshe in my area, I plan on doing just that, but I'm not flying off to India in a panic.

In any case, until then, I do not concede the point. In your quote of Geshe S.R.: In the eleventh verse he mentions emptiness "free from all assertions." In the twelfth verse he refers to an understanding which "destroys through certainty the way the object is perceived." These phrases may be variously interpreted. "The mainstay of misconceptions" is generally viewed as true existence itself." The qualification of emptiness as being "free from all assertions" may be taken to mean that words cannot describe emptiness as it is. It can also refer to emptiness free from any assertions of intrinsic existence.
I take this as a confirmation that my position is one possible interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
It is, but he clarifies it is pre-Tsongkhapa position.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Barney Fife said:
i am familiar with the situation and all the parties involved, and have heard all versions of the jes bertelsen story. i can confirm that the version presented by the learned malcolm represents the version of jes bertelsen and his students, and that the version presented by the accomplished Adamantine represents the version of tulku urgyen rinpoche's close disciples.

b.f.


Malcolm wrote:
Well it is a good thing we have versions. It is starting to sound like Rashoman:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is what I was informed of...

dzogchungpa said:
I have to say that's pretty amazing. Maybe this guy is a real cig car ba.
Is that quote from an email or some other document?


Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't matter -- this is the main reason why Dzogchen was so hard to find in Tibet. All those people whose lively hoods depended on merit making activities were furious that Dzogchen asserts that accumulating merit and so on is unnecessary for realizing buddhahood.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is what I was informed of:
This transcribed account has been removed at Malcolm's request.
The only person who can confirm this with any authority is Eric. I suggest someone ask.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:


Jikan said:
Finally, even though I said I would hold my tongue on Bertelsen...


Malcolm wrote:
Its a fact that TU authorized him to teach Dzogchen.

heart said:
Really, how do you know that?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Because one of our mutual friends who was in Nagi Gonpa at the time confirmed it to me when I asked him about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
90+% of the lectures I listened to as a young man about the Gelug Prasangika were from FPMT lamas: Lama Yeshe, Lama Zopa, Geshe Gyaltsen, Zong R., etc. That was a long time ago, but as I remember it, Tsongkhapa's contribution of how the interplay between the relative and absolute works did not result in producing a "view". In fact, it was only in the modern era that I found out that Tsongkhapa changed anything. They did not allow for alternative interpretations, what we were hearing was "the buddhist perspective". Nagarjuna's four points were stressed, as well as the absence of view. The phrase "non-affirming negation" was used extensively. Perhaps that is how they chose to teach a bunch of hippies at the time, but that has been, and still is, my education on the subject.


Malcolm wrote:
I have heard Lama Zopa teach extensively on emptiness, as well as HHDL -- they do not resemble at all what you report.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Kunzang Dechen Lingpa regularly excoriated his students (meaning us) for asking him to give empowerments all the time, insisting over and over again that knowledge of Dzogchen does not require this; and further, that the activities of giving empowerments and so on were mere child's play.

dzogchungpa said:
I have heard you say that before, and I have often thought about it. Was KDL's point that empowerments are basically a waste of time?


Malcolm wrote:
Not for childish people, apparently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Its a fact that TU authorized him to teach Dzogchen.

dzogchungpa said:
That's pretty remarkable. Did TU authorize any other westerners?


Malcolm wrote:
I have no idea. BTW, this does not mean that this guy is something like a lineage holder of Chokling Tersar or anything like that. But Dzogchen is a specific kind of knowledge that does not require a lot of elaborations to be communicated.

Kunzang Dechen Lingpa regularly excoriated his students (meaning us) for asking him to give empowerments all the time, insisting over and over again that knowledge of Dzogchen does not require this; and further, that the activities of giving empowerments and so on were mere child's play.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:


Jikan said:
Finally, even though I said I would hold my tongue on Bertelsen...


Malcolm wrote:
Its a fact that TU authorized him to teach Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
Jikan said:
I remember reading Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's insistence on the practice of ngondro in some of his published writings, but I don't have access to those now.  These comments might be relevant to the present conversation.


Malcolm wrote:
Probably not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 24th, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
heart said:
A question for the students of Jes Bertelsen, did Jes practice (from Ngondro and up) a full Dzogchen cycle, like for example the Kunzang Tuktik, from the Chokling Tersar?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Nope. (Not a student of his, just know that he didn't practice anything like a ngondro).

heart said:
Hmm Malcolm, how do you know that?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Because that is was I was told by one of his students, and that was also confirmed to me by another direct student of TU's who has there when Bertelsen was visting TU.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure why this topic even evokes any interest. The answer, as retro implied, is simple: "Anyone who is not interested". If someone is interested, than they should practice Vajrayana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Jes Bertelsen?
Content:
heart said:
A question for the students of Jes Bertelsen, did Jes practice (from Ngondro and up) a full Dzogchen cycle, like for example the Kunzang Tuktik, from the Chokling Tersar?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Nope. (Not a student of his, just know that he didn't practice anything like a ngondro).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Why is Tibetan Buddhism more popular?
Content:


Indrajala said:
I don't put much faith in ordinary people, and the vast majority of Buddhists are ordinary people. Hence the bias.

Malcolm wrote:
So it seems misplaced to me that you would specifically single out Buddhists for bias.

Also, it must mean you are biased against yourself, since one presumes you regard yourself as an ordinary person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: When do you think the US will have a Buddhist president?
Content:
Luke said:
Yeah, but how else can we save Tibet?

Malcolm wrote:
We can't. Only the Chinese can save Tibet. And they don't seem very interested in that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Why is Tibetan Buddhism more popular?
Content:


Indrajala said:
I have a slight personal bias against Buddhists in general.

Malcolm wrote:
Sad you have a bias against anyone.

Indrajala said:
Sadly I'm a fallible sinner like most men.


Malcolm wrote:
Seems a little strange to be biased against those whom one would consider your coreligionists. So why do you have a slight bias against Buddhists and what is it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: Why is Tibetan Buddhism more popular?
Content:


Indrajala said:
I have a slight personal bias against Buddhists in general.

Malcolm wrote:
Sad you have a bias against anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: When do you think the US will have a Buddhist president?
Content:
Luke said:
John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President of the US, but how long do you think it will be before the US has its first Buddhist president?

And what do you think the pros and cons of the US having a Buddhist president would be?


Malcolm wrote:
he would be a lying politician like all the rest of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Luke said:
does one really need a guru to realize the nature of mind?


Malcolm wrote:
No, but it's faster.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Wikileaks for senate implodes!
Content:
conebeckham said:
I recall quickly glancing at a headline last week, purporting to state that Assange is actually espousing a Libertarian platform.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, he likes Rand Paul, apparently -- he and snowden.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It makes you wonder if the secrecy advocated in the Buddhist tantras is not so much about being secret as it is "Hey guys,  this Hindu yoga stuff is freaking awesome, but if our Buddhist compatriots get wind of how effective this stuff is a) they won't believe us b) they will consider us heretics no matter how much we insist our view is grounded in Buddhadharma".

Astus said:
And that gives another group of who shouldn't practice Vajrayana. Those who don't believe in ("transcendent") energy and related ideas.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, to put it more simply -- people who do not believe in Ayurvedic anatomy and physiology, even that which is discussed in various Mahāyāna sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Why is Tibetan Buddhism more popular?
Content:
Adamantine said:
When you contrast that with Aeons of diligent practice to get any substantial result which the other expressions of Buddhism propose, is there any wonder that in a culture of speed and instant coffee that we would gravitate towards the faster paths?


Malcolm wrote:
As a Bonpo Dzogchen logic text puts it -- effortless buddhahood is a desiderata.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
It is about time you started offering some citations in defense of your novel presentation of Tsongkhapa's views.
I've just moved and downsized my library. The Gelug section took a big hit as I'm not a Gelug student. However I did keep "Teachings on Je Tshongkhapa's Three Principal Aspects of the Path." with a commentary by HHDL.

Tsongkhapa's root text on pg. 43:

Appearaances are infallible dependent arings:
Emptiness is free of assertions.
A long as these two understating (sic) are seen as separate,
One has not yet realised the intent of the Buddha.


Malcolm wrote:
Here is an alternate translation with the comments of Geshe Sonam RInchen:

"So long as the understanding of appearances As unfailing dependent arising and of emptiness Free from all assertions seem disparate, You still do not comprehend the Subduer's thought."
The understanding of the dependently arising and unfailing way in which causes and conditions produce their effects is a cognition of conventional reality, while the understanding that everything is empty of true existence is a cognition of the ultimate mode in which things exist. The way in which these two understandings apprehend their objects differs. So long as they seem incompatible and your understanding of a thing's dependently arising nature appears to undermine your understanding of its emptiness of true existence and vice versa, you still have not gained insight into what the Buddha intended to reveal nor have you found the correct view of the Middle Way. This is an indication that you must continue to persevere."

Geshe Sonam Rinchen. The Three Principal Aspects of the Path (Kindle Locations 1283-1287). Kindle Edition.

He continues to explain:

In the eleventh verse he mentions emptiness "free from all assertions." In the twelfth verse he refers to an understanding which "destroys through certainty the way the object is perceived." These phrases may be variously interpreted. "The mainstay of misconceptions" is generally viewed as true existence itself." The qualification of emptiness as being "free from all assertions" may be taken to mean that words cannot describe emptiness as it is. It can also refer to emptiness free from any assertions of intrinsic existence. Some early masters in Tibet, who subscribed to the Madhyamika view that everything is empty of inherent existence, found it difficult to posit conventional existence. They contended that since all phenomena are empty, they cannot be specified as this or that, as either existent or non-existent, and that proponents of the Middle Way hold no position, since they propound emptiness free from all assertions.

Geshe Sonam Rinchen. The Three Principal Aspects of the Path (Kindle Locations 1295-1300). Kindle Edition.

Here, Geshe Sonam Rinchen clearly differentiates the view you attribute to the Gelugpas from the actual Gelug view with this statement "Some early masters in Tibet, who subscribed to the Madhyamika view that everything is empty of inherent existence, found it difficult to posit conventional existence. They contended that since all phenomena are empty, they cannot be specified as this or that, as either existent or non-existent, and that proponents of the Middle Way hold no position, since they propound emptiness free from all assertions."

But this statement is not the Gelug view. The Gelug view is that emptiness is the mere absence of true existence i.e. "the understanding that everything is empty of true existence is a cognition of the ultimate mode in which things exist." Further, the Gelugpas claim that not only is this a view, it is the Prasangika view. The Gelugpas never claim that Prasangikas do not have a view. Quite the opposite in fact.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
To disagree with that statement you would have to take the position of a non-Gelug criticism that says they actually do have a view. Their position is that they do not, that their non-affirming negation is an absence of views.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so, the Gelugs assert that Candrakirti does have a view, in contradistinction with the earlier Tibetan presentation of Prasangika which holds that Prasangikas have no views of their own.

SMCJ, with all due respect, you are very confused about what the Gelug point of view actually is. You have completely confused it, utterly, with the view of their opponents.

It is about time you started offering some citations in defense of your novel presentation of Tsongkhapa's views.

The only thing I can imagine is that your Geshe is a renegade with the Gelugpa school, someone who has decided to follow Ganden Chophel's perspective. But Ganden Chophel's views and those of Tsongkhapa are at complete odds with each other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 23rd, 2013 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
ngodrup said:
Lhodrak (aka Drubchen) Namkha Gyaltsen (1326-1401) Mahasiddha and Dzogchen maser.


Malcolm wrote:
This was hardly Tsongkhapa's most important guru. Can you name even a single practice passed down in Gelug from this master? This master is mainly significant for Nyingmapas because on the series of questions Lhodrak validates Dzogchen for Tsongkhapa. But Tsongkhapa was not a Dzogchen practitioner.

Arguably, Tsongkhapa's most important Guru would be been Lama Umapa (Kadampa)(, from whom Tsongkhapa received the short lineage of Vajrabhairava, as well as many instructions from Manjushri. Other important masters would have been Lama Dampa Sonam Gyaltsen (Sakya), from whom Tsongkhapa received Cakrasamvara and Rendawa Shonu Lodo (Sakya) from whom he received Guhyasamaja. He also received the transmission of Guhyasamaja and Cakrasamvara as well as Naro Chos drug from Drikung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Who SHOULDN'T practice Vajrayana?
Content:
yegyal said:
People who have no trust in the teachings.  People unwilling to, or incapable of, following a qualified teacher.  People who can't keep a promise or a secret.

Simon E. said:
This.:

Hickersonia said:
Perhaps then this could be amended to include: "People who believe that the teachings were never intended to be secret at all."

Not trying to start an argument -- just adding another qualifier that might answer the original prompt.


Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is, most of the things that in Vajrayāna which are secret (cakras, nadis, vāyus, asanas, bandhas, praṇāyamas, mantras, agnihotra, mandalas, abhisheka etc.) have been practiced and taught openly for millennia by Hindus.

It makes you wonder if the secrecy advocated in the Buddhist tantras is not so much about being secret as it is "Hey guys,  this Hindu yoga stuff is freaking awesome, but if our Buddhist compatriots get wind of how effective this stuff is a) they won't believe us b) they will consider us heretics no matter how much we insist our view is grounded in Buddhadharma".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
ngodrup said:
Lama Tsongkhapa's main tantric guru was Nyingma...

smcj said:
I'm not 100% on my history, but that doesn't sound right. Lama Tsongkhapa had his students practice the Mahamudra and later translation practices. He got them from the Kagyus I believe. I know of no Nyingma practices in the Gelug school, although there may be some.


Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa's main project was to unify the three tantras, Guhyasamaja, Cakrasamvara and Vajrabhairava into a cohesive practice, centered around the exegesis of the Guhyasamaja Tantra as the most important of all these tantras.

Tsongkhapa has not single work in his corpus devoted to Mahāmudra alone.

Gelug Mahāmudra was developed many centuries later by the First Panchen Lama.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
ngodrup said:
Lama Tsongkhapa's main tantric guru was Nyingma

Malcolm wrote:
??? Who was that?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
The Gelug approach is to logically prove that the way things abide cannot be put into a logical proposition.

Malcolm wrote:
Not according to any Gelugpa teaching I have ever read.

smcj said:
The "non-affirming negation" negates, or disproves, what? It negates/disproves that things:

1. Actually exist.
2. Don't exist.
3. Both exist and don't exist.
4. Neither exist or don't exist.

Those are the four logical possibilities. There are no other logical possibilities. All four have been disproven, negated, rejected. Nothing else is offered as an alternative--ever!.

This is Gelug 101. How do you not see that my statement is the fundamental position of the Gelug school? How can there be any other interpretation? If you think that the Gelug school asserts a logical proposition that explains the way things abide, I'd love to hear it.

Malcolm wrote:
Gelug 101: "does not exist in the ultimate, does not exist in the relative". Tsongkhapa explicitly rejects the analysis of three and four in your list because according to him they are merely double negations.

What you have presented is the non-Gelugpa presentation of freedom from four extremes, which is explicitly rejected by Tsongkhapa in Lamrim Chenmo and elsewhere as being incorrect. Tsongkhapa only rejects inherent existence, the subtle object of negation -- he never advocates rejecting existence, the coarse object of negation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
The Gelug approach is to logically prove that the way things abide cannot be put into a logical proposition.

Malcolm wrote:
Not according to any Gelugpa teaching I have ever read.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
That is what I was told in a private interview with my Gelug mentor.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there are various strains of Gelug thinking. But in general Gelugpas strenously defend the idea that the intellectual exercise of identifying the object of negation, non-affirming negation, the emptiness of true existence in things, the negation of inherent existence resembles the actual realization of emptiness, is it is appropriate to be maintained conceptually. Granted, the Gelugpas also wish to go beyond mind, but they spend a lot of time defending and insisting that one needs to have a perfect Madhyamaka view before moving on the Vajrayāna, and insist that one needs to continue to cultivate that view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
It is famously "the non-affirming negation", which is an absence of intellectual view.

Malcolm wrote:
The Gelug treatment of a the non-affirming negation is absolutely an intellectual view -- that is what Gorampa, Mipham and others give them so much shit about.

smcj said:
The entire purpose of the geshe program is to bring the intellect fully to Dharma so it it sees, on its own terms, that the intellect cannot conceive of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a total misread of the Gelug project.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
...since your intellectual views are pretty irrelevant if you are a Dzogchen practitioner, or even a Vajrayana practitioner.
This is an important point that often gets lost.

conebeckham said:
Agree, with the proviso that I'm not sure mainstream Gelukpas would.....



Malcolm wrote:
Mainstream Gelugs would absolutely not agree, since they subordinate Vajrayāna view to sutrayāna view -- which is the over all trend among Tibetan intellectuals since the time of Sakya Pandita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
smcj said:
The Nyingmas call Shentong "Great Mad1yamaka".


Malcolm wrote:
The first person to use this term in Tibet was Kawa Paltseg. He uses the term dbu ma chen po to refer to spros bral, freedom from extremes. His presentation of Madhyamaka bears no observable commonalities with gzhan stong.

The Sakyapas follow Kawa Paltseg's point of view, and refer to their Madhyamaka as great Madhyamaka also. The Gelugpas also refer to Lama Tsongkhapa's point of view as Great Madhyamaka.

So basically, everyone in Tibet refers to their preferred system of Madhyamaka as "great".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Views of Shentong and Dolpopa
Content:
Vidyaraja said:
Outside of the Jonang school, what are the views of the other schools in regards to the Shentong position and the works/thought of Dolpopa, particularly the Nyingma and Kagyu? Is it possible to be part of these schools while maintaining a personal Shentong view or is there a dogmatism that members must follow? Can one practice Dzogchen while maintaining Dolpopa's viewpoint on the Absolute and are there any prominent figures who have done so?

Thanks!


Malcolm wrote:
Strains of gzhan stong exist in Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma.

gZhan stong is fundamentally a new mantra (sngags gsar ma) school position, having arrived to Tibet with the 11th century translator, Yumo Mikyo Dorje, as a oral instruction related to Kalacakra. So from that point of view, gzhan stong and Dzogchen are historically unrelated.

gZhan stong, along with the Jonang tradition of Kalacakra, was imported into the Kagyu via a 17th century Nyingma Lama named Rigzin Tsewang, who was the root guru of the Karma Kagyu Lama, Situ Panchen. Situ Panchen was originally disinterested in gzhan stong, so the story goes, but because his view was a bit nihilistic, Rigzin Tsewang advised Situ Panchen to adopt the gzhan stong view in order to extend his life. After that, gzhan stong view spread widely among Karma Kagyu in Eastern Tibet. However, the lineage did not widely spread amongst the Nyingma school itself until the time of Khyentse and Kongtrul. Because Kongtrul was such a strong exponent of gzhan stong, many Kagyus and Nyingmapas adopted gzhan stong as their own view. However, as far as Nyingma goes, just as many did not. Presently, Nyingmapas are evenly divided more or less between those who follow the "freedom from extremes" Madhyamaka position set forth by Kawa Paltseg in the early 9th century and neo-gzhan sting stong as presented by Kongtrul.

In general, since the madhyamaka system of the two truths is incompatible with Dzogchen, what need to mention the Yogacara system of three natures? However, just as a person can maintain a sutrayāna view of Gelug prasangika (for example, Jigme Lingpa) and still be a Dzogchen practitioner, one can also maintain the view of gzhan stong and be a Dzogchen practitioner -- since your intellectual views are pretty irrelevant if you are a Dzogchen practitioner, or even a Vajrayana practitioner. The standard early Nyingma view (i.e. Rongzom, Rogben, etc.) is that the view of tantra in general and Dzogchen in particular is higher than that of madhyamaka in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: 'Buddhist' forms of alternative medicine?
Content:
dyanaprajna2011 said:
Are there any Buddhist forms of alternative medicine?  I know groups such as Chinese medicine and Tibetan medicine have Buddhist influences, but are there any based solely, or at least mostly, on Buddhist philosophy?


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Medicine is philosophically based solely on Buddhadharma. In other words, the remote cause of all disease is the ignorance that grasps self. The approximate cause is the three afflictions, desire, hatred and ignorance. The immediate cause is the three doṣas, vatta, pitta, and kapha.

The basis for Tibetan Medicine is Buddhist sutra and tantra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 20th, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Content:
Matt J said:
I have not seen a similar Buddhist classification. Not to say there isn't one, but I haven't come across it.


Malcolm wrote:
There isn't. Buddhadharma accepts only three authorities, the ones I've listed above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 20th, 2013 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: How to develop devotion to a deity?
Content:
philji said:
In our meditation group we have just started song a mantra and visualization practice of Green Tara.one of the group tells me he feels no devotion and thinks it is all fabricated... I am wondering what advice to give......how to develop devotion? What to do if you have none? Many thanks...


Malcolm wrote:
In order to have devotion to a practice, you need to have devotion to the master from whom you received it. If you feel no devotion towards that master, then how can you be expected to have devotion towards a given practice?

Perhaps this person would prefer to practice śamatha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 18th, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:


brendan said:
So if the Taliban community or the US military complex community(don't mean to single out the Taliban or the US) at this moment were to receive a transmission of Vajrasattva providing all the cognitions were correct. Why would the process of purification commence?

Malcolm wrote:
Because it is assumed that someone who receives transmission is interested in the path shown by Varjasattva, Vajradhara and so on.


brendan said:
Why is so much co-emergence required from the other side considering the apparent attributes of Vajrasattva?

The "great vehicle" Buddhahood seems in complete.

Cessation of suffering from a "Great Vehicle" view has only occurred on paper.

Malcolm wrote:
What does the Buddhahood of Mahāyāna lack? And why do you assert it has never been realized?

From what source do you derive your seemingly authoritative pronouncements?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, August 18th, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: What school of Buddhism do you follow?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
you forgot to add "no school"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelics
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Some relevant quotes:


Malcolm wrote:
According to Garab Dorje, the purpose of using hallucinogens is to the see that the mind is malleable, not a fixed or permanent substance. So, in fact hallucinogens do have a use in Dharma, albeit an extremely limited and narrow one.

tomamundsen said:
Any idea which text this comes from? What hallucinogens would they have been using in Oddiyana? Datura?

Malcolm wrote:
It is in the VIma Nyinthig, and yes, the plant mentioned is datura. Also Datura was used in India for Mahakala initiations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
lama tsewang said:
is the book by sonam tsemo, the book translater as yoginis eye??
tsewang


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. However the title is incorrect. There is no mention of a yogini's eye anywhere in the text.
I have also translated this text, but it is still in editing mode.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
Konchog1 said:
While we're on the topic...Why did Pabhongkha like Vajrayogini so much? Considering him, I would assume he would have been a strict 'Tsongkhapa's three' purist.

(Everyone, let's please not make this one of those threads)

Malcolm wrote:
Pabhongkha, when he was younger, had a close relationship with one of the Zimog Tulkus of Nalendra Phenpo, from whom he received most of the Sakya traditions he favored (such as four faced Mahākala, and so on).

Apparently (since I have not actually read his bio), he had a vision of Vajrayogini who encouraged him to merge the stream of Naro Khachö teachings with the view of Tsongkhapa.

In one sense, Yogini was an ideal practice for this -- it (unlike Lamdre) does not have any extensive instructions of view on its own, being purely a practice cycle. So in Sakya, Yogini is practiced in the broader context of the Lamdre view. One common approach is that Hevajra is used for working on creation stage, and Yogini for completion stage.

Secondly, Pabhongkha was a specialist in Cakrasamvara, and Yogini is the essence of Cakrasamvara practice. If one practices Yogini, the entire Cakrasamvara mandala is included.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Je Rinpoche on Guhyasamāja tantra
Content:
Will said:
In 2010 Robert Thurman headed up a translation of the Five Stages commentary by Je Rinpoche.   Then in March of 2013 Gavin Kilty came out with another translation.

Any students or practitioners who have compared the two?  If yes, what are the differences between the two versions?

No, I am not going to practice or suggest others practice based on a book;  just wondering about accuracy & quality of the two translations.


Malcolm wrote:
KIlty's is better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Thanks Malcolm this is interesting information, I will definitely follow up. If HHST gives it in India it might be possible, but in Europe I have to work most weekends so it is more difficult.  rgyud sde spyi rnams  is definitely something I will look into. Can I get the text online or should I ask a friend of mine at Dzongsar Shedra to send it?


Malcolm wrote:
rgyud sde spyi rnams (Sonam Tsemo):

http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O01CT0026%7CO01CT002600KG03981$W22271

rin po che ljong shing (Dragpa Gyaltsen):

http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O01CT0026%7CO01CT002600KG04025$W22271

These two texts are like the sun and the moon of Sakya view and practice. If you read these, you will understood very perfectly the point of view of the Sakyapa school on everything from sutra to tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:


JKhedrup said:
I would happily take a Sakya Vajrayogini initiation if the opportunity arose from HHST or Jetsun Kushok-la. The thing is, though, I am not sure if the Sakya ngondro and things would be required before taking this.

Malcolm wrote:
The Sakyapas would not require you to complete ngondro before receiving this transmission.



JKhedrup said:
I was just surprised that Lama Migmar reacted to the question. I was very curious, and wanted to ask, but was half expecting a "Ah Yes the Gelugs co-opted one of our treasured inner practices bit", so his open response was a pleasant surprise.

Malcolm wrote:
Lama Migmar (Khenpo, actually) is a great proponent of Vajrayogini as well as Tara. He feels that Vajrayogini is the ideal practice for this day and age, and as such, approves of its wide spread amongst Gelug, and anywhere else for that matter.

JKhedrup said:
He actually said there were some interesting commentaries in the Gelug tradition, though of course, that the Sakyas "held the complete lineage with uncommon instructions etc." (paraphrasing as this was awhile ago).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact the most detailed commentary on the practice was composed by a Geshe who happened to be a disciple of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo.

The fact of the matter however is that the Yogini practice is elaborated based on the Sakyapa understanding of tantra, and so therefore, reading such texts as rgyud sde spyi rnams and so on will assist in how one understands the practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 16th, 2013 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
JKhedrup said:
When I met Lama Migmar in Europe and asked him this question he did say the Gelug Vajrayogini incorporated some longer elements in the offering section and different word choices in other parts of the sadhana, but that he felt there were no major, significant differences. I was a little surprised because I heard several Sakya lamas were not so happy with their VY practice being co-opted and popularized so widely by Gelug Lamas.(Lama Migmar is a scholar and teacher in the Sakya tradition).

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the pre-Pabhongkha tradition of VY is unchanged from the Sakya presentation. But Pabhongkha made a number of changes to the tradition based on his own intellectual ideas of how the practice should be brought into line with the broader Cakrasamvara tradition.

Since Pabhongkha made fundamental changes to the tradition, Sakya lineage masters will not bestow the uncommon Vajrayogini instructions on someone who has only received the tradition from Pabhongkha lineage. They [meaning HH Sakya Trizin, Jetsun Kusho and others] will require you to receive both a two-day empowerment in Hevajra or Cakrasamvara as well as Vajrayogini blessing from a major Sakya lineage holder as a prerequisite even if you have received these in Gelug.

Also, HH Dalai Lama is not fond of the fact that Vajrayogini has eclipsed more traditional Gelug practices and has stated this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 8:44 AM
Title: Re: Bodong Tradition
Content:
Dorje Shedrub said:
I never heard of this tradition until today when I was reading an intro to a tantra. Elsewhere I read that it is a branch from the Sakya tradition.

