﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: "Location" of mind in Dzogchen
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Its value/use applies mostly to tögal I'm pretty sure

Sönam said:
The crystal canal is not about mind ...

Sönam

asunthatneversets said:
Whatever term you would say the crystal canal concerns is synonymous with what I'm designating as "mind". I don't usually refer to it as mind either, it only warranted that title in the context of this thread to show the wide array and uses of the term "mind". So any deviation in shared view between you and I is going to be merely semantical.


Malcolm wrote:
No -- in this context the mind is physiologically sited in the lungs, and wisdom is sited in the heart. This is one key difference between the common teachings (i.e. mind has no source, no location and no destination when it leaves) and the uncommon teachings (mind has a source, a location and a destination).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
the basis manifests as all phenomena of samsara and nirvana. even if you break it down as

basis--->five lights--->recognition&nonrecognition---->samsara&nirvana

its not like what counts as the display stops at some point and then you get something that is ontologically different.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis only displays one way. That display is either properly recognized or not, leading to samsara and nirvana. Neither samsara nor nirvana exist in the basis. But the basis is made up of three wisdoms. Since there is no ignorance in that state to begin with, there can be no ignorance in that state later. This is why we disagree about whether ignorance is a display of the basis or not. The reason why samsaric phenomena are consider originally pure is that they are simply a result of a misapprehensions of the originally pure naturally formed display of the basis. We do not need to manipulate these phenomena in anyway. But we do need to recognize their actual state, both as delusions (the way they are appearing to us (snang lugs)) and the way these apparent phenomena are present in and of themselves (gnas lugs).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I was thinking about this too. what conclusion can be drawn from this fact? some possibilites are: the corpus is inconsistent, or the view operates on many levels which have different descriptions. certainly we must distinguish texts written "from the point of view of the basis" from those written from the point of view of sentient beings. they may appear contradictory because of this difference of perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
In Man ngag sde there are texts which are aimed at explicating tregchö and texts aimed at explicating thögal. The texts explicating the former are almost exclusively about the basis and the view. The text explicating the latter are almost exclusively about the path and meditation. Sems sde for example is also almost exclusively about the basis i.e. the view. klong sde and man ngag sde are more concerned with the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?

gad rgyangs said:
Namdrol and his mistaken view are not a mistake in the sense that he and his mistaken view should never have arisen in the first place, for yes, him and his mistaken view are just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be? even if his view was not mistaken, he and his view would still be just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be?

so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.

Malcolm wrote:
You're mistaken in assuming that there is no error -- the proof of that is contained within your own statement.

There is a difference between the appearance of the basis, and the error and non-error regarding that apperance. It leads to different movies, just as you say. But the erroneous perception of basis leads to a movie that is desirable to avoid, as Longchenpa states, and the non-erronenous perception leads to a movie that is desirable to see.

Basically, your point of view entails that for you liberation is meaningless. Which is fine, but that is not the point of view of Dzogchen, nor Buddhism as a whole. It may be the point of view of various neo-advaita, pseudo-zen, new age gurus, but not Dzogchen.

You might be able to post this or that citation that you feels defends your perspective, but so can I -- so that is rather pointless. Nevertheless the String of Pearls states:

Having been gripped by the apprehender and apprehended
in the aggregates, elements and gateways,
one remains in samsara itself for a long while,
within the belly of the three realms
one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]
bound by the chains of ignorance,
covered with dense black darkness of samsara,
attached to the spicy taste of passion,
one is bound by the noose of confusion,
tormented by the hot fire of hatred,
one’s head is covered by pride,
the gates of jealously are locked,
surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,
tied about the neck with the noose of apprehender and apprehended,
stuck in the swamp of past traces,
one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,
the mother of karma is joined with her child,
one following the other just like a water wheel,
alternating between good and bad bodies,
born in different forms,
and through heightening one’s self-grasping
one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering, 
one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies, 
one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions. 
Fire appears as water to hell beings,
as hunger and thirst to  hungry ghosts,
as fog to animals.
the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,
those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,
as weapons and armor to asuras,
and as desirable things to gods. 
For example,  just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel
one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.
Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope
since what isn’t there is held to be there,
both the outer and inner container and contents form,
and if that is investigated, it is a rope,
i.e. the container and contents are already empty
the ultimate with the form of the relative."

The mistake then is seeing as there what isn't there, which is why this tantra, among others uses the rope/snake example. What this tantra is stating is that deluded appearances we see that are predicated in the basis do not exist in the basis and are not appearances of the basis, but rather misapprehensions of the appearance of the basis.

You on the other hand seem to be saying that the basis manifests as sentient beings and the six realms. If this is what you are saying, then you are very far away from the point of view of the great perfection.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


Namdrol said:
"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N

gad rgyangs said:
just because there is rigpa and marigpa doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. one (presumably) leads to cessation of suffering and efficacy in aiding beings, and the other leads to a movie full of all kinds of emotions and experiences. but both come from the same basis, and therefore are just as ka dag as that basis. that is why it is our real nature even while we are marigpa-pas. if it wasn't, introduction wouldn't be possible. think about it, buddhas and sentient beings have the same nature, so how could one be the result of "something going wrong?"

Malcolm wrote:
If something had not gone wrong, no introduction would be necessary, and we could all bliss out in the fake Dzoghen proposition that started this thread.

The point is not about whether everything is ka dag and lhun grub. The point is whether that is recognized and the consequences that occur when it isn't.

gad rgyangs said:
so how could one be the result of "something going wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are clearly the result of something gone wrong since they result from ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


Namdrol said:
"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N

gad rgyangs said:
just because there is rigpa and marigpa doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it means that one is right and the other is wrong. By definition marigpa is always wrong.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
exactly, but both the "mistaken" and "not mistaken" are appearances of the basis. if you claim otherwise, you are in effect positing a dual ground, or at least a dual display, one for mistaken sentient beings and one for non-mistaken buddhas.

Namdrol said:
No. We already had this conversation before. There is one basis, two paths and two results. Because sentient beings are deluded they perceive the basis in terms of subject and object, etc. Since buddhas are not deluded about the basis they do not have this dualistic conceptual delusion. The basis only presents one way, but it is perceived differently by buddhas and sentient beings. As long as sentient beings are mistaken about the appearances of the basis, for that long they will continue to cycle in samsara.

N

gad rgyangs said:
this kind of dualism vision always has implicit within it the assumption that things should be different from what they are, that somewhere along the way, "something went wrong". Its really no different from the concept of the fall in Judaeo-Christianity. The assumption "something went wrong" leads naturally to the assumption "something needs to be done, to be corrected". I'm sure even you will agree this is not at all the Dzoghchen view. So, if we reject the idea that "something went wrong" and "something needs to be done", then the idea that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are the display of the basis, including marigpa, makes perfect sense. texts have been cited in the other thread that demonstrate this, no need to haul them out again, but perhaps you should re-read that thread.

Malcolm wrote:
"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
you're right about the "yes" part, but mistaken otherwise.

Namdrol said:
You are entitled to your opinion.
the basis is the real nature of sentient beings. the gzhi snang can (and is in the texts) subdivided into stages, but that doesn't mean you can say that "before this stage its the appearances of the basis, but after that stage, its not anymore." All I can do is refer again to the citations I gave, which are very clear.
Sentient beings are cognitive errors, that's all. What they are mistaken about is their own nature, which is the basis. When they cease to be mistaken about those appearances, they are buddhas.

N

gad rgyangs said:
exactly, but both the "mistaken" and "not mistaken" are appearances of the basis. if you claim otherwise, you are in effect positing a dual ground, or at least a dual display, one for mistaken sentient beings and one for non-mistaken buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
No. We already had this conversation before. There is one basis, two paths and two results. Because sentient beings are deluded they perceive the basis in terms of subject and object, etc. Since buddhas are not deluded about the basis they do not have this dualistic conceptual delusion. The basis only presents one way, but it is perceived differently by buddhas and sentient beings. As long as sentient beings are mistaken about the appearances of the basis, for that long they will continue to cycle in samsara.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
you're right about the "yes" part, but mistaken otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion.

gad rgyangs said:
the basis is the real nature of sentient beings. the gzhi snang can (and is in the texts) subdivided into stages, but that doesn't mean you can say that "before this stage its the appearances of the basis, but after that stage, its not anymore." All I can do is refer again to the citations I gave, which are very clear.

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are cognitive errors, that's all. What they are mistaken about is their own nature, which is the basis. When they cease to be mistaken about those appearances, they are buddhas.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Namdrol said:
Now then, you seem to be hard of hearing.

The appearance of the basis does not contain faults. Not recognizing the appearance of the basis is a fault, as the tantra I cited demonstrates.

N

gad rgyangs said:
.....and conveniently ignoring the citations I gave.

Malcolm wrote:
The citations you gave do not contradict what I am saying in the least.


gad rgyangs said:
lets try it this way: "are sentient beings included within appearances of the basis?"

Malcolm wrote:
Yes and no.

No, because there are no sentient beings in the basis and sentient being do not appear when the basis appears. Yes, because the non-recognition of the basis produces sentient beings after the basis appears. Sentient beings, and everything else, is made of the appearance of the five lights of the basis etc. But the five lights of the basis etc are never contaminated by the ignorance that does not recognize the basis for what it is. In this way the proper answer is both yes and no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
there isn't a Dzogchen master alive who would say that Longchenpa's writings are anything other than the purest expression of the the Dzogchen view we have. So, I will ignore the snide aspersions being cast upon him here.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually the aspersion was being cast on those who think that it is sufficient to rely on Longchenpa for a well-rounded view of Dzogchen. For example, Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo opines that dgongs pa zang thal teachings are more profound than other nyinthig teachings for this and that reason.

Now then, you seem to be hard of hearing.

The appearance of the basis does not contain faults. Not recognizing the appearance of the basis is a fault, as the tantra I cited demonstrates.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Reigle vs Sparham - Sanskrit
Content:
Will said:
N. - if "dharmas are the svabhāva of the dharma-dhātu" is correct meaning, then the notion of dharma-dhātu having no svabhāva, ie, being empty of inherent existence, seems impossible.  How can dharma-dhātu be both svabhāva & nisvabhāva at once?  Is this not a big difference between Mahayana & Hinayana?


Namdrol said:
Since the svabhāva of matter and so on are emptiness, if the svabhāva of matter is emptiness and matter, etc., is also matter and so on are the svabhava of the dharmadhātu, there is no contradiction

Will said:
Sorry N., but my stupid factor looms larger as the years pass.  Please clarify if you are saying that 1) dharma-dhātu has svabhāva or 2) dharma-dhātu has no svabhāva or 3) some other option(s)


Malcolm wrote:
The dharmadhātu has a svabhāva and that svabhāva is dharmas such as matter and so on that lack svabhāva.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
there is no fault in the basis, therefore, neither is there the possibility of fault in that which proceeds from the basis. in fact, the absence of fault in the basis is what guarantees that there is no possibility of fault in the display.

Malcolm wrote:
No one said there was a fault in the display or in the basis. All that was said was that not recognizing the display for what it is a mistake, a fault, an error.

A tantra called Uprooting Delusion from the dgongs pa zang thal cycle provides the following description:

The way sentient beings arise:
that nameless general ground,
is non-conceptual and not established at all,
invisible and unclear, from which
when the bifurcation occurs,
since vāyu, vidyā, and space separate, [3/b]
the intrinsic sound of the elements produces vibration.
From the inside of the darkness of the clear part of appearances,
as soon as a storm of fire emerges,
scattering everywhere,
Vidyā, like the mind of a lunatic,
is dazed and reeling. 
Since vidyā lacks confidence in its own appearances,
it panics at sound, is frightened of rays, 
and through awareness not taking its own place, 
the ignorance that arises simultaneously with it
is called “the causal ignorance.

Because of a lack of mindful attention,
self and other are grasped as a duality,
and both outer and inner dependent origination occur. 
The whole universe arises
through awareness looking externally. 
All sentient being arise 
through awareness looking internally.
Through looking there, fearful appearances arise,
through looking here, ‘self’ arises. 
Many mistakes arise from the single mistake
about the appearances of here and there. 
Because of being mistaken about a self, there is a mistake about other, 
attachment to self, aversion to other.
From the seed of attachment and aversion,
the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes. 
Because one is held as two, [4/a]
that is called the delusion of dualistic grasping.
Since one imputed and mistook outer and inner,
that is called “the imputing ignorance”. 
Because of familiarity of subject and object of that, 
from the thick buildup of traces,
there was entrance into the state of samsara.
That is how the six migrations occurred.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Mariusz said:
With all respect I did not see it in your quotes. Perhaps prove it with another one please. All I see is the dependent nature as never existed in the first place althought is seems to be, so also not totally faulty.

Namdrol said:
You need to read the Mahayāna Samgraha by Asanga then it will be more clear to you.

N

Mariusz said:
Thanx. Do you know suitable english book on it?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is in translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Namdrol said:
The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is.

gad rgyangs said:
so if you're saying that what should have happened is that "everybody" recognized and abided as samantabhadra, then you're denigrating the basis, saying it can't do anything right, it spits out a display and even that is all messed up with "faults" and mistakes", retarded sems can who don't know any better. what a loser-basis.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no fault in the basis. But not recognizing the basis is a fault.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Bimala
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Thank you guys. One more silly question: how much are you supposed to take? Would one pill per day be enough?


Malcolm wrote:
2


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Really, seven pages on bondage? Face it greg, some people like being tied up when they screw, lashed with whips, and otherwise dominated and humiliated, and some people like to do that stuff to others while screwing them, and BDSM is a protocol for doing it relatively safely without it resulting in rape, etc. Is it deluded? Yes. Does it matter? Not much.



N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Namdrol said:
Everything can be traced back to non-recognition of the appearance of the basis. That non-recognition is a mistake. Samsara is a fault because it is the result of an error.

gad rgyangs said:
and what: some part of the appearances of the basis are incompetent?


Malcolm wrote:
The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is. That is where samsara comes from. And, as long as you have samsaric vision, karmic vision, you can be sure that you are not seeing the appearances of the basis as they are, but are viewing them through traces of affliction and action. In other words, the gnas lugs, how things are, and snang lugs, how things appear are dissonant because of ignorance., etc.

This is why many fake Dzogchenpas resort to the opposite of Garab Dorje's three words i.e. they introduce as many people as they can to to their own delusion, convince them that delusion is perfectly ok, and they all continue in samsara for ever.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Mariusz said:
With all respect I did not see it in your quotes. Perhaps prove it with another one please. All I see is the dependent nature as never existed in the first place althought is seems to be, so also not totally faulty.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the Mahayāna Samgraha by Asanga then it will be more clear to you.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
well said DarwidHalim. The common response to this view is "but if you are still seeing the story, it does no good to say its all dharmakaya/empty/perfect/dzogpachenpo/etc...you have to do the practices...etc".
My contention is that it is precisely by understanding why doing practices actually changes nothing at all, that your practices can actually be beneficial. As long as you think they are actually changing anything real, they will not be so effective. that may seem paradoxical, but there it is. So the people fighting the Dzogchen view tooth and nail (surprisingly many of whom self-identify as students of Dzoghchen) are actually doing themselves a disservice, and walking straight away from that which they so vociferously proclaim is necessary, that is, the reduction/elimination of suffering.

heart said:
Practices don't change the natural state, nor make it closer in any way. Practices destroy misunderstanding, intellectualized views and confusion. Our minds are very tricky and deceptive ,which is obvious in these threads, and for this reason no matter how many pretty books you read you will never understand the Great Perfection. In all Dzogchen manuals it is written that you should find a qualified teacher and do anything he/she says. I am afraid that is the only way because cleverness will just not make.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Sometimes I think the problem is that people only read Longchenpa, who has a very specific take and they do not read the wider tradition of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Mariusz said:
I also thank you. So it supports my investigation based only on english translation here in my previous posts. Good to see it finally as not the Mind only (Cittamatara), but as Yogacara compatible with Madhyamaka as I wrote earlier

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what Tom is saying. Tom is saying that imagination of the unreal exists. That is precisely the cittamatra POV. If one reads the MV objectively, there is no way to read it as  Madhyamaka text. If you read it according to tortured late Tibetan exegesis [Mipham or Shakya Chogden], then you can try, but in doing so you have to basically assert that the perfected nature is never the dependent nature. But in fact in the MV it is made extremely clear that the perfected nature simple is the non-existence of the imagined nature in the dependent nature, and that non-existence exists. In summary, there really is no way to reconcile Maitreyanath's Madhyāntavibhanga and Dharmadharmatāvibhanga with Madhyamaka. They are all Yogacara (cittamatra) treatises meant to explicate the Yogacara tradition sutras such the Samdhinirmocana, the Lanka and so on. This applies also to the the Sutra-alaṃkara. This also applies to the Uttaratantra. Why? Because the Cittamatras also present a presentation of freedom from reference points i.e. the wisdom exists but it is free from reference points. The Abhisamaya-alaṃkara is also not free from fault in this respect because it really only discusses the structure of the path. The reason why the Yogacara commentaries of the AA are not widely studied in Tibet is because they are not compatible Madhyamaka view. Primarily Aryavimuktisena and Haribhadra are studied, both Madhyamaka scholars critical of the Yogacara point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
well said DarwidHalim. The common response to this view is "but if you are still seeing the story, it does no good to say its all dharmakaya/empty/perfect/dzogpachenpo/etc...you have to do the practices...etc".
My contention is that it is precisely by understanding why doing practices actually changes nothing at all, that your practices can actually be beneficial. As long as you think they are actually changing anything real, they will not be so effective. that may seem paradoxical, but there it is. So the people fighting the Dzogchen view tooth and nail (surprisingly many of whom self-identify as students of Dzoghchen) are actually doing themselves a disservice, and walking straight away from that which they so vociferously proclaim is necessary, that is, the reduction/elimination of suffering.