Does anyone have more information?  Thanks

DS


Malcolm wrote:
The Bodong tradition stems from Bodong Panchen Chogley Namgyal. He was an amazing polymath whose collected works form 108 volumes.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism beyond the nation state
Content:
Sherlock said:
ChNN doesn't really find the term lamaism very offensive.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but the manner on which it was used by Waddell and others suggests degeneration and backwardness -- hardly the actual state of Buddhism in Tibet at the time, when there were bhiḳsus holding the strictest vinaya, great meditators everywhere, and panditas in all the monasteries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Content:
plwk said:
Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
Anumāna — logical inference
Śabda — verbal testimony


Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhadharma, all three of these are regarded as pramāṇas, i.e., authorities. Realization of ultimate truth is considered yogic pratyakṣa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism beyond the nation state
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I can only speak for the gelug tradition with which i am familiar, but at least a majority were exposedto tbetexts in the first few years, and were abke to read them at least. But yes, many did not finish their education or worked.

Indrajala said:
Regardless of how we feel about it now in 2013, at the time it would have understandably seemed warranted to have a different term for the religion in Tibet.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I suppose so, given that one was likely to be an ignorant western barbarian with no civilization and manners at that time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 15th, 2013 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism beyond the nation state
Content:


Indrajala said:
For example in the case of "Tibetan Buddhism":
David Gray (University of Santa Clara) questions the category Tibetan Buddhism. In his essay “How Tibetan is Tibetan Buddhism? On the Applicability of a National Designation for a Transnational Tradition,” he points out that today there is no Tibet to which this label can refer. Additionally, arguably the majority of practitioners of “Tibetan” Buddhism neither are ethnic Tibetans, nor do they speak or read Tibetan. More significantly, while Tibetans considered themselves Buddhists and had a sense of Tibet as a distinct geo-political category, “they simply did not conceive of their tradition in nationalistic terms.”
What comes to mind here is how contemporary Tibetan Buddhism in the west is often intricately linked with Tibetan nationalism, going hand in hand with the Tibetan independence movement.

Malcolm wrote:
Presently, Buddhism has become a nationalist banner for young Tibetans inside of Tibet, so Gray is mistaken. In fact, under the Chinese hegemony, Buddhism, especially the Nyingma school, has become widely identified with the struggle for Tibetan independence in large part because Nyingma legends are based on the Tibetan Imperial Period -- and in coordination with that is a very popular cult of Gesar as guru, deva and dharmapāla.

As for westerners who use the sobriquet "Tibetan Buddhism", this is not really nationalistic -- it is connected with the source of the brand i.e. Tibet, as opposed to Japanese Buddhism (Zen, Shingon, Tendai, Nichiren), etc., or Chinese Buddhism (Chan, Pure Land, etc.).

Many westerners adopt the styles, customs and costumes of the nation their Buddhism derives from: for example, in Zen, Chan, Son, Theravada, Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma, Gelug etc. They even adopt the individual customs of different sects.

But this adoption and adaptation is largely free from political overtones. For example, I am sure no western practitioner of Zen really takes the ultra nationalist positions of their Japanese forbears.

In fact, what I think you are witnessing is merely a phase in adaptation of a regional Buddhist teaching which can be grouped into three rough phases: curiosity; exploration and adoption; maturation and evolution beyond that cultural source of a given teaching.

Some Tibetans, like Trungpa, tried to build cultural separation from the source culture of his teachings right from the beginning. Most of the Shambhala Buddhists I know are only very dimly aware of Tibet and really do not care much about it. They are not encouraged to learn Tibetan and they are actively discouraged from having direct contact with Tibetan teachers.

Other Tibetans, like Chagdud, Lama Dawa, etc., are very interested in having their students preserve the uniquely Tibetan forms of the Nyingma school.

Some other Tibetans, like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, assert their Dharma teachings is beyond cultural limitations, etc., but maintain separate organizations for the academic study and preservation of aspects of Tibetan cultural knowledge such as medicine, astrology, etc.

So the stereotype you paint here is rather limited and feeble. The forms of Dharma that come from Tibet have been in the West long enough so that now various different organizations are starting to stand on their own without much support from Tibetan institutions.

In general, those organizations most tied into Tibetan culture are the Gelugs and the Kagyus because they funnel large amounts of money from Taiwan, Europe and the US to monasteries in India.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Buddhist cosmology essentially Vedic?
Content:
retrofuturist said:
Greetings,

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty hard to square this opinion with the Buddha's recognition that the Gayatri Mantra is the supreme among mantras (tat savitur...etc.) in the Pali Canon.

retrofuturist said:
Do you have a credible source for this? I very much doubt this is "in the Pali Canon"...

Maitri,
Retro.


Malcolm wrote:
It is there, but I cannot recall where. It is not an advocacy of doing the mantra, it is in a list of "greats". Likewise, the Buddha charges Ananda with requesting knowledgable and faithful kṣatriyas, brahmins and householders to carry out his funeral rites.

What the Buddha rejected was the purva-mimamsa view of liberation through rites and rituals. But he did not reject Vedic culture completely, as witnessed in his advice to Vajjians to maintain their ancestral practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Is Buddhist cosmology essentially Vedic?
Content:


Indrajala said:
Even in early Buddhism, anything that seems Vedic might actually just be cause of common Indo-European heritage. At the time you had Indo-Europeans, who were not necessarily people of the Vedas, settled all around north India and Central Asia.

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty hard to square this opinion with the Buddha's recognition that the Gayatri Mantra is the supreme among mantras (tat savitur...etc.) in the Pali Canon.

Buddhism is filled with Vedic ideas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Lineage connected to Vairocana ?
Content:
heart said:
Never ending new website this man manage to create
The teachings of Vairocana is contained in the Nyingma Kama teachings.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
And taught completely by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, August 12th, 2013 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Difference between Sakya & Gelug Vajrayogini
Content:
Kunzang8 said:
Hi

What are the differences between the Sakya and Gelug lineages of VY?  I understand that the Gelug VY originally came from Sakya but I heard there are differences in the practice itself. Within the limits of what can be discussed in a public forum could someone please explain to me what the main differences in practice between the two lineages? Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
The Gelug form has differences in how the guru yoga is performed (it is more elaborate), how the offerings are made, how the mantra is visualized, and so on. Primarily the Gelug form merely makes the sadhana practice more elaborate.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 10th, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Mahavairocana empowerment applicability
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the Tibetan tradition...

Indrajala said:
Fair enough, but the texts I've looked at themselves don't mention these things, which from a scholarly point of view makes me wonder how much was added on top of them after they were translated. The content might remain static, but the expectations and conditions associated with a given text or practice seem often to have been multiplied and amplified. This isn't wrong, but just makes you wonder if the model of 2013 accurately reflects what they were doing in the 9th century.

Malcolm wrote:
Indian tantric texts themselves this give triad of teachings, so it is not some invention of Tibetans. If your goal is adherence to some Indian idea of tantric practice, then your best bet is to become educated in the Sakya school's tradition. Four of the five founding masters of Sakya were conversationally fluent in Sanskrit and studied with the great Indian pandits of their day who came to Tibet. As far as the Sakya school is concerned, its early textual tradition is a direct import of 10th/11th century Indian Buddhist tantrism and its procedures and values. Granted, the Sakya school's practices underwent consolidation and streamlining, but is in general very faithful to how things were being done in India during the 10th and 11th century, especially in lower tantra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 10th, 2013 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahavairocana empowerment applicability
Content:


Indrajala said:
If you're referring to oral instructions that are passed down from generation to generation, I'm sceptical these instructions would actually reflect the original practice and oral commentary, supposing such a thing existed apart from the text from the start. Things change in transmission and translation.

Malcolm wrote:
In the Tibetan tradition, there are two levels when it comes to tantra -- the ripening empowerment and the liberating instruction. You are not really qualified to practice sadhana without instruction i.e. the liberating instruction. Beyond this, upadeshas are necessary, which define the key points of practice that arise from the experience of realized masters in the lineage. So generally, to be fully equipped to practice in a given Indo-Tibetan practice lineage such as Lamdre, Naro Khachod, etc., (no matter what school) or even Yogatantra such as Sarvavidyā, you need three things: empowerment, instructions and upadeshas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: Mahavairocana empowerment applicability
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Theoretically, but not necessarily, because the explanation and instruction lineage is completely different. Also the method of conferring the initiation might be quite different.

Indrajala said:
Someone suggested that it is like the Kalacakra empowerment in that if you receive it you can study and practice anything related to Kalacakra. So, theoretically, it should be possible. It just seems rather unorthodox, but not necessarily wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
That is also not necessarily the case. For example, even you have received a general Kalacakra empowerment, you are not necessarily permitted to receive teachings on the Sadaṇgayoga teachings. Why? Because there are many levels of Kalacakra empowerments, outer, inner, secret, etc.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 9th, 2013 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Mahavairocana empowerment applicability
Content:
Indrajala said:
If someone had received the full Mahavairocana empowerment (yoga-tantra) from a Tibetan master, would that entitle them to study and practice the Mahavairocana-associated materials as found in Tang Vajrayana (i.e., Shingon)?

This seems a bit ambiguous because all the traditions are supposed to have the same source, and the empowerment in Tibetan Buddhism ultimately covers all Mahavairocana associated practices, of which the Shingon ones would have to be included, no?


Malcolm wrote:
Theoretically, but not necessarily, because the explanation and instruction lineage is completely different. Also the method of conferring the initiation might be quite different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, August 8th, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
smcj said:
One basic idea in Dharma is that nothing exists in the way we normally assume things to exist-- including ourselves! My teacher used to emphasize that when I listened to teachings on emptiness I should remember that they were a description of how I actually abide.

Is there anyone here that thinks a description of how yidam abide wouldn't include some abstractions?


Malcolm wrote:
The personages whom yidams portray conventionally exist as sambhogakāya manifestations. Otherwise, there could be no method connected with them. Why? Because in the path of transformation the result is practiced as the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, August 7th, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Violence in late period Indian Buddhism
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Rechungpa, Padmasambhava, Virupa, and several of the Mahasiddha are described as killing tirthikas. It's unnecessary to sift though metaphors to find such examples.

Malcolm wrote:
sources?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, August 3rd, 2013 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I said, archetypes as used by Dahl is a Jungian term, not really to be conflated with with Platonic usages of the term at all. Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions.

Yidams are sambhogakāya emanations, not archetypes.

gregkavarnos said:
Fair enough.  Leads me to ask the question as to what is better:  to alow a practitioner to consider Yidams as archtypes and to practice according to that interpretation or is it better to remain locked into a formal (correct) interpretation which may cause the prctitioner (due to their karmic preponderances) to abandon practices and lose faith in the teachings?


Malcolm wrote:
Considering yidams as "archetypes" will not lead to a correct result. Why? At one level yidams are paths that represent the mandala of the basis, the mandala of the path, and the mandala of the result. At another level, yidams are sambhogakāya forms i.e. the form in which a sambhogakāya appeared in order to transmit the method of the path of transformation.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
yegyal said:
So Cort's explanation is exactly what I'm talking about.  The way he is explaining is one way of looking at it, but it's not the only one.


Malcolm wrote:
It's actually total nonsense. The idea of "archetypes" comes from Jung, and is completely foreign to Buddhadharma.

gregkavarnos said:
The idea or concept of archetypes (αρχέτυπα) predates Jung by a few thousand years.  Jung was the first modern theorist to use the term systematically.  The term actually originates from Plato's Theory of Forms.  So the concept wouldn't have been alien to ancient Buddhist philosophers.  I don't know if they would have agreed with it too much though.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, archetypes as used by Dahl is a Jungian term, not really to be conflated with with Platonic usages of the term at all. Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions.

Yidams are sambhogakāya emanations, not archetypes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, August 2nd, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
yegyal said:
So Cort's explanation is exactly what I'm talking about.  The way he is explaining is one way of looking at it, but it's not the only one.


Malcolm wrote:
It's actually total nonsense. The idea of "archetypes" comes from Jung, and is completely foreign to Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 31st, 2013 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source
Content:
mutsuk said:
Jim Valby knows and understands what he translates.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
smcj said:
It's like asking, "who wrote the Uttaratantra"?

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all. There are texts attributed directly to Garab Dorje, and there are the tantras which are considered to have been revealed by him, which were taught by various past Buddhas such as Shonnu Pawo Tobdan, Vajrasattva and so on.

To answer the question, in the east there is the pure buddhafield of Nirmanakāya Vajrasattva.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 29th, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Title: Re: Does Vajrasattva exist?
Content:
smcj said:
Even though it is not in the purview of the thread, I'd like to say that Vajrasattva is very important and not just a confession practice.
Garab Dorje created Dzogchen from doing Vajrasattva practice. I guess innate purity=perfection.

Malcolm wrote:
Garab Dorje in no sense "created" Dzogchen. Garab Dorje is the Nirmanakāya emanation of Vajrasattva (Sambhogakāya).

Dzogchen, according to its own texts and traditions is the original Dharma teaching from which all other so called "Buddhist" and "non-Buddhist" Dharma teachings arise.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 23rd, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: Translation requested for Tibetan name
Content:
Jinzang said:
Display of Changeless Merit. The last word (rtsal) is difficult to translate and others might argue over it. The first two, merit (bsod nams) and changeless ('gyur med) are standard.

Malcolm wrote:
rtsal = vega = powerful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 20th, 2013 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


Greg said:
Is one list mistaken, or are these two different things?

Malcolm wrote:
The list of the four contemplations (ting nge 'dzin) is the more accurate list. But the other list also is correct, though it is from the point of view of the meaning of gnas pa and mi gyo ba.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 20th, 2013 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, Gampopa started out as a Nyingmapa, then became a Kadampa monk, then met MIlarepa towards the end of the latter's life.

smcj said:
Where did you hear he started out as a Nyingmapa? I thought his entry into Dharma was because his dying wife asked him not to marry again, thus his becoming a Kadampa monk.


Malcolm wrote:
He was a doctor before he was a monk. And most people in Tibet at that time were Nyingmapas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I guess your experience and observations differ?  I doubt it!


Malcolm wrote:
Quite different, but then I am not a textual fundamentalist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:


mutsuk said:
He says "on occasion", not every day at every meal. Moreover, most of this is explained with medical purposes, not daily behavior. His testament to the Ngakpas remain full of sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you began by saying that alcohol was poison that destroyed the channels -- but in fact as we see, that is false -- alcohol can be quite good for the channels.

Secondly, while I don't have a drink with every meal, far from it, I still maintain that it is no problem to have a glass of wine with dinner,   especially if it is good quality, properly and carefully made wine. No one, apart from someone with a medical condition, gets intoxicated from a glass of wine with dinner and the health benefits are well documented.

Of course, in the eighth century, and in places like China today, alcohol was an appalling travesty -- it is all rot gut. There is no good quality alcohol anywhere outside of the important wine growing regions of the world and their markets.

Tibetan chang is an exception, because it is rarely is more than 2 percent alcohol and is quite weak. Arak is a different story.

In short, there is a lot of alcohol such as whiskey and so on that can be quite harmful to one's health. But wine and beer in moderation is not a problem (which is all I have been saying) for most people, in general.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If not, then there is no problem using any of these things.

mutsuk said:
No, there is a problem with alcohol indeed in itself.

Malcolm wrote:
He also wrote in the dgongs pa zang thal:

There is no fault if on occasion
one administers yogurt, good alcohol and milk.

and:

"After that, in order to enhance one’s channels and vāyu, use good meat, good alcohol that is sweet and gentle, milk soups, butter, triphala medicinal ghee and pañcamula medicinal ghee."

But there are other occasions when he strongly recommends avoiding alcohol, for example, when doing rasāyana, etc. And indeed criticizes people for _heedlessly_ consuming meat and alcohol.

So the real point is one must work with circumstances and understand one's situation.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But when we consider textual sources, for example, the late Dudjom Rinpoche writes very clearly in the Throma retreat manual that it is important to drink a small amount of alcohol everyday for integration.

mutsuk said:
THis is done in order to test one's integration of various circumstances including using intoxicants. Dudjom Rinpoche has also given a very lively portrait of people "calling themselves Dzogchenpas when their breath fetid with wine, their heavy bottom, their stinking odor, etc." (rDzogs chen ngo sprod skal bzang snying nor, bDud ‘joms gsung ‘bum, vol. 25, p. 341). This is in context of rDzogs chen instructions, not sutras.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is no different than having a glass of wine with dinner. If you cannot integrate, you should not drink wine for dinner -- who ever said otherwise?

And yes, it is in the context of Dzogchen instructions, just like ChNN's point of view. As I said, I am not a sūtrayāna practitioner. What is appropriate for them is not appropriate necessarily for Vajrayāna practitioners.

If you are a person with a propensity for a problem with anything, be it food, alcohol, sex, etc., then one has to examine that. If not, then there is no problem using any of these things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
mutsuk said:
It is clear throughout all the pages of this thread that you definitely need to justify your usage.


Malcolm wrote:
Need to justify? No, not in any sense at all.

But when we consider textual sources, for example, the late Dudjom Rinpoche writes very clearly in the Throma retreat manual that it is important to drink a small amount of alcohol everyday for integration.

The Caraksamhita as well as the rgyud bzhi does not describe alcohol solely in terms of faults.

Longchenpa as we have seen praises the benefits of alcohol.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu explicitly teaches us in the DC that we need not consider ourselves constrained by pratimokṣa rules _at all_, and he is a person who benefits many people who regularly partakes of alcohol.

Finally, I am not sūtrayāna practitioner, so what is appropriate for such people is not appropriate for me in every case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, greg. It does not. Everthing in the world can be either poison or amrita -- it depends on the method.
From the ultimate perspective:  yes!  From the relative perspective:  no!  /quote]

Method means relative, that is the point of having a method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
mutsuk said:
the Buddha says : "A person who delights in drinking alcohol/ Cannot bring benefit to himself or happiness to others." (chang 'thung ba la mngon par dga' ba'i mi/ bdag la phan dang gzhan la bde mi nus/).


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what one means by "delights" -- I am pretty sure that a glass of wine with dinner is not included.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
For some people even a gulp of alcohol is harmful.

Malcolm wrote:
For other people, even a single peanut is fatal.

M

gregkavarnos said:
So what?  I do not know of anybody that has died from peanut poisoning.  I have a friend that suffers from the incapacity to metabolise alcohol.  Nor do I know of anybody going on a weekend peanut binge.  I personally know of two people that died due to the consequences of long term alcohol (over) consumption.  I had another two friends go through detox programs and another one that detoxed on their own.  I also personally know a couple of people that died in automobile and motorcycle accidents due to drink driving.  I do not know of anybody that has crashed their car under the influence of peanuts.    I know that after a couple of handfuls of peanuts I do not lose any awareness, I cannot say the same thing for what happens after a couple of beers.  I guess that makes your example completely invalid then.  Right?

Malcolm wrote:
No, greg. It does not. Everthing in the world can be either poison or amrita -- it depends on the method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
mutsuk said:
So yes, once and for all, it is a poison.


Malcolm wrote:
Total and complete nonsense.

mutsuk said:
Yeah sure, whatever Nyagla Pema Düdül, and Shardza Rinpoche wrote is total nonsense. Can you imagine that your opinion might be of little value compared to their teachings ?

Malcolm wrote:
I can imagine that their views on the subject are not definitive.


"World! Do not doubt beer!"
-- Virupa


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
For some people even a gulp of alcohol is harmful.

Malcolm wrote:
For other people, even a single peanut is fatal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 15th, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
flavio81 said:
Yes. Frankly, it does not make sense. One should try to understand the underlying fundamentals of the teaching being followed instead of going the easy way of taking any tibetan scripture -disregarding its context- to support one's extreme views.

gregkavarnos said:
Why do you consider that saying "one should refrain from alcohol" is an extreme view and yet consider that saying "one should drink alcohol" is a moderate view?  Is it just an attempt to invalidate the point being made by "mutsuk"?   An attempt based merely on your personal/cultural preferences?

Alcohol, from a scientific/medical point of view is a poison.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, it is acetaldehyde that is the toxin produced by metabolizing ethanol, which is then further oxidized into harmless acetic acid by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.

Thus if one drinks alcohol in moderation, there is no problem. It is only when one drinks in excess that alcohol is poisonous. But a glass or two of wine will not be harmful and has many benefits.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 15th, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
mutsuk said:
So yes, once and for all, it is a poison.


Malcolm wrote:
Total and complete nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 15th, 2013 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Alcohol is not a poison...

mutsuk said:
It is.

Malcolm wrote:
It isn't.

Read long chen pa's praise of the qualities of alcohol.

dri med 'od zer. " bdud rtsi zil mngar ma/." In gsung thor bu/_dri med 'od zer/(sde dge par ma/). TBRC W23504. 2: 332 - 335. paro, bhutan: lama ngodrup and sherab drimey, 1982. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O00EGS1013837%7CO2CN67002CN87712CN91062CN91092CN91112CN91122CN91162CN91191PD121506$W23504


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 15th, 2013 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:


mutsuk said:
In a body, channels and winds are channels and winds, no matter if one is a monk, a yogi or someone doing nothing. The poison is doing the same ravages...

Malcolm wrote:
Alcohol is not a poison, unless it is misused, just like water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 15th, 2013 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
kirtu said:
For most people on this path, a glass of wine or beer clearly isn't indulgence.

mutsuk said:
Well Shardza Rinpoche is of the opinion that alcohol affects channels and winds with irreversible results...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there are many opinions out there. And Shardza was after all a monk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
mutsuk said:
Yes that's exactly it! Thanks for reading with unbiased eyes ! What Sönam is trying to have people swallow is that: 1. there are no vows or samayas in Dzogchen, and 2. people who follow vows are of inferior capacities. This is misleading.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two different things here:

1) The textual system of Dzogchen in which there are samayas which much be maintained (actually some Dzogchen tantras state there are no samayas to maintain -- this point is addressed by Nyi 'bum in his tshig don bcu gcig).

2) The teachings of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in which it is maintained that the principle of Dzogchen is not based on vows to follow. But of course even ChNN expects his students to follow samaya. But in his case, it is interesting because he has not (to my knowledge) detailed a specific list of vows nor has he bothered to say anything about samaya other than that we ought to strive to get along with each other, and not blabber secret teachings in public.

But this is all besides the point of thread -- the subject of which is why Śakyamuni Buddha felt compelled to prohibit alcohol.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood not being the end of the path
Content:
Sherlock said:
Then why are there general Mahayana aspirations about vowing not to achieve Buddhahood until all sentient beings are liberated etc?


Malcolm wrote:
There are three aspirations for buddhahood: king, captain and shepard. The aspiration you mention above is the shepard type -- it not the one commonly taught, for example, in Tibetan Buddhism.

In Tibetan Buddhism the king-like aspiration is taught, i.e. may I achieve complete buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

trevor said:
I can feel that I am the last sentient being in samsara and everyone else is a Buddha trying to make me realize.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure, one can feel many things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
mutsuk said:
The respect of vows and necessity to hold them is affirmed in numerous Dzogchen Tantras, starting with the sGra-thal-'gyur. It is again a case of misunderstanding Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Among the 27 samayas mentioned by Longchenpa in the bla ma yang thig, avoiding alcohol is never mentioned.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood not being the end of the path
Content:
Sherlock said:
Then why are there general Mahayana aspirations about vowing not to achieve Buddhahood until all sentient beings are liberated etc?


Malcolm wrote:
There are three aspirations for buddhahood: king, captain and shepard. The aspiration you mention above is the shepard type -- it not the one commonly taught, for example, in Tibetan Buddhism.

In Tibetan Buddhism the king-like aspiration is taught, i.e. may I achieve complete buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood not being the end of the path
Content:
Sherlock said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but In general Mahayana, the general idea seems to be that achieving Buddhahood will prevent one from further benefiting sentient beings


Malcolm wrote:
No. This idea is incorrect. The goal of Mahāyāna Buddhism is non-abiding nirvana in which a buddha always acts on behalf of sentient beings, as opposed to the hīnayāna concept of buddhahood in which a buddha ceases his activity at parnirvana.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 14th, 2013 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
5heaps said:
this should count as transformation as well...


Malcolm wrote:
But it does not as a matter of definition.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 13th, 2013 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Dan74"]

I fail to understand why his character needs to be put on trial and feel a bit odd peering into these 4-5 year-old exchanges./quote]

It speaks to his motives.

I don't disagree with what Snowden did, BTW. And I think the reaction by the US Gvt. is a bit over the top, but I also, from the beginning, have found something pretty off about the whole affair.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 13th, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As it turns out, Snowden is a right wing anti-Obama libertarian.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 11th, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
5heaps said:
yes that is the result according to everyone except Tsongkhapa, but are liberation and the arya truths not considered purity?  are the dissolution of a suffering persona and the arising of an identity beyond suffering not considered purities?  by definition selflessness and these which accompany it are beyond samsara, thats why you used the word 'liberation'. so we can call them transformations, from the afflicted (samsara), to the non-afflicted (pure). what is wrong with that?

if you then move the scale from selflessness to emptiness, you now have fullblown buddhahood transformations.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no _path_ of transformation in common Mahāyāna. The method of common Mahāyāna is called the six pāramitās.

Phenomena remain afflictive even for ārya bodhisattvas until they reach the pure bhumis (8-10). After this point, Bodhisattvas only take rebirth in the so called pure abodes, but this takes two incalculable eons to acheive, and an additional one incalculable one to move through the rest of the bhumis while the last trace of the jñeya-avarana is removed. The kleśa-avarana is removed at the end of the seventh bhumi.

In other words, there is no rapid method in common Mahāyāna which ensures liberation within one to sixteen lifetimes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
It's said that Gampopa most likely received semde teachings from Milarepa and put his own spin on them, though I'm sure that is open to debate...

Malcolm wrote:
No, Gampopa started out as a Nyingmapa, then became a Kadampa monk, then met MIlarepa towards the end of the latter's life.


asunthatneversets said:
The four naljors are:

(i) shi-nè (zhi gNas)
(ii) lhatong (lhag mThong)
(iii) nyi-mèd (nyis med)
(iv) lhundrüp (lhun grub)


Malcolm wrote:
It is the the four ting 'dzins (samadhis) and the first two are actully gnas pa (calm state) and mi gyo ba (non-movment); the others are fine. This is the system of Khams lugs sems sde.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
jeeprs said:
But I think it is only possible to use such things when one is not bound by them

Malcolm wrote:
If this were so there would be no point to Vajrayāna at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
this the explanation for someone who has realized the first bhumi in Mahāyāna.

The only vision that is non-karmic is buddhahood.

5heaps said:
your position doesnt seem to follow then. since the particular transformations into purity

Malcolm wrote:
There is no transformation into purity in sūtra, none at all. Just because a sūtrayāna practitioner realizes emptiness it does not mean that they have pure vision. That only happens when one becomes a Buddha.

Vajrayāna is the method of taking the path as the result, therefore, we train in pure vision of ourselves as deity mandalas right from the start of creation stage. There is no such training for anyone, including tenth stage bodhisattvas which is taught in sūtra. You cannot find one sūtra passage that even suggests this.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:


5heaps said:
what about this argument:

when you realize subtle selflessness (the lack of a substantial self-sufficient self to persons), you subsequently cognize the arya truths and your ordinary self-identity dissolves, at which time, there is an appearance of a divine self-identity.  divine meaning free from suffering, since you are briefly free from assenting to a substantial self.

Malcolm wrote:
No self identity at all arises at that time, divine or otherwise, but in the post-equipoise state, it is very clearly explained that one's vision is karmic, albeit, unreal. Therefore, as stated there is no method in common Mahāyāna similar to the path of transformation described in Vajrayāna.

5heaps said:
is the explanation the same for someone who realizes emptiness? namely, that the vision linked with cessation but still considered karmic.  if so, what then is the unique feature of tantra that enables it to be non-karmic?

Malcolm wrote:
this the explanation for someone who has realized the first bhumi in Mahāyāna.

The only vision that is non-karmic is buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
jeeprs said:
I am confused by that. What constitutes 'sexual misconduct'? How is one to intepret such traditional sources as the Surangama Sutra?
...

There are many comparable passages in Mahayana sutras, admonishing lust and sensual desire.