Malcolm wrote:
Of course practices don't change anything real whoever said they did? -- we all know the path is completely illusory from beginning to end, even buddhahood is completely illusory. But this is not a Dzogchen perspective -- this is a perspective from perfection of wisdom sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
you can stop cycling in samsara if thats your predilection, its just that samsara is not a "fault" or "mistake". how could anything that arises be a mistake, since everything is ultimately traceable back into the ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje of the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
Everything can be traced back to non-recognition of the appearance of the basis. That non-recognition is a mistake. Samsara is a fault because it is the result of an error. But there are some people who like this fake Dzogchen approach where they feel that all of the problems they cause themselves and others are "ok" because it is all "original purity and so on. This is little different than the kind of nihilism that some people who misunderstand the perfection of wisdom sutras engage in. So, the next time you are pissed off, or suffering, just try and explain it all away to yourself as the three wisdoms of the basis and then get back to us on how well that is working out for you.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
not sure what "on top of" is meaning here?

Malcolm wrote:
What Khenpo Jigphun is saying is that there is no liberation in the basis, liberation and non-liberation are only valid questions from the point of view of the arising of basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
cycling in samsara is only a fault if your view is dualism.


Malcolm wrote:
Please enjoy yourself then...even though it seems you have utterly missed the point that Dzogchen also just an attempt to solve the Buddhist question of how to stop cycling in samsara.

The answer to that question is not "Cycling in samsara? No problem, please continue...."

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
there are not really two approaches, because it is by realizing the first that the second is fulfilled.

Longchenpa, in chos dbyings mdzod says "although Buddhahood is timeless, there is awakening to Buddhahood anew." Basically this means that you can enjoy the ride without sweating it. The awakening anew part is just for fun, the ground/you just playing hide and seek with itself/yourself.


Malcolm wrote:
Khenpo Jigphun points:

"Even though the omniscient guru [Longchenpa] may have stated "Samantabhadra was liberated on the basis", if there is liberation on the basis  there be the fault of once again cycling in samsara. Therefore, it is necessary that liberation is on top of the appearance of the basis."

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Jinzang said:
The nub of the issue is that although buddha mind is ordinary mind (tha mal gyi shes pa), we don't see ordinary mind because of our obscurations. Hence the many expedient means to remove them. In the sense that seeing ordinary mind is quite rare, what is called ordinary is extraordinary.


Malcolm wrote:
tha mal gyi shes pa is just a yogi's word for ye shes i.e. wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth of whom?
Content:
cyndilydia said:
While the organic host has died, it has left the entity charged with properties priming it for the next "rebirth".
I hope this makes sense.

duckfiasco said:
What is hosted by the entity? What is their relationship? What is leaving, where does it go, and what is left behind?

cyndilydia said:
Good questions. In talking things out, I can identify and address holes in reasoning. Let me take a stab..
The entity is that which lives the multiple lifetimes working to nirvana

The host is the organism whose life force is the entity. The host is born, lives and dies. Upon death, the entity is ready to be reborn to another host.

Leaving is death of the host, I don't know where the entity goes - am working on a couple of theories
What is left behind is a carcass

These answers aren't really satisfying. Hopefully it's like writing code for me - I don't know what I'm doing, but when the errors are all fixed, the program works.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no entity that takes rebirth. But there is rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Reigle vs Sparham - Sanskrit
Content:
Will said:
N. - if "dharmas are the svabhāva of the dharma-dhātu" is correct meaning, then the notion of dharma-dhātu having no svabhāva, ie, being empty of inherent existence, seems impossible.  How can dharma-dhātu be both svabhāva & nisvabhāva at once?  Is this not a big difference between Mahayana & Hinayana?


Malcolm wrote:
Since the svabhāva of matter and so on are emptiness, if the svabhāva of matter is emptiness and matter, etc., is also matter and so on are the svabhava of the dharmadhātu, there is no contradiction


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 16th, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


White Lotus said:
so... we have these two approaches and should be aware that they cannot be reconciled. there have been great masters from many lineages who have emphasised one over the other.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are two appraoches:

1)True Dzogchen teachings

2) False Dzogchen teachings (which by definition are not actually Dzogchen, but are various strains of recycled Neo-Zen, Crypto-Advaita, New Age fantasy and so on and so forth).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 16th, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Reigle vs Sparham - Sanskrit
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This gentleman's understanding is correct.


Will said:
Anyone competent enough in Sanskrit to understand who correctly translates these verses in the Abhisamayālaṃkāra? This is from this blog - http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David Reigle
March 13, 2012 at 5:40 am
Regarding the quotations from Haribhadra’s Āloka, rather than my own translations I had intended to give these as translated by Gareth Sparham (Abhisamayālaṃkāra with Vṛtti and Ālokā, 4 vols., Jain Publishing Company, 2006-2012). It is thanks to his English translation that I found these quotations. However, he incorrectly translates these as saying that the dharma-dhātu is the svabhāva of the dharmas, rather than that the dharmas are the svabhāva of the dharma-dhātu. Since this idea is of considerable importance to our research, I will provide some detail.

Gareth was the first (and still the only) person to translate the two primary Indian commentaries on Maitreya’s Abhisamayālaṃkāra into English. This small and concise text outlines the path to Buddhahood buried in the large and diffuse Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Because it gives the whole path to Buddhahood, the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (in Tibetan translation) became the most widely studied text in Tibet. Because of the complexity of this path, the Abhisamayālaṃkāra became the most commented on text in Tibet. Gareth has also translated Tsong kha pa’s extensive commentary on it, titled Golden Garland of Eloquence. Gareth’s long study of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra and the path it teaches, first with Tibetan lamas from Tibetan texts, and then later from the original Sanskrit texts, has allowed him to translate this complex material into English for us. One must know the technicalities of the system before the texts are comprehensible. One cannot just pick up a text and expect to comprehend it. So we are fortunate to have access to this material through his translations. But of course, in dealing with this vast material, small mistakes are easily made and are to be expected.

Haribhadra’s statements usually use the compound, dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatayā, or dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvāt. The suffixes -tā and -tva, basically meaning “-ness” or “-hood,” are very often used in Sanskrit as a quick substitute for the finite verb meaning “is” or “are.” When declined in the instrumental or ablative cases, -tayā or -tvāt, as they are here, they mean “because [something] is [such and such],” more literally, “by being . . . ,” or “due to being . . . .” These compounds are usually straightforward. Here we have simple tatpuruṣa or case relation compounds. In these, the genitive case ending, meaning “of,” must be supplied for dharma-dhātu. This gives us “the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu.” The declined suffixes -tayā or -tvāt then give us “because [they, i.e., dharmas] are the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu.” This is, by the way, fully supported by the Tibetan translations, which supply the elided case endings for these tatpuruṣa compounds. They give chos kyi dbyings kyi ngo bo nyid, supplying the genitive case ending “kyi.”

In order to reverse this meaning, and get that the dharma-dhātu is the inherent nature of the dharmas, one would have to take this compound as a bahuvrīhi, an adjective. This is apparently what Gareth did. However, this cannot be done. First, since the -tā or -tva suffixes already say that something “is” something, one would not expect these compounds to be bahuvrīhis or adjectives. Second, as a bahuvrīhi or adjective, it must agree in gender and number with the word it modifies. If it describes the dharmas, these words must agree; but they do not. What we have is dharmas in the masculine genitive plural, dharmāṇām (or rūpādīnām), while the compound ending in -tayā is feminine singular and the compound ending in -tvāt is neuter singular. If this compound was a bahuvrīhi or adjective (which it is not), it could be translated as “they whose svabhāva is the dharma-dhātu,” or “having the dharma-dhātu as svabhāva.” This is apparently how Gareth got his translations. The Tibetan translations also rule this out. To take this compound as a bahuvrīhi or adjective means to take the underlying compound as a karmadhāraya rather than as a tatpuruṣa, while the Tibetan translations show it as a tatpuruṣa.

This phrase, dharmāṇāṃ dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatayā (or -svabhāvatvāt), means literally, “of the dharmas, because of the being the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu.” This, in English, is a very convoluted way of saying, “because the dharmas are the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu.” This Sanskrit phrasing is very common, especially in prose commentaries on verse works. It was not until years into my Sanskrit studies (mostly reading verses) that I figured out how to translate this prose phrase. No Sanskrit textbook known to me explains it. To get idiomatic English, one must take the word declined in the genitive case as the subject, take the -tā or -tva suffix as the verb “is/are,” place the “because” at the very beginning (given at the very end of the Sanskrit by the instrumental or ablative case ending), and then bring in what the -tā or -tva suffix is attached to. Thus, “because (instrumental “ayā” of “ā”) the dharmas (dharmāṇām) are (-tā) the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu (dharma-dhātu-svabhāva).” This also works when the word having the -tā or -tva suffix is declined in the nominative rather than the instrumental or ablative cases. One merely leaves out the “because.” Thus, rūpādīnāṃ mahattā: literally, “of form, etc., [there is] greatness”; idiomatically, “form, etc., are (-tā) great.” When the “subject” in the genitive case is not stated, one may supply a pronoun, “it” or “they.” Thus, dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvāt: “because it is (or they are) the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu.”

Besides the instrumental -tayā and the ablative -tvāt, we also have the suffix -tva declined in the instrumental case, -tvena. In theory -tvena should have the same meaning as the instrumental -tayā (and the ablative -tvāt), “because (it/they) is/are,” but in practice -tvena more often means “as being” (or simply, “as”). Sometimes a phrase using -tvena is found along with a phrase using -tvāt. Then the -tvena phrase may be subordinated to the -tvāt phrase. Thus, sarva-dharmāṇāṃ dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvena rāgārāga-viviktatvāt: literally, “of all dharmas, as being the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu, because they are distinct from desire and non-desire.” For idiomatic English, we may place the “because” of the -tvāt phrase first, make the genitive the subject, then insert the subordinate -tvena phrase, and then complete the -tvāt phrase. Thus, “because all dharmas, as being the inherent nature of the dharma-dhātu, are distinct from desire and non-desire.” This explanation of the Sanskrit construction of these phrases is an aside, hopefully useful for Sanskrit students. The translation problem being referred to in this note specifically pertains to the construal of just the compound, not to the construal of the whole phrase.

With the help of Gareth’s translation, I have taken note of nine places in Haribhadra’s text where this statement is made. Here is a listing of these places, along with his translations. My additions are given in double brackets. The single brackets and parentheses are his. His translations are followed by the Sanskrit text, with references to both Unrai Wogihara’s 1932 edition, Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā, and to P. L. Vaidya’s 1960 edition, Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. Then given are translations that are as literal as I could make them in keeping with English idiom, so that the Sanskrit text can be more easily followed and compared.

1. Sparham, vol. 1, p. 304: “And why? Subhūti says, Because a Bodhisattva is as boundless as form, etc., is boundless. Based on the maxim, ‘There is no dharma over and above the dharma element [[dharma-dhātu]],’ just as the dharma element is boundless, so too is the form [skandha], etc., that has that for its essential nature [[svabhāva]] boundless.” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 110, lines 3-4, Vaidya p. 323, line 1: . . . dharma-dhātuvat tat-svabhāvī-bhūtānāṃ yasmād rūpādīnāṃ aparyantatayā bodhisattvāparyantatā . . . . Reigle: “. . . like the dharma-dhātu, because form, etc., which are its inherent nature (svabhāva), are boundless, bodhisattvas are boundless . . .” (I have not translated yasmād here, because it correlates with tasmād later in the sentence).

2. Sparham, vol. 2, p. 124: “Here [Maitreya] is saying that form and so on [[the dharmas]] are great because the Dharma Element [[dharma-dhātu]] is their final nature (svabhāva).” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 176, line 3, Vaidya p. 349, line 15: etad uktam | rūpādīnāṃ dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatayā mahattā. Reigle: “This is what was said: Form, etc. [the dharmas], are great, because they are the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu.”

3. Sparham, vol. 2, p. 130: “[Maitreya] is saying [the gods say a Bodhisattva] standing in that [Perfection of Wisdom] is certain that the form [skandha] and so on with the Dharma Element [[dharma-dhātu]] as its essential nature [[svabhāva]] is the Tathāgata.” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 182, lines 11-12, Vaidya p. 351 lines 15-16: etad uktam | prajñā-pāramitāyāṃ sthitasya vastuno dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatayā rūpādīnāṃ tathāgatatvāvadhāraṇam iti. Reigle: “This is what was said: For something established in the Perfection of Wisdom, tathāgatahood (buddhahood) is ascertained, because form, etc., are the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu.”

4. Sparham, vol. 2, p. 134: “[Maitreya] is saying [the gods are saying] that all dharmas have the Dharma Element [[dharma-dhātu]] as their essential nature [[svabhāva]], . . .” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 185, lines 21-23, Vaidya p. 353, lines 10-11: etad uktam | dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatayā prajñā-pāramitāyāṃ sthitasya bodhisattvasya sarva-dharmāṇāṃ nodgraha-tyāga-bhāvanādikam iti. Reigle: “This is what was said: For a bodhisattva established in the Perfection of Wisdom there is no cultivation, etc., of the taking up or abandoning of all dharmas, because they are the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu.”

5. Sparham, vol. 2, p. 241: “. . . a wholesome root . . . and has the same own-being [[svabhāva]] because its own-being is the Dharma Element [[dharma-dhātu]].” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 350, lines 23-25, Vaidya p. 391, lines 18-19: . . . dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvāt tat-svabhāvam. Reigle: “. . . [has] the inherent nature (svabhāva) of that, because it is the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu.”

6. Sparham, vol. 3, p. 138: “He means that in true reality form, etc., its sign, and its own-being [[svabhāva]] are the Dharma Element, and the practice that therefore does not conceive, etc., of them enables [Bodhisattvas] to gain non-conceptual practice and not construct [or conceive of] powers that are ‘unthinkable,’ i.e., beyond thought.” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 479, lines 1-2, Vaidya p. 425, line 8: tattvato dharma-dhātu-rūpatvād rūpādi-tan-nimitta-tat-svabhāvāvikalpanādi-pratipatti-sāmarthyena . . . . Reigle: “In reality, because it is the form of the dharma-dhātu, through the capability of the practice of non-conception, etc., of form, etc., which are the sign of that and the inherent nature (svabhāva) of that, . . .”

7. Sparham, vol. 4, p. 196: “All dharmas have the Dharma Element for their own-being [[svabhāva]], [i.e., essential nature], so you cannot get at any other different suchness dharma. Since this is the case, ultimately, no one stands in suchness.” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 859, lines 14-16, Vaidya p. 517, lines 14-15: dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvāt sarva-dharmāṇāṃ tathatā-vyatiriktānya-dharmānupalambhe sati naiva kaścit paramārthatas tathatāyāṃ sthāsyati. Reigle: “Because all dharmas are the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu, there being no perception of other dharmas distinct from suchness, no one ultimately will stand in suchness.”

8. Sparham, vol. 4, p. 228: “To remove the conceptualization of a nominal (prajñapti) being, [they should meditate] on the fact that, because all dharmas have, in their original nature, the Dharma Element as own-being [[svabhāva]], they are isolated from a shared or specific place.” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 898, lines 4-5, Vaidya p. 527, lines 27-28: sattva-prajñapti-vikalpa-nirāsārtham sarva-dharmāṇāṃ prakṛtyā dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvena sāmānya-viśiṣṭa-deśa-viviktatvāt. Reigle: “This is for the sake of removing the conceptualization of the designation of a being, because all dharmas, as naturally being the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu, are distinct from a common or specific place.”

9. Sparham, vol. 4, p. 229: “To remove the conceptualization of attachment, [they should meditate] on the fact that all dharmas are isolated from attachment and non-attachment because they have as their own-being [[svabhāva]] the Dharma Element.” Sanskrit, Wogihara p. 898, lines 20-21, Vaidya p. 528, lines 2-3: sakti-vikalpa-nirāsārtham sarva-dharmāṇāṃ dharma-dhātu-svabhāvatvena rāgārāga-viviktatvāt. Reigle: “This is for the sake of removing the conceptualization of attachment, because all dharmas, as being the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the dharma-dhātu, are distinct from desire and non-desire.”

Note: I sent this to Gareth before posting it, and he very graciously encouraged me to go ahead and post it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 16th, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Tom said:
Here it says that abhūta parikalpa is the dependent nature, not imagined nature which is said to correspond to the object.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. The "imagination of the unreal" is a single entity. However it contains content i.e. the unreal.

Some people seem to think that that it ought to be translated as "unreal imagination", as if the imagination itself in question is unreal. I do not think this is correct.  Unreal is not an adjective of the imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Tom said:
It seems to contradict verse 1:5.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't see how.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:


Tom said:
Why do you divide these two components into the real and unreal? I can't see this in the text.

Malcolm wrote:
The imagination of the unreal exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Tom said:
Just to be clear in "1) The imagination is the dependent." you mean imagination of the unreal "abhūta parikalpa," not imagination "parikalpita svābhava", yes?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Tom said:
I only ask because of the context of the next verse (1:5).

Also, given verse 1:9 how do you conclude that the ālayavijñāna is equated with the imagination of the unreal?

Malcolm wrote:
Verse nine describes the imagination (the alāyavijñāna) of the unreal (the other seven consciousness).

You seem to think that all eight are the unreal. This is not the intention of 1:8-9.

Tom said:
Are you translating from the Tibetan? or are you using someone else's translation?

Malcolm wrote:
I generally translate directly from Tibetan, if not I give citation of source.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Veganism
Content:
Namdrol said:
Not better, just different. Native Americans heavily altered the environment of North American to suit themselves.

gregkavarnos said:
Better and different.  If one compares the environment, and the human life styles impact on it, in Europe to those in North America in the period prior to the full scale invasion and some time into it, you would be hard pressed not to consider them better, superior, more sustainable, less destructive, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
You forget than when Europeans first came to New England, Columbus had already introduced most of the western diseases that had completely depopulated North America by 90 percent, according to some estimates.

And, you forget the Mayans basically destroyed their civilization through not understanding environmental limitations.

You are basically making an argument that stone-age is better than copper or iron age. In reality, Indians loved guns. Couldn't get enough of them. Much better than arrows. More efficient at bagging game. If NA has not been depopulated by smallpox and so on, I think we would have a very different assessment of what kind of an impact Indians had on the land.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Does he say why?
(I think the teacher who said the comment I alluded to earlier was Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, but as I'm not 100% sure...)