Malcolm wrote:
I am surprised you are asking this question. Sexual misconduct is defined by time, place, person and orifice. In terms of persons, it only defines married persons or persons spoken for (i.e. betrothed persons) as well as minors as well as person with whom engaging in sexual activity is inappropriate, such as non-consenting adults, in the case of rape of an adult (given that all sexual contact with minors is considered misconduct).

Secondly, there are many passages in the tantras which claim that passion can only be removed with passion, just as fire is removed with fire and water is removed with water, for example, in the Hevajra tantra, etc. Many such passages exist. The criteria for differentiating common vs. uncommon Mahayāna, i.e., Secret Mantra, is whether one is in the possession of the proper method or not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Benten said:
The problem with tantra seems to be its all coded and as soon as you take it literal and break away from the ten virtues you are nothing less than a hot mess.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no prohibition against having sexual partners outside of marriage even in sütra if one is also not married nor an exhortation to be married, even in sūtra, much less Vajrayāna.

The non-virtue of sexual misconduct does not mention anything about freely consenting free adults having relations with other freely consenting free adults. Further, alcohol is not mentioned amongst the ten non-virtues at all.

And, if you have a proper method, wine and sexual partners are not a problem (nowhere did I imply multiple sexual partners -- but even that is fine providing the criteria mentioned above is met).

Finally, Padmasambhava's advice that one's conduct be fine as a grain of sand does not mean following rules; rather, it means being aware of circumstances and acting appropriately at all times.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:


5heaps said:
what about this argument:


when you realize subtle selflessness (the lack of a substantial self-sufficient self to persons), you subsequently cognize the arya truths and your ordinary self-identity dissolves, at which time, there is an appearance of a divine self-identity.  divine meaning free from suffering, since you are briefly free from assenting to a substantial self.


Malcolm wrote:
No self identity at all arises at that time, divine or otherwise, but in the post-equipoise state, it is very clearly explained that one's vision is karmic, albeit, unreal. Therefore, as stated there is no method in common Mahāyāna similar to the path of transformation described in Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, July 8th, 2013 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Vajrajapa / Guhysamaja Question
Content:



Vajrabhijna said:
As it stands, I have a very casual transmission from a kagyu lama, who asked me to study English sources I could find. Those that I have found, I believe draw from Gelug sources. This is the root of my concern.

I am not trying to mix anything, my question is geared rather at unmixing anything. So we can conclude that there is no difference in the Gelug texts, or Tsonkhapa's exposition of the guhyasamaja, as from the Kagyu?



Malcolm wrote:
In general, for the most part the Gelug presentations of Guhyasamaja follow the commentarial tradition introduced by translator Go Lotsawa, who is considered part f the Sakya tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 7th, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Terrorist Bombing at Mahabodhi, Bodhgaya
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It should not go unnoticed that this attack was timed to coincide with HH Dalai Lama's birthday.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, July 7th, 2013 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Negative Consequence of Playing Cards
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I am not so sure. Look at what it really requires to have a complete and pure refuge, it is not such an easy thing.


Malcolm wrote:
Its a very easy thing, as the Uttaratantra states:
Ultimate refuge
is only the buddha,
because the Muni is endowed with the dharma body.
If one understands that definition of refuge, the others become secondary and not so important at all since the dharmakāya is the source of all other refuges, and exists as an innate attribute in all sentient beings. Therefore, the highest, most perfect refuge is one's own primal nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, July 6th, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: people's reactions
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I'm curious to hear stories (positive and negative) about how people in your life reacted whenever you consider yourself to have visibly "gotten serious" about Dharma practice.


Malcolm wrote:
MY family, atheists, never showed interest in Dharma, but were always supportive of my choice to be involved in Dharma, even when I thought I was a Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 5th, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
cdpatton said:
It was the failure of the government to maintain itself in the face of Hitler's illegalities that led to totalitarianism.

Malcolm wrote:
And those illegalities were largely permitted in an atmosphere of political disengagement and apathy.

Conditions are presently ripening in the United States for fascism to happen here. We are not there yet. But we are heading in that direction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, July 5th, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[
Actually, Facism in Italy, Germany and Spain came about because of lack of participation. For example, in 1933 in Germany, the Nazis only won because electiral turnout was abysmal.

kirtu said:
In the case of Germany that is untrue.

Malcolm wrote:
It is true:

"The resources of big business and the state were thrown behind the Nazis' campaign to achieve saturation coverage all over Germany. Brownshirts and SS patrolled and marched menacingly through the streets of cities and towns. A "combination of terror, repression and propaganda was mobilized in every... community, large and small, across the land."[6] To further ensure the outcome of the vote would be a Nazi majority, Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as deputy sheriffs by acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring."

The 1933 elections was one of the greatest vote suppression campaigns in modern electoral history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 4th, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Simon E. said:
As a sidebar I find myself wondering , and not for the first time , if some citizens of the USA realise how this kind of hysterical over -reaction makes them appear in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Sönam said:
Long time the rest of the world has no illusion about ... to pretend today that USA is the biggest democraty is a (very bad) joke. Everybody knows that ... except maybe US citizen?

Simon E. said:
I am sure that many Americans would find the reaction of its government just as puzzling as we Europeans do.


Malcolm wrote:
We do. I saw a billboard the other day that quipped " who said government doesn't listen?"

Everyone knows that the NSA has been recording all internet traffic and phone calls for at least decade. Snowden  merely produced documentary evidence that is irrefutable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 4th, 2013 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Konchog1 said:
History disagrees. From Caesar to Mao, dictators (which is what I assume you are referring to) have usually come into power through the passion of the people.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends very much on whose history one reads.

Actually, Facism in Italy, Germany and Spain came about because of lack of participation. For example, in 1933 in Germany, the Nazis only won because electiral turnout was abysmal.

Further, Mao and Ceasar did not come into power because of a popular mandate. They came into power through manipulation. In Ceasar's case, it was with the backing of his army.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 4th, 2013 at 1:42 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sentiments such as these are precursors to Fascism. Similarly, Obama's suggestion that we must weigh security against privacy, etc., are also such precursors.

M

Indrajala said:
Fascism is a natural response to failed alternatives. It can only come to exist through enough people supporting it, i.e., the mandate of the people.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Fascism never comes about because of a popular mandate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 4th, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Konchog1 said:
If that is freedom, I'd rather be a slave.

Malcolm wrote:
People often prefer their own slavery if it comes at the expense of the liberty of others of whom they disapprove.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, July 4th, 2013 at 12:37 PM
Title: Re: The Hunting of Ed Snowden - the evolving power-play
Content:
Indrajala said:
Freedom is overrated.

Malcolm wrote:
Sentiments such as these are precursors to Fascism. Similarly, Obama's suggestion that we must weigh security against privacy, etc., are also such precursors.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Title: Re: Madhyamakaratnapradipa reference from the Derge Tengyur
Content:
Greg said:
In the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism (Red Book), pg 169:
. . . it is stated in the Jewel Lamp of the Madhyamaka by the master Bhavya (skal-Idan): "The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with [extremist] Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara-Madhyamaka."
The note associated with the quote indicates "The quotation given here does not occur in the extant Tibetan text of Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradipa, rather it paraphrases passages found on fols. 280-1 of the Derge canonical edn. of the text: dbu-m a, Vol. Tsha."

As far as I know the terms "Prasangika" and "Svatantrika" are Tibetan innovation when used to describe discrete approaches to Madhyamaka. So I'm guessing this "quote" is a rather loose "paraphrase" indeed. Can anyone shed some light on what it actually says in fols. 280-1 of the Derge canonical edn. of the Madhyamakaratnapradipa: dbu-ma, Vol. Tsha?

Malcolm wrote:
It is basically an explanation of madhyamaka view from a Shantarakshita style perspective.

There is no mention of either prasanga or svatantra in the entire text. It is not a text by Bhavaviveka. Bhavya is a much later master, post Shantarakshita.

This passage basically states that Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva and Candrakīrti present a so-called "coarse outer Madhyamakas" when they speak from the relative truth point of view of śrāvakas; but then Bhavya also presents a couple of citations by Āryadeva and Candrakīrti which shows that in terms of the relative truth these three masters support the concept of mind-only in relative truth, and that this is the inner subtle madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: Which Skandha is Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Everything is sugatagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Most recent terma?
Content:
mutsuk said:
Even before Sechen, he had drang-srong (bonpo) vows which he did not want to give back when he had to convert to the buddhist vinaya. He was forced to anyway... In any case, his appreciation of gter-ma was pristine from the start, mostly because nearly 99 per cent of the Bon literature (in which he was such an expert) is gter-ma.

Malcolm wrote:
If you read his bio, there he recounts that because he devloped doubts about terma while at palpung he devloped some obstacles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 30th, 2013 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Lotus_Bitch said:
Ohhh, ok. I'm assuming this isn't invoking the dharmapala, right? Something that's  "unique" to zhitro?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a Muni for each of the six realms.

Lotus_Bitch said:
In the mandala of xitro, does Yamaraja have the same appearance as the dharmapala of the same name?

All I need is a yes or no answer...I must know!!!

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
In all the various wonderful descriptions of Amitabja's Pure Land, has anyone heard their political system described?

tobes said:
Vow number 10 of Dharmakara in the longer sutra sounds a lot like Lennon's political utopia;

"Blessed one, may I not awaken to unsurpassable, perfect, full awakening if the living beings who are born in this buddha-field should conceive of any idea of property, even if it is only with regard to their own body."

"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world"

Who was arguing for natural property rights again?? Not in the pure lands!


Malcolm wrote:
Correction, not in Amitabha's pureland, populated only by males.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Lotus_Bitch said:
Ohhh, ok. I'm assuming this isn't invoking the dharmapala, right? Something that's  "unique" to zhitro?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a Muni for each of the six realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Dharma never promises another better life. In fact it assures us that if we are passive and refuse to put the teachings into practice we will certainly not experience a better life in the hereafter.

The Buddha of the hell realms is Yamaraja.

M

Lotus_Bitch said:
That's the first time I've heard of Yama being referred to as a buddha. Yamaraja=Dharmaraja right?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a Xitro thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Religions, nearly universally promising another, better life after this one, have always been manipulated to justify the abuses of the power structure. Even if we do believe in rebirth, it shouldn't justify our complacence toward present injustice.

Also, I don't think both views are necessarily at odds. Bodhisattvas don't just descend into the hell realms with the intent of planting the seeds of dharma in future lives, right? They also try to assuage the suffering of the present.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharma never promises another better life. In fact it assures us that if we are passive and refuse to put the teachings into practice we will certainly not experience a better life in the hereafter.

The Buddha of the hell realms is Yamaraja.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Good grief, what are bodhisattvas up to anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
Benefitting others, but I don't think they were putting up Dharma event posters.

Will said:
True - more likely pillars of Dharma wisdom - like Ashoka did.

Malcolm wrote:
Sad thing is no one could read them after a couple hundred years, and worse no one in india knew who ashoka was until his memory was revived by the brits in the 19th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Good grief, what are bodhisattvas up to anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
Benefitting others, but I don't think they were putting up Dharma event posters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Nilasarasvati said:
It seems like you're saying that working for a political situation that brings people the relative liberties to practice cannot be the ripening of karma...
Malcolm:
There is nothing wrong with working for a political situation that brings people more samsaric liberty in general. Imagining that one is doing so to enable people to practice Dharma is a delusion — also nothing wrong with that either, apart from that fact that it is a useless occupation.
We contemplate the eight freedoms and ten endowments of a precious human birth in order to appreciate how truly rare is the opportunity to meet the Dharma and how truly difficult it is to put it into practice.
And,
when we figure out which of those freedoms and advantages that are missing, we are told to do anything in our power to gain them. Even samsaric activities, right?

Malcolm wrote:
For example, if someone is born in a country where even the name Dharma does not exist, what is there to do? If a sentient being is not born a human being, what is there to do? If one is born without sense organs, etc., what is there to do? There is no exhortation to supply conditions lacking in a human birth to make it "precious". You either have them or you don't. All of them are a result of karma, not one of them is a result of any kind of social activism. If you find you have the eighteen qualifications, then you should practice the Dharma. One either has these eighteen factors or one doesn't. If one has them, don't waste time on non-Dharmic activities.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 29th, 2013 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Nilasarasvati said:
It seems like you're saying that working for a political situation that brings people the relative liberties to practice cannot be the ripening of karma...


Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with working for a political situation that brings people more samsaric liberty in general. Imagining that one is doing so to enable people to practice Dharma is a delusion — also nothing wrong with that either, apart from that fact that it is a useless occupation.

We contemplate the eight freedoms and ten endowments of a precious human birth in order to appreciate how truly rare is the opportunity to meet the Dharma and how truly difficult it is to put it into practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 28th, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is simple: if you met with the Dharma in this life, you met with it in a past one. If one does not have that dependent origination, one will never meet the Dharma in this life.

anjali said:
People have to encounter the Dharma for the first time in some lifetime. Why can that not happen for some in this lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
It is as statistically improbable as it is statistically possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 28th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
These "liberties" are a result of our karma based on our own actions in past lives. There is nothing political about them.

Nilasarasvati said:
Kind of circular isn't it?
If you don't have the Karma to practice the Dharma, too bad! Work hard and make aspirations to be reborn wealthier so that you can!
If you have the karma to practise the Dharma, great! No need to help others less privileged do the same because it's just their karma.

Or, to be more than a little irreverent:

Shantarakshita: Please come to Tibet and help King Trisong Deutsen subdue the untameable beings, deities, and black magicians of this barbarous land!
Padmasambhava: I don't get involved in politics. If the Tibetans had the good merit to practice the Dharma, they'd have been born in a central land in the first place.

Malcolm wrote:
It is sad that people who are ostensibly Dharma practitioners seem not to understand the infallibility of karma. Nevertheless. It is simple: if you met with the Dharma in this life, you met with it in a past one. If one does not have that dependent origination, one will never meet the Dharma in this life. This why evangelism is useless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 28th, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All politics is reducible to parties with different sorts of self-oriented goals, including the politics of deep ecology (which has a self-oriented goal i.e. the preservation of the earth's ecosphere for all beings). But even saving the planet is not a Dharma goal. The goal of Dharma is concerned solely with the liberation of persons from samsara. If we extend this to Mahāyāna, still, all Mahāyāna schools are concerned with the liberation of persons from samsara.

The political process at all levels may be used to beautify samsara or control samsara, but politics is ultimately samsaric, that is the point of differentiating Dharma and politics.

tobes said:
Again, you just introduce a sweeping, immutable definition of politics - without reasons or evidence.

I do not think politics is reducible to this.

Two reasons why the goal of all Mahayana schools is itself - innately - political:

1. Practicing the Dharma requires negative liberty (freedom from coercion, either physical or epistemic).
2. Practicing the Dharma requires positive liberty (freedom to make use of ones potentiality).

This denies your basic claim that politics is necessarily ultimately samsaric: the goal of politics might be to liberate persons from samsara. Nagarjuna certainly thought that was plausible.


Malcolm wrote:
These "liberties" are a result of our karma based on our own actions in past lives. There is nothing political about them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 27th, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The function of the Dharma is to end samsaric dependent origination i.e. --> affliction --> action --> suffering, etc. This in turn is based upon afflictive obscurations. Afflictive obscurations in turn are based on knowledge obscurations, and the root of those is the habit of "I am".

This habit of "I am" (unreal as its supposed basis of designation may be) is sufficient for considering ordinary persons autonomous, since it is this very habit that gives them the capacity to act as autonomous agents i.e. acting solely with reference to their own interests.

The process of politics is entirely afflictive and afflicted, as far as I can tell, based on various false senses of identity, "I am", "We are", etc.

tobes said:
The process of a particular kind of politics might be predicated on various false senses of identity. But you have not established that politics per se necessarily expresses or manifests as those afflicted processes.

You just assert this as an immutable definition.



Malcolm wrote:
No, I assert this as a practical definition, since there are no other kinds of politics or political processes apart from those which I define above, AFAIK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 26th, 2013 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Just one issue, for me:  seperating Dharma from politics seems to be like trying to seperate samsara from Nirvana, the relative from the absolute, etc...  ie, as things stand right now, it just ain't happening!

Malcolm wrote:
Both samsara and nirvana are conventional states, as are the notions relative and absolute, etc. But unlike dharmin and dharmatā of water, for example; we can't really say that the intrinsic nature of politics [dharmin] is Dharma [dharmatā].

gregkavarnos said:
So you are saying there is something (a dharma) which is not (included in the) Dharmakaya?  Actually maybe Dharmadhatu would probably be the more correct term.

Malcolm wrote:
Am I saying politics is not empty? Of course politics is empty, so is Dharma. Everything is included in the state of dharmakāya. But that has nothing to with the present discussion. At least, not as far as I can observe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 26th, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Just one issue, for me:  seperating Dharma from politics seems to be like trying to seperate samsara from Nirvana, the relative from the absolute, etc...  ie, as things stand right now, it just ain't happening!

Malcolm wrote:
Both samsara and nirvana are conventional states, as are the notions relative and absolute, etc. But unlike dharmin and dharmatā of water, for example; we can't really say that the intrinsic nature of politics [dharmin] is Dharma [dharmatā].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 25th, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: On Dealing with Destructive Emotions
Content:


gregkavarnos said:
Does any of this stuff sound familiar?


Malcolm wrote:
Of course, fruit of the paths of Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are the same.

The differences lie in how one is introduced to one's primordial state and the method used for discovering and maintaing that state.

Mahāmudra has very few methods: either the two stages, practicing the four yogas or suddenly awakening, like Saraha.

Dzogchen, by contrast, has a plethora which are adapted to every conceivable capacity of interested persons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 25th, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
The Buddha does reject the autonomous person conventionally. It is not a question of finding a place where he does so explicitly, as it is about realising the disjuncture between the kind of conventional person posited by the Buddha, and the kinds of autonomy westerners tend to mean when they say autonomy. Sure there is still a conventional person of some kind, but the kind of conventional person given (by the Buddha) is - necessarily - a process and relational conventional  person. i.e. there is no moral autonomy of the kind favoured by western theologians or philosophers, grounded in a concept of soul or rationality or will or transcendental ego. There is perhaps something akin to what is favoured by the British empiricists - a dispositional theory of agency where there is some kind of autonomy found in choice making....but this is still a very social conception of agency.

Malcolm wrote:
First, when I say autonomous person, I am referring to a person, the most irreducible nominal basis of which is a unique and independent mind stream, with a unique and specific karma, as well as unique and specific causes and conditions. Invoking karana hetu [each and everything is a cause for all other things apart from itself] etc. is too broad and is an overapplication of the principle.

Autonomy is essential to the definition of "person" [pudgala]. A convention is understood on the basis its definition. Buddha deconstructed persons via the devices of skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus, etc. Nevertheless, karma ripens only on an autonomous person. So it is difficult to argue that Buddha denied autonomous persons conventionally.

tobes said:
The question of dependent origination probably lies at the heart of this conversation; this is where the two truths become important. I think that the Dharma leads us into an apprehension of the dependently originated nature of things, not away from dependent origination per se. But I'm fairly sure you think otherwise - and this is probably the reason for our disagreement.

Malcolm wrote:
The function of the Dharma is to end samsaric dependent origination i.e. --> affliction --> action --> suffering, etc. This in turn is based upon afflictive obscurations. Afflictive obscurations in turn are based on knowledge obscurations, and the root of those is the habit of "I am".

This habit of "I am" (unreal as its supposed basis of designation may be) is sufficient for considering ordinary persons autonomous, since it is this very habit that gives them the capacity to act as autonomous agents i.e. acting solely with reference to their own interests.

The process of politics is entirely afflictive and afflicted, as far as I can tell, based on various false senses of identity, "I am", "We are", etc.


tobes said:
Obviously the Buddha does not instruct us to join a political party - but it does not follow from that that the Dharma is distinct from politics. For many reasons -  namely that politics is not reducible to party politics and that a contemporary Buddhist cannot read the Buddha's advice in the Nikaya's and apply it as if we are still in ancient India (i.e. obviously there was not party politics taking place there).

Malcolm wrote:
All politics is reducible to parties with different sorts of self-oriented goals, including the politics of deep ecology (which has a self-oriented goal i.e. the preservation of the earth's ecosphere for all beings). But even saving the planet is not a Dharma goal. The goal of Dharma is concerned solely with the liberation of persons from samsara. If we extend this to Mahāyāna, still, all Mahāyāna schools are concerned with the liberation of persons from samsara.

The political process at all levels may be used to beautify samsara or control samsara, but politics is ultimately samsaric, that is the point of differentiating Dharma and politics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 25th, 2013 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method.

dzogchungpa said:
This is interesting to me. Can you provide a reference?
Also, I would point out that proteins are not the only macronutrients.

seeker242 said:
The most recent reference that I know of comes from the "American Dietetic Association", now known as "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics" and is the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. They published a well referenced position paper on it. It can be found here. The abstract is pretty self explanatory. http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357

Malcolm wrote:
Bunch of quacks.

A 1995 report noted the AND received funding from companies like McDonald's, PepsiCo, The Coca Cola Company, Sara Lee, Abbott Nutrition, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, SOYJOY, Truvia, Unilever, and The Sugar Association as corporate sponsorship.[16] The AND also partners with ConAgra Foods, which produces Orville Redenbacker, Slim Jims, Hunt’s Ketchup, SnackPacks, and Hebrew National hot dogs, to maintain the American Dietetic Association/ConAgra Foods Home Food Safety...It's in Your Hands program.[48] Additionally, the AND earns revenue from corporations by selling space at its booth during conventions, doing this for soft drinks and candy makers.[16][49]

In April 2013, a dietitian working on a panel charged with setting policy on genetically modified foods for the academy contended she was removed for pointing out that two of its members had ties to Monsanto, one of the biggest makers of genetically modified seeds.[50] The resulting controversy highlighted the fact that Ms. Smith Edge, chairwoman of the committee charged with developing the GMO policy, is a senior vice president at the International Food Information Council, which is largely financed by food, beverage and agriculture businesses, including companies like DuPont, Bayer CropScience and Cargill, companies that were among the biggest financial opponents of a State of California GMO labeling initiative.[51]

The AND maintains that being at the "same table" with food companies is important in order to exert a positive influence over their products and message, although critics describe this as an “unhealthy alliance” between the AND and junk food companies.[49][52] The accusation is that despite what good may come of such programs, it ultimately whitewashes (similar to the greenwashing efforts of environmentally irresponsible companies) the brand’s role in the country’s food ecosystem. Watchdogs note that the AND rarely criticizes food companies, believing it to be out of fear of "biting the hand that feeds them."[53][54][55] Nutrition expert Marion Nestle opined that she believed that as long as the AND partners with the makers of food and beverage products, “its opinions about diet and health will never be believed [to be] independent.”[49] A 2011 survey found that 80% of Academy members are critical of the Academy's position. They believe that the Academy is endorsing corporate sponsors and their products when it allows their sponsorship.[56]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Nutrition_and_Dietetics


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I cannot see how one can practice Dharma in this world system without impacting on a social/poltical level.  Seems impossible to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I ever say that Dharma practitioners were incapable of impacting society or politics? No, I never suggested such a thing. In fact I acknowledged several times that Dharma practitioners could have such impacts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The very fact that a Bodhisattva requires an other to act on, undeniably immediately places them in a social and political context.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not bear the consequence that Dharma and politics are mutually inclusive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
He did not say that about growing vegetables!

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in fact for monks, cultivating vegetables is wrong livelihood because digging in the ground etc., causes harm to sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The social character of Dharma is also clearly evident in the "other-oriented"  attitutde of the Bodhisattvas.

Malcolm wrote:
Bodhisattvas are "other-oriented" because they see how sentient beings are suffering. They engage in deeds to benefit others.

But whether those deeds are transformative or are worldly does not depend on the social relationships in which those deeds take place.

Their function as deeds depends on the depth of realization of the person, and not the social context of the deeds themselves.

For example, the acts of giving away bread to the hungry performed by an ordinary person, a bodhisattva and a buddha do not have the same value. The deed is evaluated on the realization of the agent, not on the plight of the recipient, since all recipients are assumed to be suffering equally by virtue of their all being trapped in the three realms of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
It clearly cannot be contained to the sphere of the personal.

The Dharma opens us up to an ontology of interdependence, which radically undermines the distinctions between the personal and the social.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't attain liberation through Dharma practice in groups.

tobes said:
That in itself is highly political, because it denies the kinds of politics predicated on atomistic, autonomous individuals.

I'm really not sure how this could be denied.....

Malcolm wrote:
Can you point to some teaching by the Buddha where he rejected autonomous persons conventionally? The same arguments that negate the identity of the person can be used to negate the identity of the polis. Certainly the Buddha's intent was not to replace a sense individual personhood with a sense of collective or dependent personhood. His intent was to expose absence of identity, the lack of recognition of which is the primary cause of suffering.

Your "ontology of interdependence" is something that has been abstracted out of Dharma teachings by intellectuals; but it is not point of Dharma itself. The point of Dharma teachings is to overcome that fact of interdependence. The point of Dharma is the personal reversal of samsaric dependent origination.

Where does the Buddha instruct us to use our Dharma conscience to join the political party of our choice, for example the Green Party, The Tea Party, etc.?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Because it seems like Chatral Sangye Dorje does.


Malcolm wrote:
He is entitled to his opinion. I don't follow people because they have famous reputations or are the disciples of famous people. I honestly could care less what Chatral Rinpoche thinks. I know what I think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Nilasarasvati said:
Do you really think though that there is no difference between eating a bowl of cheerios and eating a big bowl of hamburger helper?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Whereas if I eat a bowl of cheerios, I'm only dealing with the harm that came from raising the grain.


Malcolm wrote:
For example us say you are eating organic cheerios. Organic oats are generally fertilized with bone meal, all from slaughtered animals.

You cannot abstract your Cheerios out of the loop. It just wont work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
smcj said:
From "Writings of Kalu Rinpoche" tr. McLeod:

NON-MERITORIOUS KARMA

The non-virtuous acts emerge from emotional dispositions, and are explained as follows:

Physical Acts

The first is the taking of life. Taking life because of desire means killing for the sake of meat, skin, bones, musk, or other parts of an animal, for money, or to protect yourself or your friends. Taking life out of anger means killing because of enmity or dispute. Taking life for the wake of offerings or gifts, thinking that it is virtuous, is killing because of stupidity.

Greg & I are both Kagyus. Maybe it's a Kagyu thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand the formal definitions of how the three mental non-virtues work and their consequence on the actions of killing and so on. This is all very carefully explained in Abhidharmakosha [chapter four], which I have studied in close detail for many years.

But you cannot kill without aversion for the thing you are killing, even if you are killing it out of greed [brnab sems] or wrong view [log lta] -- underneath that greed or wrong view will still be a deeper affliction of hatred.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To slay a sentient being requires the desire that they no longer exist [dvesha]. All such slaying then comes from a sense of enmity.

gregkavarnos said:
When I used to hunt rabbits I did it coz they tasted really good as a pot roast with red wine, bay leaves, baby onions and garlic, not coz I hated them.  On the contrary, they were cute, furry, fluffy and hipppity-hoppity, but they tasted damn fine!

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry Greg, but in order to slay, you have to desire the non-existence of another sentient being. It is impossible that state of mind exists without being tinged with aversion, no matter how slight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Nilasarasvati said:
I still think your conception of "individual only" dharma is slanted by Western romanticism, individualism, the enlightenment or something---I mean, I agree with all the consequences you probably have in mind (when Dharma and Politics go wrong--our current situation in Myanmar for example) but I'm afraid you have your head in the ether cloud of ideal shoulds and shouldn'ts rather than talking about people's ordinary lived realities.