Malcolm wrote:
For integration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 14th, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
catmoon said:
I do have to wonder though, if alcohol consumption was a regular thing in the very early Sangha, how on earth did they manage to meditate? A couple of drinks and I'm out of the meditation game for 24 hours. Four or five and I'm out for 3 or 4 days.

Dechen Norbu said:
There are people who meditate very well after a sip. Not my case either. I can't even convince myself to drink a glass of red wine during meals, even if I know it would be great for my health. I get very lazy only by drinking a little.
Still, there was a teacher who even said that meditation went better after a martini (a small glass of vermute... but I'm sure it doesn't matter), perhaps because some people tend to be very uptight when they start their formal practice (too much formality perhaps ). But that comment was made in a specific context and under particular conditions. So it's better not to generalize it.


Malcolm wrote:
Dudjom Rinpoche recommends in one retreat manual that one should have a drink every day while in retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 14th, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Veganism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
But the topic of this discussion was their relationship to the animals they hunted and consumed (and if we stretch it a bit, to their environment in general).  It would be very difficult to convince me that it was not (and still is to a degree) infinitely better than European attitudes and relationships.

Malcolm wrote:
Not better, just different. Native Americans heavily altered the environment of North American to suit themselves.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 14th, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
PS I do not consider wine with meals covered.
Can we stretch this one to cover beer and crisps or whiskey and peanuts?


Malcolm wrote:
Of course. That depends on one's capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 14th, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I think the mods have dealt quite well with a variety of individuals that come here merely to stir trouble.


Namdrol said:
I doubt that Jax has come here for the purpose of causing trouble. I dont agree with how he discusses the teachings and his point of view seems perennialist -- he does not strike me as a "troublemaker" per se.

N

Mr. G said:
Namdrol,  are you saying you think he should not have been banned?  If so, do you have suggestions on how to best objectively qualify in the future whether a member should, or should not be banned?  To me, his claims of accomplishing the result of gtum mo, lack of respect towards his own Dzogchen teachers, repeatedly openly discussing the specifics of inner practices involving channels, gazing, etc.,  and bizarre statements blending advaita, Dzogchen an Gnostic teachings had me label him  as a disruptive troll.  Was I too quick to act?  Is there better criteria to be used in the future?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not going to second guess the admin's decisions.

However, what he said regarding Gnostic blah blah blah has been said by John Reynolds.

As far as lack of respect of his teachers goes, that is his problem, not ours.

As far as talking about the specifics of thögal openly, this is not the correct way -- but it was corrected.

We have many people who say strange things here. It is to be expected. I think the main thing that bothered people was that he does not care about lineage and that he has some odd ideas about transmission.

So, whether you choose to readmit him or not, I think that most of what you outline above is not really something we ought to ban people for.

Most of us here understand the right way. We also do not want a repeat of E-Sangha.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
Seishin said:
Are we talking about for montastics only?

Huseng said:
The five lay precepts include a prohibition on alcohol as well, so yes it includes everyone, not just monastics.


Malcolm wrote:
The point in general is intoxication, not alchohol. I do not consider wine with meals covered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I think the mods have dealt quite well with a variety of individuals that come here merely to stir trouble.


Malcolm wrote:
I doubt that Jax has come here for the purpose of causing trouble. I dont agree with how he discusses the teachings and his point of view seems perennialist -- he does not strike me as a "troublemaker" per se.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Censorship on This Forum
Content:
Jacks said:
Debate has the function of bringing out unsupported notions that cant survive the light of day. More importantly, great debate can be lots of fun!


Malcolm wrote:
Well for example, your notion that Dzogchen is an affirming negation turns out to be completely unsupported by the primary texts of the system. But that does not require debate, that merely requires reading the texts themselves.

In general, we find that in many Dzogchen texts the twin terms dgag and sgrub are used -- dgag means to refute, sgrub means to prove. The essence of debate is refutation and proof, rejecting one point of view and accepting another point of view. But in reality, as Rongzom Chozang points out, the state of Dzogchen is beyond both refutation and proof. This is why I continue to insist that it is waste of time to debate about Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Censorship on This Forum
Content:
Jinzang said:
Debate is just conceptual grasping itself.
Then spending time on forums is a waste, yes?


Malcolm wrote:
No, not necessarily. But I find debate singularly unproductive.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Title: Re: Censorship on This Forum
Content:
Rudra said:
Vigorous Dzogchen debate is encouraged and taught in the Bon tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but in IMO debate about Dzogchen is really a waste of time. Debate is just conceptual grasping itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Censorship on This Forum
Content:
Rudra said:
There seems to be a belief that by refining one's intellectual understanding of Dzogchen terminology that one can build a stairway to Rigpa through conceptual grasping.


Malcolm wrote:
No one has this belief. Everyone here understands that the real knowledge of Dzoghen is based on personal experience.

I don't know why you were banned, but it might be because of saying things like "fundamentalist Taliban intellectuals".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Would you say the translation you just posted above is most accurate? (I assume you would being that I'm sure you translated it)


Malcolm wrote:
IN general, yes. My translation of the passage is based on Vimalamitra's commentary of the passage in question, which apart from one error pointed out above, is perfectly fine.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita
Content:
Jnana said:
Yeah. And what's even more hilarious is arguing over poetry!!!

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen texts are not poetry. This is a common misunderstanding.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 1:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita
Content:
Adamantine said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I made a translation error -- this is from an old, unedited translation I have not re-examined. The passage should be read:

"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], one understands that the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight, the chains, do not exist other than being mere designations...

(My bad I don't usually trot out unedited translations without checking them to see if they are free of errors)

The passage is trying to state that all of these discussions are merely nominal. This is why Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa and others state over and over the intention of Dzogchen and the intention of Madhyamaka are the same.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita
Content:
Adamantine said:
I have to admit I am a bit confused too, even considering the context..that is if we are holding it to standards of logic as opposed to a type poetic allusion.
Unless it is trying to say that "existence" only makes sense when contrasted with non-existence.. and since there is nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight therefore there is no "existence" of vidya per se.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?

Malcolm wrote:
You are being myopic:

Here is the passage Vimalamitra is commenting on:

There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.

Context, context, context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Namdrol said:
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.

gad rgyangs said:
Hi N - I'm having trouble with this paragraph: the translation appears to be saying " since there (is)* nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight, vidya does not exist." On the face of it, this makes no sense.

*Im assumng this word was left out accidentally?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is a a typo. 

And the passage makes perfect sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita
Content:
samdrup said:
Hey M,

You missed the main event Banned maybe? Don't know.

S.


Malcolm wrote:
Oh? What was the main event?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita
Content:
Jinzang said:
The real difference between Advaita and Madhyamika is that what Advaita takes to be an inxpressable something Madhyamika explains as the absence of anything determinate.

gad rgyangs said:
comparing advaita and madhyamaka is apples and oranges. comparing advaita and dzogchen or shentong is more interesting. I wonder if Shakya chokden, Mipham, Kongtrul, Kalu Rinpoche or Dudjom Rinpoche  came here they would be attacked for being "crypto vedantins" and banned.


Malcolm wrote:
First, Mipham was not a gzhan stong pa, though he was very interested in rennovating Yogacara and reintrepreting (unsuccessfully, IMO) it in a madhyamaka manner.

Dudjom Rinpoche was basically a follower of Kongtrul's modernized gzhan stong which owes more to Shakya Chogchen than Dolbuba.

Even here, the vast majority of modern gzhan stong pas claim that it (gzhan stong) is a post-meditative intepretive scheme not used in meditation. They claim that in meditation there their view is the same as what they describe as rang stong.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Jax said:
You are Being.

Namdrol said:
This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.

Jax said:
Ok... you are not Being?  If Dzogchen is a "confirming negation", which it is, then there is affirmative existence regarding Rigpa.  This is the difference between Madhyamaka and Dzogchen.  Madhyamaka is a "non-confirming negation", leaving us just with emptiness.  Hence Madhyamaka is a different result.  Vajrasattva means Diamond Being. It is not about neo-advaita or Taoism... its about what we are.  We are Aware Emptiness in full integration with our equally empty, yet appearing Luminosity.

Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think Dzogchen is a affirming negation?

This is not the case. Dzogchen does not have a view to support or promulgate, and that is what affirming negations are for i.e. rejecting one thing in order to prove one's own perspective. By asserting that Dzogchen is asserting an affirming negation you are rendering Dzogchen inferior to Madhyamaka.

If Dzogchen is an affirming negation, than this statement from the Unwritten Tantra makes no sense:

“Apparent yet non-existent retinue, listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”

Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist. 

Since the wisdom appearances of people's own vidyā that are seen in personal experience are not established as entities of any kind, it is the appearance of the exhaustion of dharmatā."

Further, Vimalamitra states in The Lamp Summarizing Emptiness:

Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:
Everything arose from non-arising;
even arising itself never arose.
Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning. [180] 
Empty things are empty by nature. 
Since the emptiness of dharmatā is present without being contrived and without being transformed in the basis, yogins are also liberated by remaining naturally without contrivance and without transformations.

And:

"That dharmatā emptiness dwells in a fortress and is captured in a fortress: the fortress (that is like a circle of spears in the sky) encircles (without a beginning or an end) dharmatā, i.e., existence is dharmatā, non-existence is dharmatā, both are dharmatā and neither are dharmatā. As such, [dharmatā] is surrounded by the names “clear and unclear”, “empty and not-empty”, “existence and non-existence”, “permanence and annihilation”, and so on. That lack of finding evidence itself is dharmatā. Further, in reality nothing exists apart from dharmatā. That being the case, that emptiness (as a mere representation, baseless, and non-referential, being non-existent like a pretense) is understood with scripture, accepted by reasoning, proven by argument, and captured in a fortress. Be confident that dharmatā is the unmistaken true emptiness.

Therefore, to describe Dzogchen as an affirming negation does not make any sense at all.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Jax said:
You are Being.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:


Sönam said:
Is there not a notion of knowledge in being present? ... instant presence is a knowledge, is'nt it?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Title: Re: What is the Point of Togal?
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
This^ contradicts what the Dzogchen tantras say. the tantras and the commentaries on them give at least 7 ways in which togal and its realization is superior to trekchod. Wanna know what they are? Gotta go talk to a Dzogchen master who will explain this at the proper time. Suffice it say that togal is not some enhancement for trekchod. To the contrary, trekchod enables the knowledge and stability necessary for togal to work.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no tregchö without tögal, and no tögal without tregchö.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 2:16 PM
Title: Re: Origins of Dzogchen
Content:
Jax said:
Ahem... Guys, I didn't hear one word of refutation regarding Sam Van Schaik's and David Germano's attributions of the origins of Dzogchen.  Do you know of more scholarly evidence that points to other origins?  Or is this topic taboo to the "true believers" in the mythological stories regarding Dzogchen's origins?


Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing to refute. They are text critical historians -- their job is to figure out when a certain idea was first documented on a piece of paper. The inferences they draw from that however should not be regarded as gospels themselves. Western scholarship is all fine and dandy, but it does not lead one to understand what is a valid teaching and what is not.

Dzogchen tantras are intrinsically valid irrespective if they were written in the eight century, the first aeon, or the twenty first century, they do not need the confirmation of this or that western scholar's opinion. They express the awakened state of persons such as Garab Dorje, Manjushrimitra, Vimalamitra, Rigzin Godem, ChNN, KDL, etc.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:
Sönam said:
Not to forget that Namkhai Norbu itself has choose to translate rigpa by "presence".


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN sometimes translates it as instant presence, sometimes as knowledge. In fact, Vimalamitra defines fives kinds of vidyā.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: What is the Point of Togal?
Content:
Jax said:
If you read Longchenpa's Precious Seven Treasuries texts, the Lamas overseeing the translation, Chagdud Rinpoche, Tulku Thondup, Mingyur Rinpoche,Khenpo Tsewang Gyatso, Khenpo Gyurmed Tinley, and Lama Sonam Tsering... ALL chose the word "awareness" to be used for Rigpa whenever cited.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually it was the editorial staff who chose that term. Since I know the senior editor who works on those books quite well, I am quite sure of this.

Jax said:
That is good enough for me. Also Tulku Urgyen often uses the term "awareness" for Rigpa in his dual volume As It Is texts.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that would have been Eric Pema Kunsang. Eric has since decided that "awareness" is not a good equivalent for rigpa.

Jax said:
That would be just translating "vidya" as knowledge from the sanskrit.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is clearly the intent of the term "rigpa"; hence ChNN over and over again defines rigpa (vidyā) as a species of knowledge about one's state as opposed to avidyā, i.e. not knowing that state.

It is best to leave the term either in Tibetan or in Sanskrit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
when he says "the awareness through which I can say that "I am aware of this sense of self'" this is basically a knowledge of the basis, and therefore, rigpa. (IMO)

Malcolm wrote:
Pity.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
padma norbu said:
I see at least 50 people in the retreat photo on his website. At $70 per person per day


Malcolm wrote:
$3500 ($70 x 50 people) per day is a pretty good racket. A labor of love indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Title: Re: According to Yogachara...?
Content:
Jinzang said:
Most Nyingma... practitioners hold the view of other emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
Definitely a huge over statement.

Some Nyingmapas like gzhan stong, not most.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Title: Re: Possession
Content:
Konchog1 said:
I read in the paper that a woman with two daughters was suffering from burning pain in her stomach and back, headaches, and anxiety. So Valentines Day, she buys her daughters some presents and the next day she drowns them. Everyone that knew her is stunned by her odd behavior so I was wondering Namdrol, do you think this is a case of possession? By Gyalpo?


Malcolm wrote:
Provocation for sure, not sure what kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Title: Re: Taking vimala and semde concurrently
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Namdrol,

Would it be OK to take semde in the a.m. and vimala at bedtime?

I ask because nearly a month of taking vimala every night has resolved my anxiety pretty much entirely, but while it's really taken the edge off my depression, it still lingers on.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Take semde in the am.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 27th, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Title: Re: Arhat From The Perspective Of Mahayana
Content:
Huseng said:
However, some might have suggested that the real cause for rebirth was ignorance with desire being a secondary by-product of that ignorance, in which case the ignorant Arhat, despite having achieved cessation of desire, could still be subject to eventual rebirth regardless.


Malcolm wrote:
But then we have the POV of Vasubandhu that Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas are subject to a non-afflictive ignorance, hence this will not drive rebirth.

Retrogression of Arhats, BTW, just means they return to the state of a never returner, not that they regress to being ordinary beings.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


heart said:
Exactly, I think that is clear from my quote as well.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
yup


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


heart said:
Exactly, I think that is clear from my quote as well.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
yup


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


heart said:
"Likewise, no ignorance exist in the ground, yet ignorance naturally arise from the aspect of what manifested as compassion."

/magnus

gad rgyangs said:
exactly.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since that aspect was not recognized, but compassion does not arise as ignorance otherwise, ignorance would be intrinsic to the ground, and it is not. For example, the five lights do not arise as the five elements, but since the display of the basis was not recognized, the five elements are effectively arise through the non-recognition of the five lights.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings...
Content:


Dronma said:
Do they sound the same?

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Translating the Words of the Buddha
Content:


Karinos said:
I think they do deep revision sutra by sutra (or tantra by tantra) as far as I understood from their page. however you are right about complete revision at the end.

Malcolm wrote:
The thing is for example Conze has become a defacto standard in PP sutra literature. So the translation of Abhisamaalamkara by Spareham largely follows his lead.

So what do we do, retranslate the all these sutras and then make sure that the vast corpus of AA commentary texts use the those sutra passages or what? It is a big question -- that is why my verdict on the thing is only OK.

For example in the tantra they released they translated camphor but did not translate "silha" which is Frankincense and related resins from trees of the Boswellia family. With just a little extra digging they could have sorted that out.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Unknown said:
Namdrol could you please provide some quotes from where you got this? Looking at Tshigdon Mdzod it seems to me that it is saying that ignorance is not part of the appearances of the base. However I can't find anything that says that ignorance is prior to the appearance but more looks like the opposite (or maybe that they arise at the same time?). What is there to be ignorant about before the appearance of the basis?


Malcolm wrote:
There is no avidyā in the basis, but through non-recognition, avidyā depends on vidyā after the appearances of the basis. This is only possible if the awareness and knowing factor which are complete in the basis are not aware of themselves (which they aren't) That lack of knowledge I argue is a species of non-afflictive ignorance.

Samantabhadra upon the arising of the basis possesses the first two kinds of ignorance but never the third (imputing ignorance).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Translating the Words of the Buddha
Content:
Karinos said:
why would you question quality of translation of team of more then 100 people in the first place?

http://84000.co/about/translators/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://84000.co/about/team/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Huseng said:
I can't judge for myself the quality of the translations because I don't know Tibetan. So, I asked Namdrol's opinion as he is a translator of Tibetan with many years experience.

I hope their translations are quality.

Malcolm wrote:
Once the whole thing is translated, a complete revision will be necessary to take into account intertextuality. It is a good first step, but these translations should be regarded as drafts subject to change, as all translation made in the present day should be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Im also not sure which term from the Dzogchen corpus you are translating as "convention"?

Malcolm wrote:
tha snyad, vyavahara.

This is why, as the rigpa rang shar states, though in Dzogchen there is actually no basis, path and result, nevertheless, we talk about a basis, path and result. Ergo, the basis and the rest are merely conventional, quite in line with Haribhadra's proclamation that the entire path, including buddhahood, is totally illusory.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Translating the Words of the Buddha
Content:
Pero said:
Which Dzogchen texts are in the Kangyur?


Namdrol said:
kun byed rgyal po

Huseng said:
Can you comment on the quality of the English texts being produced in the 84000 project?

Malcolm wrote:
they are ok.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


Namdrol said:
The basis is merely a convention.

gad rgyangs said:
in what sense, surely not in a madhyamaka sense.

Malcolm wrote:
There basis is not real. Ergo it is merely a convention. If someone should think the basis was real, they would be missing the point of ka dag. The basis is baseless, it is not established in anyway at all.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Translating the Words of the Buddha
Content:
Pero said:
Which Dzogchen texts are in the Kangyur?


Malcolm wrote:
kun byed rgyal po


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The basis is a convention isn't it?

gad rgyangs said:
the word "basis" is a convention, the basis is not.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is merely a convention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Longchenpa was a historical personality whose realization is not disputed, and whose actual writings we have intact. Garab Dorje, not so much. Texts attributed to GD are pretty much like texts where Samantabhadra or Vajrasattva is speaking (not that thats a problem or anything).

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is the difference between you and I -- I pretty much think that Garab Dorje is a historical personality. We have his extant writings.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


Sönam said:
But Dzogchen view is not Dzogchen ... how can a point of view expresses yhe Base? Language is his own limitation, sounds can possibly expresses the Base not concepts?

Sönam

gad rgyangs said:
tell that to Longchenpa, whose mdzod bdun (7 treasuries) is devoted to expressing the Dzogchen view in many ways, from technical philosophy to poetry, and runs to ~4300 pages altogether.


Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa, in most of these works, was attempting to legitimize Dzogchen in the context of scholasticism.

I prefer Garab Dorje.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Namdrol said:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6607&p=78514&hilit=Pralaya#p78514

Lhug-Pa said:
So then gZhi is translated as Laya, Sthana, or could be translated as both?


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Namdrol said:
Pay attention to what I said-- "ignorance is not an appearance of the basis".

gad rgyangs said:
If "All phenomena of samsara and nirvana are appearances of the basis". (premise from innumerable texts)
and "Ignorance is not an appearance of the basis" (Namdrol).
Therefore: ignorance is not a phenomena of samsara or nirvana. (implication of your claim).

Malcolm wrote:
Your major premise and minor premise don't match. Therefore, the conclusion is faulty.

Further, ignorance is prior to the appearance of samsara and nirvana, correct? Since ignorance is prior to the appearance of the basis, consequently, ignorance is not an appearance of the basis.

Ignorance exists before the basis appears; therefore ignorance is not an appearance of the basis.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if Namdrol refuses to acknowledge that "all phenomena of samsara and nirvana" are appearances of the basis

Malcolm wrote:
I did not refuse to acknowledge that. Pay attention to what I said-- "ignorance is not an appearance of the basis".

gad rgyangs said:
and insists that ignorance is instead separately based on a kun gzhi which is not itself an appearance of the basis,

Malcolm wrote:
Kun gzhi is a snyonym of ignorance.

But, as I said before, it is not appropriate to argue and debate about Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 19th, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Astus said:
The concept of equality is another thing, mostly a legal matter and such.

Namdrol said:
That is not how we Americans view the issue.

kirtu said:
My experience with American's and equality is that while Americans verbally venerate equality

Malcolm wrote:
It's a process. Once the concept of rights caught hold, human beings started to catch up with the idea.

The American concept of rights does not immediately mean that everyone sees the full implications the notion of equal rights or that there is no injustice. But rights are considered inalienable, and the process of our Democracy inolves discovering those rights as we go along.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 19th, 2012 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Namdrol said:
Third, sentient beings are part of the appearance of the basis (since they are comprised of the five elements), their ignorance however is not because ignorance does not and cannot belong to the basis. Their ignorance (avidyā) is precisely their lack of knowledge of the nature of the basis (hence ignorance depends on the basis), just as their knowledge (vidyā) is precisely the knowledge of the nature of the basis.

gad rgyangs said:
sentient beings are part of the appearances of the basis, and a sentient being is a consciousness obscured by non-recognition. "the ground of all that arises", "the ground for all phenomena of samsara and nirvana", how many different ways does it need to be said? If ignorance is not a phenomena of samsara, I don't know what is. "It arises as anything at all" - including ignorance, delusion, and confusion, i.e. us sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis [gzhi] is not the all-basis [kun gzhi], which is that you are describing here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
muni said:
The methods of correcting/comparing/analysing/rejecting/accepting-tradition by intellectual scholars, what is that regarding nature-dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Potentially useless proliferation divorced from practical experience -- but if it helps someone see their way clear to understanding, then fine, it not, well it is waste of time.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


Namdrol said:
ཐུགས་རྗེ་ལྟར་ཤར་བ་ལས་མ་རིག་པ་བྱུང་

Ignorance was produced from an arising that falsely resembles [i.e. ltar as byed khul, not nang bzhin]  compassion.

gad rgyangs said:
what justification is there for reading ltar as byed khul?

In any case, you still have not stated what you consider to be the ground of ignorance. is a sentient being part of the appearances of the basis? if so, so is its ignorance. if not, then what is a sentient being in relation to the appearances of the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
As for your first question, it is based on the context of the sentance as well as its grammar.

As for your second question I have explained this, so I am not going to explain it again.

Third, sentient beings are part of the appearance of the basis (since they are comprised of the five elements), their ignorance however is not because ignorance does not and cannot belong to the basis. Their ignorance (avidyā) is precisely their lack of knowledge of the nature of the basis (hence ignorance depends on the basis), just as their knowledge (vidyā) is precisely the knowledge of the nature of the basis.





N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
are you still maintaing this, and if so, how do you explain it within the context of the quote?

Malcolm wrote:
That does not say that non-recognition is an appearance of the basis i.e.

གཞི་ལ་མ་རིག་པ་ཡོད་པ་ཅང་མ་ཡིན་

Ignorance never [cang ma yin] existed in the basis.

It says:

ཐུགས་རྗེ་མ་ངེས་པ་ལས་མ་རིག་པ་རང་བྱུང་

Ignorance self-originated from the non-ascertainment of compassion.

And:

ཐུགས་རྗེ་ལྟར་ཤར་བ་ལས་མ་རིག་པ་བྱུང་

Ignorance was produced from an arising that falsely resembles [i.e. ltar as byed khul, not nang bzhin]  compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Longchenpa in the tshig don mdzod quotes the Auspicious Beauty Tantra (bkra shis mdzes ldan):

Malcolm wrote:
So what's the problem? this is perfectly clear. You answered your own question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Caz said:
There is no such thing as equality in Samsara and as far as I know Buddhists are still within Samsara.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is exactly one kind of equality i.e. being in samsara all sentient beings are equal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Astus said:
Equality requires a mind that sees all as equals.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it doesn't.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:


kirtu said:
Methinks this is not an auspicious beginning ....

Malcolm wrote:
A reformation of Buddhism is inevitable in its coming to the west, just as the Protestant Reformation was inevitable in Northern Europe.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:


padma norbu said:
David Tibet, too. That's not his real last name and he may be influenced by Tibetan Buddhism, but he's more of a Crowley/Spare kinda guy. He fronts Current 93

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Astus said:
"Therefore a bhikkhu ... should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.05.irel.html )


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I wish more bhikṣus would recall this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Astus said:
The concept of equality is another thing, mostly a legal matter and such.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not how we Americans view the issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
and the basis of that non-recognition is marigpa and the basis of marigpa is...?

Malcolm wrote:
Ignorance has three causes, essence, nature and compassion. However, as Padmasambhava states in the Khandro Nyingthig (volume I, pg 348)

"Therefore, in that case, the three causes of ignorance are the trio of essence, nature and compassion...Further more, though those three wisdoms above cannot cause delusion, there is the delusion of the condition of ignorance about them. For example, though within the sun there is no basis nor cause for darkness, it is like being blocked by fog in the sky."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Huseng said:
This is one thing that might get dropped if Buddhism is really transmitted into the west.

Namdrol said:
And good riddance too.

N

Huseng said:
I've come to have similar sentiments.

But then here in Asia, from India to Nepal to Taiwan, the whole hierarchy thing is ever present. This kind of thing is part of institutionalized Buddhism everywhere in Asia of course, though trying to extract Buddhadharma from it while maintaining the lifeline of a tradition for more than a generation might prove difficult.

I think some monastics might try to justify it by saying it fosters humility or something, but that to me is just contrived and superficial head bowing. Another form of self-grasping and cause for worry about offending someone.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the problem is that Asians tend to identify their hierarchy _as_ the Dharma. This is one reason I personally find the explicit leveling of hierarchy in Dzogchen so appealing, and why traditionally in Tibet, at any rate, Dzogchen teachings were considered threatening to the hierarchy. If you tell a bunch of folks that ignorant butchers will acheive realization faster than panditas based on instructions that you possess, it is going to shake some things up.

And yes, BTW to your question, the way it stands now is that some Buddhists are more equal than others -- for example, monastics with jobs still get to attend many teachings free of charge, while unemployed lay people are barred entrance. There is a phenomena in Buddhism where monastics correct every threat to their hegemony.  This is largely sociological -- in societies where power lay in the hands of the aristocracy, the only way to power for common people is through the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

In societies like ours, where there is no de facto aristocracy, monastic heirarchies become one. In Buddhism in particular there is this notion of a hierarchy of virtue. I do not believe this was the Buddha's intent, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Huseng said:
This is one thing that might get dropped if Buddhism is really transmitted into the west.

Malcolm wrote:
And good riddance too.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Are some Buddhists more equal than others?
Content:
Huseng said:
In many modern day societies there is at the least the pretence and belief that everyone is equal no matter their status or background.

I think this belief might get transferred over to contemporary Buddhist communities as well to some extent. It wouldn't please people to just outright say that the male monks are chiefly superior followed by the male novices, then female nuns, female novices and following them the laity, even though this is how it is presented on paper. Seating arrangements have always been quite important. Moreover, there is a prescribed hierarchy.

So do we run into a situation where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others? Wouldn't it just be best to do away with such pretences and consent to the existence of a prescribed hierarchy where male monastics are at the top and laity at the bottom? Or should a monastic have to earn their position of respect from the laity by virtue of wisdom and deeds rather than by putting on robes and formally renouncing?

Malcolm wrote:
Of what use is this proliferation about rank and position?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings...
Content:
catmoon said:
Did you mean to say "cause" instead of consequence?

The idea that Dharma is the cause and Dzogchen the result can't possibly be universal, simply because the are billions of Buddhists who are not Dzogchenpas.

Malcolm wrote:
All Buddhas are Dzogchenpas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Namdrol said:
I am not claiming that non-recognition is an appearance of the basis. I never said that, or even implied it. That is your imputation.

gad rgyangs said:
what is there besides the basis and appearances of the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
The non-recognition of that appearance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
conebeckham said:
You assume the lack of the false imagination, and specifically the lack of duality, in the dependent is the only thing that parinispanna signifies?  That the perfect nature is merely the lack of false imagination?

This would seem to imply that the seeds, or some sort of "contents" of the alaya, would still be present....or do you find all the seeds, habits,etc., would be purified merely by virtue of the lack of false imagination?


Malcolm wrote:
Recognizing the non-existence of the unreal is parinispanna, that is the classical Yogacara presentation of emptiness free from extremes.

How the paths and stages are meditated is a different story. I don't think we can say it is sufficient to merely recognize this fact and then we are finished. This is how the Yogacara scholars are presenting the view of emptiness, which is why for example, the Madhyāntavibhaga gives a presentation of the sixteen emptinesses. If this recognition were sufficient, there would be no purpose for the rest of the treatises which details the 37 bodhipakṣa dharmas and so on.

Anyway, in 1:3-4, Vasubandhu explains MV as follows:

As such, having described the characteristic of the existence and and characteristics of the non-existence of the imagination of the false, now the intrinsic characteristic will be described:
Consciousness appearing
as objects, sentient beings, self, and cognitions
arise, but its objects do not exist, 
since they do not exist, it does not exist.
Now then, appearing as objects means whatever appears as a thing such such as form and so on; appearing as sentient beings what appears to the five sense organs appearing in the continuums of self and others; appearing as a self is the afflicted mind because the concomitance of confusion and so about a self; appearing as a cognition is the six consciousnesses. "It's objects do not exist means" the appearances as objects, and sentient beings  do exist; self and cognitions means mistaken appearances. Since the objects do not exist, also that apprehending consciousness does not exist.
That imagination of the unreal
is established because of that,
is not as it seems, is not a total non-existent.
As such, however appearances are produced, they are not as they seem; because of the production of mere delusion, are also not totally non-existent. 

If it is asked why its total non-existence is not asserted:
Having exhausted that, liberation is asserted.
If it were otherwise, bondage and freedom would not be established, and definitely the afflictive state and complete purification would be repudiated.

There are three points here:

1) The imagination is the dependent.
2) It is held to exist, but its content does not exist.
3) If it is held to be totally non-existent, both samsara and nirvana are impossible because there would be no basis for delusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Ninth-Consciousness: Who Teaches This?
Content:
Jikan said:
Seems to me that Wonhyo advocated a ninth consciousness on the basis of the Vajrasamadhi sutra (published as Cultivating Original Enlightenment).  I know that Wonhyo himself was likely the compiler of that text.  I bring it up because I'd like to know if this concept took hold in Korean Buddhism following Wonhyo, or if it was forgotten.


Malcolm wrote:
This sutra is well established to be a Korean composition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if (as you are claiming) appearances of the basis are the basis, and non-recognition is an appearance of the basis, then non-recognition is the basis. this makes no sense, therefore, appearances of the basis are not the basis.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not claiming that non-recognition is an appearance of the basis. I never said that, or even implied it. That is your imputation.

Anyway, Dzoghen is not something to be debated or argued. Learn Tibetan.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: Ninth-Consciousness: Who Teaches This?
Content:


Lotus_Bitch said:
I see. So this was comepletely of his own invention then?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
thats not the basis appearing, otherwise there would be no reason to distinguish basis (gzhi) from appearances of the basis (gzhi snang) and have two terms.

Namdrol said:
And you think this because?

gad rgyangs said:
since the basis is also the basis for non-recognition, it would mean that marigpa would be a characteristic of the basis.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is the basis for non-recognition. This is why for example, the Rosary of Pearls states:

Though the explanation of the basis of delusion is of many kinds 
it is natural formation and compassion.

There are three wisdoms of the basis, essence, nature and compassion. The appearance of the basis is the nature and compassion aspect. The "invisible" part of the basis is original purity;  but essence, nature and compassion are inseparable. This is why the sgra thal rgyu states:

Other than wisdom dwelling in itself,
there is no separation into three modes.

When the basis appears, it was not recognized. That non-recognition however is not a characteristic of the basis because the basis cannot be affected by non-recognition; for example, if one does not recognize someone's face in the crowd, it does not follow necessarily that one's own non-recognition is inherent in the face of the person one should recognize. If it were, that person could never be recognized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Ninth-Consciousness: Who Teaches This?
Content:
Lotus_Bitch said:
[quote="NamdrolIt seems to be his original contribution. The idea is rejected by Bhavaviveka.

Malcolm wrote:
Was {aramarthas source ffrom any of the sutras?[/quote]

No, this is the reason it was rejected by Bhavaviveka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Ninth-Consciousness: Who Teaches This?
Content:
nirmal said:
The ninth consciousness,emphasized in Tantra, contains all the virtues and potentialities of Buddhahood.When one is Fully Enlightened,this consciousness becomes the totality of wisdom WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
)

Malcolm wrote:
There is no Buddhist tantra which teaches a "ninth" consciousness. It does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Random question on Chogyam Trungpa
Content:


Nangwa said:
Great username by the way.


Lotus_Bitch said:
Thank you. I came up with it based off a day dream I had at work, about starting a progressive death metal band with female vocals. The songs subject matter would've been based off of the buddhadharma; hence "Lotus"...With the inclusion of female vocals making it "Bitch." This may or may not be offensive to women.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess it is a rather literal translation of Padmadas, "Servant of Padmasambhava".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Ninth-Consciousness: Who Teaches This?
Content:
Lotus_Bitch said:
Does anyone know who or what sect has taught or teaches about the amala-vijnana ("stainless" consciousness?)

As far as I know there was only one individual who taught this; an Indian by the name of Paramartha (499-569.) Also apparently the Nichiren sect teaches this, according to this website I found while doing an internet search of the subject: https://www.sgi.org/buddhism/buddhist-concepts/the-nine-consciousnesses.html Is that a legitimate source for what the Nichiren sect teaches? Because I thought it was based off the Lotus sutra and from reading the Lotus sutra:  I didn't see any mention of an amala-vijnana?


Namdrol said:
This is a teaching by the Indian scholar Paramartha who introduced this idea to China. It was never a main stream Indian idea.

Lotus_Bitch said:
Where was the source of this theory? As in where did he learn of this? Or was it something he came uup with by himself?

Malcolm wrote:
It seems to be his original contribution. The idea is rejected by Bhavaviveka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Ninth-Consciousness: Who Teaches This?
Content:
Lotus_Bitch said:
Does anyone know who or what sect has taught or teaches about the amala-vijnana ("stainless" consciousness?)

As far as I know there was only one individual who taught this; an Indian by the name of Paramartha (499-569.) Also apparently the Nichiren sect teaches this, according to this website I found while doing an internet search of the subject: https://www.sgi.org/buddhism/buddhist-concepts/the-nine-consciousnesses.html Is that a legitimate source for what the Nichiren sect teaches? Because I thought it was based off the Lotus sutra and from reading the Lotus sutra:  I didn't see any mention of an amala-vijnana?


Malcolm wrote:
This is a teaching by the Indian scholar Paramartha who introduced this idea to China. It was never a main stream Indian idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:


conebeckham said:
My personal understanding, at this point, subject to change, is that:
1. Yogacara texts do, in fact, assert an "existent."
2. The nature of that "existent" is the Perfect Nature.
3. The existent which is of the perfect nature is the substrate of all consciousnesses, including the ālayavijñāna, as well as all the other consciousnesses.
4. The ālayavijñāna  is not the ultimate existent, as it is said to "cease."  In the same way, all the other consciousness cease, so none of them can be said to be ultimate, though they are "of" the ultimate, in a sense.


Malcolm wrote:
The ālayavijñāna is the imagination of the unreal.

So we will break it down: the imagination [dependent nature] of the unreal [the imagined nature] exists; however in it duality does not exist [parinispanna].

So when the unreal is removed, what remains is the dependent nature. That is why it is said that the absence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
since the basis does not appear, how can it be illusory?