Malcolm wrote:
My opinion is a product of my direct observation of people in action with each other "in the name of the Dharma" over the past 25 years; and having studied the socio-political history of Buddhism as it has existed for the past 2500 years in this epoch.

Just as there is no group karma, there is also no group Dharma. Dharma is solely about personal evolution and transformation. If enough people evolve and transform, well then, what a nice place to live that would be.

In fact, it is the observation of people's ordinary lived realities that has lead me to my present conclusion. It is one of the reasons I made a radical distinction between Dharma and Buddhism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, not taking life is about eliminating enmity in your own mind, first, and secondarily about protecting others.

gregkavarnos said:
If it was about eliminating enmity then it would be proscription against enmity and not specifically against taking life.  Anyway, people do not take life based strictly on enmity, they may do so based on greed, on pride, etc...  A butcher does not hate the livestock he slaughters.

Malcolm wrote:
To slay a sentient being requires the desire that they no longer exist [dvesha]. All such slaying then comes from a sense of enmity.



gregkavarnos said:
This is not a quality of politics per se but a quality of samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Politics is just a samsara of hope and fear. In politics there are always winners and always losers. In Dharma there are only winners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
With the main issue being that some types of food are more harmful and other types are less harmful!


Malcolm wrote:
This is false. All food production is equally harmful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The sphere of the Dharma is not the polis, it is the person.

Then Dharma is not about creating a better society, or a more equitable society -- it never has been. The sphere of the Dharma is personal, it is about personal evolution.

gregkavarnos said:
And the teachings of the Noble Eightfold Path?  The proscription on not taking life is about not taking anothers life.  That makes it social.  No taking what is not given (stealing)?  Social.  etc...


Malcolm wrote:
No, not taking life is about eliminating enmity in your own mind, first, and secondarily about protecting others.

Ahimsa, on the other hand, is a mental factor which functions in concert with the other positive mental factors, also it is not social necessarily. For example, we extend the principle of ahimsa even to so called "non-sentient" life like trees and so on.

But you know, this is just my opinion. I think that Dharma and politics are separate, not that they have to kept secret. We can clearly see the results of the two things are very different. One results inevitably in peace and contentment; the other, constant struggle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 24th, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The sphere of the Dharma is not the polis, it is the person.

Nilasarasvati said:
How does this distinction of yours function when it runs into the concept of Sangha?

Malcolm wrote:
Good question. Is the Sangha a polis? No, I don't think so. It is merely a name for a group of people on the path or who have realized the result of that path who may or may not live or associate in a community. For example, pratyakabuddhas are also Sangha, etc.

To the extent that such like-minded people assemble [sangha] and work to achieve a common spiritual goal, it is constant struggle for them to keep their relationships pure and focused on the Dharma. Too often, such community efforts wind up spoiled by politics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 23rd, 2013 at 6:41 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
tobes said:
For mine, I do not see how 'The Dharma' - in any form - is distinct from action, interrelation, causes, conditions and effects. So long as it is related to these things, then it may shape, constitute or inform them. And these are partly political phenomena, unless one chooses to define 'the political' in a very specific and particular way, such as a liberal-democratic sphere of law making and popular representation.

I have yet to see a convincing argument against that.

Malcolm wrote:
The sphere of the Dharma is not the polis, it is the person.

Then Dharma is not about creating a better society, or a more equitable society -- it never has been. The sphere of the Dharma is personal, it is about personal evolution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 23rd, 2013 at 6:36 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
tobes said:
So in short: one of the most contradictory elements in this thread is the deeply political claim that the Dharma ought to be separate from politics.

It is contradictory because that position itself situates the Dharma in a very particular, highly political way.

i.e. it frames the Dharma through and in relation to a liberal-secularist ideology.


Malcolm wrote:
If you prefer to see it that way, you will.

I don't see it that way.

1) the claim that Dharma and politics belong to separate spheres is not a political claim
2) that claim itself does not politicize Dharma
3) that claim has a long tradition stemming back to a pre-liberal secularist era.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 23rd, 2013 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Malcolm, I've always heard "Nirvana is beyond extremes" which seems much more helpful in establishing the view---is it really just Nirvana is peace (ksanti?).

smcj said:
I'm not a translator, but i prefer something that suggests the end of the road, like 'finality' or 'fulfillment' rather than 'peaceful' or 'peace'.


Malcolm wrote:
༈ འདུ་བྱེད་ཐམས་ཅད་མི་རྟག་ཅིང༌།
ཟག་བཅས་ཐམས་ཅད་སྡུག་བསྔལ་བ།
ཆོས་རྣམས་སྟོང་ཞིང་བདག་མེད་པ།
མྱང་ངན་འདས་པ་ཞི་བའོ། །

Literally:

All conditioned [phenomena] are impermanent.
All contaminated [phenomena] are suffering.
All phenomena are empty and lack self.
Nirvana is peace [ཞི་བའོ].

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 22nd, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Well Politics isn't a substitute or equivalent to Dharma...that's silly.

As for your translation of the 4 Seals...hmmm...I think it leaves much of the nuance out.


Malcolm wrote:
They is generally given as:

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All afflicted phenomena are suffering.
All phenomena lack self.
Nirvana is peaceful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I cannot see how you can describe it so unidirectionally.

Malcolm wrote:
What can I say? When Dharma and politics mix, politics is never enhanced, and Dharma loses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I said, of course Dharma practitioners can act politically, even have political biases and opinions, but they should never confuse their political beliefs and opinions with the Dharma they are attempting to put into practice.

gregkavarnos said:
So are you saying that Dharma cannot inform politics (political ideology, political action)?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you are a Dharma practitioner, everything you do should be informed by your observance of Dharma principles such as non-harming, and so on. But, should a Dharma practitioner seek to outlaw abortion through political action and claim it is an act of Dharma "politics"? No, I don't think so. Why? Because we should not try and legislate our conscience on others. That would be forcing other people to adopt our principles. This is antithetical to Dharma, in my opinion.

So while a Dharma person may make this or that political decision based on their conscience as a Dharma practitioner, they should not claim that their political choices are "Dharmic" as opposed to the political choices of a Christian, Moslem or a religious Jew.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: East Bay - White Tara and Vajrayogini with Jetsun Kushok
Content:
namoh said:
I'm curious, and perhaps Malcolm or Kirtu could shed some light on this, but is the Uncommon White Tara given by Jetsun Kusho la the same as the White Tara initiation that HE Dagmo Kusho Sakya in Seattle gives from time to time?

Will

Malcolm wrote:
Probably.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
kirtu said:
All Buddhist political elements that have been unable to defend themselves have gotten swallowed up except for Nepal.
That's supposed to read: except for Bhutan.  I would just change it but it's been quoted in response already.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Bhutan is a very repressive kingdom. Hardly the ideal Dharma polity you imagine.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/40554

http://www.expontomagazine.com/nl/opinie/244-bhutans-way-of-ethnic-cleansing

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 21st, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


kirtu said:
People still have to make mundane decisions about grain storage, etc.  Scarce resources still need to be allocated (the essence of economics) and people still need guidance in living in society (the essence of politics) if only to promote cooperation.  Beyond one's door some degree of picking and choosing becomes necessary.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course -- the role of politics is just such practical considerations.

But when people start saying "My point of view about grain storage is justified in this or that sutra of the Buddha", than at that point one is, to quote a mind training slogan, "reducing a god into a demon".

The difference between politics and Dharma is the difference between glasses and a mirror: one uses the former to focus on things outside oneself; but a mirror is used to investigate oneself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 20th, 2013 at 8:01 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
kirtu said:
Secondly, your scenario requires a monarchy.
Doesn't require a monarchy.  That part of the myth is irrelevant.

Malcolm wrote:
Seems pretty key to me.


kirtu said:
Third, Shambhala was destroyed by other humans, so it didn't really work out so well for the Shambhalians,
All Buddhist political elements that have been unable to defend themselves have gotten swallowed up except for Nepal.  This is a serious problem.  But it probably just means that Shambhala-like communities need to be created in relatively stable environments.

Malcolm wrote:
Shambhala was a kingdom, a real historical place. It was destroyed by Muslims in the eighth century.

kirtu said:
Anyway Buddhist utopianism is as much a fantasy as any other kind of utopianism.
Really?  Like Changchub Dorje's commune?  It sounds like that worked out pretty well.

Malcolm wrote:
Chanchub Dorje's place was not a utopia. It was just a small place in Khams where there were a bunch of Dharma practitioners following a teacher. But there was certainly no political ideology governing the place, utopian or otherwise. If one is a perfect Dharma practitioner, what need for politics will one have?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 20th, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
jeeprs said:
Politics is unavoidable on the level of conventional existence. It might have no ultimate significance but as long as people have to live in communities, follow laws, provide public services, and so on, then some kind of political engagement is unavoidable.

Even the Buddhist teaching itself is only an 'expedient means' to help beings realise the true nature. That is the meaning of the parable of the Raft, is it not?

It follows from that, I would think, that the kind of political system that Buddhism would encourage would be minimalist and self-limiting. Of course the obvious difficulty with that is that the ruthless will immediately see the opportunities for exploiting it. So in an 'ideal existence' there would be no need for politics, or even Buddhism, for that matter, but the world is never like that, it is an intermediate realm, within which politics plays a necessary part. I don't see how you can avoid that without basically ceding the field to self-interest.

Malcolm wrote:
Politics is all about self-interest. That is yet another reason that it is incompatible with Dharma. Politics is not based on wisdom. It is always based on conflicts.

Buddhisms of course are not Dharma, and can encourage all the politics they like -- this is why we can have Green Buddhism, Marxist Buddhism, Conservative Buddhism, etc. Buddhisms are just sects based on the limitations and biases of their followers.

As I said, of course Dharma practitioners can act politically, even have political biases and opinions, but they should never confuse their political beliefs and opinions with the Dharma they are attempting to put into practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 20th, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: East Bay - White Tara and Vajrayogini with Jetsun Kushok
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Thanks. So, is this practice related to what DJKR will be giving this August:
http://www.siddharthasintent.org/2013/01/abhisheka-and-teachings.html,
which I am also planning to attend?


Malcolm wrote:
Different lineages: that relates to Vimalamitra, Padmasambhava and Shri Singha, if I recall correctly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 20th, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
So individual ownership is natural, but particular individuals per se nor particular entities do not substantially exist.

Malcolm wrote:
So individual ownership is natural [conventionally, just as selves are], but particular individuals per se nor particular entities do not substantially exist [ultimately].

tobes said:
So who naturally owns what and how is that grounded?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventional persons own conventional things.


tobes said:
you need a theory of substance to ground a claim for natural rights.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not follow: you simply need conventional persons.


tobes said:
Most Buddhists profoundly reject such a theory, and it is clearly not found in the sutta addressed to Siggalakka

Malcolm wrote:
What is found in the Siggalaka sutta is the notion that lay people should employ others, save wealth, and so on -- all of which is predicated on the common sense notion that individuals own things.

tobes said:
You can however, get ground for positivist rights, when you acknowledge that concepts (and thus, rights) are nominal and conventional

Malcolm wrote:
Water is a convention, nevertheless, wetness is innate to water. Conventionality and innateness are not mutually exclusive, though some people who badly misunderstand things think so.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 20th, 2013 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
Moreover, whilst I agree that the precept not to take property presupposes a theory of property rights, that theory cannot be a ' natural right to individual ownership' - the predications of such a theory are not at all commensurate with Buddhist metaphysics or ethics.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is. Just read the Siggalaka sutta.





tobes said:
That only leaves the possibility of a positivist right

Malcolm wrote:
Stealing is a natural non-virtue, not a "positivist" non-virtue. Therefore, ownership is a natural right, not a positivist right.

In any case, you can have all the fine definitions and subtle nonsense you want. It is just intellectual self-stimulation. Dharma and politics are not compatible.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 20th, 2013 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: East Bay - White Tara and Vajrayogini with Jetsun Kushok
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm curious about this Uncommon White Tara Empowerment. She seems to give it quite often.
Does anyone here know anything about it?

kirtu said:
It's an Annutarayoga tantra White Tara that may come from Jamyang Khyentse Wango. http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=White_Tara_Wishfulfilling_Wheel is the RigaWiki entry.  Generally Sakayapas don't talk about the details of higher practices and Khenpo Kalsang said next to nothing about it.   So it's a kind of secret practice to some extent although HE Jetsun Kusho-la gives it often.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
It is not really that secret at all.

The origin of the practice is Bari Lotsawa, passed through the Kagyu lineage (Gampopa apparently extended his life with this practice) until it rejoined Sakya during the period of Tsarchen Losal Gyatso. It was one of Khyentse Wangpo's very important practices and he supposedly possessed a thangka of White Tara that could speak.

It is a very wonderful practice, but it is quite complicated in terms of the visualization. Khyentse Wangpo composed a teaching manual on it, that is spread out over one week or so.

The essential visualization of the protection cakra is combined into Dzogchen Community Tara practice. So receiving this initiation and practice is a good support for the DC practice.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcom said:
No. You do this as a practitioner on the path, not when you have realized mahāmudra. Anyway, you are missing the point -- which is: only in Vajrayāna (anuttarayoga tantra) does one make offerings to oneself as the deity from the beginning. These principles are so basic, I am surprised that practitioners who have been practicing for years do not understand this.

Ben Yuan said:
Thanks for clarifying.

I hope it did not come across as if I was trying to pass my suggestion as an official practice of a lineage, it is just something I made up myself. Apologies.


Malcolm wrote:
Ah, well — it is always best to base oneself on authority. In reality, the proper way to have a conversation about the dharma is to make a statement, then present a sutra or a tantra which shows that one has not indulged in personal fabrications. Then the worst thing that can happen is that someone will show you why you have not understood the sense of the statement.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
greentara said:
Indeed no political position is in accordance with the dharma.  Discord resides anywhere where people are urged to take sides in a way that urges them, as Iago does in Shakespeare's Othello, to ''mock the meat'' on which hate, jealousy and desire for power feeds.

gregkavarnos said:
Really?  And what of King Menander and Ashoka then?


Malcolm wrote:
Ashoka's biased favoring of the Vaibhajyavadins was pure politics and not Dharma. Also, he was a war criminal (which everyone seems to blank out on), excused because he was forgotten in India until the Brits revived his memory from the pillars (which noone could read for two millennia.)

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
Example 1: if from the perspective of the Dharma, there can be no grasping to phenomenal entities, no sense of 'mine', no sense of possession....then it follows that there cannot be a grounding for individual ownership - in the form of natural, innate or even positivist rights.

Malcolm wrote:
False, if this were the case, there could be no precept against taking what is not given. Property is recognized as a natural right in Dharma. I.e. the precept against taking what is not given.

For example, in Dharma, it is illegal to destroy the homes of beings. For example, the bodhisattva vow maintains that it is violation of that vow to destroy cities, towns and so on. One could extend this to ant hills and so on.

tobes said:
Therefore, if a Buddhist practices a politics predicated on the preservation of those rights, they are out of accord with the Dharma.
However, if a Buddhist practices a politics which is explicitly the negation of those individual rights to ownership, than she is in accord with the Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
False, as above.

tobes said:
It is not the case that both of those positions are equal with respect to the Dharma, and that therefore, there is no relationship between the political and the Dharma. One is in accord with it, one is not in accord with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Those positions are equal with respect to Dharma since neither position has to do with achieving liberation in Dharmic sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:


kirtu said:
If you have actualized your perception 100% as the deity.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
No. You do this as a practitioner on the path, not when you have realized mahāmudra. Anyway, you are missing the point -- which is: only in Vajrayāna (anuttarayoga tantra) does one make offerings to oneself as the deity from the beginning. These principles are so basic, I am surprised that practitioners who have been practicing for years do not understand this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
Ben Yuan said:
If you sense a tasty piece of food, and then in your mind later you desire that tasty piece of food, thinking of all it's good and pleasurable and gratifying qualities, you can dedicate all the pleasure of that thought to the Buddhas. Similarly, when you sense the tasty piece of food, you can dedicate the pleasure to the Buddhas, and of course, when you are eating, you can visualise yourself as offering it to the Buddhas a food offering.

Malcolm wrote:
Which just generally reinforces the idea that common Mahāyāna is not about enjoying sense pleasures for oneself, unlike Vajrayāna.

Ben Yuan said:
Not if you are the Buddha who is eating the offering (which you are).


Malcolm wrote:
If you are practicing Vajrayāna there is no need to dedicate the enjoyment of the objects of the five senses to "the buddhas", you enjoy them since you are offering them to yourself. There is no method of doing this in common Mahāyāna. It simply does not exist there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
in so far as consciously trying to hide your views about politics could be a political choice.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't try to hide my political views, I merely understand that they are not Dharma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Politics is fundamentally about accepting and rejecting — the basis of the eight so called worldly dharmas i.e. praise/blame and so on.
...
This is why Dharma and politics are incompatible, and why, even though Dharma practitioners may act politically if they choose, they should understand that those actions are based in human ethics rather then sublime Dharma.

kirtu said:
However we have the mythological example of Shambhala where enlightened Dharma rulers were able to act politically without their actions based on human ethics.  We can begin over time to actualize this archetype.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
One word there, Kirt, and it is a big one: "mythological".

Secondly, your scenario requires a monarchy.

Third, Shambhala was destroyed by other humans, so it didn't really work out so well for the Shambhalians, kind of like Stalin's Socialism in One Country. That didn't work out either. Anyway Buddhist utopianism is as much a fantasy as any other kind of utopianism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Also, the Thinley Norbu quote has a lot of really amazing implications that have gone undiscussed. I may have completely misunderstood it, but I posted it with you in mind, Malcolm.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because you misunderstand what I am getting at. I am not suggesting that Dharma practitioners should refrain from being active in politics. I am merely suggesting that politics and Dharma do not mix.

For example, we have a Dharma practitioner who is a free market neo-liberal advocate of corporate globalization; we have another Dharma practitioner who is a conservative royalist who believes in mercantile economics; we have a Dharma practitioner who is a leftist labor social activist; and we have someone like myself, a proponent of deep ecology/left-biocentrism. We can many more variations and flavors.

Whose politics are right? Whose politics are in line with Dharma? Whose selective point of view wrapped up in accepting and rejecting, biased opinion and limited thinking is the one that accords best with the principles of Buddha's teachings?

My point of view is that no political position is in accordance with Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Jikan said:
OK.  What is the word for conduct that is based on wisdom and not on thinking and judging and choosing?  How would you characterize such activity?

Malcolm wrote:
Rare.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing.

M

tobes said:
This seems to me to be an arbitrary demarcation.

Unless wisdom is trapped eternally in some Platonic realm, then it must be able to interact with phenomena. If it can interact with phenomena, then it can be political.



Malcolm wrote:
It's really not hard — the purpose of Dharma is to transcend worldly entanglements like politics, power, government etc.

Politics is fundamentally about accepting and rejecting — the basis of the eight so called worldly dharmas i.e. praise/blame and so on.

So advice about conduct in Dharma, any Dharma, is ultimately about becoming free from those eight worldly dharmas.

This is why Dharma and politics are incompatible, and why, even though Dharma practitioners may act politically if they choose, they should understand that those actions are based in human ethics rather then sublime Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: Uncommon Mahayana Approaches to Dealing With Desire
Content:
Ben Yuan said:
If you sense a tasty piece of food, and then in your mind later you desire that tasty piece of food, thinking of all it's good and pleasurable and gratifying qualities, you can dedicate all the pleasure of that thought to the Buddhas. Similarly, when you sense the tasty piece of food, you can dedicate the pleasure to the Buddhas, and of course, when you are eating, you can visualise yourself as offering it to the Buddhas a food offering.

Malcolm wrote:
Which just generally reinforces the idea that common Mahāyāna is not about enjoying sense pleasures for oneself, unlike Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing. M

MalaBeads said:
As a statement, I would agree.

However, a query immediately comes to mind. There was plenty of Dharma, based on wisdom, in old Tibet. And yet....look what happened.

In your opinion, Malcolm, what happened there?

Malcolm wrote:
There was more counterfeit Dharma in old Tibet than authentic Dharma towards the end — mostly, but not exclusively, in the monastic establishment (in case anyone was wondering why I think the monastic system is basically defunct and not worth preserving).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


kirtu said:
That's true but my "practice" of Dzogchen won't get too far.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
The only one placing that limitation on you is yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nyingma =/= Dzogchen.

M

heart said:
Would be interesting if you could offer some proof of that strange idea, but there seems to be nothing at all.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is snga 'gyur early translation, but then so is yoga tantra, and so on, even Vinaya.

I would say that Nyingma = Guhyagarbha -- that is the main tantra of the Nyingma school.

But the main tantra of Dzogpa Chenpo is not Guhyagarbha, it is the sgra thal gyur.

Since this is the case, really, Nyingma is a Vajrayāna school. Further, Nyingma is a gradual path school. Dzogchen is not a gradual path at all, not even a little.

We have had this discussion in various forms for years, no need to hash it out again.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma is not some objective thing independent of the world; it is a collection of truths, ideas, practices and values all of which are expressive of the way one is and ought to be in the world. In this sense, it is always and already political.
Ok, well, in this case we do not agree. Dharma is two-fold, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts. What is the Dharma of realization? It is pretty straight-forward, summed up in the Lalitavistara, it is blissful, free from proliferation, luminous, permanent, etc. The Dharma of texts allows one to taste and realize that state.

Jikan said:
Hi Malcolm, I'm having a hard time understanding how this rebuts tobes' claim on conduct in the world, which (to my mind) necessarily involves integrating in all moments and in all relationships.  Which means that realization must be, in this limited sense, a social phenomenon, even a collaborative one.  I think I see more agreement between your position and tobes than disagreement if this exchange is taken in a bigger context.

Am I misunderstanding?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
Who wrote it?  Would you please give the title in Tibetan?  Precious Tree ( རིན་པོ་ཆེ ལྗོན་ཤིང་), Precious Wish-Granting Tree?

Malcolm wrote:
"rgyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che'i ljon shing/." In sa skya bka' 'bum. TBRC W22271. 6: 9 - 286. dehra dun: sakya center, 1992-1993. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O01CT0026%7CO01CT002600KG04025$W22271


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
As for Dzogchen, all I can say is that in general Dzogchen practitioners are not governed by rules at all, there are no vows or samayas to follow in particular, no paths and stages, no particular conduct to adopt or reject. As long as you are mindful and not indifferent you don't need rules, vows and samayas.
You mean other than maintaining the view.

Malcolm wrote:
Not even maintaining the view is a samaya.

kirtu said:
But this is where people (Black Rudra of example) can run into trouble.

Malcolm wrote:
Tharpa Nagpo got into trouble because he had a nihilistic view, not because he had a good view.

kirtu said:
As Andreas Kreschmar has noted, around wisdom masters, everything gets enhanced.

Malcolm wrote:
And he is an authority because...?

kirtu said:
There is a least one Nyingma teaching that combines all three approaches (Sravakayana, Paramitayana and Vajrayana).
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Nyingma =/= Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
His disciples had noticed that his behavior had changed slightly and were worried about him...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it seems that once he had some real understanding, he wasn't such an exemplary monastic anymore...

kirtu said:
If you assert that then you have misread the story even though the story does allow multiple readings.  It wasn't until the tsok, later, that he may have violated his vows with women (although he didn't - different people spying on him saw different things - the women some saw were dakinis), after which Virupa really played up the part to avoid embarrassing his students and to provide them a lesson.

But you are correct - after some real understanding - after attaining the bhumis - he was not bound by convention.

But before attaining the bhumis, people need to continue to develop their wisdom and accumulate virtue and strictly (not legalistically) follow the training of the individual liberation precepts, their Bodhisattva Vows and very strictly keep their samaya if they practice Vajrayana.  Most of the time these are not in conflict.  The higher trumps the lower but most of the time the individual liberation precepts support Vajrayana conduct.  As Padmasambhava said : "Our view is as high as the sky, And our conduct is as fine as barley flour."

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
There are various accounts of Virupa, and they do not all agree in particulars -- for example, one version of the mālā story holds that he threw his mālā away because he became realized. Also, there is a pun in Sanskrit that few people notice: the waste products of the body are called "mala"; a rosary is called a mālā. So when Shri Dharmapāla threw his mālā in the mala, he was making a statement about his realization i.e. since he had overcome his mala, he no longer needed his mālā.

You really need to read Rin po che ljong shing if you really want to understand the Tantric path of the Sakyapa school. In that book you will discover that in Vajrayāna (according to the Sakya school) there are three grades of heat (weak, medium, strong) on the path of application (rather than four grades as in sūtra i.e. heat, peak, etc.). Here, Vajrayāna practitioners are supposed to engage in "unconventional behavior" -- first in the their rooms, etc.

As for Dzogchen, all I can say is that in general Dzogchen practitioners are not governed by rules at all, there are no vows or samayas to follow in particular, no paths and stages, no particular conduct to adopt or reject. As long as you are not indifferent and mindful, you don't need rules, vows and samayas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
How can you claim that a true dharma practitioner has a conscience independent of the dharma?

Malcolm wrote:
Meaning, they should not mistake their particular relative and conditioned views as representing THE Dharma, which is an eternal truth.

tobes said:
The Dharma is not some objective thing independent of the world; it is a collection of truths, ideas, practices and values all of which are expressive of the way one is and ought to be in the world. In this sense, it is always and already political.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, well, in this case we do not agree. Dharma is two-fold, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts. What is the Dharma of realization? It is pretty straight-forward, summed up in the Lalitavistara, it is blissful, free from proliferation, luminous, permanent, etc. The Dharma of texts allows one to taste and realize that state.

tobes said:
Buddhist history clearly shows this; as do numerous nikayas and shastras.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhists have acted politically, but politics and Dharma are not the same thing, and historically, political śastras are considered "mi chos", i.e. human ethics. That is different than "lha chose" i.e. Dharma.


tobes said:
Nagarjuna did not see any contradiction between the dharma and giving robust normative political advice. Nor did the Buddha.


Malcolm wrote:
Secular ethics and the teachings of realization are compartmentalized in the Indo-Tibetan tradition. That of course does not mean that the canon does not record Buddha's runins with kings and ministers, but what is remarkable is that in his advice to them the goals of realization always are prioritized over and against any secular value his advice could have had.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
His disciples had noticed that his behavior had changed slightly and were worried about him...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it seems that once he had some real understanding, he wasn't such an exemplary monastic anymore...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
I'm saying more that Buddhists ought to be political as an expression of Dharma


Malcolm wrote:
No, they should be political as expressions of their conscience apart from Dharma. The minute that you claim your conscience is Dharma, then you destroy the Dharma and yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


kirtu said:
Hmmm, who else fits this?  Why off the top of my head, Virupa, Nagrajuna and Atisha as well as many others including some of the other Mahasiddhas.

Have to exclude the Tibetan masters since after the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet everyone began practicing Vajrayana so this was an open secret.  But otherwise many, many Tibetan masters fit this as well: the five Sakya founders, Tsongkhapa, Gampopa, and on and on.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Which Nāgārjuna? You mean the original one (2nd century CE or Rasāyāna Nāgārjuna, siddha Nagarjuna, etc. ? There simply is no possibility that all the texts ascribed to a Nāgārjuna in the bstan 'gyur are by the same person. So we really know nothing about the Nagarjuna, disciple of Saraha, who stands as a seminal Vajrayāna master, apart from the fact that he was not the same person as the Nāgārjuna who wrote the Mūlamadhyamaka-karikas. The Tibetan tradition have conflated at least three separate Nāgārjunas into one personage.

Virupa was expelled from his monastery -- that hardly sounds like "perfect outer conduct while secretly practicing Vajrayāna".

Atisha was a very nice master, but his true personae was masked by Dromton, whom Milrepa referred to as a demon.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
The danger with that logic is that no Buddhist anywhere does anything political at all, out of the humble sense that it may simply create more problems.