Namdrol said:
The basis does appear. This is why we use the term "gzhi snang".

gad rgyangs said:
thats not the basis appearing, otherwise there would be no reason to distinguish basis (gzhi) from appearances of the basis (gzhi snang) and have two terms.

Malcolm wrote:
And you think this because?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
since the basis does not appear, how can it be illusory?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis does appear. This is why we use the term "gzhi snang".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Namdrol said:
The point of view of Dzogchen, according to Rongzompa, is that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are completely and totally equivalent with illusions.

gad rgyangs said:
sure but the basis is prior to all phenomena of samsara and nirvana.


Malcolm wrote:
Does not make it any less illusory, does it?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
"emptiness" cannot be a substance-noun, it means "the condition of being empty" (OED), agreed? "empty" is an adjective, as in "the glass is empty". you can nominalize this by speaking of "the emptiness of the glass", but this is referring to the fact that the glass is empty, it is not talking about some thing called "emptiness". now, we know that the basis is not some "thing" but rather pure potentiality, "es gibt Sein". Since only conventionalities can be "empty" (since only conventionalities are dependently arisen), and the basis clearly cannot be considered a conventional existent/dependent arising, then what sense does it make to call it "empty" , let alone calling it "emptiness(!)" surely you're not saying that the basis is simply the fact of the lack of svabhava in dependent arisings? now, if you want to posit another definition of "emptiness", fine, but then don't say that Dzoghchen follows prasangika madhyamaka. if you want, you can say it follows "great madhyamaka", as presented by Dudjom R in the Big Red Book.

Namdrol said:
The basis is a convention.

gad rgyangs said:
you mean like saṃvṛiti/kun rdzob?

Malcolm wrote:
In the Great Perfection, Atiyoga,
there is no basis, path and result, 
nevertheless a basis, path and result is taught.

-- Rig pa rang shar

The point of view of Dzogchen, according to Rongzompa, is that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are completely and totally equivalent with illusions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
"emptiness" cannot be a substance-noun, it means "the condition of being empty" (OED), agreed? "empty" is an adjective, as in "the glass is empty". you can nominalize this by speaking of "the emptiness of the glass", but this is referring to the fact that the glass is empty, it is not talking about some thing called "emptiness". now, we know that the basis is not some "thing" but rather pure potentiality, "es gibt Sein". Since only conventionalities can be "empty" (since only conventionalities are dependently arisen), and the basis clearly cannot be considered a conventional existent/dependent arising, then what sense does it make to call it "empty" , let alone calling it "emptiness(!)" surely you're not saying that the basis is simply the fact of the lack of svabhava in dependent arisings? now, if you want to posit another definition of "emptiness", fine, but then don't say that Dzoghchen follows prasangika madhyamaka. if you want, you can say it follows "great madhyamaka", as presented by Dudjom R in the Big Red Book.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is a convention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if you say that the basis is emptiness, you are reifying emptiness and Nagarjuna has pronounced you incurable.

Malcolm wrote:
For those whom emptiness is possible, for them, everything is possible.
For those whom emptiness is not possible, for them, nothing is possible.

--Nāgarjuna

The basis is emptiness aka original purity.

But I would rather be an incurable Dzogchenpa crossing space in a single movement than a myopic follower of some imagined "madhyamaka" that consists of drearily hopping along on one leg, wondering where the other leg had got to.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Mariusz said:
Excuse me, it was not mine:
"

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing the point. The point is that you took fragments of passages from different pages in this book, MIddle Beyond Extremes, mixed your own words into them, and did not clearly differentiate any of them. Further, your attempt at citation does not form an argument.

Finally, citing what two nineteenth century Tibetan authors write about a 5th century Indian text gives us no insight at all into what the 5th century Indians might have intended in their own words. This thread is not about what Mipham, Dolbupa, Shenga, Tsongkhapa, Gorampa, Mikyo Dorje, Rangjung Dorje, etc. thought about the issues of the relationship between alāyavijñāna and the dependent nature, it is about what Maitryanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu and their Indian followers thought. Karl's B's essay I pointed you too does an excellent job of clarifying that in fact the early Yogacaras authors all use the type 1 model of the three natures, the very one gshan stong pas aka (neo) "Yogacara Madhyamakas" term the cittamatra presentation, which Karl B readily admits. This is indisputable. Of course, KB's paper intends to find sources for the gzhan stong view in Early Indian Yogacara, but he fails because it is not there.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Mariusz said:
Also I'm collecting the arguments that show all Buddhism is cohesive and non contradictionary in the principle, whatever if sutra or tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so there is no contradiction between positing partless ultimate atoms and emptiness. Sure.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Fanboys
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
both balls and ovaries"?

Malcolm wrote:
Balls and tits, please.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


Pema Rigdzin said:
That's just how my mind works. For me, the simplest way to sum up why there are no beginnings to anything is to rid myself of the notion of there even being things in an ultimate sense.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a totally unnecessary step. The simplest approach is to recognize that conditioned causes are results and must always themselved have causes. You don't even have to mention emptiness, being, etc. at all. Right?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Each and every phenomenon one could ever think of is dependently originated--we impute singular "thingness" onto "things" which are really aggregations of multiple parts and causes and conditions, and each of those parts are likewise aggregations of multiple parts and causes and conditions, ad infinitum... No thing can be found anywhere that exists by the power of its own essence, made up only of itself, with no dependence on anything else. That being the case--that is, since all phenomena depend for their conventional "existence" on our imputing "thingness" and existence onto them--where can one find anything at all to have begin to exist, endured for a time, and then disintegrated?

At the same time, despite this emptiness, where can one find any cause at all that fails to bear a result, and who can be found that doesn't experience samsara as the Buddha said we do?

PadmaVonSamba said:
Well said!

Thats why cause ->"thingness" isn't a valid understanding.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't know why a simple question like this has to be ramped up to the ultimate right away.

There is no ultimate origin for conditioned phenomena. There are no beginnings for conditioned phenomena in general. Right? So bringing complicated discussions about imputations, and emptiness, and so on and so forth don't really answer the question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Further, your habit of mishmashing citations from books is also not very skillful. The fact is that here you have randomly strung together passages from different pages. How can anyone take this as "scholarship"? Why should anyone bother with this type of disorganized presentation?


Mariusz said:
When the false imagination... from Maitreya, Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham.

Malcolm wrote:
In short, this is neither from Maitreyanatha, not Mipham, nor Shenga, because you have just randomly strung together bits and peices of texts written and translated by others and added here and there your own words without clearly distinguishing what is what.

Really, get it together, otherwise I am just not going to bother responding to anything you have to say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 7:26 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Mariusz said:
also an advise no to make the fault of denigrating conventions for Namdrol.

Malcolm wrote:
I really wish you would stop making baseless personal criticisms that have no part in the conversation.

I really cannot see anywhere in this thread where I have even discussed conventions, let alone denigrated them.

This kind of random, off topic remark ruins conversations. Please desist and confine yourself to the topic at hand.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Mariusz said:
You are wrong because you: (2.With respect to the dependent nature, it is empty in the sense that this lack of entity is itself a non-entity, but) for you while nothing exists as imagined, it is the case that wakefulness does not exist.

Malcolm wrote:
Your response is a complete and total non-sequitar. In other words, it does not make any sense.

Also this thread is going wildly off topic due in part to the inability of all respondents to communicate with sufficient discipline.

Therefore, unless it returns to a proper course, I am finished with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
I've been under the impression that Yogacara is basically a term that can refer to either Asanga's Cittamatra or Vasubandhu's Vijnanavada.

In other words, that Chittamatra and Vijnana-vada are distinct, yet are also both considered Yogachara.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, cittamatra is a term used interchangeably with vijn̄ānamatravada by Mādhyamika authors. The yogacarins referred to themselves as "yogacarins".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Mariusz said:
And it works compatible with my dzogchen


Namdrol said:
When it comes to Vajrayāna, one's intellectual contrived view is pretty irrelevant.

One's view is delivered through the third and fourth empowerments, and or direct introduction, and is maintained on the basis of that experience in one's practice. So all of this is really just dancing on books. (yawn).

Mariusz said:
Even writing it you unintentionally agree with me: "it" has to be poined-out only. So the principle is the same even considering Vajrayāna/Dzogchen, let alone Yogacara or Madhyamaka. The difference is only the method.


Malcolm wrote:
Not so fast, sport: there is no "pointing-out" in Madhyamaka. From a Madhyamaka perspective, there is no "pointing-out" since there is nothing to be pointed out. The view in Madhyamaka is strictly a result of intellectual analysis, which one then applies in meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Fanboys
Content:
tomamundsen said:
The Crystal and the Way of Light is profound as balls.


Malcolm wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I'm in agreement that this is all dancing on books--this being the Academic Discussion forum, of course that's what's done here.  But I feel the need to point out that Yogacara was not merely a conceptual philosophy foisted upon us, but was an attempt to make sense of some real meditative experience, originally--or so I think. Also, all these categorizations into 6, 8, 9 or however-many consciousnesses need to be seen as dynamic attempts at explaining experience in a conceptual way, rather than as "positions" one must defend.  Then again, maybe this is all inappropriate for the Academic Discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is true, it was an attempt to explain the stages of the path. It's complexity has resulted in a lot of difficult discussions over the centuries, especially since for the most part the followers of Asanaga and so on were eclipsed by the more practical Mādhyamikas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


mint said:
Infinite regression? or beyond infinite regression?  (Infinity can seem awfully constraining.)

Malcolm wrote:
Infinite regression.

There are no beginnings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Mariusz said:
And it works compatible with my dzogchen


Malcolm wrote:
When it comes to Vajrayāna, one's intellectual contrived view is pretty irrelevant.

One's view is delivered through the third and fourth empowerments, and or direct introduction, and is maintained on the basis of that experience in one's practice. So all of this is really just dancing on books. (yawn).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:


Mariusz said:
Of course here I not consider it as the shentong also. Following Nitartha Institute I consider it as yogacara not as cittamatra's the narrow interpretation.

Namdrol said:
Only gzhan stong pas maintain there is a difference between Yogacara and cittamatra.

N

Mariusz said:
Namdrol, with all respect you are not the only one who want to back into the source, a "archaeologist" for Madhyamaka. Karl Brunnhölzl in "The Center" discovered for example:

Malcolm wrote:
You should read his article at the Tsadra foundation blog where he substantially revises his position about this.

BTW, I remain committed to my statment. Only gzhan stong adherents maintain there is a distinction between a so called "Yogacara" and what Madhyamakas call "cittamatra"; what they like to term "Great Madhyamaka". This is a simple fact of the intellectual history of Tibetan Buddhism.

If you maintain there is such a distinction, you are a gzhan stong adherent.

Otherwise, please explain to us the difference between this so called "Yogacara" and gzhan stong. But please start another thread to do so. Thanks.

By the way, there is no shame in being a gzhan stong pa -- I simply don't agree that the gzhan stong interpretation of Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu's texts is the correct one. I think that Tsongkhapa's refutation of gzhan stong, as well as Rongston and Gorampa's, is apt and accurate. I think Rendawa's is a little too strongly worded.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:


Mariusz said:
So as I understand, it is still the middle way, the poining-out the freedom beyond the reference points.


Malcolm wrote:
Both Madhyakamaka and Cittamatra/Yogacara agree that wisdom is free from proliferation (nisprapañca) and free from reference points (anupalambha).

The difference between them is whether this wisdom is held to be ultimately real or not. This the main reason why Candarkirti goes to such great lengths to refute the Yogacara presentation of paratantra very pointedly at 6:72 in Madhyamakāvatara

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:


Mariusz said:
Of course here I not consider it as the shentong also. Following Nitartha Institute I consider it as yogacara not as cittamatra's the narrow interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Only gzhan stong pas maintain there is a difference between Yogacara and cittamatra.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
So, how can a cause pre-exist everything?

Malcolm wrote:
There was no beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When ever I present some text without attributing the authorship of the translation, you may immediately assume the translation is mine.

Mariusz said:
Now from the translation of Khenpo Shenga:

Malcolm wrote:
I asssume by "translation" you mean the presentation of Khenpo Shenga's interlinear commentary as translated in the Middle Beyond Extremes (Snow Lion 2006)? Khenpo Shenga himself never translated anything.

The final line of Khenpo Shenga's commentary (which you seem to find at odds with Vasubandhu's statement I cited above) actually says:
།ཐམས་ཅད་གཅིག་ཏུ་སྟོང་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན་ལ་གཅིག་ཏུ་མི་སྟོང་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ནི་དབུ་མའི་ལམ་ཡིན་ནོ།

Though everything is not empty on the one hand, it is also not not empty on other hand. That is the middle way.
While someone might be tempted to see a difference in meaning between Khenpo Shenga's passage and Vasubandhu's original commentary based on the way the Dharmacakra translation comittee has chosen to translate this passage, in reality, based on the way Khenpo Shenga wrote the original Tibetan there is no difference in meaning.

I think I should add that Khenpo Shenga was in no way a supporter of gzhan stong and was a staunch supporter of Gorampa. Therefore, he, like Gorampa before him, would have and did consider the Madhyāntavibhāga, the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga and the Mahāyānasutrālaṃkara cittamatrin texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Seem to me that this thread has lost its focus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
It is an incorrect starting point because in this assumption,  "everything" is regarded as some kind of result.

Malcolm wrote:
Everything is some kind of result.

All causes are results, all results can be causes.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Namdrol said:
The question ought to be: is the dependent nature ultimate or not in yogacara texts. I think that actually the answer is yes.

N

Mariusz said:
I think that actually the answer is no.

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is yes:


From the Madhyāntavibhagatīka:

As it is said:
"The imagination of the unreal exists,
duality does not exist in that,
emptiness exists in this,
that also exists in that.
Now then, the imagination of the false means the concept of an apprehended object and the apprehending subject. Duality means free from a real apprehended object and an apprehending subject. Emptiness means the imagination of the false being free from a real apprehended object and an apprehending subject. "That also exists in that" means the imagination of the false. As such, that non-existence of something somewhere, that is truly seeing the empty truly just as it is. Whatever remains here, that is understood just as it truly is to exist here. As such, the characteristic of emptiness is demonstrated without mistake.
Not empty and not not empty, 
in that way is everything explained,
because of existence, because of non-existence, because of existence, 
that is the middle path.
"It is not empty" means emptiness and the imagination of the false. "It is not not-empty" means duality i.e. the apprehended object and an apprehending subject. 'Everything' means 'the imagination of the false' is the conditioned and 'emptiness' is the unconditioned. 'Explained' means demonstrated. 'Exists' means the imagination of the false. 'Non-existence means duality. 'Existence' means emptiness exists in the imagination of the false, and the imagination of the false exists in that too. "That is the middle path" means everything is not only empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
I personally find it bizarre that no-one has translated Prasannapada or the Avatarabhyasya or the Catuhsatakatika. I suppose patience is the order of the day.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree and it is my personal bitch with Buddhist studies of Madhyamaka, as you know. There is no base line by which we can judge what all these Tibetans are gossiping about in their treatises unless one reads Tibetan and Sanskrit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
Huifeng said:
Any sort of academic discussion on the topic of "ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?" would have to be text, or text statement, specific.

~~ Huifeng


Malcolm wrote:
Well then make one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Title: Re: ālayavijñāna--conventional or ultimate existent?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Reposted, after some editing,  as off-topic on the Chandarkirit/Alaya thread.

The question is, whether ālayavijñāna is posited to be truly existent, or merely conventionally existent, in Yogacara texts...

Malcolm wrote:
The question ought to be: is the dependent nature ultimate or not in yogacara texts. I think that actually the answer is yes.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
conebeckham said:
Cloudburst-

Doesn't it make more sense to "birth" a storehouse consciousness, inherent or not, due to things such as "memories," "habits," etc., than to create the notion of ālayavijñāna as that which is merely the "mental consciousness knowing emptiness?"

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Cone:

The ālaya is emptiness, that is all that is needed for karma to function. No consciousness that stores seeds is required. But consciousness can know that emptiness, this is how Jayananda is glossing things because of the Lanka passage which describes the ālayavijñāna as subtle and deep, and easily mistaken for a self and also the Lanka passage to declares ālayavijñāna is emptiness.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
Is it your point of view that Buddha did teach the alaya, but that he meant the mental consciousness knowing emptiness? This was misunderstood by yogacharins and the idea of an inherent storehouse consciousness was "born."

Malcolm wrote:
Well, techinally the Yogacarins don't really treat the ālayavijñāna as "inherent", since if you read the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Asanga clearly maintains that when the seeds are exhausted, the ālayavijñāna ceases to exist. So then the question becomes not so much about the this consciousness, the ālayavijñāna, but paratantra, dependent nature.

These interperative difficulties are adressed somewhat by Candrakirti in the verses that cover the dependent nature, 47-72.

As to your first question -- definitely this is Jayananda's interpretation. Given the way Candrakirti cites the Lanka to this effect, it is probable that this is Candra's point of view as well, though I would not swear to it. Given that the Budddha of the Lanka also treats the Ālaya as an interpretable doctrine, the Buddha (as presented in this sutra) seems to have presented ālayavijn̄āna to just a consciousness that apprehends emptiness, but it is not so clearly stated. All the Buddha really says there is that "know that only emptiness is indicated by the [the term] ālayavijñāna".

To really get at the guts of what Candra thinks about this one would need to read the lenghthy discussions of both commentaries covering the ground between 47-72.

I am sorry but I will have to spend some serious amount of time with these things before I really can respond any further. But I will. Jayananda has an exhaustive presentation of his perspective on Yogacara that fills his commentary.

Candra sticks more to the his own text.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
Namdrol said:
Tibetan madhyamaka/yogacara is more safe than alone translations.

Malcolm wrote:
Both have their hazards.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: Guidance on renunciation
Content:
Nemo said:
Afterwards your job prospects will be shite. You won't even know about movies or sports people are talking about. You will be very soft and not well suited for the competitive world that we struggle in. Your guilelessness will get you into all sorts of trouble. After you may shack up with inappropriate women...