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhists can be and are political, but they ought not be political in the name of Dharma. Otherwise we have aberrations such as Sri Lanka and Burma.

gregkavarnos said:
And Tibet!


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think Tibet qualifies in the same way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
The danger with that logic is that no Buddhist anywhere does anything political at all, out of the humble sense that it may simply create more problems.


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhists can be and are political, but they ought not be political in the name of Dharma. Otherwise we have aberrations such as Sri Lanka and Burma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Caz said:
Shantideva was a Tantric practitioner as well though, His advise is multifaceted.

Malcolm wrote:
I was discussing the Bodhicarya-avatara and the Śiksa Sammucaya. Those two texts, as you know, are strictly common Mahāyāna.

Also we do not really know that Śantideva was a Vajrayāna practitioner, though of course there is a tradition that he was. But many such traditions are just stories, not really based in historical reality, so it is difficult to know whether they are true or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 16th, 2013 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan translator of the Samdhinirmocana sutra?
Content:
Huifeng said:
Dear lotsawas!

As title:  who was the Tibetan translator of the Samdhinirmocana sutra?
Can't find the answer in any of Power's works, and don't have Lamotte's French at hand.

Thanks in advance.

~~ Huifeng

Malcolm wrote:
That information was not preserved in the colophon, so therefore it is not listed anywhere. This is the reason you cannot find it. Lamotte will not help you either.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 16th, 2013 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
But if you didn't attain the bhumis during empowerment then sutra study and practice is good for you and is what most Tibetan masters (those whose bios I have read at least) who also didn't attain the bhumis during empowerment did.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, then that is your practice — not sūtra. For example, if you read Śantideva, then you discover the aggregates are impure. Regarding the aggregates as impure is a samaya fault in Vajrayāna, etc.

If by practicing "sutra" you mean trying to maintain the three vows without contradiction — then at least as far as the Sakya school is concerned, the higher commitments trump the lower.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 16th, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


kirtu said:
refers primarily to the Sravaka path and is his standard introduction to Vajrayana usually just before he gives the Hevajra empowerment.  It is meant as an explanation of why he is giving the empowerment to begin with.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it primarily refers to the sūtra path. Of course it is the standard preliminary to the Hevajra empowerment because the Sakya school, (at least according to how it is presented by Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen in The Wish Fulling Tree and Gorampa in The Sharp Weapon of Reasoning That Cuts Down False Statements Concerning Vajrayāna ) does not require any training at all in sutra prior to taking Vajrayāna empowerments.

I understand that many Tibetans and their Western adherents seem to feel some sort of gradual sūtrayāna approach is required as a preliminary for Vajrayāna, but in reality, it is just not so.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
You cannot have the physical without the mental.

Malcolm wrote:
The reverse is also true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And then of course there is the sad fact that all of us who function as teachers and commentators of the Dharma who are not Ārya practitioners are frauds and charlatans in some sense since we are basically talking about things we have not personally experienced and of which we have only theoretical knowledge.

gregkavarnos said:
Unless we limit oursleves to just teaching about what we have personally experienced. Wouldn't really leave all that much to say, actually!

Malcolm wrote:
It could cause the Buddhist internet to experience cessation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Indrajala said:
Judging from the commodification of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, I would say it is readily being endorsed and appropriated by the system into a marketable and ready-made lifestyle. It is fully customizable, too, down to the selection of meditation cushions available for purchase.

Malcolm wrote:
There is Barne's and Nobles Dharma, and then there is practitioner's Dharma. Sometimes the former leads to the latter.

Indrajala said:
Yes, and I recognize that. However, with the potential for profit to be made, there is likewise the high probability that charlatans will seek such profits.

Malcolm wrote:
As you know, charlatans often are responsible for  people meeting the Dharma, who then become good practitioners.

And then of course there is the sad fact that all of us who function as teachers and commentators of the Dharma who are not Ārya practitioners are frauds and charlatans in some sense since we are basically talking about things we have not personally experienced and of which we have only theoretical knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:
Indrajala said:
Judging from the commodification of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, I would say it is readily being endorsed and appropriated by the system into a marketable and ready-made lifestyle. It is fully customizable, too, down to the selection of meditation cushions available for purchase.

Malcolm wrote:
There is Barne's and Nobles Dharma, and then there is practitioner's Dharma. Sometimes the former leads to the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
MalaBeads said:
You are maintaining that the core method of Mahayana is the renunciation of sense objects while i am saying that is abandoning attachment to those objects.


Malcolm wrote:
I am maintaining that in the path of renunciation, Mahāyāna included, attachment to those desire objects [of the three realms] is abandoned by abandoning those objects themselves directly. When those objects are abandoned, attachment to them no longer arises i.e. no contact, no sensation; no sensation, no craving.

In the path of transformation it is a little different. While contact with impure material sense organs with impure material sense objects [all considered part of the upadāna rūpaskandha] results in craving, etc., contact by pure sense organs with pure objects [all transformed into a pure mandala] does not result in craving.

In the path of self-liberation, there is no need to relinquish or transform anything since [ideally] there is no grasping at all. If there is any grasping [whether internally or externally], self-liberation is not possible. Of course the path of self-liberation is a path, and therefore, there is specific way to train to reach the level of being totally free of grasping.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Transgression, Tantra, Radical vs Conservative Buddhism
Content:


Nilasarasvati said:
Given that Tantra was in its historical origins, transgressive (against a Brahmin/Sattvic/dualistic Vedic society) how does/doesn't contemporary Vajrayana in the West fit into notions and attempts to upset the dominant value system of our materialist/Capitalist/postmodern/dualistic society?

Malcolm wrote:
Tantra was not transgressive. Or to put it another way; Vajrayāna tantras were no more transgressive than, for example, the Arthavaveda.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Konchog1 said:
When Sonam Tsemo says "The second general topic is the Pāramitāyāna practitioner making that basis into a path by giving it up", I understand him to be saying 'the Paramitayana practitioner does not cling to the  five kinds of desire objects by avoiding them'.

Which is in agreement with what I said before.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, correct. Pāramitāyāna practitioners avoid in the five desire objects in order to eliminate clinging to them.
Of course, generally we can say all Secret Mantra is a "Mahāyāna" belief.

However, you are muddying the issue: the path of general Secret Mantra is based upon "not giving up the basis" which is clearly defined as the five desire objects. Sonam Tsemo is stating that the path of mainstream Mahāyāna is "giving up the basis".

M

Konchog1 said:
I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. I agree with you. Why are we debating?


Malcolm wrote:
Its more fun than agreeing

Seriously though, since you cited the Vajrayāna section of Sonam Tsemo's text, I thought you were making an opposing argument.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Konchog1 said:
When Sonam Tsemo says "The second general topic is the Pāramitāyāna practitioner making that basis into a path by giving it up", I understand him to be saying 'the Paramitayana practitioner does not cling to the  five kinds of desire objects by avoiding them'.

Which is in agreement with what I said before.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, correct. Pāramitāyāna practitioners avoid in the five desire objects in order to eliminate clinging to them.
Of course, generally we can say all Secret Mantra is a "Mahāyāna" belief.

However, you are muddying the issue: the path of general Secret Mantra is based upon "not giving up the basis" which is clearly defined as the five desire objects. Sonam Tsemo is stating that the path of mainstream Mahāyāna is "giving up the basis".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Will said:
Putting a bag over one's head to 'renounce' the sensory object of a curvaceous lassie will not work.  Nor will going to a cave that is free of such lovelies.

Konchog1 said:
Right, because the problem is that clinging arises from the mind, not from objects. If renouncing sensory objects resulted in enlightenment, then the formless gods are enlightened.
“objects are not inherently fetters; perverse thoughts based on them act as fetters.”
-Sonam Tsemo, General Presentation of the Tantra Sets, 14a.4-14b.3
Edit for clarification

Of course the above quote is from the Vajrayana but I believe it expresses a Mahayana belief.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not correctly presenting Loppon Rinpoche's thought:
"The second general topic is the Pāramitāyāna practitioner making that basis into a path by giving it up."
-- The General Presentation of the Divisions of Tantra folio 12/a.

Clearly in this treatise he is claiming two things there is a basis to be given up, and he defines that basis as the five desire objects:
"If it is asked what that cause is, it becomes many things when analyzed extensively — aggregates [skandha], elements [dhātu], gateways [āyatana], etc. In brief it is the five kinds of desire objects. If is wondered how is it summarized into five; the creator of samsara and nirvana is the mind. Its objects are six or twelve, but all are just the five [desire objects] themselves and what follows those, apart from which there isn’t anything else. Therefore, these five are the basis."
-- folio 11/a

He later states:
"... as such, if is wondered whether the basis of samsara and nirvana is shared or separate, it is shared.
Now, if one thinks “Doesn’t the one who wishes nirvana give up the basis? If that is so, [the basis] cannot be shared.”
Indeed, it is true [the basis, i.e. the five desire objects] is given up. Since it is necessary to make [the basis which is] given up itself into an object, since that is so, [the basis] is also proven to be the basis of nirvana."

Thus, your citation (which comes in the section where secret mantra is defined through the fact that is does not give up the basis [the five desire objects]) cannot be understood in the manner in which you are citing it because it directly contradicts the intention of the author, irrespective of what you personally believe to be the intention of Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some educational posts on Tibetan History:


"Tibetan intransigence persuaded the British to give up their exploratory mission into Tibet. Instead Britain secured China’s recognition of its military takeover of Burma, and reciprocated by recognizing China’s claim of suzerainty over Tibet.

Tibetans were deliberately excluded from all the conventions and discussions that took place in those years between the British and China concerning Tibet or Sikkim. In 1893 when the Trade Regulation talks were held in Darjeeling, the Tibetan cabinet sent a senior official, Paljor Dorje Shatra to keep an eye on the proceedings. Shatra’s presence appears to have been resented by the British. Some English subalterns dragged him off his horse and threw him into a public fountain in the Chowrasta square."

http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2013/02/13/a-brief-overview-of-events-that-led-to-the-13th-dalai-lama%E2%80%99s-proclamation-of-tibetan-independence


"Tibetans can legitimately view the events from 1876 to 1904 as the first chapter in their modern history. Most accounts of this period, largely written by British officials or scholars tend to downplay native resistance and patriotism and ascribe them instead to Tibetan religious fanaticism."

http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2013/02/06/backstory-to-the-13th-dalai-lamas-declaration-of-independence

"Academic scholarship may not generally lend itself to moving or inspirational writing, but there are exceptions. Edward Gibbon’s, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is probably the greatest work of history written in the English language (Hugh Trevor-Roper) and a literary masterpiece praised for its narrative clarity, biting irony and elegant prose. It was a book that woke people up to a whole new way of viewing antiquity, especially in relation to the development of religious institutions – the Christian church in particular.  It was also the defining work of history that came out of the European Enlightenment.

Tsepon Wangchuk Deden Shakabpa’s Advanced Political History of Tibet deals with events, places and personalities that have, of course, less resonance or significance to the rest of the world, especially at the moment when China is being hailed internationally as the next global superpower, and the issue of Tibet has been relegated to a kind of oblivion, more distant and inconsequential (it sometimes appears) than a chariot race at the Hippodrome in ancient Constantinople."

http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2011/12/06/shakabpa-and-the-awakening-of-tibetan-history/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When the householder bodhisattva possesses three Dharmas, having stayed at home, until perfect unsurpassed awakening, he never enjoys the five desire objects, and in that way develops the root of virtue.

Trisambaranirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Because of this sūtra in the past, having abandoned the five desire objects, I will always take the [Mahāyāna] vows [samvara] at the six times.

Ārya-prabhāsādhana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Astus said:
Not enjoying a sunset is not the same as not seeing a sunset. So, what is abandoned is attachment and desire, not the sense data. Even when contemplating the foulness of the body the point is not to see no bodies at all but not to see it as desirable.


Malcolm wrote:
The point of taking a vow of celibacy is not to allow contact of your penis with a vagina., etc.

Anyway, I could spend my time and find many citations that prove that in terms of Mahāyāna view and conduct, the five desire objects themselves are something to be abandoned for many reasons, some having to do with becoming free from attachment, others having to do with the developing samadhi, etc. But I am going to stop here because I have clearly made my point about why Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna differ on the point of eliminating contact with desire objects themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
why is this so hard to understand?

M

MalaBeads said:
Because understanding is not the whole of practice, Malcolm. Because we have body, speech and mind. Because if the three are not integrated, then there is no realization of what is being taught.


Malcolm wrote:
You are totally missing the point. We are discussing why Mahāyāna is a path of renunciation. We are not discussing integration in terms of how that is presented in Dzogchen teachings, not at all. Mahāyāna conduct is completely based on abandoning sense objects, as we can see from many citations. It is critical to understand this point.

When we say that Mahāyāna is a path of renunciation, we are saying we are abandoning the five desire objects, because that is how we are going to abandon attachment to them.  The Vajrayāna path of transformation exists for people who are too weak to abandon the five desire objects because their craving is so strong.

It is really simple: the links of dependent origination in this life function in this way --> contact [sparśa] --> sensation [vedana] -- craving [tṛṣṇā] --> addiction [upādāna] -->

The easiest way stop craving is to sever contact with a given sense object, for example, an alcoholic and alcohol.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
to give up attachment to the five desire objects, the five desire objects themselves are given up as part of the path.

Honestly, why is this so hard to understand?

Astus said:
Because it means, as I read it from your words, that one gives up what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted and touched. That is, the person becomes completely insensitive and incorporeal. I doubt that either sravakas or bodhisattvas would aim for that.

Malcolm wrote:
When the householder bodhisattva possesses three Dharmas, having stayed at home, until perfect unsurpassed awakening, he never enjoys the five desire objects, and in that way develops the root of virtue.

Trisambaranirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra


Because of this sūtra in the past, having abandoned the five desire objects, I will always take the [Mahāyāna] vows [samvara] at the six times.

Ārya-prabhāsādhana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
JKhedrup said:
I disagree it is not the path of renouncing sense objects, but the path of renouncing attachment to sense objects. If they renounce sense objects, they would not be eating and drinking.
Exactly, we have to understand what the spang bya (སྤང་བྱ་) is, the object of abandonment. It is not the sense object themselves but the attachment and other delusions that arise connected with those sense objects.


Malcolm wrote:
Śariputra: likewise, bodhisattva mahāsattvas welled trained in the illusions of Mahāyāna attain the experience of illusory phenomena. Though free from all afflictions, they enjoy the five desire objects [pañcakāmaguṇa] from the perspective of great compassion in order to ripen sentient beings to be disciplined, but they do not associate with those [five desire objects], they are not moved by those. 

Śariputra: bodhisattva mahāsattvas describe the faults of desire objects with many similes: desire objects are a conflagration. Desire objects are totally inferior. Desire objects are murderers. Desire objects are  enemies. Desire objects are invaders. Desire objects are like straw huts. Desire objects are like the kimpakā fruit. Desire objects are like the edge of a razor. Desire objects are like cinders. Desire objects are like poison leaves. Desire objects are like sparrows. Desire objects are like cesspools. 

As such, Śariputra, though bodhisattva mahāsattvas comprehend desire objects thoroughly, for the purpose of ripening sentient beings who lack skillful means, [they] are remorseful from the five desire objects, and in order to free those [sentient beings] from the five desire objects, [bodhisattva mahāsattvas] expound upon [the faults] of the five desire objects in detail.

-- Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā

The point, dear friends, is that in Mahāyāna, just as in Śravakayāna, order to give up attachment to the five desire objects, the five desire objects themselves are given up as part of the path. This is why in Vajrayāna tradition, common Mahāyāna [as opposed to uncommon Mahāyāna Vajrayāna] is clearly described as a path of renunciation because it is a path of renunciation.

Honestly, why is this so hard to understand?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
MalaBeads said:
= It is impossible to abandon all sense objects unless you are dead.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: How do Tibetans Rationalize the Tibetan Genocide?
Content:


Indrajala said:
I've never heard a Tibetan blame the bad political decisions of the Tibetan government for what happened (maybe they'd see that as insulting to HHDL).


Malcolm wrote:
You haven't been paying attention then.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


MalaBeads said:
Quite so. Attachment is the problem not sense objects.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the essence of paths of renunciation is abandoning sense objects in order to eliminate attachments. That, after all, is the point of paths of renunciation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
mutsuk said:
Greg, I may be wrong but I think you read the phonetic kama as corresponding to pali kamma (skt karma). What Pero (and Malcolm) were talking about is bKa'-ma (phonetized as *kama). bKa' ma is a collection of orally transmitted works which were put into written form (or more precisely compiled and edited) by Lochen Dharma sri and Terdak Lingpa. It is supposed to contain works orally (bka') transmitted since the 8th century in tibetan language. Terma teachings are or should be in harmony with the teachings of Kama (bKa' ma), as a demonstration of their canonicity.


Malcolm wrote:
For example, the Guhyagarbha is kama, shitro is Terma. Both have the mandala of peaceful and wrathful deities; the authority for the latter rests on the former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Ramon1920 said:
Three things come to mind with regards to dealing with desire, they all are activities of giving proper attention: Benefits and disadvantages, the false appearance, and the internal feelings (winds if you will).

[...]

Konchog1 said:
While this is all true, its more in line with Theravada. Whereas this is a Mahayana forum.


Malcolm wrote:
This is a classic Mahāyāna formulation:


Objects and poisons are alike, pleasing just when first tasted.
Objects and poisons are alike, their result is unpleasant and unbearable.
Objects and poisons are alike, causing one to be clouded by the darkness of ignorance.
Objects and poisons are alike, their power is hard to reverse, and deceptive, etc…


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Astus said:
The topic is about dealing with desires, and you restrict Mahayana to a single approach that desires can only be rejected. My position is that Mahayana is more than that and encompasses several methods.

"For the bodhisattva, afflictions accord with his nature.
He is not one who takes nirvāṇa as his very nature.
It is not the case that the burning up of the afflictions
Allows one to generate the seed of bodhi."
(Nagarjuna: Guide to the Bodhisattva Path, v. 79)

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a refutation of my point. This is merely an sectarian observation that standard presentation of the śravaka path is not a path that results in the generation of full buddhahood.

As for your other points -- the path of Mahāyāna really no different than that of śravakayāna -- and is a path based on the renunciation of sense objects and has no other path than that.

You can dance on books all day and you will never alter this fact. I can give you a hundred citations from the very sutras and texts you cite [that the bodhisattva path is path of renouncing sense objects], and still you will never retreat from your point of view.

It is good that you are devoted to prajñāpāramitā, but the pāramitā path just a path of renouncing sense objects.

I will leave it here — The Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā-sūtra states:

"Bodhisattvas who possess prajñā are to be reproached about the accumulation of merit; without the method, they do not endeavor in generosity, discipline, patience, diligence and concentration. They indulge in proliferation, thinking ‘the perfection of prajñā is extraordinarily supreme, the other perfections are inferior’."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Your teacher is a terton and terma are (currently) the penultimate expression of the modification and transformation of the Buddhist corpus.  Mush more so than commentaries since terma are considered the direct manifestation of the wisdom of enlightened beings (like the old "Thus I have heard" of the Mahayana Sutras).

Malcolm wrote:
Greg:

If termas are the manifestation of the wisdom of an awakened person, what can be more conservative than this?

Apart from that, termas must correspond to kama. If they do not, they are not termas. Termas are not meant to be innovative, they are meant restorative.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not a statement about means.

Astus said:
Prajnaparamita is the basis of the bodhisattvayana, and there are no methods to apply without it. It is prajnaparamita that liberates all beings and it includes all means. Isn't the inseparability of compassion and wisdom the essential realisation of a bodhisattva?


Malcolm wrote:
No, Astus -- bodhicitta is the basis of the bodhisattvayāna, and that has both relative and ultimate aspects.

Your bodhisattvayāna is a bird that is wounded in one wing.

In any event, this stream of replies and responses is far away from the original point, which is that Mahāyāna is a path of renunciation, just like Śravakayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Astus said:
...that the afflictions are not rejected but they are actually required.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not how I understand the passage.




Astus said:
You don't change afflictions, you train in pure vision. By slowly transforming your vision, since ordinary vision is caused by afflictions which generate concepts, counteract that with sadhana practice, completion stage etc.
You use afflictions just as they are, but by changing how you relate to the world, by transforming your world, slowly you realize the state of Mahāmudra without giving anything up at all.
With establishing prajnaparamita as the correct view there is nothing to improve or get rid of.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a statement about means.

Astus said:
As it says in chapter 22 in PP8000, purification means simply the extent one uses prajnaparamita. To this you may say that this is again the ultimate view, and that in order to reach that one has to follow a sravaka-style practice by renouncing the world, etc. As I see it, to hop on the Great Vehicle, one needs prajnaparamita (ch. 1, PP8000).

Malcolm wrote:
Pāramitāyāna is a gradual path, one that requires infinite lifetimes to complete. If you are a very fortunate person close to your last rebirth, you might be able to hop on the Prajñāpāramitā express, but in reality we can see that this is not the case for most sentient beings.

We all have prajñā, but whether than prajñā has been brought to the level of being a pāramitā is completely another question.

Astus said:
This is how prajnaparamita is a universal solution for all defilements, because it removes the root of the problem.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, prajñā takes many eons to perfect according to Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Wait a second, a few posts ago you were going to town on Ven Indrajala saying that if he didn't stick to the rules exactly as they are laid down then he was contravening them and not a proper monastic and now you say that one has to use ones intelligence in regard to the rules.  So which is it to be?

Malcolm wrote:
I did not do the former. Where Jeff and I disagree is that over whether the basic rules of monastics can be altered. I don't think so.

If you don't want to follow all the rules of a Bhikṣu as best as you can -- then don't become a bhikṣu, that is what I am saying. Indrajala is basically saying that he feels that the only ordination that is necessary is the śramanera or novice ordination. He is also saying Vinaya should be revised to reflect that.

There is certainly an avenue for people to only receive the dge tshul ordination. Many very high lamas only ordain up to that level, for example. But I don't think the Vinaya rules should be revised, and it is unlikely they will be in Theravada and Mulasarvastivada since that would require a council of Vinayadharas and I just don't think it will happen (as it shouldn't).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is, the cultural revolution in Tibet was largely carried out by Tibetans.

anjali said:
Hmm. Willingly, or under duress (more like the French in Nazi occupied France during WWII)?


Malcolm wrote:
Willingly. It was Tibetan cadres that carried out the most brutal actions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In many places being celibate is considered very strange and weird. So are you saying Buddhist monks should abandon celibacy in such places?

M

Indrajala said:
No, because, as I said above, liberation via renunciation requires celibacy. You cannot transcend the kāma-dhātu via dhyāna without abandoning kāma, which requires abstaining from sense desires, most importantly sexual activities and thoughts. This is to say nothing of reaching the rūpa-dhātu and ārūpya-dhātu, both of which much be reached and transcended via conventional dhyāna. Even just the first dhyāna requires abandonment of sense desires. How much more so the other three?

This is why I said the expectation of celibacy is non-negotiable, so to speak. Celibacy and the traditional śramaṇa path go hand in hand.

Malcolm wrote:
You see, your example does not really work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
At a certain point, the pratimokṣa was settled.

Indrajala said:
That's not entirely true. The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as translated by Yijing during the Tang displays explicit Mahāyāna elements: mention of the Mahāyāna path in contrast to that of the śrāvaka-s, buddhas in the plural and bodhisattvas. This is significant because it demonstrates, at least around Nalanda where it came from, the Vinaya was fair game for revision, even centuries after the main Vinaya texts were supposed to have been settled.

Malcolm wrote:
The pratimokṣa was settled. Commentaries on it may not have been, and the supporting texts may have been expanded.

Gunaprabha's Vinaya sutra is really the basis for the MS vinaya as it is practiced today.

This Vinaya, as it stands in the bka' 'gyur displays no such references AFAIK.

Of course texts change, since they are not fixed in stone, and are modified to reflect the interest of their readers. It is not surprising there are Mahāyāna elements in some Vinaya recensions somewhere, since there were a lot of monks of Mahāyāna persuasion.

We have not addressed the issue, thus far, of the Bodhisattva pratimokṣa, which in my view is the primary valid basis for modifying one's pratimokṣa vows.

But I really do not share your view that monks ought to just ignore vows they think are unnecessary. Monks depend on lay people. Monastic comportment was designed as much to discipline monks as it was to make lay people comfortable with monks so they would support them.

I expect monks that I support to follow Vinaya. Otherwise, I have no interest in supporting them, either in spirit or financially.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
They were rules set down by the Buddha. They should be respected and preserved, not tossed away out of convenience.

Indrajala said:
We should not overlook statements like the following as found in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya which states, "Even if it be something I have prohibited, if it is not considered pure [conduct] in other lands, then it all should not be adopted. Even if it is not something I have prohibited, if something must be carried out in other lands, then it all must be carried out.'"

Malcolm wrote:
In many places being celibate is considered very strange and weird. So are you saying Buddhist monks should abandon celibacy in such places?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is obvious that renunciate paths (as opposed to the general dissatisfaction with samsara) are less possible then before. Actually, it is easier to be dissatisfied with samsara now, but it is much less easy to do something about it.

gregkavarnos said:
I disagree.  Given the current proliferation of Dharma in the West and the willingness for people to engage with spiritual traditions outside of the Judeao-Christian framework (especially after the 1960's) I would say that for westerners it is now actually easier to "do something about it".

Malcolm wrote:
Dharma might be proliferating in Europe and Russia, in the US it has become a little bit moribund, its growth has slowed markedly.

gregkavarnos said:
Another point that I do not understand:  you seem totally opposed to the alteration (mainly removal of irrelevant rules) of the Vinaya code, yet you are happy to see the changes (mainly additions) imposed on monastics; changes which were made during the historical course of the development of the Vinaya.  Why?

Malcolm wrote:
At a certain point, the pratimokṣa was settled. It was clearly settled after Buddha's famous statement. We don't know exactly when. Nevertheless, we have the pratimokṣa we do. Elsewhere I noted that a monastic Sangha is not vital to the survival of the Dharma since Sikhin, for example, had no monastic Sanagha. Many Buddhas had/have/will have retinues, but no Sangha of monks.

gregkavarnos said:
Given you accept changes in the form of additions why do you not accept subtractions (or modifications)?  What makes this even stranger is that your current teacher is actually quite opposed to ossification and very much in support of development,innovation and modificiation.  Is this purposeful reticence on your behalf?

Malcolm wrote:
My current teacher is the most conservative Dzogchen teacher alive, actually. He is even more conservative than Chatral Sangye Dorje. Why? Because he teaches Dzogchen that way Garab Dorje said to teach Dzogchen, not the way Tibetan Lamas say to teach Dzogchen.

gregkavarnos said:
I ask this because (for example) a monastic living in a Western urban environment will be unable to procure cow dung and urine to purify their dwelling after eating garlic, so maybe changing the clause so that the monastic can use air freshener wouldn't be a tragic loss to the Vinaya transmission (or count as a downfall)?  Otherwise, it seems to me, that you are purposefully setting up the system for failure.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a question of being intelligent -- one can understand that having eaten garlic, one needs to mask the odor. One infers intention and use one's intelligence. The downfall is not failing to use cowdung, it is consuming garlic.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Pero said:
So why become a monk then? Why are there monks if that's all there is to it?

Indrajala said:
Bear in mind for the first five years there were no precepts. The first disciples of the Buddha received neither precepts nor vows. So, at one point there were completely legitimate śramaṇa disciples of the Buddha with no precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
You did not answer the question.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I see, so for you a bodhisattva is solely someone who has realized emptiness. Well, that certainly does leave a lot of people out.

Astus said:
"if a bodhisattva holds the notion of a self, the notion of person, the notion of sentient being, and the notion of life span, then she is not a bodhisattva." (Diamond Sutra, ch. 17, tr. C. Muller)

Malcolm wrote:
Again with the ultimate truth thing -- it is a pity the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara was only translated into Chinese in 1930.


Astus said:
So while I don't make the difference here between ordinary and noble bodhisattvas, it is with the intention to show that the bodhisattvayana, as presented by the sutras and several teachers, is not just how it tends to be represented in later "sudden teaching" texts (i.e. as something that only incompetent fools choose over their direct path to buddhahood).

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, you are presenting a very one-sided view. We all understand, since "Dharma" kindergarten, that the Vajraccheddika sūtra presents a very definitive view of prajñāpāramitā, beginning with dānapāramitā. Mahāyāna does not just exist as a teaching on ultimate truth.

Astus said:
If "phenomena themselves" are afflictive, then are phenomena should be removed or the afflictions? If ignorance lies in appearances then shouldn't the realm of nothingness or complete annihilation be nirvana? As I understand it, the problem is with believing appearances to be self, and that's why the realisation of emptiness is the solution.

Malcolm wrote:
Phenomena, as you well know, are afflictive because they are conducive to suffering and are suffering. The path of renunciation suggests, in both Nikaya schools as well as Mahāyāna, that phenomena are to removed -- and this is generally accomplished with vows. For example, monks remove the phenomena of others genitals; they remove the phenomena of handling precious things. More importantly, the abandonment of sense objects is seen as a condition for development of samadhi in both Nikāya Buddhism and Mahāyana. Ask anyone around here.

Astus said:
They are like illusions because they are empty, and seeing things as empty only means non-attachment but not annihilation. Why do you say then that they are abandoned?

Malcolm wrote:
They are abandoned because they are no longer a basis for effluents when emptiness is realized.

Astus said:
"you should understand that all the afflictions constitute the seed of the Tathāgata. It is like not being able to attain the priceless jewelpearl without entering the ocean. Therefore, if one does not enter the great sea of the afflictions, one will not be able to attain the jewel of omniscience." (Vimalakirti Sutra, ch. 8, tr. McRae)

This sutra says...

Malcolm wrote:
...nothing of the sort. The citation you provide is no different than the peacock eating poisoned plants metaphor. The passage in question as read from the Tibetan states:
"For example, in a desert, flowers such as the blue poppy, padma, jasmine, pundarika, and the saugandhikam will not grow, but the blue poppy, padma, jasmine, pundarika, and the saugandhikam will grow in a swamp or an island.Likewise, buddhadharmas will not grow in sentient beings who have attained the certainty of the unconditioned, but buddhadharmas will grow in sentient beings who have become swamps and islands of afflictions.

Seeds will not grow in space, but will grow when placed in the ground. Likewise, buddhadharmas will not grow in sentient beings who have attained the certainty of the unconditioned, but having generated a view of a perishable assembly [satkāyadṛṣti] equal [in size] with Sumeru, from that buddhadharmas will grow.

Son of a good family, with these similes, all afflictions should be known as the tathāgata gotra [rigs]. Just as one can never reach a priceless jewel without entering the ocean, likewise, without entering the ocean of afflictions, omniscience will never grow from that."
When you use citations, you must comment based on the actual sense of the passage, not merely produce it in a sort of "dancing on books" kind of a way. Before you produce a citation, it is best to check if it is accurate. This citation definitely is mistranslated.

Here gotra does not mean seed — it never means "seed". It means "protection or shelter for cows , cow-pen , cow-shed , stable for cattle , stable (in general) , hurdle , enclosure" and secondarily, "family , race , lineage , kin" -- here it is obvious that the former meaning is more intended than the latter.

Here, it is very clear that it is container/contained metaphor. But what this incorrect citation is saying is that the field is the seed. What you are suggesting is an identity proposition. That is the completely wrong way to understand this passage.

Afflictions are the field, the enclosure, in which tathāgatas are grown. In this sutra, afflictions are not themselves omniscience. Afflictions are the ocean, the enclosure, within which is held the priceless jewel, omniscience,.

Here, the intention of this passage is to compare bodhisattvas conduct (who is not afraid of afflictions) with the conduct of śravakas who attain certainty in nirvana. Bodhisattvas here are not afraid to continue taking rebirth in samsara [enter the ocean] while they accumulate the qualities of omniscience [the priceless jewel]. But this passage is not saying "Afflictions are omniscience", for example.

Even more importantly, the passage is arguing that even having a sense of self is to be preferred to having realized selflessness in terms of being fearless about cultivating omniscience.

The passage as a whole is a Mahāyāna sectarian passage condemning "main stream" buddhists for being cowardly.




Astus said:
You don't use afflictions on the path of transformation just as they are...

Malcolm wrote:
Really?

The Vajrapañjara-tantra states: Created by passion, the worldly
shall be liberated by the same passion.
Śrī Guhyasamāja The passionate desiring wisdom
always rely on the five desire objects
Śrī Hevajra-tantra states: The savage actions of people
bring bondage by such and such;
If one possesses the method, by just those [actions]
one shall be liberated from the bondage of becoming
Śrī Guhyasamāja: All the desired pleasures
are what one serves with desire;
make offerings to oneself and others
with the yoga of oneself as the deity
You don't change afflictions, you train in pure vision. By slowly transforming your vision, since ordinary vision is caused by afflictions which generate concepts, counteract that with sadhana practice, completion stage etc.

As The Hevajra states: Since the poison has been eliminated by purification,
these objects to be relied upon are reliable
You use afflictions just as they are, but by changing how you relate to the world, by transforming your world, slowly you realize the state of Mahāmudra without giving anything up at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Liberation Unleashed in the POV of Dzogchen
Content:
Tenpa said:
What intrigues me is whether its method have a correlation with Dzogchen's Pointing Out?. Is now a time where traditional method such as preliminaries and all of its samaya all being by-passed?


Malcolm wrote:
None whatsoever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
This organization isn't marked by "spectacular failure"

Malcolm wrote:
Monastically, yes, it is -- and that is all I was talking about.

They could take some of the millions raised set aside for building a huge statue, for example, and build a monastic college in say Idaho.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, June 10th, 2013 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Astus said:
Bodhisattvas have no trouble with samsara because they understand how afflictions are enlightenment, it is not some abstract far away goal but the path itself, because a bodhisattva practises prajnaparamita.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so for you a bodhisattva is solely someone who has realized emptiness. Well, that certainly does leave a lot of people out.


Astus said:
As above, the dharmas need not be rejected or removed. Even in Theravada it is taught that the problem is not with the skandhas but with attachment ("I-making and mine-making").

Malcolm wrote:
No, in terms of relative truth Mahāyāna teaches that phenomena themselves are afflictive. Also in the Nikāya schools, phenomena themselves are regarded as afflictive and a cause of suffering.

Astus said:
It is with the realisation of emptiness that one can walk the bodhisattva path itself. If there were "subtle and not so subtle accepting and rejecting" then how could it be non-abiding?

Malcolm wrote:
As I noted above, you are making the claim that only those who have realized emptiness can "walk the bodhisattva path". Of course this is totally false. It's great if you have realized emptiness. If you can truly speak from that point of view, if you, like "Geshe" Michael Roach, have truly realized emptiness, how wonderful. I rejoice in your realization! I want to be your student! But if not, then you are just spewing hot air which is not practical at all, and not only does not relate to your own state, but it does not relate the state of others.

In realty the intent of such statements that you introduced is that in Mahāyāna, the contemplation the emptiness is for abandoning sense objects.

The victor stated that desire objects, wealth and the three planes of existence
are similar to illusions, mirages, a moon in the water, and apparitions.

Or for example, when we examples of Aryādharma and Sadaprarudita have parties with many woman and so on, at this point these bodhisattvas are already past the point of darśana marga. But common Mahāyāna offers no methods for ordinary persons to take sense objects in to the path.

How do ordinary Mahāyāna practitioners practice? For the most part their practice is no different than that of non-Mahāyāna Buddhists. i.e. śīla, samadhi and prajñā.

Only their view is a little different, with a slightly more liberal attitude towards vows. The fault in your argument lies in not making a distinction between aryabodhisattvas and regular bodhisattvas, those who have not realized prajñāpāramitā.


Astus said:
Is there still attachment on the path of transformation and self-liberation? If yes, then how can it be called transformation and self-liberation? If no, it also abandons attachment.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is attachment on the path of transformation. There is attachment on the path of transformation until there is realization. Then the path changes. At that point, there is no more attachment. Attachment is used on the path transformation to eliminate attachment. Desire is used to eliminate desire, etc.

The path of self-liberation is a little difference since self-liberation is non-attachment (but it is not so simple as that).

Astus said:
Therefore, saying that renunciation is less possible than before is a statement valid only for those who want to practise something else.

Malcolm wrote:
It is obvious that renunciate paths (as opposed to the general dissatisfaction with samsara) are less possible then before. Actually, it is easier to be dissatisfied with samsara now, but it is much less easy to do something about it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
But I am gonna stick to causes and conditions as explanation for everything that happens.
By itself, that doesn't seem flippant.

It's because of the prior statement about the Tibetans not having the merit to "dodge" the cultural revolution...
makes the sentence above seem strange, dismissive perhaps.


Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is, the cultural revolution in Tibet was largely carried out by Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Yes, because Buddhist monasticism aka the order of bhikṣus, has seen its day. Now, if Buddhist lay people wish to create retreat centers, and even cloistered community, that is fine and dandy -- but they won't be Buddhist monks [even though these days many such people in such places are laboring under the delusion that they are "monks" all the while being married, etc.]. This is why the appellation "minister" is more useful. One can be a Buddhist religious professional without calling oneself a "monk". I.e. one can be a Buddhist minister.
But Malcolm surely with the amount of reading you have done you know that many texts say after the bhikshu Sangha has disappeared the dharma is at its end. Do you feel that these are simply provisional teachings, or that this is not the case with secret mantra?

Malcolm wrote:
I feel it is along the lines of statements like "Only this day of Śakyamuni's teaching is secret mantra teachings available...." etc -- a completely provisional statement since I have seen interesting corrections of this in various places. All Buddhas can teach secret mantra.

JKhedrup said:
Secondly, I have no problem with Buddhist ministers but I am little wary of any titles. Why? Because in the West we have people who use titles like shoulderpads (from the 80s) to puff up their credentials and stature when actually they have very little knowledge and capacity as teachers. We see how disastrous this is with Western Buddhist organizations who send people out to serve the guru's mission after less than a year of study and practice.

Malcolm wrote:
We see people becoming bhiḳsus mainly to get a leg up in Buddhist hierarchy. And yes, there are problems with anything like this.


JKhedrup said:
It is very frustrating on the ground at times, let me tell you.

Malcolm wrote:
I agree with everything you say. The main point of being a teacher is not running one's mouth -- that is what we have the internet for. The main point of being a teacher is that you are helping people free themselves.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Jnana said:
It seems to me that the capacities and shared vision of the community members and the abilities of the community leaders are among the most important factors that contribute to the success of any given community.

Indrajala said:
When a community is up and coming without widespread support from society, then of course the leadership and common vision are essential for anything to happen. This is perhaps the most difficult aspect of developing Buddhism in the west. Without the right people, then there's not even general social support to fall back on to keep things above the water line.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because Buddhist monasticism aka the order of bhikṣus, has seen its day. Now, if Buddhist lay people wish to create retreat centers, and even cloistered community, that is fine and dandy -- but they won't be Buddhist monks [even though these days many such people in such places are laboring under the delusion that they are "monks" all the while being married, etc.]. This is why the appellation "minister" is more useful. One can be a Buddhist religious professional without calling oneself a "monk". I.e. one can be a Buddhist minister.



Indrajala said:
We just need to keep things simple. If you're a śramaṇa, remain single and celibate. Behave yourself. Speak the truth, speak well, speak clearly. Try to emulate the Buddha as best you can.
This ideal isn't necessarily incompatible with vinaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Jnana/Indrajala: this does not have the force of the vow.

Indrajala said:
For various reasons though a lot of Buddhists are unwilling to consider modifications to the formal Vinaya systems, even when they admit not everything can or will be followed in the present day. The sacrosanct quality of it is remarkable despite it really being house rules aimed primarily at irresponsible young men and women.

Malcolm wrote:
They were rules set down by the Buddha. They should be respected and preserved, not tossed away out of convenience.

Indrajala said:
Personally, I don't feel I need to hold myself to account for silly things some people apparently did twenty-five centuries ago in rural Magadha.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhikṣus have a responsibility to uphold their vows. Whether they do or not is up to them, of course.

Indrajala said:
What's really striking is the literature which outlines in detail the long years that will be spent in hell for violating even minor precepts. You can go to hell for immeasurable years if you eat yeast and fail to confess it according to the authors. Quite terrifying and ghoulish punishments await he who eats yeast or brewer's lees and fails to confess the sin.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because that person took a vow not to do something. If he or she willfully ignores it, then yes, of course, if this person does not attain stream entry, who knows where they will wind up. But secondly these kinds of things are part of Indian commentarial hyperbole intended to make the person understand it is really important even to follow minor rules as best one can and confess them if one does not.



Indrajala said:
Again, this leads me more and more to agree with Jizang's conclusion. In both Indian and Chinese literature I see a lot of logical inconsistencies and easily refuted metaphysical speculations.

Malcolm wrote:
Vows are intentions. We don't need the theory of avijñāpti, etc. When you take a vow, you make an intention to follow that vow. Except, apparently in this day and age, people take vows with no intention of following them at all.

To be a Dharma person, the essence of vinaya is non-harming, the essence of Mahāyāna is bodhicitta, and the essence of Vajrayāna is pure vision -- one does not need to take many vows at all follow this -- but if someone takes vows, they should try to follow them. If they can't follow them, they should not take them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
jeeprs said:
You'd be mad to abandon all that, wouldn't you?

Indrajala said:
Some of us are just eccentric.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I really consider bhikṣus with credit cards to be renunciates... [not].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
Taking sense objects "into" the path[/i] (is that seperate? Is that what you meant?) is distinct from that/can be a skilful means. What does that look like in a practical sense? (in postmeditation, I mean).

Malcolm wrote:
Yoga of passion, eating, washing, wearing clothes, maintaining post-equipoise pure view of all appearances, sound and thoughts deity, mantra and wisdom, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A very short one, in terms of liturgy, and a solitary deity, rather than a complicated mandala, for example, the Phyag rgya gcig ma form of Vajrakilaya from Choling Tersar, or Solitary Heruka Yamantaka, etc.

Konchog1 said:
But do short Sadhanas have the full benefit? I thought they just existed so busy people could fulfill their practice requirements.


Malcolm wrote:
It depends on your view and tradition -- in general, for example, in Sakya, longer sadhanas are considered to be for beginners.

In Nyingma however, a short sadhana is considered all that is necessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Nilasarasvati said:
...are you saying essentially that it's unrealistic for laypeople to really abandon sense pleasures and they should just take the desire as the path/trust that sadhana to slowly dissolve obscurations? [/b]

Malcolm wrote:
It is unrealistic for lay people (and even bhikṣus) to abandon sense pleasures in this day and age, therefore, it is best to use a method where sense pleasures are used for one's own purposes as part of the path, hence the reason for the Vajrayāna path of transformation. Of course if you do not have Vajrayāna methods you try and be free from accepting and rejecting ala Chan and Zen, but that is a slow path since it lacks skill methods, from a Vajrayāna perspective.

I should add, no one takes desire [or the other afflictions] as a path except for people who wish to continue to cycle in samsara. One can take sense objects into the path through using the sadhana method if you did not achieve liberation through receiving empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Malcolm, drinking wine is a violation of a basic Buddhist precept. Can one intentionally also break the other four and still able to gain some type of enlightenment in Vajrayana?


Malcolm wrote:
Drinking wine is not a violation of five precepts, getting intoxicated is.

As far as the the other four precepts, they must be observed by everyone. Of course, when one becomes sufficiently mature, one ceases to wish to kill, steal, lie or engage in sexual misconduct, and even, become intoxicated.

Vasubandhu's opinion that madana means even a single drop of alcohol is highly debatable.

Nighthawk said:
What type of daily Vajrayana sadhana would you recommend for someone with a busy schedule?

Malcolm wrote:
A very short one, in terms of liturgy, and a solitary deity, rather than a complicated mandala, for example, the Phyag rgya gcig ma form of Vajrakilaya from Choling Tersar, or Solitary Heruka Yamantaka, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, June 9th, 2013 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Indrajala said:
Ideally. You're just telling me what the manual says, not how real life works.

Malcolm wrote:
In real life, when you have a vow not to kill, and you kill, the demerit is stronger, much stronger, than if you did not have such a vow. The merit of refraining from killing is likewise much stronger

Indrajala said:
If you want to be a śramaṇa and behave like one, then you're a śramaṇa, i.e., a monk. If you're a student of the Buddha's teachings, you're a Buddhist monk. You don't need anyone's consent or acknowledgement to be a śramaṇa.

Malcolm wrote:
To be a Buddhist śramanera, in fact you do. Otherwise, one is merely engaging in personal fabrications.


Indrajala said:
And all their preceptors and their own going back twenty-some centuries were all having intact vows?

Malcolm wrote:
In the case of Tibetan ordination lineages, this is the case. I can't speak about those in other transmissions.




Indrajala said:
You once said samaya is a social construct. How can you argue that while saying ordination is not?

Malcolm wrote:
Ordination has no meaning outside of its social context, just like Samaya. Just like Samaya, it too is a tradition, a transmission, from awakened people. Like samaya, ordination is a species of contract between the one who imparts the vow and the vow holder.

I never said however that Samaya was not important. It is. How it is understood differs in different tantras. You can make the same argument for pratimokṣa vows, but in order to have them modified by bodhisattva vows, first you must have received pratimokṣa vows.

Thus far, we have only been dealing pratimokṣa vows. We have not been considering the way in which bodhisattva vows and even samaya vows affect one's basic pratimokṣa vows.

In principle, I think it is too hard to be a Buddhist monk in this day and age. I never said we should abandon the bodhisattva trainings or Vajrayāna contracts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Malcolm, drinking wine is a violation of a basic Buddhist precept. Can one intentionally also break the other four and still able to gain some type of enlightenment in Vajrayana?


Malcolm wrote:
Drinking wine is not a violation of five precepts, getting intoxicated is.

As far as the the other four precepts, they must be observed by everyone. Of course, when one becomes sufficiently mature, one ceases to wish to kill, steal, lie or engage in sexual misconduct, and even, become intoxicated.

Vasubandhu's opinion that madana means even a single drop of alcohol is highly debatable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Precepts don't make a renunciate anymore than elaborate rites do.
No, of course not. The desire to take vows should stem from a renunciate's desire to deepen their renunciation.

kirtu said:
There we go!

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, kirt, if you have a problem with drinking then you should take a vow not to drink.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Indrajala said:
Right, but that's not defrocking. The perpetrator has the right to move elsewhere. They still have their status as a monk or nun.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is. If you get kicked out of your monastery, you will disrobe. The perpetrator does not have the right to move elsewhere. In order to join a monastery you need sponsorship and references. No one will touch a monk who has been expelled from their monastery in the Tibetan tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There were and are all kinds of mendicants in yellow robes in India, not just Buddhists.

Indrajala said:
Buddhists were specifically targeted in purges and attacks.

Malcolm wrote:
You deliberately missed my point — Brahmins were generally suspicious of shramanas of all denominations, not just Buddhist ones.


Indrajala said:
My position on this has not changed one iota. The fact that there are so called Buddhist "monks" who do not have vows, and generally behave like ordinary people just illustrates my point even more.
There are monks who have vows and behave like ordinary people, too, so your point isn't very strong.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are such monks. But the force of the ordination rite changes the nature of behavior that one is following.

Indrajala said:
Precepts don't make a renunciate anymore than elaborate rites do.

Malcolm wrote:
No, of course not. The desire to take vows should stem from a renunciate's desire to deepen their renunciation.


Indrajala said:
So, were countless millions of bald men and women throughout 20 centuries in East Asia practising the path just laity pretending to be monks? According to you, yes, but according to their own traditions and values, they were renunciates and legitimate monks.

Malcolm wrote:
They were lay Mahāyāna practitioners.


Indrajala said:
Yes, and there is no precept against smoking tobacco, despite the fact that Buddha would have disapproved of it.
According to the Vinaya he allowed disciples to smoke herbs in a pipe if it was so needed as medicine.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as they would have been allowed to drink. But tobacco is a vice, and unlike alcohol, no medical use has been found for it Asian culture anywhere.



Indrajala said:
But this is not how it is for us today. In order to become any kind of ordained person up to bhikṣu, you must become ordained through a rite.
Why? Why can't someone set on liberation and renunciation put on robes and go forward on their own initiative? Why is it that their status has to be legitimized through a rite? Why are you so attached to forms and procedures?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a transmission involved in being ordained. Vinaya ordination requires a preceptor and quorum of monks who have intact vows who are able to transmit those vows; unlike Mahāyāna bodhisattva precepts, which may be undertaken by oneself in absence of a teacher directly from Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Without that ordination, one cannot be considered a Buddhist monk of any kind. For example, I am sngags pa. Not your average everyday kind of Vajrayāna practitioner that has general samaya. You cannot just invent yourself as a Ngagpa -- though people do -- you must receive a special type of empowerment to be a Ngakpa. Then you may not cut your hair and so on. There are specific reasons for this which are connected with practice.

Likewise with ordination as a novice or a bhikṣu. In the Tibetan tradition, there are many people who remain lifelong shramaneras, often because they regard holding bhiḳsu vows too difficult and because it is far less restrictive. But there are specific reasons connected with the bhikṣu vows, and since they are an intact body of vows in each tradition, they are received and transmitted in blocks necessarily. None of the them may be dispensed with. If someone cannot follow a given rule, then it must be confessed, acknowledged etc.  This is your peer pressure. Without the support of posadha recitation, Buddhist monasticism swiftly degenerates.

Indrajala said:
I went through a rite, but to be honest I feel such things are unnecessary.

Malcolm wrote:
Proof we live in a degenerate era.

Indrajala said:
Ordination in any case is a social construct. Renunciation is something else.

Malcolm wrote:
Ordination is not merely a social construct — it is a tradition that comes from awakened people.

Indrajala said:
Ananda, as we know, forgot to ask what "minor" meant and no one so far as had the arrogance to decide what that meant.
No, the various Vinaya schools of India define what they think "minor" meant.



Malcolm wrote:
No, he forgot to ask, and no one felt they knew which minor vows the Buddha meant.



Indrajala said:
In Japan nobody invented new rules permitting marriage.

Malcolm wrote:
I had "invented" in brackets. I know they just ignored their ordination rules.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Indrajala said:
I think one practical consideration overlooked in this discussion is that monasticism is economically efficient. ...

Malcolm wrote:
It can't be economically efficient.

Monastics, in Buddhadharma, by definition are dependent on others for everything....Having homeless mendicants creates a financial burden that most western communities are not interested in supporting and in reality, cannot support. ...Support of the monastic community in Buddhadharma arises from the belief that one will accumulated merit by supporting monastics. There are simply not enough western Buddhists to effectively do so in the West.

kirtu said:
Sure they can be supported.  Westerners are impoverished mostly because they don't work together and help one another.  In the West it would be easy to create supportable communities specifically for monastics.  3M Western Buddhists could easily support several hundred monastics, perhaps more. As land and buildings accreted, housing becomes much less of an issue and food and other costs drop to near insignificance.  In real countries with a real society (i.e. universal health care) this concern isn't an issue (depending on how the universal health care is implemented).  Thus the 10-20k Buddhists in Austria may be able to support several hundred monastics on their own (should they emerge).


Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Leaving aside  your long-standing antipathy towards the nation in which you reside (which apparently isn't a real country ), I think you missed the point: "...that most western communities are not interested in supporting and in reality, cannot support..." because :"Support of the monastic community in Buddhadharma arises from the belief that one will accumulated merit by supporting monastics..." and there simply are not enough western Buddhists that believe supporting western monastics is sufficiently important since they are already supporting Lamas and Dharma centers, etc.

While I applaud your idealism, the reality is harsh. There simply is not enough support for Western monastics, and the large scale experiments thus far, FPMT, etc., have been marked by spectacular failure for the most part.

I really think that monasticism of virtually every kind is a fading institution because most people do not see it as relevant -- part of this has to do with the dominant Protestant-based culture of the US and northern Europe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Jikan said:
I'm enjoying this conversation as it pertains to the viability of traditional monastic culture and institutions globally.  I'd like to shift the emphasis a bit back to the immediate question of desire.  Let's say, hypothetically, that a student of Dharma is experiencing very strong desire or attachment or undiluted sexual desire.  How ought that student to be advised in terms of practice?  What are some different ways in which a serious student of Dharma might work with desire in practical terms?


Malcolm wrote:
If they are not a Vajrayāna practitioner, they should follow the advice given in the Bodhicaryāvatara concerning attachment and sexual desire.

If they are a Vajrayāna practitioner, they should work with their sadhana practice and understand that Vajrayāna practice tends to heighten afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
JKhedrup said:
...But I don't see enough reasonably sane Westerners taking it up and keeping their ordination for significant periods of time.

Due to the sad reality of the situation, my first question to would-be Western ordinands has to be "how will you support yourself?". And if the answer is by working a regular job in a non-dharma environment, I advise them it isn't a good idea to ordain.

Malcolm wrote:
Thank you. That is my basic point.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have met four people who I am certain are/were genuinely realized people on the bhumis

5heaps said:
how do you tell that it is not merely something like coarse selflessness ie. that persons are btags-yod rather than substantially knowable as they appear now


Malcolm wrote:
Can you rephrase the question in English?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Sometimes it is more pragmatic for Centres to have monastics in certain roles, we are not always necessarily a burden!

For example, because I am a monk translator, I live in the centre and only have to take a small stipend. I know centres where the translators are laypeople and they have husbands/wives and children to support- so they need a bigger salary. If they live outside they need money for rent, if they live in the centre their partner needs a room too.

Even single translators in most cases need a bit of money to go on a date once in awhile, or buy some decent clothes.

Because I'm a monk I can live on a pittance, I am waaay cheaper than a layperson translator would be.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but supporting a community of bhikṣus becomes quickly problematical, don't you agree?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Astus said:
Do you mean that they teach one thing but practise another?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Astus -- this is the function of the two truths.

In truth, this statement by Nāgārjuna illustrates how to practice according to Mahāyāna:

Hold your mind tightly when it (starts to) rove, as though it were
Like your learning, similar to your child, resembling a treasure,
or comparable to your life.
Recoil from the pleasures of sensory objects, as though they were like
Venom, poison, a weapon, an enemy, or fire.
Sensory objects bring ruination! The Lord of the Triumphant
Has said that they're like the kimpaka fruit -
(sweet on the outside, bitter within).
Abandon them! By their iron chains,
Worldly people are bound in the prison of recurring samsara.
Of those who triumph over the objects
Of the ever-inconstant, roving six senses,
And those over a host of foes in battle,
The wise favor the first to be the best heroes.

http://www.rigdzindharma.org/uploads/6/9/5/6/6956478/nagarjunalettertoafriend.pdf




Astus said:
You change the view from attachment to objects to non-attachment to objects. This is no different from what Ajahn Chah said, or what you find in Mahayana...

Malcolm wrote:
But in former, you do so without ever giving up such objects, and in the latter, one must give up objects. This is the essential difference between the path of renunciation and the path of transformation.



Astus said:
It means that affliction (klesa) is empty, therefore there is nothing to reject or transform.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in ultimate truth -- but ultimate truth is not a practice, it is a realization. So when you realize emptiness completely, then for you afflictions are singed and no longer give forth fruit. Teachings like these are very characteristic of Chan, which I recognize and accept as a definitive understanding of the purport of Mahāyāna sutras. But Chan is still a path of renunciation, even if its view is beyond accepting and rejecting objects, there is still subtle and not so subtle accepting and rejecting concerning relative and ultimate truth.