Malcolm wrote:
Glad I am not alone in this experience.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
mint said:
If everything has a cause, who/what caused the ground of being (Base)?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis has no cause because it is just emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:


conebeckham said:
I don't see how this quote posits an existent Alaya--it posits an existent "luminous mind of dharmata," for sure....but this is not the ālayavijñāna.

Malcolm wrote:
You are totally off-topic. But this is just like saying dirty/clean cloth. The question is where the cloth is real, not whether it is dirty or clean, it's state of being clean or dirty is incidental; the question of its conventional or ultimate existence is not.

BTW. I can only handle so many threads at a time. Looking up answers takes time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
Namdrol said:
What Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu claim is that the dependent nature is real, it exists. However, the dependent nature = the ālayavijñāna. The ālaya is only called the ālaya as long as there are seeds. When these have been eradicated, the ālaya also ceases; but the dependent nature, being an existent, does not.

Mariusz said:
Can I ask two implications please? I cannot find more.

Is it means the dependent nature (gzhan dbang; paratantra) has no seeds at all during its "existence" with or without the ālayavijñāna? Or is it means the dependent nature (gzhan dbang; paratantra) has seeds somehow more subtle than the ālayavijñāna which are still "existent" even  after the eradication of the ālayavijñāna?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that while the ālayavijñāna depends on seeds for the name "ālaya", the dependent nature does not depend on seeds for the name "dependent nature". But please, if you want to talk yogacara, start another thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
I am sure you have your reasons as to why you refuse to answer this question post after post. So that we can know that you are not answering just to avoid having to admit that he did teach that, would you kindly answer?
According to you, did Buddha ever teach that there were 8 consciousnesses?

Malcolm wrote:
I did not answer directly because I already mentioned that fact that while svāsaṃvedana is not mentioned in the sutras, ālayavijñāna was. Since I stated that ālayavijñāna was mentioned as something taught by the Buddha, by implication we can understand the other seven were also taught since ālayavijñāna is never taught in absence of the other seven, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:


cloudburst said:
Is it your claim that Buddha never taught that inherent persons exist?

Malcolm wrote:
There are some who thought the Buddha taught such a thing aka the Pudgalavadins. I myself have never seen a sutra statement, for example, in the Pali canon, where the Buddha unambiguously claims there is an ultimate self of the kind proposed by Pudgalavadins.


Namdrol said:
The Buddha never explained anywhere that the self and the aggregates existed ultimately -- who told you he did?
Mipham ( I know, you don't care about Tibetans and their points of view.)

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps you can send me a citation by PM where he says such a thing.  To me it seems a little strange and not in accordance with what I have understood about the Buddha's teaching in the Pali canon, etc.

Namdrol said:
Vasubandhu devotes an entire chapter in the Kosha refuting the person, his main Buddhist target being the Pudgalavadins.
This does not indicate that Buddha never taught it, though.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Vasubandhu shows how the key citations Pudgalavadins use to support their view is misunderstood by them. I suggest you read the Kosha, Chapter nine. If you think the Buddha taught such an ultimate self, or the aggregate(!?) as ultimate, please tell me where.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
conebeckham said:
I don't think Vasubhandu claimed the Alaya, per se, "existed" as an absolute

Malcolm wrote:
What Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu claim is that the dependent nature is real, it exists. However, the dependent nature = the ālayavijñāna. The ālaya is only called the ālaya as long as there are seeds. When these have been eradicated, the ālaya also ceases; but the dependent nature, being an existent, does not.

Just to recap -- the classical Yogacara(Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu) model holds that parikalpita is non-existent, but paratantra and parinispanna do exist. The late Indian/gzhan stong interpretation is that parikalpita is non-existent, paratantra is merely conventionally existent, and parinispanna exists, mapping the three natures respectively onto false relative truth, true relative truth and ultimate truth.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:


Huseng said:
Just the finer details of precisely how it was described and taught we are unsure of.

Malcolm wrote:
This is unimportant for the present conversation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
Huseng said:
I'm just specifying that due to the differing accounts we can't be so sure about what the Buddha taught.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I simply do not agree with this perspective. I think we can be very, very, very sure.

Btw, yoru statement above really harms claims you made earlier in this thread citing scriptural authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:


Huseng said:
Well, the Vinaya does record what the Buddha said and provides his judgement on various matters. Don't you think that is important?

Malcolm wrote:
The Vinayas record what the Buddha said to different groups of monks in different parts of India. But also, they report differing accounts since these Sanghas were widespread.


Huseng said:
I agree that we have the general teachings and there is no doubt of that (especially in the case of rebirth, karma, dependent origination, etc...), but the finer details vary too much for us to say for sure exactly what was taught.

Malcolm wrote:
General principles are the point in this discussion, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
Namdrol said:
Our record of what the historical Buddha taught is therefore much better than what skeptics would have us believe. And as well, the content of the Pali canon is so homogenous, really, there is no doubt what the Buddha taught. And is was not what Batchelor is teachings as what the Buddha taught.

Huseng said:
One problem that comes to mind, though, is the discrepancies between the various Nikaya and Agama canons that we have. In general the main teachings are the same, but there are discrepancies. For example comparing various Vinayas in Chinese translation I noticed that while the rule might be the same, the finer details of how and why the rule came about differ across multiple editions. For example in the prohibition against alcohol they all say Sugata got drunk and passed out after a party celebrating his placation of a naga, but the details of where he passed out and whether he kicked the Buddha or not are all different when looking at the different editions of the Vinaya.

It doesn't seem like scribal errors to me.


Malcolm wrote:
Who cares about Vinaya (except monks)? The various Vinayas were redacted separately. This is common knowledge even to traditional scholars.

But the sutras, this is a different stories. My point is that there is an internal consistency in early Buddhist teachings of the sutras which is very homgenous and so the intent of the Buddha cannot be doubted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
as does the abhidharama where Buddha explained the self and aggregates to exist ultimately.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha never explained anywhere that the self and the aggregates existed ultimately -- who told you he did? Vasubandhu devotes an entire chapter in the Kosha refuting the person, his main Buddhist target being the Pudgalavadins.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I just want to note that I am far more interested in what Candrakirti has to say for himself, and what Jayananda has to say about that; then what Gorampa, or Tsongkhapa or any Tibetan scholar has to say about them from here on out.


Namdrol said:
You means that skandhas and persons are conventionally non-existent?

cloudburst said:
inherent persons and aggregates, as taught in the abhidharma.

Malcolm wrote:
So in other words you accept that aggregates and persons conventionally exist. Well, it seems that the ālaya, according to Candra, also exists in that way i.e. conventionally. (No abhidharma treatises teaches there are inherent aggregates since this contradicts the name i.e. skandha. Persons are only taught by Pudgalavadins. Atoms and moments are the main problem with Vaibhaṣikas and Sautrantikas).

cloudburst said:
What of the afflicted mind?

Malcolm wrote:
The kliṣṭamanas is never mentioned by Candrakirti at all in any text. This leads me to be believe he has very little interest in rejecting it.

The term does occur Jayananda's Tika. I need to read what Jayananda is saying carefully. From what I can tell via a quick scan, Jayananda does not seem reject the kliṣṭamanas outright.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
Huifeng said:
The date of when things were first written down is not the key element here.  Moreover, while we our present earliest manuscripts are the Gandharin, their dates are not when writing was first used.

The issue is back tracking agama stemmas; and of the traditions, we can fairly confidently do that to the point of the so-called second council, via parallel traditions.

~~ Huifeng


Malcolm wrote:
Given the Gombrich-Cousins dates, then the second council would have been between 297 and 320 somewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
catmoon said:
Fair enough, but what what I was getting at was that since nothing was written down for centuries after the Buddha, the sutras are telling us more about the terminology used by writers two or three centuries after his time, than anything else. That's enough time time for the development of a complete religious vernacular, significant shifts in language use and so on. Of course I could be wrong, I seem to recall it happening once before....

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the best dates for the Buddha's parinirvana place it at 407-400 BCE. The Asokan Pillers were erected sometime around 260BCE. But that time the Buddhist canon was already being committed to writing. Therefore, we can imagine that the earliest the Buddhist canon was being committed to writing was within 50-75 years of the Buddha's parinirvana, and perhaps even earlier. The very latest would be 150 years afterwards.

People also forget that in the Ancient Buddhist Sangha, right from the first council there was a special class of monks trained to memorize word for word entire sections of the canon even after that canon was written down. The Buddhist sutras were not "written" by the Buddha -- but they were written by the Buddha's immediate, and awakened, disciples. Further, not only that, but many of these monks who were professional reciters were also awakened belonging to the four classes of aryas.

Our record of what the historical Buddha taught is therefore much better than what skeptics would have us believe. And as well, the content of the Pali canon is so homogenous, really, there is no doubt what the Buddha taught. And is was not what Batchelor is teachings as what the Buddha taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
All three are non-existent, taught for the benefit of those who lacked the faculties to go deeper at the time.

Malcolm wrote:
You means that skandhas and persons are conventionally non-existent?

As for your other points, as I said before, Candrakirti is criticizing the way the Yogacarins used the term ālayavijñāna. Jayananda makes it very clear that the reason why Candrakirti cites the Lanka at them is that they have not understood their own sutras, not that we should necessarily dicard the sutras. For example, the primary citation refuting svasaṃvedana comes from the Lanka itself, using the example of the edge of a sword which cannot cut itself.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 9:33 AM
Title: Re: Taking bimala, question about anupana
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
I think since I started trying to eat and live according to ayurveda this past January I let myself get a bit obsessed with trying to do everything I can to remedy my conditions and trying to "maximize the effects" of everything. Of course that kind of thinking and grasping itself is the root of at least part of my problems. I'm just gonna relax and be satisfied with the power of vimala and good ayurveda-guided nutrition-and not least of all, Dharma practice-to allow me to be happy and healthy.

So at night I'll take the bimala straight with warm boiled water instead of worrying about "maximizing" it through anupana and messing with my blood sugar. And in the morning I'll take a vata-pacifying drink of soaked & peeled raw almonds with ginger, saffron, & nutmeg blended into warmed milk which will also serve to restore ojas and I'll look into doing the colorado cleanse soon as I can. How that sound?


Namdrol said:
Sounds good. Ten year old Tawny Port is a great anupana BTW.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Cool. Hey, thanks very much for your help.

P.S.: just take a normal size portion of the port with the bimala ground up and mixed in, right?

Malcolm wrote:
No, take your vimala and enjoy your port. No need to ruin the port with some herbs. Two ounces is a usual pour for port. Goes best in a proper Reidel port glass.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Taking bimala, question about anupana
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
I think since I started trying to eat and live according to ayurveda this past January I let myself get a bit obsessed with trying to do everything I can to remedy my conditions and trying to "maximize the effects" of everything. Of course that kind of thinking and grasping itself is the root of at least part of my problems. I'm just gonna relax and be satisfied with the power of vimala and good ayurveda-guided nutrition-and not least of all, Dharma practice-to allow me to be happy and healthy.

So at night I'll take the bimala straight with warm boiled water instead of worrying about "maximizing" it through anupana and messing with my blood sugar. And in the morning I'll take a vata-pacifying drink of soaked & peeled raw almonds with ginger, saffron, & nutmeg blended into warmed milk which will also serve to restore ojas and I'll look into doing the colorado cleanse soon as I can. How that sound?


Malcolm wrote:
Sounds good. Ten year old Tawny Port is a great anupana BTW.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
catmoon said:
It would be interesting the see how many centuries passed before the sangha started calling themselves Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
Almost right away -- they termed themselves "sakyaputtiyā", sons of Shakya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Sadhanas
Content:
Paul said:
I've been revisiting the Konchok Chidu sadhana I have (as mentioned in the other thread) and it's aa little confusing in that it references trekchod and thogal - so it seems that there is a significant 'bleed through' between yanas in some way. Maybe it's simpler to deliniate outer and inner tantras?

heart said:
Terma cycles often contain maha, anu and ati instructions within one cycle, like for example the Konchog Chidu. When I received the Lama Gongdu from Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche he said: "Lama Gongdu contains complete instructions covering the three inner Tantras, it isn't incomplete like many other cycles that contains just this or that".

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
That is a really large cycle, did he give the complete lung?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
Unknown said:
This discussion arose over a flap with Gorampa saying that although such are rejected ultimately, this does not mean that we should not accept entities like the alaya, the manas and self-cognizers conventionally.

Malcolm wrote:
While I don't really want to discuss Gorampa, but this is not what he says, at least not in lta ba shan 'byed. He does not argue, in this text at any rate, that we must believe that Candrakirti accepts rang rig conventionally. He does assert that we must accept that Candrkirti accepts ālayavijñāna conventionally as Candrakirti presents it in the bhasyaṃ. I beleive that he does so based on how he reads Jayananda.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 14th, 2012 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:


cloudburst said:
In conclusion it is as clear as ever that Chandrakirti completely rejects an Alaya which is of a different nature from the six consciousnesses, although he accepted the use of Alaya understanding the referent object to be the ultimate, and on some occasions, the mental consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are missing the point. The point is really pretty simple: Buddha used a number of terms in different sutras. If you claim that the Buddha intended the son of a barren women by using the term ālayavijñāna, then you are really doing a disservice to the Buddha's teachings -- the Buddha, as stated by Candrakirti, was referring to something conventionally acceptable.

If on the other hand you merely assert that Yogacara scholars are not correctly understanding the intent of such terms, then there is no problem. But this still gives no cause for a complete negation of the ālayavijñāna.

Again you bring up the term term "rang rig" (svasamvedana). There seems to be no mention at all of a "rang rig", a "svasaṃvedana" in the sutras (there is, in the Lanka and Gandavyuha, frequent mention of "so sor rang rig" or "pratyatmyavedana" -- but this means "personally intuited/known"  or "known for oneself", etc. rather than "self-knowing", and is a partial term, not a complete term. It is combined with many other terms such a ye shes, and so on). Careful analysis of the sutras by word search therefore suggests the term is something introduced into Buddhism through pramana. In the tantras, however the term "rang rig" appears in all classes of tantra from kriya on up. But we are discussing Madhyamaka and sutra, not tantra, so we shall leave that aside and remain focused on the actual issue at hand -- ālayavijñāna.

Further, if you look into the commentaries on the Bodhicaryāvatara, it is made abundantly clear that what is being refuted is this "svasamvedana" advanced in the treatises of the pramanikas -- it is stated there explicitly. The ālayavijñāna itself is not mentioned even once in the root text nor is it discussed in any of the two volumes of extant commentary we have on the text apart from a single mention in the Pañjika. Shantideva not only does not refute ālayavijñāna, he never mentions it. If you think about it, it is really kind of amazing. Therefore, comparing Santideva's refutation of svasaṃvedana with Candrakirti's criticism of the Yogacara usage of ālayavijñāna is mistaken.  The passage in the Bodhicaryāvatara refuting reflexive cognition is always presented as a refutation of Yogacara, but in reality it is actually just a refutation of Pramana. It bears consequences for Yogacara, of course, but the advocates of consciousness-only [vijñānamatravadins, rnam par shes pa tsam du smra ba] are merely mentioned as an afterthought in the Pañjika.

So, you cannot equate ālayavijñāna with svasaṃvedana -- that former is the teaching of the Buddha, the latter is not. Thus in the passage I intitially introduced there is no mention of svasaṃvedana:
''The ālaya exists', 'the person exists',
'only these aggregates exist'...
These three are accepted conventionally, but not necessarily in the fashion in which, for example, the Pudgalavadins might acept the statement "the person exists" when they suggest that that there is an inexpressible person which is neither the same as nor different than the aggregates.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Sadhanas
Content:
Paul said:
I've been revisiting the Konchok Chidu sadhana I have (as mentioned in the other thread) and it's aa little confusing in that it references trekchod and thogal - so it seems that there is a significant 'bleed through' between yanas in some way. Maybe it's simpler to deliniate outer and inner tantras?

Malcolm wrote:
\


Konchog Chidu is basically an Anuyoga system of practice. So, it's view of the basis is the same as Dzogchen, and tregcho and togal form part of its completion stage practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Taking bimala, question about anupana
Content:



Namdrol said:
Why are you using it?

Pema Rigdzin said:
Because I understand it's balancing to all three doshas - I'm a kapha-pitta who's about 60 lbs overweight (though have lost about 15 lbs since January through eliminating processed foods and going organic), beginning to exhibit insulin resistance (although that's been entirely remedied since January through proper diet), and has anxiety and depression. Was taking semde & agar which helped a lot with the anxiety & depression, but just switched to bimala the other day after finishing the semde & agar. Also, depletion of ojas through not being so wise while recovering from a cold (and it was probably a slight bit depleted before). Right now, in process of very slowly weening myself off low dose of anxiety meds and all is going well even though I'm in college right now which is kinda stressful, though sleep has been rough. I should add that the depression & anxiety, though difficult, are relatively mild but persisteent.

So, long story short, thought the triphala might supplement the bimala to balance me, along with diet and self-massage, and also restore ojas.

Malcolm wrote:
Vimala already has triphala in it, as does Agar 35. In Tibetan medicines it used as a buffer.

If you are looking to lose weight Ayurvedically, then follow the Colorado cleanse. Depending on your diligence, you could lose 20 pounds in two weeks.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Title: Re: Identity and Dharma
Content:
Huseng said:
Here in Taiwan I would reckon that it is beneficial for people to self-identify as Buddhist. It fosters morality and perhaps a sense of dignity connected to one's sangha. If you're a prominent member in a Buddhist organization and all your colleagues know this, you might otherwise avoid questionable (or dangerous) behaviour as it would reflect poorly on your sangha.

Malcolm wrote:
It is fine to self-identify as a Buddhist, better to self-identify as a Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Taking bimala, question about anupana
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Also, do you think it would be fine to take a tea of triphala in the A.M. while taking bimala at bedtime?


Namdrol said:
Triphala is very drying. I am not a big fan of triphala used all the time.

Pema Rigdzin said:
What about for a short period of time, while taking bimala in the PM?


Malcolm wrote:
Why are you using it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
Stephie said:
IMO He's not a Buddhist - he's an academic up for a bit of stirring

Greg said:
Except that he's actually not an academic . . .