Astus said:
...No, only the attachment to them, otherwise arhats would be blind and deaf. The sensation stays, only grasping goes.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is why it is not part of the path of transformation because "...those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside." And it is not teaching a path of self-liberation either because the refrain in each verse is "...those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside."

But it is a nice sutta and it does present the path of renunciation most perfectly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Right, most monastics are religious professional providing ecclesiastical services, which is not what Buddha intended for bhikṣus, etc. There were already brahmins for that.

Indrajala said:
History decided otherwise, especially when the traditional mendicant lifestyle became infeasible in some territories. You have Brahmanical literature which talks about what a bad omen it is when yellow robed monks show up. The long conflict between Buddhists and Brahmins, which the former lost, saw a need for landed monasticism.

Malcolm wrote:
There were and are all kinds of mendicants in yellow robes in India, not just Buddhists.


Indrajala said:
...

Later on full bhikṣu ordinations were restricted by the state. Until fairly recently there were not so many full bhikṣu-s in Chinese Buddhism. Modern authors sometimes lamented how earlier a lot of monks just had the tonsure and that's it.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, my point precisely.

Indrajala said:
In the case of Zen, a Zen monk in Kamakura Japan was a monk. He lived in a monastery, shaved his head and was expected to maintain celibacy. That's what we call a monk in English. They weren't legally defined as bhikṣu-s, but then in Japanese "bhikṣu" became a humble first person pronoun. Their own forms of monasticism developed based on environmental and social circumstances.

Malcolm wrote:
As you know from the E-sangha debacle, for me a Buddhist "monk" is a bhikṣu. So called Buddhist "monks" who are not bhikṣus, etc., are just celibate/non-celibate lay people.

My position on this has not changed one iota. The fact that there are so called Buddhist "monks" who do not have vows, and generally behave like ordinary people just illustrates my point even more.




Indrajala said:
The fact that money carries value is sufficient. There is no intrinsic value to gold, its value is also determined by fiat.
There ain't no precepts against having fiat currency through a plastic card connected to a global banking network.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and there is no precept against smoking tobacco, despite the fact that Buddha would have disapproved of it.

Indrajala said:
Christian monks, yes, not Buddhist monks.
You should visit Taiwan. They got full bhikṣu-s growing food.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, then they are breaking their precepts, and that is a pity.

Indrajala said:
The Vinaya[s] is/are the only basis upon which someone can be considered a bhiḳsu or not.


Bhikṣu just means beggar. There's a legal definition of the term, but you fail to recognize that the Buddha's first disciples and some other eminent followers were technically bhikṣu-s without having received any precepts at all (this is called a svagata bhikṣu in Vinaya jargon). The first disciples had no precepts because precepts only came to exist, at least as the story goes, because of incidents occurring that caused problems for the community.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is true. But when you ordain you receive all of these accreted vows, and are expected to maintain them. For example, when you receive Bodhisattva vows, you don't decide which ones you are going to follow based on whether it is convenient for you. You try your best to follow all.

The first disciples of the Buddha were generally stream entrants very quickly. Later as more common foolish people ordained, Buddha needed to elaborate rules for their conduct. Buddha also was able to merely declare someone a Bhiksu, without any other rite. But this is not how it is for us today. In order to become any kind of ordained person up to bhikṣu, you must become ordained through a rite. Or are you suggesting we can just dispense with ordination rites as well, since after all, Buddha did not use them in the beginning?

Indrajala said:
The Vinaya system nevertheless is a later development and the fundamentalist interpretation of it, which you are pushing here to justify your lack of generosity towards monastics, was not the Buddha's intent at all. Even according to the orthodox story, he told Ananda to drop the minor rules. He's also on record starting that things could be adapted to foreign environments.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, when monks live in cold climates, they can have leather sandals and fur cloaks; when they are sick they can drink alcohol, and so forth. Ananda, as we know, forgot to ask what "minor" meant and no one so far as had the arrogance to decide what that meant.

Indrajala said:
There's nothing wrong with ignoring or simply cutting away rules and regulations...

Malcolm wrote:
Statements like this merely prove that this age is not a suitable age for monasticism. Pretty soon we will see Buddhist "monks" "inventing" rules that allow one to be married, non-celibate, and wealthy (Oh wait, we already have that in Japan).

Indrajala said:
...which make no sense anymore (like having to smear your room with cow dung after having eaten garlic).

Malcolm wrote:
Cow dung mixed with cow urine and spread on the wall of a clay house smells quite sweet. But granted, it would be hard to do anywhere in the West. But the intent is obvious-- if you eat garlic you need to deodorize yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, June 8th, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


kirtu said:
I'm somewhat surprised to hear this as there are several Western people who have ordained in the Sakya lineage.  I think that some of these Westerners sell others a bit short and quote HE Dezhung Rinpoche's somewhat pessimistic remarks from ~26 years ago (something that Trungpa for one addressed).

There are a few, but not so many. And we will see how long they last.


I never said that you advocated harming beings.  I said that you advocate dropping formally taking precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, I never said anything such thing. I said it was pointless to take ordination as a bhikṣu in this day and age. I never said that avoiding the ten non-virtues should be ignored (nor would I), I never suggested that people avoid receiving bodhisattva vows, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Monastics, in Buddhadharma, by definition are dependent on others for everything.

Indrajala said:
That's not how it works in real life though.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, most monastics are religious professionals providing ecclesiastical services, which is not what Buddha intended for bhikṣus, etc. There were already brahmins for that.


Indrajala said:
Monastics are forbidden to dig in the ground, so they cannot feed themselves. They are forbidden to handle money, so they really ought not work. In fact, monasticism, of the Buddhist variety, is pretty unsustainable.


Chan and Zen monasteries are well known for their agriculture. They sustained themselves in times of social upheaval and civil war when economic systems were in chaos.

Malcolm wrote:
Bad example, especially in the case of Zen, where we know that virtually no "monks" fit the criteria of being considered bhikṣus. And in China, this kind of labor was done by novices who have no vow not to dig in the ground, not by senior bhikṣus.

Indrajala said:
Again, the issue with money is largely irrelevant. As we know most monastics nowadays use money, which is fiat currency anyway and has no relation to precious metals or gems.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that money carries value is sufficient. There is no intrinsic value to gold, its value is also determined by fiat.

Indrajala said:
Having homeless mendicants creates a financial burden that most western communities are not interested in supporting and in reality, cannot support.
I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that there are monks who grow their own food, cut their own firewood and generate their own income through various crafts.

Malcolm wrote:
Christian monks, yes, not Buddhist monks.

Indrajala said:
Your criticism here is based on prescriptions in the Vinaya, many of which are ignored nowadays.

Malcolm wrote:
The Vinaya[s] is/are the only basis upon which someone can be considered a bhiḳsu or not. Their success as a bhikṣu depends largely on how successful they are at a) maintaining all of their vows and b) regularly reciting posadha. I would personally never support a monk who was not 100 percent committed to maintain all of their vows precisely. If they were, then I would support them. But because I have met virtually no monks in my tradition [Mulasarvastivada] who are so committed, I don't support them.  And that is largely my point, it is very difficult to follow monastic vows precisely in this day and age. Since they all are Vajrayāna practitioners, it is better for them to be laypeople, in my opinion. It is not whether monks are good or bad, it is about whether Buddhaist monasticism can be maintained in a proper way, and I think that conditions for that are vanishing, both because of the qualities of the people seeking ordination and because of the qualities of the epoch -- which are both rather inferior, in my opinion -- though there are rare exceptions like HH Dalai Lama, Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche and so on.

Indrajala said:
And frankly, most dana given by Westerners goes into gold for statues and stupas, not into the support of monastics.
Maybe in Tibetan Buddhism that's the case, but that's not universal.

Malcolm wrote:
I was talking about Buddhadharma in the West. Of course, in Asia, there are large populations of monastics who extract a huge amount of money out of lay people for support.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Indrajala said:
I think one practical consideration overlooked in this discussion is that monasticism is economically efficient. Instead of having several households, you have a community living together with shared resources. The community also will ideally look after its own, so if you become ill, then there's always someone to look after you. On top of that communal living can be emotionally rewarding. Practice is up to the individual, but basic life concerns are readily taken care over through monastic arrangements. Not having children and relationships can free up a lot of time in life to focus on one's interests.

There's practical elements to monasticism that we can't overlook. Now, granted, monasticism is not necessarily renunciation, but it is a step in that direction.

Malcolm wrote:
It can't be economically efficient.

Monastics, in Buddhadharma, by definition are dependent on others for everything. Monastics are forbidden to dig in the ground, so they cannot feed themselves. They are forbidden to handle money, so they really ought not work. In fact, monasticism, of the Buddhist variety, is pretty unsustainable.

In fact, the economic burden imposed by the enormous plethora of monastics in the early period of Śakyamuni's Dharma was one of the reasons Ashoka cracked down and assisted the Vaibhajyavadins in "defrocking" many thousands of monks. Having homeless mendicants creates a financial burden that most western communities are not interested in supporting and in reality, cannot support.

Support of the monastic community in Buddhadharma arises from the belief that one will accumulated merit by supporting monastics. There are simply not enough western Buddhists to effectively do so in the West. And frankly, most dana given by Westerners goes into gold for statues and stupas, not into the support of monastics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Enjoyment of wine, meat, sexual partners and so on has never been discouraged in my spiritual tradition.

Indrajala said:
Sounds like quite a desirable arrangement.

Malcolm wrote:
It is what it is. Some people don't like sex, meat and wine, other people do. There is a path of liberation for both. I personally think the path of the latter is more rapid than the path of the former, but that is just my opinion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
mandala said:
Saying - oh it's kali yuga.. degenerate times.. becoming ordained is too hard, let's get drunk and pick up some women and call it spiritual practice - is frankly the polluted state of mind the Buddha talked about.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I say that? No.

mandala said:
Ditto for using 'you don't see many arhats around these days' as some kind of curious proof that there aren't highly realised practitioners about... well, of course you don't see them, that's your karma. That would be an indication to me that one needs to grow a pair and get serious about keeping vows and ethical living - not to simply declare it wouldn't work in the society we live in because there are so many desirous objects about.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I say there were no highly realized people around? No, what I said was is that these days one does not encounter many arhats or first stage bodhisattvas practicing classical Mahāyāna. I have met four people who I am certain are/were genuinely realized people on the bhumis, above and beyond the idea that one should regard one's spiritual friend or guru as a buddha. I have met a few more than I am certain have cultivated at least strong heat on Vajrayāna path of application.

mandala said:
No matter what the path, it all starts with renunciation.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, renunciation is the wish to be free from samsara. Some people assume that begins with giving up sense objects. However, that is a false assumption. There is no need to give up sense objects in order to be free of samsara.

mandala said:
The [ordained] sangha is the measure of dharma in the world...

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, it isn't. For example, the Buddha Sikhin was not ordained and never created a monastic Sangha. It may be the measure of Śakyamuni's monastic dispensation, but it is not the measure of Dharma in the world, though a lot of monastics have a vested interest in keeping people convinced that it is so.

mandala said:
In The Heaps of Jewels Sutra, Buddha said: “If all the beings in the universe were to become bodhisattvas as lay people, and they each offered a butter lamp as vast as a great ocean to a stupa containing the relics of all the [past] Buddhas, this would not equal even a fraction of the merit gained by a single ordained bodhisattva offering one butterlamp to the holy stupa.”

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, Mahāyāna is a path of renunciation in which monastic ordination is often valorized. However, I would rather achieve liberation swiftly than accumulate a lot of merit in an external fashion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Enjoyment of wine, meat, sexual partners and so on has never been discouraged in my spiritual tradition.

gregkavarnos said:
"Your" spiritual tradition or the spiritual tradition that you are currently practicing in?  Not meaning to be a pedant or anything, but you just sound a little too Jim Jonesish when you make statements expressed in that manner!

Malcolm wrote:
My spiritual tradition. I started out as a Vajrayāna practitioner in Sakya. The attitude towards these things in Sakya is not different in Dzogchen teachings. For example, one of the key creation stage practices for lay people in Sakya is called "The yoga of passion". Meat and alcohol are considered indispensable for Ganapujas, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


Clarence said:
Thank you Malcolm for participating in this thread.

Secondly: you mention in another post that the path of transformation is not about experiencing anger and then transforming it. Would you mind elaborating on what you think it really is then?

Malcolm wrote:
The path of transformation involves transforming our impure vision into a pure vision. The basic theory underlying this that when everything is perceived as gold, one stops desiring gold. So we are to understand through empowerment and then sadhana, for example, that all of our aggregates are buddhas, all of the elements are female buddhas, our sense organs and sense objects are bodhisattvas and offering goddesses and so on. But it is not a psychological technique of antidotes i.e. I am experiencing anger, but this is really Akṣobhya, for example. The path of transformation means transforming our relationship with the world, sentient beings and our own body (through empowerment and sadhana) from an impure relationship into a pure relationship. The path of transformation involves taking the result as the path -- for Buddhas, sense objects are not toxic, they are not afflictive, they are pure goddesses. When sense objects and consciousnesses are purified through the process of sadhana, the afflictive power of sense objects is lessened, and the links between sensation and craving is weakened and finally severed. For example, we replace our sense of identity with a Buddha identity -- the so called "divine pride" which is the essence of the creation stage, etc.  In the course of working with pure vision, it is necessary to engage sense objects in every different way, smells, colors, tastes, sounds, sights, and so on.

Clarence said:
Thirdly: you say a path of renunciation of sense objects is not necessary in these times but does that mean retreat is not necessary either? Wouldn't it be better to do a 3-year Thogal retreat than a 3-year The Big Bang Theory Marathon retreat?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course retreat is important. Yes, it would be better to do a three year retreat on one deity like Hevajra, than a retreat where you do tons of different sadhanas. If you are a Dzogchen practitioner, it would be better to do a three retreat on Dzogchen preliminaries like rushan, etc. on up through tregchö and thögal. But one does not need to do a three year retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
The point apparently alluded to is the explicit inclusion of the Bodhisattva path thus supplying trainees with methods that go beyond simple renunciation.  Renunciation is added to somewhat in the progressively higher yanas.  Principally the Bodhisattva Path sees the beginning of transformation of the perception of sense objects presaging the flowering of that theme in the Vajrayana ("The Wheel of Sharp Weapons" for example).

Malcolm wrote:
When it comes to the Bodhisattva path, we have six or ten perfections, correct? Not one of the six or ten perfections can be construed as enjoying sense objects and sense pleasures for our own benefit. The basis of the bodhisattva path is not enjoyment of sense objects for our own benefit and never can be.

This [enjoyment of sense objects and sense pleasures] is however the basis of the Vajrayāna path in toto.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
kirtu said:
Why is Malcolm wrong wrt renunciation?  He doesn’t just want people to shy away from the Path of Renunciation, he wants people to abandon entry into the monastic sangha as well.  He has claimed in other conversations that people are more or less incapable of holding vows and thus the taking of vows sets people up for the cultivation of demerit instead of merit.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact they more or less are so incapable, which is why the Sakya hierarchs actively discourage people from seeking to ordain. But I don't want people to do anything. If people are all fired up to become monks and nuns (mostly because they are having a fantasy that they will be able to practice more and better) then they are free to do as they please.

kirtu said:
Why is Malcolm wrong?  He is wrong because as trainees in the Buddhadharma the very first step is to restrain one’s behavior and refrain from performing harmful actions.  This protects other beings and yourself as well. It protects yourself by immediately accumulating merit and refraining from committing actions that create negative karma.

Malcolm wrote:
Whoever said I was advocating that people go out and harm sentient beings? Your point is wildly and completely off the mark.

kirtu said:
HH Sakya Trizen  has said that once one begins behaving in the right way, they naturally create merit. What is behaving in the right way?  Of course this involves abandoning killing, stealing, deception (lying), sexual misconduct and harsh, divisive speech.

Malcolm wrote:
But this has nothing to do with my point, once again.

kirtu said:
Why have these two lamas (and many others)  not leapt directly to Malcolm’s solution of maintaining transcendent awareness or constantly dwelling in the Bodhi mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are projecting -- I never proposed such a solution. I merely pointed out what HH Sakya Trizin taught so many years ago when I first took teachings from him: that in this day and age, the path of renunciation was not effective anymore, and practicing Vajrayāna teachings such as Hevajra which did not involve giving up sense objects was more effective in this epoch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Enjoyment of wine and sexual partners is not a problem if you have a proper method.

Indrajala said:
Therein lay the danger: thinking you're successfully carrying out the method when in reality you're just excusing behaviour you know is discouraged by your religious tradition, or at least a good part of it for many many centuries.

Malcolm wrote:
Enjoyment of wine, meat, sexual partners and so on has never been discouraged in my spiritual tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Indrajala said:
While Malcolm is entitled to his opinion, I fear some might assume that enjoyment of wine and women/men is not really problematic and instead think they see it all as bodhi while actively engaging in such sense pleasures in a way that proves detrimental.

Malcolm wrote:
Enjoyment of wine and sexual partners is not a problem if you have a proper method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


kirtu said:
What about the reintroduction of the Gomin path (lifelong lay renunciates).  Or even one day vows or serious Nyungne practice?  This begins to get a little tricky.  Malcolm can't just reject Nyungne practice because it is lower tantra (except that from memory he might also reject lower tantra practice).  But for some people these are necessary practice paths (necessary for the individual).

Malcolm wrote:
I don't reject any practice, not even taking ordination. If someone is dead set on becoming ordained, that is their business. I simply think that conditions are not conducive in this age for paths of renunciation, and that other paths are more effective for people.

kirtu said:
The very nature of renunciation changes somewhat from yana to yana but renunciation is still a component even of higher tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
There is renunciation, the wish to be free from samsara. That is one thing. Then there are paths of renunciation, where for example, you follow many rules about what and who you can touch, and what and who you cannot touch and so on, what you should wear, what you should wear.

The former [renunciation] is necessary in every path, and especially it is necessary in the Kali Yuga. The latter [a path of renunciation of sense objects] is not necessary at all, and is especially difficult to follow in the Kali Yuga — and not, in my opinion, a particularly effective path in modern society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 6:49 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
wisdom said:
In essence the Mahayana approach goes beyond accepting and rejecting objects of the senses as inherently good or bad...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, it doesn't — Mahāyāna regards sense objects as negative, something to be rejected.

Astus said:
This is from a Theravada teacher (who was also a Vinaya specialist),

"For the really earnest student, the more sensations the better. But many meditators shrink away from sensations, they don't want to deal with them. This is like the naughty schoolboy who won't go to school, won't listen to the teacher. These sensations are teaching us. When we know sensations then we are practicing Dhamma."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/living.html )

Malcolm wrote:
This is quite different.


Astus said:
The doctrine that "affliction is enlightenment" (煩惱即菩提) is well known in East Asian Mahayana schools like Chan and Tiantai.

Malcolm wrote:
You can find such statements in Mahāyāna sutras, but such statements do not constitute the path of Mahāyāna.


Astus said:
In Vajrayana they say that the sutra path is renunciation, the tantra path is transformation and the dzogchen path is self-liberation (e.g. http://www.dzogchen.org.au/index.php?page=dzogchen ).

And here is what a Chan master said,

"There are many methods in practicing Buddhism. The Lesser Vehicle practices “eradicating afflictions.” The Great Vehicle (Mahayana) “transforms afflictions.” In the Ultimate Vehicle “afflictions are bodhi.” Each method is centered on the mind. In the end, they all enable sentient beings to attain unsurpassed complete enlightenment."
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna one does not transform afflictions. That is not what "path of transformation" means in Vajrayāna. You don't experience anger, for example, and then try to change it into the mirror-like wisdom.

Further, we have to examine what is meant by "affliction" is bodhi.

Trotting out slogans does not produce understanding. In fact, it can show that one has not understood anything of what the other person is getting at, as in this case.

Astus said:
Although there are different traditions they are aware of the various methods that can be used in order to deal with desire, anger and ignorance. In a single teaching the Buddha gave five different methods to deal with unskilful thoughts, and these techniques could be matched with the above three: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html.

Malcolm wrote:
Perfect example of the path of renunciation in toto. I do not see at all how, for example, this relates in anyway to the path of transformation. I can see very clearly where all five paragraphs of that sutra are as applicable in Mahāyāna as they are in the Nikāya Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, yes it does, and anyone sufficiently educated in Mahāyāna knows this.

oushi said:
And you think what, if not education, is the cause of so few arhats nowadays?

Malcolm wrote:
Most arhats were highly educated brahmins, but not all.

oushi said:
so you are perfectly aware of Mahayana teachings that go beyond rejection, or acceptance of any dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
From the perspective of ultimate truth; but Mahāyāna practice is not merely confined to the perspective of ultimate truth. The rejection of sense objects is a key component of the Mahāyāna path, and why it is defined, along with the Nikāya schools, as a path of renunciation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


wisdom said:
In essence the Mahayana approach goes beyond accepting and rejecting objects of the senses as inherently good or bad...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, it doesn't — Mahāyāna regards sense objects as negative, something to be rejected.

oushi said:
Well, no, it doesn't. Of course, you can construct such a view out of all the available teachings, but you can also construct totally opposite view out of them...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, yes it does, and anyone sufficiently educated in Mahāyāna knows this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:


wisdom said:
In essence the Mahayana approach goes beyond accepting and rejecting objects of the senses as inherently good or bad...

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, it doesn't — Mahāyāna regards sense objects as negative, something to be rejected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
spot dawa said:
Nirvana itself arises due to conditions...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it doesn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
spot dawa said:
Certainly true, Malcolm!  There is a certain very powerful feeling of joy that comes with surrender.  A person who has pledged to be of benefit to all sentient beings is drawn on to holiness by that joy, and the pleasures of compassion and lovingkindness.  Those feelings of enjoyment are also capable of becoming fetters; they are to be replaced by equanimity.

Also in the same vein as desire, is aversion, as is indifference.  Equanimity is the result of applying the antidote to these poisons.

Karma Dorje said:
Applying antidotes is just housekeeping in a dream.


Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Please try to avoid the sweeping generalisations.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? You don't.


Look around, it is not like there are thousands of arhats, or first stage bodhisattvas. We are not in India in the Pre-Gupta phase, when realization was relatively easy.

We are at the stale end of the dispensation of Śākyamuni. Hell, most [Mahāyāna] people here don't even believe the texts they follow were actually authored by the historical Buddha.

95% of all the westerners that really try to do the Bhikṣu thing give back their vows. It is a little different with bhikṣunis, because they are more ideologically motivated [which is also not exactly renunciation].

As a great Sakya master put it "What's the use of the cutting the hair on your head if you can't cut the woolly mess of concepts?"

I know a lot of bhikṣus -- and every last one of them is worldly and lacks renunciation. Not one of them lives according to Vinaya. It is different in Theravada, of course. But that is ethnic Buddhism, as far as the bhikku Sangha goes -- and even then, renunciation is in short supply in Theravadin monasteries as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
spot dawa said:
who does not cultivate lustful thought or actions...

Malcolm wrote:
Desire objects are not confined to sex. Bodhisattvas in Mahāyāna training are not supposed to enjoy any sense objects for their own benefit, only if it will benefit others. The general attitude in Mahāyāna towards sense objects is illustrated by Candragomin:
Objects and poisons are alike, pleasing just when first tasted.
Objects and poisons are alike, their result is unpleasant and unbearable.
Objects and poisons are alike, causing one to be clouded by the darkness of ignorance.
Objects and poisons are alike, their power is hard to reverse, and deceptive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
smcj said:
I hear there is a lot of tension in Dharamsala between the Tibetans who come from Tibet and the ones already living there or born there. Apparently the Tibetan Tibetans are disappointed because there standard of living diminishes when they arrive in India (this applies to Lhasa Tibetans).
They are free to go back. They don't.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, they often do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Indrajala said:
This is a fault to consider and good cause for abandoning desire.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you are practicing a path of renunciation. But in the Kali Yoga, this is not realistic.

Indrajala said:
Prove it.


Malcolm wrote:
Prove what, that this is not a good time for paths of renunciation?

With logic and reason or text? Or both.

As for the first, [though you simply wont agree even when presented with a vast amount of evidence] in this day and age, the Sangha of Bhikṣus has basically come to the point where it is basically badge wearing and politics, and is completely irrelevant in the world we live in, outside of offering pastoral service to ethnic Buddhists (in ever declining numbers).

And of course there are numerous tantras that declare the path of renunciation of desire objects is no longer effective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Dealing With Desire
Content:
Indrajala said:
This is a fault to consider and good cause for abandoning desire.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you are practicing a path of renunciation. But in the Kali Yoga, this is not realistic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetans did not have the industrial infrastructure to build such a military, nor the economic wealth to buy such a military. So your point is invalid.

Indrajala said:
Was there an attempt to do so? That's the key question.

Japan got the ball rolling on it early on.

Malcolm wrote:
Japan had ports and a healthy trade relationship with the Western colonial powers. They were able to afford a modern Navy, and they were not corrupt like the Qing.



Indrajala said:
The policy of Xenophobia was an understandable response to the encroachment of colonial powers in Asia.
That's just an excuse for a poor political policy.

Malcolm wrote:
It's not an excuse, it is a fact.


Indrajala said:
Look at Japan -- they had an isolationist policy for centuries, but they also were not a landlocked nation.
Right, but when they realized that policy wasn't going to work any longer, they opened up trade and diplomatic negotiations with foreign powers and established themselves as a recognized sovereign state.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, they were forced to open their doors by the United States. No one wanted anything from Tibet because no one understood that there was anything there. People were only interested in Tibet because of border issues.


Indrajala said:
Religious prejudice on the part of the Gelug-controlled Goverment of Tibet ; all these prophecies came from the Nyingma school, specifically the treasure tradition.
Again, not reacting in an intelligent way to a dangerous situation while prophecies all talk about Tibet's imminent downfall.

Malcolm wrote:
All this proves is that Tibetans were keenly aware of their predicament and shows that at least outside of the moribund, Chinese influenced government of Tibet, there was considerable anxiety about what the Chinese would do for over a 100 years. You can understand that Tibet was much like Italy prior to Garibaldi. There was no "Tibet" -- that is why most of your arguments are bogus. The Tibetans even today are not united around questions of ethnicity and tribe. Tibet is a Western political construction for western Colonial purposes.



Indrajala said:
All you are giving evidence of is that your study of Tibetan culture, history and religion lack depth and nuance.
Well, an eyewitness account by Heinrich Harrer states that in the 40s Kham was in fact bandit territory that the Lhasa government had no control over. Nobody had control over it. At the time it seems it was anarchy, at least in the areas he visited and according to the people he spoke to.

Malcolm wrote:
Harrer? Are you serious? The Gelugpas hated Kham because it was a Nyingma stronghold. So of course they would claim it was full of bandits. In fact Khams was most intellectually developed region of Tibet, far more open and interesting than the intellectual moribund monastic cities in Lhasa.

And it was not anarchical in the slightest. For Christ sakes, why dont you read books by people who grew up there and wrote in Tibetan about their experience their. Basing yourself on the reports of Nazis is ridiculous.

Look, the whole story can be traced in this way: in 1705 Lhazang Khan, at the encouragement of Kangxi Emperor, attacked Lhasa and murdered virtually every one in the Govt and took teh 6th Dalai Lama captive. After the sixth was murdered, a seventh Dalai Lama was recognized, and with this one, the Qing Dynasty seized control of Lhasa as well as Kham and Amdo after Tashi Rabten and Zhungar Mongols were defeated (who themselves had wrested control of Lhasa from Lazang Khan in 1717).