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1548&start=400#p84434

he's just a guy who's been bouncing around a long time and now has students who pay him money. And Tricycle editors who treat him as if he was some kind of authority.

Sometimes he's listed as affiliated with "Sharpham College," which seems to be an unaccredited fake school that he himself founded despite having no academic credentials himself.


Malcolm wrote:
That is defunct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 5:39 AM
Title: Lemmy is God!
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 4:44 AM
Title: Great Rock Band Ever! Greatest Song Ever!
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is completely Buddist in sentiment:


if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Taking bimala, question about anupana
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Also, do you think it would be fine to take a tea of triphala in the A.M. while taking bimala at bedtime?


Malcolm wrote:
Triphala is very drying. I am not a big fan of triphala used all the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Taking bimala, question about anupana
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Namdrol la,

I saw your advice on siddhienergetics about combining bimala with warmed milk sweetened by succanat.

Do you know if using sweeteners like xylitol or stevia instead would also work?


Malcolm wrote:
I don't know-- they are not traditional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Shared Reality
Content:
yadave said:
I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Namdrol said:
Sure I do: functionality.
yadave said:
I would enjoy a better (lay person's) understanding of Buddhist functionality and how it relates to or explains shared reality.

Namdrol said:
You will find it by running a search on arthakriya and its interpretation by Chandrakirti.
yadave said:
Thanks.  I see artha and kriya on Wikipedia.

Namdrol said:
The basis of shared experience depends not on real external existence, but merely whether two people might accomplish the same result given similar sets of apparent conditions.

yadave said:
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that neither you nor I are schizophrenic.  We are walking and talking and see a tree and both of us point and say "Look, there is a tree."

Now suppose Russell Crowe from the movie "A Beautiful Mind" walks up, points to empty space, and says "Look, there is a tree."

What is the difference?  Is it we who are schizophrenic in some weird shared way and Russell has it right?

Regards,
Dave.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that we are enjoying a common appearance and can agree to cut down the tree. We can't agree to cut down a tree we both are not seeing. The fact that we agree there is a tree does not prove by any standard that there is real tree. We agree there is a tree because we agree to call a given appearnce a tree because, ostensibly, we have a common use for such an appearance, or, to use another example, a bike.

Appearances that function are shared reality. We do not need to assert anything other than that.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Shared Reality
Content:
yadave said:
I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Namdrol said:
Sure I do: functionality.

yadave said:
Hi all,

Namdrol, I can't find much on "Buddhist functionality" on- or offline.  I see a theory of functionalism in philosophy of mind but think you refer to something else here.  If you or anyone has a minute to spare, I would enjoy a better (lay person's) understanding of Buddhist functionality and how it relates to or explains shared reality.

Regards,
Dave.

Malcolm wrote:
You will find it by running a search on arthakriya and its interpretation by Chandrakirti.

The basis of shared experience depends not on real external existence, but merely whether two people might accomplish the same result given similar sets of apparent conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Is a Damaru necessary for the condensed Mandarava practice?


Malcolm wrote:
No. Not needed for long one either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2012 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:


tobes said:
Well, I think there is more at stake in this discussion than that particular issue - primarily, what are the terms which constitute something to be dharma or adharma?

How about you define this for us, and we take it from there.....



Huseng said:
That which is conducive to liberation from samsara is saddharma. That which deters one away from liberation from samsara is adharma.

Rejecting rebirth constitutes a wrong view, which deters one away from liberation, and is an example of adharma.

tobes said:
By this definition, most orthodox Indian schools/traditions would be dharma.



Malcolm wrote:
Indeed and rightly so, but not Bauddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: How Germany Became Europe's Richest Country
Content:
Mr. G said:
Hmmm....so we should demolish ourselves to improve the economy?!

Malcolm wrote:
Well that seems to be the thinking guiding the republican party.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2012 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: The Freedoms and Endowments For Dzogchen Practice
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
1) Is receiving Direct Introduction to Dzogchen equivalent to receiving the Fourth Empowerment;


2)  does receiving the Direct Introduction/Fourth Empowerment automatically include the other Three Empowerments?

3) Can we be sure that receiving Dzogchen teachings from Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche NOT during a Worldwide Transmission with its Empowerments in itself includes Direct Introduction if it is our intention to receive Direct Introduction?

Malcolm wrote:
1) Yes.

2) Yes, from a Dzogchen perspective.

3) Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2012 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: How Germany Became Europe's Richest Country
Content:
Mr. G said:
As European debt crisis negotiations approach the 11th hour on yet another bailout for Greece, Margaret Warner reports on some of the people behind the economic success of Germany -- Europe's richest country.
]


Malcolm wrote:
It used to be the easiest way to become the richest country in your region was to get demolished by America.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 11th, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Phoba, Phowa literal meaning
Content:
Will said:
Malcolm is a gem

Are the dictionary passages above online?  There does not seem to be Devanagari, which is good, but the display is horrid.  If I could look at the site directly, maybe things would clear up.


Malcolm wrote:
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/tamil/index.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is Harvard Kyoto romanization which is horrid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Phoba - Sanskrit Equivalent
Content:


Will said:
Now if you generous teachers will take another step and provide which Sanskrit term or terms 'phoba is translating.


Malcolm wrote:
jātiparivartaḥ: jāti means birthplace; parivartah means changing.

The practice of phowa is conscious rebirth in another place, such as Sukhavati. The meaning of phowa is just taking birth in the next world after dying in this one.

Then there is the native Tibetan meaning of phowa which mentioned above. The Tibetans also translated these other Sanskrit words as 'pho ba:

parivarta: %{-vartaka} &c. see %{parivRt} , p. 601.
2	parivarta	m. revolving , revolution (of a planet &c.) Su1ryas. ; a period or lapse or expiration of time (esp. of a Yuga q.v.) MBh. R. &c. ; (with %{lokAnAm}) the end of the world R. ; a year L. ; moving to and fro , stirring Prasannar. ; turning back , flight L. ; change , exchange , barter (also %{parI-v-}) Ya1jn5. MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; requital , return W. ; an abode , spot , place Hariv. ; a chapter , section , book &c. Lalit. ; N. of a son of Doh2-saha (son of Mr2ityu) Ma1rkP. [601,3] ; of the Ku1rma or 2nd incarnation of Vishn2u (also %{parI-v-}) L.
3	parIvarta	m. exchange , barter Hit. (v.l.) ; N. of the Ku1rma or 2nd incarnation of Vishn2u L. (cf. %{pari-v-}). %{-vartam} ind. ( %{vRt}) in a circle , recurring , repeatedly Ta1n2d2Br.


saṃkrānti: going from one place to another , course or passage or entry into , transference to (loc. or comp.) Ka1v. Ma1rkP. ; (in astron.) passage of the sun or a planet from one sign or position in the heavens into another (e.g. %{uttarA7yaNa-s-} , `" passage of the sun to its northern course "' [cf. %{kUTa-s-}] ; a day on which a principal Sam2kra1nti occurs is kept as a festival , see RTL. 428) Su1ryas. ; transference of an art (from a teacher to a pupil) Ma1lav. i , 15 , 18 ; transferring to a picture , image , reflection W. ; = %{-vAdin} Buddh. ; %{-kaumudI} f. N. of an astron. wk. ; %{-cakra} n. an astrological diagram marked with the Nakshatras and used for foretelling good or bad fortune MW. ; %{-nirNaya} m. %{-paTala} m. n. %{-prakaraNa} n. %{-phala} n. %{-lakSaNa} n. N. of wks. ; %{-vAdin} m. pl. a partic. Buddhist school ; %{-viveka} m. %{-vyavasthA-nirNaya} m. %{-zAnti} , f. ; (%{-nty}) %{-udyApana} n. N. of wks.

saṃcāra: mfn. going about , moving (see %{divA-s-}) ; going or belonging together , simultaneous VS. A1pS3r. ; m. (ifc. f. %{A}) passage , a way , road , path , place for walking (esp. the space assigned to each person who takes part in a rite) TS. S3Br. S3rS. Ka1lid. Katha1s. ; a difficult passage , defile , bridge over a torrent &c. W. ; (in Sa1m2khya) evolution , development , emanation Tattvas. ; the body L. ; killing W. ; %{-bhAgin} mfn. obtaining a share with difficulty (?) Vas.
2	saMcAra	m. (ifc. f. %{A}) walking about , wandering , roaming , driving or riding , any motion MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; transit , passage ib. ; the passage or entrance of the sun into a new sign MW. ; passing over , transition , transference to (comp.) Ya1jn5. ; transmission (of disease) , contagion W. ; course , path , way (also fig. = `" mode , manner "') MBh. Hariv. ; track (of wild animals) S3ak. Sch. ; course of life , career Sa1h. ; a partic. class of spies L. ; difficult progress , difficulty , distress W. ; leading , guiding ib. ; inciting , impelling ib. ; a gem supposed to be in the head of a serpent ib. ; = %{huM-kAra} ChUp. ; [w.r. for %{saM-cara} , %{saM-sAra} , and %{sac-cAra}] ; %{-jIvin} m. (prob.) a tramp , vagabond L. ; %{-patha} m. a walk , walking-place Hariv. ; (in dram.) a female attendant on a king (= %{yavanI}) Bhar. ; %{-pUta} mfn. purified by the course or passage (of anything) MW. ; %{-vyAdhi} m. a partic. (prob. infectious) disease L.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Some definitions please
Content:
Namdrol said:
Realization means you know the meaning and have confidence based on that; liberation means you have integrated that.

gad rgyangs said:
the meaning of what?


Malcolm wrote:
Whatever teaching you are practicing, for example: when you have realized the nature of the mind, by integrating that realization you will be liberated.

But people also use the term by degrees i.e. basic realization, total realization (liberation), etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Phoba, Phowa literal meaning
Content:
Will said:
tantular, thanks again for your help.

Do you agree that the general or basic meaning is motion or movement?

Please give your list of actual, alternate meanings (not translation choices) other than "transference, motion, movement"


Malcolm wrote:
In the dictionary he mentioned, it give the meaning he indicated, to leave or desert ('khyur) and to depart/move ('gro ba). The second definition is states that it is a name for death ('chi ba).

'gro is a word that means move, but has a connation of moving away -- it's counterpart is 'on ba, to come. This is why dictionary glosses 'pho ba with 'gro ba; because it is emphasizing the notion of moving away from somewhere. As stated above.

Thus when we die, the mind departs and leaves for another world, for example.

However, when 'pho is combined with 'rgyur, it is a sort of fancy way of saying "change"; the example give is "there is no change ('pho 'gyur) in space."

Therefore, when it comes the exegisis of a word like 'pho ba chen po, it seems it is mostly glossed as "transformation" as if the term in full would be 'pho 'gyur chen po'i sku i.e. body of complete transformation (of the physical elements into wisdom light).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Some definitions please
Content:
pemachophel said:
Reading the topic under Mahayana about philosophical zombies makes me want to know what the Tibetan is for the following oft-used English terms:

Enlightenment
Buddhahood
Realization
Liberation
Attainment
Accomplishment

Also, if anyone (Namdrol?) would like to differentiate the practical meanings of these terms in terms of Tibetan Buddhism, I'd be much obliged. For instance, recently one of my Teachers made a distinction between realization and liberation, with realization being something less/first and liberation something more/later. Unfortunately, it wasn't appropriate at the time to ask for clarification or expansion on this.


Malcolm wrote:
Realization means you know the meaning and have confidence based on that; liberation means you have integrated that.  Buddhahood, sambodhi, means you have completely eradicated all afflictions and all wisdom has expanded. Attainment usually refers to attaining a level, a realization, a liberation, a bhumi or a siddhi. Accomplishment is similar to attainment.

Enlightenment/awakening means you have begun the process of applying realization and have seen the truth. For example Buddha realized dependent origination and then applied it and then he woke up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:


Anders Honore said:
but I think the wish to have truly profound happiness in the here and now, can be as potent a driving force.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, that is not Buddhism, that is the vehicle of gods and men.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
tobes said:
So returning to Batchelor, emphasizing particular Buddhist methods such as meditation and mindfulness are not without value, simply because rebirth is not playing a role.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that mindfulness and meditation are not especially Buddhist. So there is no need to dress them up in Buddhism. But when you do, there are some conventions to which you ought to adhere.

If you want mindfulness and meditation without rebirth, I can suggest a number of wonderful Neo-confucian masters, such as Wang-yang Ming, and so on. But there is also no real soteriology here, apart from the experience of serenity and inner harmony.

I would suggest that Batchelor would do well to spend more time searching out such non-Buddhist meditative traditions which are more reflective of his intuitions, rather than trying to torture Buddhism into fitting his post-modernist model.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
tobes said:
But as far as I can tell, his project is mainly about emphasising existential and pragmatic elements in the sutta's, which are also clearly there in some respects.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the exisential aspect of the suttas are about rebirth, and offer a pragmatic solution to that exisential issue. Suffering is intimately bound up with rebirth.

Toss out rebirth, and there is no meaning to Buddha's pragmatic method. It is not pragmatic -- it's a waste of valuable time better spent getting rich, getting drunk and whoring, and running over anyone who gets in your way.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
P.S.: all of you who do ChNN's Mandarava practice, do you buy chudlen pills or compile your own ingredients or what? If you buy them, where from?

pensum said:
High quality Chulen pills can also be purchased from Siddhi Energetics http://www.siddhienergetics.com/products/chulen

simhanada said:
They are good, I have got them from there too.  The chulen you can get from the dzogchen community (when its available) is made according to Rinpoche's terma and is specific to the Mandarava practice.  Usually its also blessed by Rinpoche or at least they used to be.  So that would be my first port of call with siddhi energetics second if I'm using them for Mandarava practice.  The siddhi energetics one wouldn't have the exact same function I imagine?


Malcolm wrote:
As ChNN explains, these are relative considerations -- one does not need pills to do chulen. They are merely supports. You can use Chavayan prash, or anything, really.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
kirtu said:
in this very body characteristic of Vajrayana

Kirt


Namdrol said:
This means during this lifetime.

kirtu said:
Well obviously.  Again, that's not the issue.

The philosophical zombie assertion is an issue.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
BTW, this is not an issue for Dzogchen. But it is an issue for Sakyapas, because they have a very literal interpretation of the Gandavyuha cosmology. Therefore for them, it is hard to accept that the two rūpakāyas are the same continum because of various contradictions that arise. So because the Sambhogakāya is defined as the definitive rūpakāya, the nirmanakāya is relegated to a secondary status, not possessing any true motives, actions, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
kirtu said:
in this very body characteristic of Vajrayana

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
This means during this lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
Soooo... you think putting a properly-prepared statue of Dorje Drolo on my altar would cause obstacles just by itself? I know this seems ridiculous, but I have to add something else to my basket and this seems like it would be a wise purchase if it's not going to cause me problems.


Malcolm wrote:
It would be a great purchase.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
heart said:
Actually you are a lot less annoying these days. In particular the last six months. I suspect you took the red pill in Teneriffe and are now heading down the rabbit-hole.
/magnus

padma norbu said:
Maybe Namkhai Norbu told him to stop.

I'd be curious to know what retreat happened in Teneriffe, though. That's the real reason I'm replying.


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing, apart from receiving teachings there and eating lots of good food.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
"Well, she's annoying. I won't let her discourage me."

Namdrol said:
So are you, so good choice.

padma norbu said:
I know I'm annoying.


Malcolm wrote:
Dude, lighten up, it was just a quip.

All I was really saying, is that we are sentient beings with flaws -- seeing our own helps us to be more forgiving of our own flaws in others.

If you think you are annoyung, I am much more annoying. There are whole websites devoted to how annoying I am:

http://esanghalert.wordpress.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they only knew how much this inflames my ego, they would take it all down right away! But they are not kind, and so they leave it up, and my ego just gets bigger and bigger.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
tobes said:
Is Dzogchen found in the Pali suttas?

Namdrol said:
If you are a Dzogchenpa, of course.

tobes said:
And what do you suppose the Theravadans would say about this?

Which brings me to the only point I'm trying to make here: hermeneutical contestation - good, necessary, interesting, fruitful.

The claim of privileged hermeneutical authenticity - dubious, without basis, ideological, unfruitful.



Malcolm wrote:
Well, claims of privilege might be fraught, but not claims that this or that position represents a violation of obviously stated principles. For example, if someone were to claim that Marx was a royalist, it requires no privilege to point out that such a claim is not born out by the writings of Marx. Likewise, to claim that Buddha did not believe in rebirth, or even if he did, did not think it important, is to ignore the persistent mention of the four types of aryas found all over the Pali canon.

Basically, Buddha's Dharma takes rebirth as the central problem of existence and proposes a solution to it. This is the central axiom of Buddhism.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: ChNN's pronunciation
Content:
Sherlock said:
I notice that his pronunciation of Sanskrit is a lot closer to the original than most Tibetans (e.g. Vajra instead of "benzar"). Is he atypical in this way or maybe it's just my own limited exposure to lamas?

Namdrol said:
He studied Sanskrit at Derge, and also has taken a keen interest in languages his whole life.

His pronunciation is Derge dialect from East Tibet.

mindyourmind said:
...with a wonderful tinge of Italian thrown in there somewhere


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:


kirtu said:
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Kirt:

It is very simple: from a Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna perspective, no one attains full awakening in the Sahaloka. Awakening occurs only on the sambhogakāya level, never the nirmanakāya level. "Nirmana" means "to emanate". Sambhohga means means "to enjoy".

In common Mahāyāna, bodhisattvas take rebirth in Akaniṣṭha then they acheive full awakening having recieved abhisheka from the all the tathagatas. No buddha actually attains awakening here.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: ChNN's pronunciation
Content:
Sherlock said:
I notice that his pronunciation of Sanskrit is a lot closer to the original than most Tibetans (e.g. Vajra instead of "benzar"). Is he atypical in this way or maybe it's just my own limited exposure to lamas?

Malcolm wrote:
He studied Sanskrit at Derge, and also has taken a keen interest in languages his whole life.

His pronunciation is Derge dialect from East Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
"Well, she's annoying. I won't let her discourage me."