The Kangxi Emperor (1622–1723) declared Tibet a protectorate of the Qing Empire and in 1727 installed two high commissioners, or ambans, and a garrison of Qing troops from China in Lhasa.[10] The walls of Lhasa were torn down and "Kham (with Batang, Litang, Tatsienlu, etc.) annexed to the Chinese province of Sichuan. The Qing protectorate, which was to last till the end of the Qing Dynasty (1912), was established."[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelzang_Gyatso,_7th_Dalai_Lama

So you see, Tibet was been an occupied nation most of the last two hundred and eighty six years, except from the period of thirty three years i.e., 1913-1950, when conditions made it possible for the Tibetans to throw off Chinese rule and declare independence. But as you can see, even though they did, while the British (to their advantage) accepted that Tibet was an independent nation, the US never did.

[
Indrajala said:
quote]
It is difficult when the Chinese and British are writing treaties about you without your participation.

Malcolm wrote:
It is difficult to participate in diplomatic negotiations when you fail to play the game of formal diplomacy.[/quote]

You might as well blame American Indians for being screwed over by the US Government because they too were either not invited or did not understand the rules. Hell, while we are at it, lets just wash away the Holocaust too, because the Jews were not able to negotiate well with the Nazis. After all, Africans just let themselves be sold into slavery. There is no injustice in the world, just incompetent peoples and nations that allow themselves to be exploited and massacred.

Indrajala said:
You forget that eighty thousand khampas showed up to fight the PLA in 1959. You forget than the invasion of Tibet took nine years to complete, starting in 1950 when the PLA started "liberating" Tibet.   You forget that the international community just stood by and watched as the PLA invaded Tibet.
The insurgency of course happened, but how well coordinated was it? The invasion took time, sure, but that's the roof of the world. The failure of the international community to respond is an intriguing question because the western power bloc reacted differently in Korea and elsewhere. It seems to me this was largely because foreign powers just didn't know about Tibet. How many Tibetan representatives at the time could have met with officials in London or Washington?

Malcolm wrote:
No one would supply the Tibetan insurgency with arms until after 1959. Then, the CIA did for a number of years until Nixon abandoned them.

The United States, as a matter of official policy has always considered Tibet a part of China, and therefore, no one would ever hear an embassy from Tibetans advocating for themselves. In 1943 the US State Department wrote:

"The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised (a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet."[55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Tibet#cite_ref-58

Therefore, at no time would the US even have considered helping the Tibetans against the Chinese in an overt war.

Indrajala said:
In fact, it was the 13th Dalai Lama who threw off the shackles of the Qing (which is why he is considered a hero) and tried to modernize the army and so on without success.
He might have tried, but his government appears to have acted unwisely resulting in the downfall of Tibet. Nevertheless, at the same time you had all these prophecies predicting the downfall of the culture. Did it seem inevitable?

Malcolm wrote:
The 13th died in 1936. He tried his best having inherited a moribund government that had been eviscerated for one hundred and eighty six years the corrupt politicians of the Qing protectorate.

But when you understand the history a bit better, blaming the Tibetans for losing Tibet is just like blaming a girl for being raped.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Indrajala:
Elsewhere we've discussed varying religious explanations for the cultural destruction of Tibet. In this regard, I brought up the point that I seldom hear anyone, especially Tibetan Buddhists, point out it was the bad political decisions of the Tibetan government that failed to deter the PRC takeover of Tibet.
No, it was the fact that Tibetan Government had been subject the whims of the Qing Dynasty Ambans for most of the nineteenth century that lead to Tibet's weakened political structure in the nineteenth, plus the fact that Tibetan was used as a football during the great game between Britain and Russia. Also, if you recall correctly, the Tibetans had to repel a Chinese invasion as well as deal with the Younghusband expedition.

Unknown said:
I imagine this has something to do with the issue that if you criticize the former government, you're indirectly criticizing the 13th Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso, which may be perceived as criticism against the present 14th Dalai Lama.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't think Tibetans are so naive.

Unknown said:
In any case, while the pro-Tibetan lobby frequently lays full blame on homicidal communist forces from China, there were a few factors that made the takeover of Tibet relatively easy.

- Tibet was very reluctant and slow to modernize both its infrastructure and military, thus posing little challenge to the battle hardened mechanized army of the PRC. There was almost no military deterrent.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetans did not have the industrial infrastructure to build such a military, nor the economic wealth to buy such a military. So your point is invalid.

Unknown said:
- The Tibetan government kept foreigners out and didn't make an active move for international recognition until it was too late. They didn't establish embassies in the capitals of world powers. After WWII when it was clear the British were moving out of India, it would have been apparent that Tibet should have entered onto the world stage.

Malcolm wrote:
The policy of Xenophobia was an understandable response to the encroachment of colonial powers in Asia. Tibet's regions at that time border both China and Burma directly, as well as Nepal, etc.  and a great deal of trade contact made the Tibetans aware of what was in store for nations like China (and themselves) as well when colonial powers were let in. Look at Japan -- they had an isolationist policy for centuries, but they also were not a landlocked nation.

Unknown said:
- Despite several famous prophecies about the imminent downfall of Tibet, it seems the government didn't do much in the way of serious defensive works to deter foreign aggression.

Malcolm wrote:
Religious prejudice on the part of the Gelug-controlled Goverment of Tibet ; all these prophecies came from the Nyingma school, specifically the treasure tradition.

Unknown said:
- Lhasa didn't really have control over places like Kam. It was bandit territory that even the government avoided.

Malcolm wrote:
A large part of Kham was controlled by the King of Derge, and during the 19th Century, Derge was the center of the religious and cultural renaissance called "The Ris med" movement. Western Kham was controlled by the King of Nangchen. Chamdo was controlled by Lhasa. You should get your facts straight. All you are giving evidence of is that your study of Tibetan culture, history and religion lack depth and nuance.

Yes, there were bandits in Tibet. There are still bandits in Tibet [in Golog]. There are also bandits in Tokyo.

Unknown said:
Arguably in such anarchy and ill-managed areas a foreign invading force could have just rolled right in, deep into Tibetan territory, as did happen. The Tibetan government didn't do much to secure their borders or even consolidate themselves as a proper nation state which in turn made it easy for the PRC to claim sovereignty over Tibet without much protest from the international community.

Malcolm wrote:
It is difficult when the Chinese and British are writing treaties about you without your participation.
"Early British efforts to create a boundary for north-east India were triggered by their discovery in the mid-19th century that Tawang, an important trading town, was Tibetan territory.[5] Britain had concluded treaties with Qing China concerning Tibet's boundaries with Burma[6] and Sikkim.[7] However, Tibet refused to recognise the boundaries drawn by these treaties[citation needed]. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband entered Tibet in 1904 and made a treaty with the Tibetans.[8] In 1907, Britain and Russia acknowledged Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Accord_%281914%29


Unknown said:
Now, granted, what's past is past, but nevertheless the narrative of Tibet's downfall, which is an intrinsic part of Tibetan Buddhism nowadays, is quite slanted and one-sided.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, it is not slanted and one-sided at all.

And the fact is that the fall of Tibet had far more to do with Colonialism in Asia than it has anything to do with some innate failure on the part of Tibetans to defend their own nation. You forget that eighty thousand khampas showed up to fight the PLA in 1959. You forget than the invasion of Tibet took nine years to complete, starting in 1950 when the PLA started "liberating" Tibet.   You forget that the international community just stood by and watched as the PLA invaded Tibet.


Unknown said:
Good Tibetans versus Evil Communist Chinese. That's perhaps easier to digest than the reality where China could opportunistically seize Tibet owing in part to the bad political decisions of the Lhasa government. Understandably, there's going to be a reluctance to acknowledge that point. Still, the pro-Tibetan propaganda line doesn't really help matters much because it is skewed and heavily biased.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Tibet was a victim of several factors: western colonial policy, specifically, Britain's presence in India. Tibet was also subject to Qing dynasty in the 18th and 19th century, who poisoned several Dalai Lamas to maintain control over Lhasa (there was a lot of money in the Tibetan salt and tea trades). The Qing deliberately kept the Lhasa government weak and under their control. The primary reason that Kham and Amdo were not under the Lhasa Gvt., is that they were territories of China from the early 18th century onward, not because Khams was filled with bandits.

In fact, it was the 13th Dalai Lama who threw off the shackles of the Qing (which is why he is considered a hero) and tried to modernize the army and so on without success.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
yegyal said:
Yes, I have for many years,  but I guess you're still going to tell me that they call old monks 'rinpoche.'  Well, Indians refer to five year old monks as 'lama' but it doesn't make them lamas.


Indrajala said:
Titles are used loosely and thrown around quite easily. Addressing an elderly Tibetan monk as rinpoche is harmless and done with deferential respect.

Malcolm wrote:
It is harmless, but they think you are an idiot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:


Indrajala said:
Naturally this isn't just TB. I have similar questions about other forms of Buddhism as well. They have grand claims about rapid buddhahood and so forth, but the organizations pushing these claims don't exactly have clean histories. Anyone asking for a demonstration or proof can be told, as I was above, to take it on faith:
All I can say then is that you have not met any mahāsiddhas. Or if you have, you were like Sunakṣatra and could not perceive their qualities.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not an organization, I don't speak for an organization, and you don't have to take anything on faith.

Sunakṣatra was unable to perceive the Buddha's qualities, even though he was his attendant for 24 years. But his vision was blind to Buddha's qualities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Indrajala said:
This helps to explain why a lot of Buddhists are flaming egotists, like me.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm...actually, triumphalism is what feeds egos, which is precisely what you are arguing, that Tibetan Buddhists are on a big ego trip.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It has a Vinaya lineage, it doesn't need more than one. Dharmagupta Vinaya is not different than Mulsarvastivada in its intention. The path of Vinaya in all "eighteen" schools is the same path. There are not different Vinaya paths.

Indrajala said:
No all Vinaya paths are identical. The Mahāsāṃghika school had 218 precepts in contrast to the Dharmagupta's 250. Their goals might have been the same, but nevertheless their procedures still differ.

Malcolm wrote:
The paths are identical.

There are different numbers of rules for each Vinaya because all were compiled separately in different places by different groups. There are minor differences in the mode of ordination procedure. But the paths are the same, how one is to practice, etc. So really, your point isn't valid.


Indrajala said:
My point really is that functionally speaking East Asia just as well has a complete path to liberation plus some components which the Tibetans simply lacked, and there's no reason to denigrate it.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetans do not lack Vinaya. One does not need more than one Vinaya to be a Bhikṣu.


Indrajala said:
Tibetan Buddhism as two bodhisattva vow lineages...so are you going to now argue that Chinese Buddhism has a less complete Mahāyāna system since it only has one bodhisattva precept lineage?


No, because Chinese Buddhism has two mainstream bodhisattva lineages for precepts. One based on the Brahma Net Sūtra and the other on the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra / Sūtra of Bodhisattva Stages.

Malcolm wrote:
Brahma net sutra does not come from India. Your argument was predicated on lineages from India.

Indrajala said:
and presumably some of the divination and astrology practices as found in East Asia that originate from India.
These things are not paths. And Pramaṇā as well as other things never found much footing in the Sino-sphere.
Your statement here is problematic.

They are arguably part of some paths. Kukai and Shingon were quite appreciative of the astrology texts as translated by Amoghavajra and others. However, even long before this we find sūtras which offer detailed guidance on astrology. Astrology was a key part of Buddhadharma to some early Buddhists in India.

Malcolm wrote:
The calculation of auspicious days and calendar creation does not constitute a path. Astrology was a key part of agricultural life everywhere in the world at that time -- still is not a path, however.


Indrajala said:
For example, the Mātaṅga Sūtra (摩登伽經), translated into Chinese in 230 CE by Zhiqian 支謙, is the oldest known Indic sūtra translated into Chinese to include jyotiṣa elements such as the 28 nakṣatras, 9 grahas, monthly gnomic and the Metonic cycle. There was an earlier translation of the text done by An shigao 安世高 between 148-170 CE, though it is much shorter and does not contain astrological references. It is a brief sūtra about a daughter of a witch wanting marry the handsome Ānanda. The mother attempts to use witchcraft to trap and make him consummate a marriage, but fails. The girl becomes a bhikṣuṇī in the end and renounces her evil ways. Zhiqian's work picks up from here and extends the sūtra to include dialogue between characters from some long past time, including many teachings on astrology.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing forbidding the inclusion of astronomical information in sutras and tantras -- that was not my point -- nevertheless astrology and divination do not constitute paths. They simply don't, even if they are useful aids on the path, like medicine, arts and so on.


Indrajala said:
If I'm too thick headed and merit-less to perceive the qualities of a mahāsiddha when I meet them, then there's not much I can do about it at the moment.

Malcolm wrote:
You can be more less intellectual and more open.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
What possible impact on your life, as a Mahayana monk...

Indrajala said:
What exactly does "Mahāyāna monk" mean? Is this in contrast to a Vajrayāna monk? If so, this is again one of those Tibetan Buddhist distinctions that are projected onto others who may not recognize them. That's really unfair, like calling a bhikkhu a Hīnayāna monk. He wouldn't call himself that.

I tend to think of myself more as a śramaṇa. There's really no need to identify with terms so heavily.

Malcolm wrote:
A Mahāyāna monk (or layperson) is someone who, in addition to Pratimokṣa vows, also has Bodhisattva vows. A Vajrayāna monk (or layperson) additionally has samaya vows. Where the lower vows contradict the higher vows, one follows the higher vows.

A bhikku would not recognize Theravada (along with the other "eighteen" schools) as hīnayāna, and he also would not recognize the validity Bodhisattva vows or Vajrayāna vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, June 6th, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The fact that virtually all late Indian Vajrayāna tantras and transmissions, as well as late Mahayāna developments such as the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara tradition, etc., are absent everywhere but in Tibet, Nepal and Mongolia means that no other tradition has all paths taught in India. Thus, the statement can be read as a true statement.

Indrajala said:
"All paths" as late Indian Vajrayāna and Mahayāna excludes other core components which make up a "complete system of Buddhism". Tibetan Buddhism doesn't have a Dharmagupta Vinaya lineage. It has the one Vinaya lineage, sure, but not the alternative paths that were available in India.

Malcolm wrote:
It has a Vinaya lineage, it doesn't need more than one. Dharmagupta Vinaya is not different than Mulsarvastivada in its intention. The path of Vinaya in all "eighteen" schools is the same path. There are not different Vinaya paths.

Indrajala said:
This same applies for bodhisattva precept lineages

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhism as two bodhisattva vow lineages...so are you going to now argue that Chinese Buddhism has a less complete Mahāyāna system since it only has one bodhisattva precept lineage? It seems you must since you fault Tibetan Buddhism for only maintaining one Vinaya lineage. In reality, the intention of bodhisattva precepts are the same whether concise (Nagarjuna's lineage) or elaborate (Asanga and Chinese system).

Indrajala said:
and presumably some of the divination and astrology practices as found in East Asia that originate from India.

Malcolm wrote:
These things are not paths. And Pramaṇā as well as other things never found much footing in the Sino-sphere.

Indrajala said:
Is late period Indian Vajrayāna so much better than what Shingon and Taimitsu in East Asia acquired and developed? The developments in India are not necessarily going to be superior to what unfolded in, say, Shingon or even other native schools like Chan.

Malcolm wrote:
You really do not want me to answer that question. But yes, frankly, Anuttarayoga tantra is intrinsically more profound than Yogatantra, which, by itself, is already profound. I encourage you to receive abhiśeka and practice and study Vajrayāna. All you have to lose is a few more lifetimes on the path.

Indrajala said:
I often find Tibetan Buddhists like to claim the superiority of their practices in contrast to lesser teachings and practices (not you specifically Malcolm), yet very few demonstrate the qualities which they claim their practices rapidly develop.

Malcolm wrote:
All I can say then is that you have not met any mahāsiddhas. Or if you have, you were like Sunakṣatra and could not perceive their qualities.

Indrajala said:
There's something of a superiority complex tied to a lot of Tibetan Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a lot of triumphalism in Buddhism in general, as religions go, it is very triumphalist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhism contains the complete path for awakening for every single conceivable layer of the development of Buddhism in Buddhist history, Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Mantrayāna (including a few developments, such as Dzogchen that do not at all exist outside of Tibetan Buddhism). That is what is meant by "complete".

Indrajala said:
The issue is that some Tibetan Buddhists claim themselves as the only ones with a truly complete path.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that virtually all late Indian Vajrayāna tantras and transmissions, as well as late Mahayāna developments such as the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara tradition, etc., are absent everywhere but in Tibet, Nepal and Mongolia means that no other tradition has all paths taught in India. Thus, the statement can be read as a true statement. It does not mean that other Mahayana traditions do not present a complete path to Buddhahood, it just means that in Tibetan Buddhism one has available all paths that have ever been taught under the rubric of "Buddhism". That cannot be said of any other tradition. It is a simple fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: bit of confusion - 5 colors
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Vairocana is not just the color blue, Vajrasattva is not just the color white in that sequence, but Vairocana arises with all five colors; blue, white, red, yellow, and green."

-- Vajrasattva's Heart Mirror Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:


Indrajala said:
My point is really to demonstrate that some Tibetans, or Tibetan Buddhism in general, defines itself as a caretaker of a complete transmission of Indian Buddhism, despite the fact this is easily contested and moreover refuted. Still, it is part of the Tibetan national identity.


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhism contains the complete path for awakening for every single conceivable layer of the development of Buddhism in Buddhist history, Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Mantrayāna (including a few developments, such as Dzogchen that do not at all exist outside of Tibetan Buddhism). That is what is meant by "complete".

No one intends by complete that Tibetans translated every Indian text. We know this because the record of eminent translators mention that there were many sutras, tantras, and so on that were not translated in Tibetan, such as the Kalacakra in 500,00 lines; The Hevajra Tantra in 500,00 lines, and so on. So obviously, Tibetans themselves are aware that they did not manage to translate every text. But what they were able to bring to Tibet was a complete path path covering all three yānas (as defined from a 8th--10th century Indian Vajrayāna perspective). Yes, of course, we all known including Tibetans, that Tibetan Buddhism was a snapshot of late medieval Indian Buddhist culture during its decline phase.

Further, Merely bringing Abhidharmakosha, Abhisamaya-alaṃkara and one Tantra say, Kalacakra, would constitute a complete transmission of Indian Buddhism.

Buddhadharma is a path, not a bunch of books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Thanks Malcolm, it is very interesting. It seems at the very least that these 4 categories of Tantra are somewhat fluid in some respects.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for example, Manjushri Namasamghiti can be commented upon as a Yoga tantra text, but also as an Anuttarayoga tantra text, or even as a Dzogchen text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Thanks Malcolm. I have heard Sarvavidya mentioned during teachings on Tantric Grounds and Paths, but have never heard of an initiation being given into it.

It is interesting what you say about the Tara and Medicine Buddha practices- most of the initiations rituals I have translated for Geshes describe the practices as Kriya Tantra.
Would this be because they are Jenangs/subsequent permissions rather than dbangs?

I have only translated one 2 day wang/ full initiation into Chenrezig, and it was still described as Kriya Tantra. So now I am totally confused, though I am not dismissing at all what you said, just unsure of what it means on the ground!

Malcolm wrote:
There are many elaborate abhishekas in Kriya tantra.

Medicine Buddha, Tara and so on come from Kriya but they are general practiced according to Yoga Tantra view, that makes them automatically Carya. There are specifically Carya level tantras like the Vairocana-abhisambodhi, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet
Content:
JKhedrup said:
And the Yoga tantras are missing from Tibet, no? How much practice is there of Performance Tantra?

AFAIK, Yoga Tantra is available in Japan.


Malcolm wrote:
Sarvavidyā [From the Sarvadurgatiparishodana] practiced widely in Kagyu, Sakya and Gelugpa is Yogatantra.

Practices such as Tara, Medicine Buddha and so forth where the wisdom being is dismissed is Carya Tantra.

What is not practiced much in Tibetan Buddhism is kriya tantra. But all the initiations for Kriya, Carya and Yoga Tantra still exist and are transmitted in every generation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 6:49 AM
Title: Departure
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dear Friends:

The time has come for me to bid adieu to this particular forum.

You know how to find me via my blog, http://www.atikosha.org " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I will not be checking back in so there is no point in replying this post.

Malcolm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Evolving Beyond Tribalism
Content:
MalaBeads said:
[

I don't know how to have this discussion. I see Dharma as a-cultural, or beyond culture. Not confined to any particular system or any particular era. However, as with learning any art, you have to master the particulars. And particulars are always associated with a "system". The system I learned - and so did you Malcom, was Buddhist. ?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't learn Buddhism, in fact what I learned was Dharma. My mistake for many years was mistaking the former for the latter.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:
Mariusz said:
Thank you, but with all respect, It is just illogical for me,

Malcolm wrote:
Suit yourself, I myself prefer to follow what Indian Mādhyamikas,who were capable of debating with actual Yogacara masters, have to say about the matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Got it in regards to the "fringe" thing!  Thank you!

Still some nagging doubt about the -ism bit.  What is it about the practice of tantra (or tantric practice) in Hindu and Buddhist religion that does not make it an -ism?


Malcolm wrote:
Tantrism is more or less a Western academic fabrication.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Why was it not the way all Indian religious or spiritual movements practiced per se (because it seems to have been a "fringe" thing).

Malcolm wrote:
Subsequent to British Colonialism, forms of religion deemed offensive to the British were largely purged by Western Educated Hindus. Hence what we now think of a "fringe" thing was the dominant religious form among Hindus until the 17th century i.e. the so called Shakti traditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So are you saying that the shared (let's say ritual) similarities between Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra (for example) are not an example of a shared methodology:  a "Tantrism", or "Tantric" approach, if you wish? (let me add you kicked off the use of the word in this thread, I made no such mention previously).
PS I am not being argumentative, I am trying to understand.


Malcolm wrote:
They share methodologies and similarities because they both come from Indian culture, but not because there was something special about "tantra" itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:


gregkavarnos said:
But wait on, is the discussion about religions or practice?  Tantra is, after all, merely a form of method/practice COMMON to some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a kind of misconception. "Tantra", as a movement is a purely Western historical construction. As I have often pointed out, the earliest texts known as "tantras" are medical texts belonging to Ayurveda.

gregkavarnos said:
I said method not movement.  Do you prefer the term praxis?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no real such thing as "Tantrism".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Zen to Tibetan Dictionary? *grins*
Content:
pemachophel said:
For a discussion of the Tibetan Chan Malcolm is referring to, Google Sam van Schaik + Tibet. This will get you to his blog on early Tibetan history. He has 3-4 articles on this issue based primarily on texts from the Dunhuang cache. IMO, definitely worth the read.


Malcolm wrote:
Also in another a thread, there is a link to some papers published on sems sde, one of which review Jeffery Broughton's contention that Chan was influential on Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Evolving Beyond Tribalism
Content:


MalaBeads said:
Buddhism teaches us about the root of these faulty perceptions.

Malcolm wrote:
Substitute "Dharma" for "Buddhism" and I will readily agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:


gregkavarnos said:
But wait on, is the discussion about religions or practice?  Tantra is, after all, merely a form of method/practice COMMON to some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a kind of misconception. "Tantra", as a movement is a purely Western historical construction. As I have often pointed out, the earliest texts known as "tantras" are medical texts belonging to Ayurveda.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in English
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by complete?

dzogchungpa said:
Well, I don't really know. It's just that often when reading Dzogchen discussions I feel like I am missing some basic information,
and I was wondering if there was some systematic presentation I could consult.

I think you recently mentioned 4 of Longchenpa's treasuries in a similar context, but of those, 2 are not yet translated, and I'm not sure if you think the translations available are really accurate.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, in terms of overview, Dudjom Rinpoche's book is fine. But if you are looking for details of how to practice Dzogchen, these days the emphasis is on man ngag sde, and as such, the main text most Lamas teach from is Tri Yeshe Lama. But there are a number of other texts as well.

The Theg mchog mdzod is the most comprehensive review of man ngag sde literature, but it is not translated as of yet, so far as I know.

There is ChNN's Santi Mahasangha, and those who have received all nine levels (no one as of yet to my knowledge) will have received the most comprehensive training in the three series of Dzogchen available.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:
Raksha said:
Suffice to say that the Hindus never beat the Buddhists in debate...

pueraeternus said:
Can you recommend any books or articles that studied this? I have always wondered this, but most of what I have read came from the Buddhist POV, so that's probably biased. It would be interesting to see if there are academic research that confirms that for the most part, Buddhist pandits trounce Hindu ones.


Malcolm wrote:
There are no real objective accounts, just sectarian annals on both sides.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Zen to Tibetan Dictionary? *grins*
Content:
Huseng said:
Chan specific terms won't exist in Tibetan.


Malcolm wrote:
Well,  that just isn't true actually. There are a number if Chan texts in Tibetan translation dating from the eighth century and before.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?
Content:
Raksha said:
Suffice to say that the Hindus never beat the Buddhists in debate...

Malcolm wrote:
That is a pretty unfounded statement. Did you forget Shankaracarya? Navy Nyaya?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen in English
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
This might be a stupid question, but it is a sincere one. Is there anything like a complete, accurate presentation of Dzogchen available in English?

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by complete?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Evolving Beyond Tribalism
Content:
viniketa said:
The reason human society is not utopia already is that no one has figured out a way to replace "what is" with "what should be".  If done by force, coercion, or even mere fraud, utopia collapses immediately.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, no one has yet discovered a method of universally replacing samsara with nirvana. Hence Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:
username said:
major extremist right wingers

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I see. Now I am "major extremist right winger?

Do you seriously think that my piddling opinions have the weight to destroy centuries of world culture?

Are you so deluded as to think that you are saving the masses (your words in another post) in some grand scheme derived from Plato's Republic where you, "having renounced your religion" (again, your words), a philospher king (with advanced western academic degrees, yawn) are preserving religious palliatives for the ignorant masses until such time as they can become Buddhists?

You are on such a tear about my insignificant opinions thay you have made yourself look ridiculous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Can I Hang Up A Thangka Received as a Gift?
Content:
Mr. G said:
I received a very nice thangka of White Mahakala from a very good friend.  He even had it specially framed, and I believe just the framing itself cost a good deal of money (possibly around $300).  My friend doesn't know much about Tibetan Buddhism, and took the thangka solely to be a piece of art.  I know I'm not supposed to hang up thangkas in my apartment like it's just a piece of art, but I also would not like to offend my friend.  Thoughts?


Malcolm wrote:
Hang it up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 5th, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:


conebeckham said:
Seriously, man......read it again, and the meaning is clear.


Malcolm wrote:
Careful Cone, you have put on a black list as my "friend". Lord knows what our resident Joe Mcarthy will do next. Perhaps setup a Commision on Un-Buddhist Activities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 4th, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:


Yudron said:
So, as another example, I would love to see a panel discussion with ChNN,

Malcolm wrote:
You have seen enough Nyingma Khenpos, you can read Van Shaik, etc. easily. I suggest you attend a retreat with ChNN instead, as that would be more useful for you.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 4th, 2012 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:
Yudron said:
I often think how wonderful it would be if the idea of a panel discussion could be introduced in Tibetan Buddhism.  Just to listen to a civil discussion on how emptiness is presented in the various schools, for example, would be really informative.


Malcolm wrote:
Its pretty straight foward actually: the Sakyas and some Nyingmapas follow the view of Madhyamaka promulgated during the early period. Most Kagyus and some Nyingmapas adhere to the gzhan stong view, first elaborated by Dolbupa. Gelugpas and some Nyingmapas adhere to the presentation of emptiness first elaborated by Je Tsongkhapa.

For the most, the lines of discussion and debates between these three approaches to emptiness have remained unchanged since the 15th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 4th, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:
Yudron said:
Many Nyingma lamas just ignore that ChNN exists, and that is their way of dealing with his unconventional approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Yet, many of them have adopted features of his approach...