Malcolm wrote:
So are you, so good choice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
Meh... actually, my problems probably were caused by dedicating myself to the path and then committing root downfalls. Someone brought it to my attention recently on this forum that I was "dangerously close" to committing the root downfall of discouraging others. Well, I've probably done plenty of that without meaning to. Upon re-reading the list of root downfalls, I'm sure I've committed this one: (1) Praising ourselves and/or belittling others... and (19) Belittling others with sarcastic verses or words ... and possibly (11) Teaching voidness to those whose minds are untrained. I don't think I've caused a split in a monastic community (that seems a stretch), but it's possible something I said about my experiences in the past may have caused some distress to the sangha. I don't know. Also, (18) Giving up bodhichitta ...I've definitely had several days where I say "screw it" only to come back to it later.

Hopefully, this is stuff many people go through. Some seem to take to it all quite easily, but for me it has been a long, difficult process beginning in my early 20s exploring Theravada and thinking I couldn't really give up all that, then Zen and Vajrayana and thinking roughly the same, that I didn't really have the discipline required to formally commit. When I heard about Dzogchen, I mistakenly understood it to be "easier," but as it turns out, you pretty much have to keep most of the same vows as the rest plus some additional discipline required to sort out what's different and how in your mind. All in all, it's been rough.

Do I just do Vajrasattva to purify past actions and try to be sure not to screw up in the future? Would probably be easier for me to start fresh again now if I knew how to really "clean the slate" and start over, so to speak.



Malcolm wrote:
Best purification is rigpa. After that, Guru Yoga, after that, Ganapuja.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Thanks. So then we could incorporate Dorje Drolo in the Tun practice with the Lung only as well?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Is there any benefit in having the Lung for Dorje Drolo without the Donwang?

If there is any benefit for having the Lung only, how would it be applied?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and you would recite the mantra etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Out of curosity, Namdrol, given your preference for pronouncing mantras as closely to the Sanskrit as possible, do you personally say "Drowo" or "Krowo"? I ask because I've taken to trying to stay more faithful to the Sanskrit too, but Drollod's name seems to have been so thoroughly Tibetanized that it bears so little resemblance to its properly Sanskrit version.


Malcolm wrote:
gro bo lot is a Apabhramsa corruption of krodhalokottara according to Situ Panchen. In Sanskrit then, it means "transcendentally wrathful".

I pronunce it as Rinpoche does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Fa Dao said:
See, thats been the problem lately. It has been difficult to follow Rinpoches instructions on relaxing, being Present, and doing Guru Yoga etc. Keep running into weird shit/obstacles/problems/illnesses. Perhaps I should take a few days and do this practice for both quality and quantity.


Malcolm wrote:
That also can help. Remember what he said about mixiing it up though...pick a few practices, like Mandarava and drollo combined. Rushan and drollo, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Thanks..I really do feel a lot better now. Its just that there have been so many posts in this thread about going crazy etc..had me a little freaked out. I dont know a lot but I know not to screw around with this stuff.


Malcolm wrote:
crazy |ˈkrāzē| informal

adjective ( crazier , craziest )

1) To lack integration and awareness

2) To be distracted by tension

3) Wisdom


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
Are the sort of obstacles generally like highlighting your major weaknesses? Seems logical that these obstacles would just be like "here's your problem, here's your problem, here's your problem, here's your problem..." so you get the point quicker: HEY! THIS IS MY PROBLEM! And then you can deal with it?


Malcolm wrote:
The sort of obstacles that happen are things sometimes seem not to work out right, things that challenge your integration and your ability to relax.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Fa Dao said:
It is because this practice has a lot to do with pacifying the wildest of the eight classes. This is why one should only do the action mantra with a very light touch.
Namdrol, would you mind explaining this? I already have enough problems/obstacles as it is without screwing myself up more. If you cant go into more detail in open forum could you please PM me. Unfortunately I apparently missed some important pieces. Maybe this practice is just for more advanced practitioners and I am in over my head its just that the little I have been able to do so far (doing it in the short tun) I like the feeling of. Havent even tried the action mantra yet...would be good to know exactly what the action mantra is used for.


Malcolm wrote:
Basically, Drolo is very powerful. But obviously now is the time for Drolo practice in the DC.

Drolo is used for overcoming obstacles. Also it is a complete path.

Rinpoche has mentioned that even doing such peaceful practices as Sang can sometimes caused problems if you do them in a distracted way.

Rinpoche really emphasized quality over quantity, as he often does.

But in the end, ChNN would not have taught the practice if he did not feel people could not handle it.

Just treat it with awareness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:


tobes said:
But no one else has really bothered to actually take issue with Batchelor's interpretative argument......by engaging with it sufficiently and offering a refutation.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a self-defeating argument as he expects us to believe that Buddha did not believe what Buddha himself was saying, that Buddha was merely catering to the "primitive" and naive views of his day.

He overlooks the fact that during the time of the Buddha there were soteriological alternatives to rebirth and karma. Ajivikas mendicants rejected both.

India has a long tradition of very eloquent materialist philosophers.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
tobes said:
Is Dzogchen found in the Pali suttas?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Dzogchenpa, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:



Namdrol said:
Drollo practice can cause lots of obstacles.

alpha said:
Is it because this kind of practice leads to an intensification of strong emotions ,anger,hatred..etc..?
And also is it that because they  become more apparent and readily available(these emotions) would make  resting in rigpa much more easy ???


Malcolm wrote:
It is because this practice has a lot to do with pacifying the wildest of the eight classes. This is why one should only do the action mantra with a very light touch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Buddha denied he was a human being when the question was put to him.

AilurusFulgens said:
This is fascinating! If Buddha is not a human being, then who or what is he?

Malcolm wrote:
His answer was that he was a Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:


kirtu said:
If my mind is transformed into wisdom then I have attained liberation at some level in an impure dimension.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.



kirtu said:
You are proposing that at least some high (in terms of attainment) lama's and masters  are not actually human.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha denied he was a human being when the question was put to him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
kirtu said:
See this is highly problematic.  It's one thing to assert that this is the case for Buddha nirmanakayas : actual Buddhahood occurs in Akanistha (fine) and then an emanation play acts (either for real or in effect).  However this restricts mere sentient beings from attaining full enlightenment at least in this lifetime.  That can be resolved by asserting that sentient beings actually don't attain enlightenment in this lifetime - it really happens after death in Akanistha, etc.

Namdrol said:
In common Mahāyāna, buddhahood only happens after one becomes a Mahāyāna never returner, and can see the Sambhohogakāya i.e. eighth bhumi onward.


STMT2: However, in Vajrayāna, we are trained to understand how to realize Sambhogkāya buddhahood through mandala practice. This is another reason why Vajrayāna is fast.

STMT3: So we never really ever achieve buddhahood in the sahālokadhātu.

kirtu said:
How can you justify stmt3 as a conclusion on the basis of stmt2?  It doesn't seem to necessarily follow.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
There is no attainment of buddhahood in impure dimensions. This is the purpose of path of transformation.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Further, you say Batchelor is not trying to recreate the Buddha's experience. I think he would disagree here also.

Malcolm wrote:
If he were, he would be spending time trying to remember his past lives, rather than speculatively rejecting the notion and reintepreting karma to suit his phyisicalist views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
I just sounds like he's saying "Torlay" to me. Dorje Torlay. Is that right?

I'm asking because the mantra has "guru grovolod" in it and I know it's not going to be easy to decipher by listening to the replay.


Malcolm wrote:
No,he is saying Dorje Drolö.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
I don't understand the pronunciation of these two based on the spelling: Dragphur and Drolo. Namkhai Norbu seems to shift the "r" to a different location, similar to the way Brett Favre's last name is pronouced "Farv" which is clearly transposing the  "v" and "r".

Malcolm wrote:
གྲོ་བོ་ལོཏ is pronounced:

drōlöt

Elongate the first ō to double the length. So it is not "dro wo" as pronounced in some other traditions. ChNN clearly explained that in this case, the 'wo' (བོ) is merely elongating the o sound and the 'w' part is elided in pronunciation.

Second o has an umlaut, this is a feature of Tibetan prounciation of o when there is a final consonant that sounds to us like it has a 'r' sound in it, but it doesn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
kirtu said:
See this is highly problematic.  It's one thing to assert that this is the case for Buddha nirmanakayas : actual Buddhahood occurs in Akanistha (fine) and then an emanation play acts (either for real or in effect).  However this restricts mere sentient beings from attaining full enlightenment at least in this lifetime.  That can be resolved by asserting that sentient beings actually don't attain enlightenment in this lifetime - it really happens after death in Akanistha, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
In common Mahāyāna, buddhahood only happens after one becomes a Mahāyāna never returner, and can see the Sambhohogakāya i.e. eighth bhumi onward.


However, in Vajrayāna, we are trained to understand how to realize Sambhogkāya buddhahood through mandala practice. This is another reason why Vajrayāna is fast.

So we never really ever achieve buddhahood in the sahālokadhātu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
alpha said:
Can someone Pm me with a brief summary of the anuyoga style Dorje Drollo given in the second day?

I got lost at the point where   Rinpoche started to mention the action mantra and just before blue Hung or the 3 Hung's.And how do you conclude the practice?He doenst say.

And in this short version are we visualizing the mantra as he explained before when he said that we can do the practice of Dorje Drollo like in Tun when we replace Guru Thragpur?

Also in the 3rd day i didnt understand a word he said when he started to explain the very esential practice with the Hung in the Ati style.There was lots of Dzogchen jargon in there and i got completely lost.What are you supposed to do in this practice?

I would really appreciate it .
Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
Just put it in the short or medium thuns, substituting it for Dragphur.

I will pm you seperately on the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:


tobes said:
However, I think he was pretty explicit that this was his particular interpretation;

Malcolm wrote:
No, his works present his POV as Buddha's POV.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
Namdrol said:
He points out that if the nirmankāya and Sambhogakāya were the same continuum, then when the Buddha stepped on an acacia thorne, Vairocana in Akanistha would have been harmed. He therefore, states that the relationship between Sambhogakāyas and Nirmankāyas are like that of illusionists and illusions. However, what he was referring to was puppet shows, since that is actually the kind of illusion being discussed in that example i.e. taking clods of earth, sticks and so on, and causing the illusions of people, elephants and so on to appear on a screen.

kirtu said:
Where does Gorampa discuss this?

Gorampa's argument is not really logical (that must score max points for some kind of combination of irony and arrogance on my part) and is constrained to a particular interpretation or sets of interpretations.  Your paragraph explanation can be debated but ..... well, I lack the background to debate this seriously.

If considered seriously a nirmanakaya as a *puppet* is problematic on many levels (for one thing this can be seen as denying liberation at the level of Buddhahood).  As an emanation and thus a kind of illusion (but not a puppet) this is not problematic.

Even the case of Shakyamuni is problematic with this puppet interpretation while attaining full enlightenment in the remote past and then enacting (or playacting) the twelve deeds isn't.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
It is based on the idea, stated in the Lanka and elsewhere, that actual Buddhahood occurs in Akaniṣţha Gandavyuha, and that nirmankāyas only seem to acheive buddhahood here. In other words, they are merely projections of the Sambogakāya, they are sort of philosophical zombies.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:


kirtu said:
Where does Gorampa discuss this?

Malcolm wrote:
His commentary on Sapan's three vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Stephen Batchelor - A Critique of "Buddhism Without Beliefs"
Content:
tobes said:
Batchelor at least, to his credit, does make such a claim, nor speak from such a position.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't be silly -- he certainly makes such claims, like everyone, putting them in the mouth of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
heart said:
Anyone know what pages in Adzom Drugpa works from TBRC where the Drollo tsog is?

/magnus

Namdrol said:
It is part of medium activity manual, and the feast itself starts on page 72.

heart said:
Thank you Namdrol! So from the the longer and shorter sadhanas and activity manuals Rinpoche is giving the essence of the concise daily practice?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
This another sadhana, called the rgyun khyer, page 133-135. This is what he again gave the short lung for today.

Then of course, one can do it in the short thun, etc., in all the ways rinpoche mentioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
The advice he is giving today is fantastic. A lot of detail about many things. I am not sure if these last days of retreat are usually available as replays due to the fact that the last day is mostly reading of lungs, but I hope this one is since there is pronunciation advice and practice advice, etc. which is hard to get all at once without being able to pause and rewind if necessary.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, generally they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
heart said:
Anyone know what pages in Adzom Drugpa works from TBRC where the Drollo tsog is?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It is part of medium activity manual, and the feast itself starts on page 72.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Aalaya and Neutral awareness
Content:
Daniel Arraes said:
Can one say that, according to Dzogchen, Aalaya (kun-gzhi) and the neutral awareness (shes-pa-lung-ma-bstan) are the same thing?


Namdrol said:
No, they are different. The ālaya is ignorance.

Daniel Arraes said:
What type of ignorance: innate or imputing?

Malcolm wrote:
Imputing since it is afflicted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:
teknix said:
Awareness can not be seen without a reflection.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence paths based on mind are limited and insufficient for liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
kirtu said:
However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world...

Namdrol said:
That is exactly how Gorampa describes it, in point of fact.

kirtu said:
What does he base that upon?

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
He points out that if the nirmankāya and Sambhogakāya were the same continuum, then when the Buddha stepped on an acacia thorne, Vairocana in Akanistha would have been harmed. He therefore, states that the relationship between Sambhogakāyas and Nirmankāyas are like that of illusionists and illusions. However, what he was referring to was puppet shows, since that is actually the kind of illusion being discussed in that example i.e. taking clods of earth, sticks and so on, and causing the illusions of people, elephants and so on to appear on a screen.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
It is kept away not for safety, but for profit.

Malcolm wrote:
Secret just means don't share things with people a) when they are not interested b) one does not have the proper qualifications to share them properly (i.e. experience).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?
Content:
kirtu said:
However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world...

Malcolm wrote:
That is exactly how Gorampa describes it, in point of fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:



Namdrol said:
You responded with a cracked mirror. Apparently, some subtleties are lost even on you.

teknix said:
I am sure there are some that are. It maybe lost on me, or the response could just as well be lost on you.

Malcolm wrote:
When one holds up one finger, the other should hold up one finger. If the other holds up two fingers, it means the other does not understand.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
It is often the case when ones beliefs come into question, a self-defense mechanism designed to contain energy within a given structure or form is unleashed to aid in justifying the falseness.

Namdrol said:
But you have not questioned anyone's beleifs. You have merely proferred your own.

teknix said:
I do not hold any beliefs that I am aware of, maybe you could point them out for me.


Malcolm wrote:
You responded with a cracked mirror. Apparently, some subtleties are lost even to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
It takes an ego to point at an ego.

Namdrol said:
And?

teknix said:
The subtlety is that the accuser is the one displaying ego.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so when you said that "Let's see how bloated these ego's are" you admit then that you are merely displaying your own ego, correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
It is often the case when ones beliefs come into question, a self-defense mechanism designed to contain energy within a given structure or form is unleashed to aid in justifying the falseness.

Malcolm wrote:
But you have not questioned anyone's beleifs. You have merely proferred your own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
It takes an ego to point at an ego.

Malcolm wrote:
And?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
Let's see how bloated these ego's are.

Namdrol said:
You might have to deflate your own a little, to make some room.

teknix said:
It takes an ego to point at an ego.

You may interpret my confidence however you choose, that is your right, although it does NOT say anything about me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: teknix's Views
Content:


teknix said:
Let's see how bloated these ego's are.

Malcolm wrote:
You might have to deflate your own a little, to make some room.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Aalaya and Neutral awareness
Content:
Daniel Arraes said:
Can one say that, according to Dzogchen, Aalaya (kun-gzhi) and the neutral awareness (shes-pa-lung-ma-bstan) are the same thing?


Malcolm wrote:
No, they are different. The ālaya is ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
MrDistracted said:
Yes, awesome.  These are the first teachings, other than reading Crystal and the Way of Light that I've received from Rinpoche, it's pretty mindblowing.

Did I hear it right that he said that he would give the donwang again tomorrow because of the bad connection yesterday?


Malcolm wrote:
I think so, in a more essential way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa vs. Alaya
Content:
Clarence said:
Having listened to CNN for some time now, I would like to ask a question which has been going around in my mind lately.

In Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche's book Indisputable Truth he describes how there are 3 obstacles to the "experience" of Rigpa, namely:

- Indifference. This is where you confuse being indifferent and not caring with being in Rigpa. (This one I understand)

- Letting thoughts run wild. This is where you think that since there is nothing to do and thoughts are Rigpa you just let your monkey mind run free. (This I also understand)

- Confusing the experience of Alaya all-ground for Rigpa. Apparently they are very similar. (So, this one I don't understand.)
I started reading Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary on Distinguishing Consciousness from Wisdom and hope that will help clarify things a little but for now, how can one be sure and how do the experiences differ?

Many thanks. C

Malcolm wrote:
Ālaya, in Dzogchen generally is considered ignorance. They reason they are similar is that they have the same basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 6th, 2012 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Kalu Rinpoche shocking news!
Content:
Unknown said:
Why don't you go ask the Dalai Lama, the 17th Karmapa, Tai Situ Rinpoche etc...?

Malcolm wrote:
The general Tibetan cultural approach to problems is to close one's eyes so that they disappear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 6th, 2012 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: How would you translate this sentence?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
sentient beings of deluded dualistic vision/appearances


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 5th, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To all people freaking out about wether they got this or not, relax, you did.

As long as you participated as best you could you got it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 5th, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
heart said:
Anyone got the "dokpa" and can share it?

/magnus

Mr. G said:
It's in the short tun.

heart said:
I doubt it was the same, it sounded drollo related to me.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
It is in the short thun.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
I noticed that he said he gave transmission today. While he was saying the mantras, both times he said it, my connection paused. It was also delayed by about 3 or 4 minutes anyway from the audio. So... I really don't think I received transmission.

Is the initiation tomorrow all I will really need?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and really, don't get so locked into concepts -- for example, it even takes some time for sound to travel through air in the same room. If you obsess about things like this, you will never overcome doubt.

As long as you heard it, then you received it. He intended you to receive it, you intended to receive it, therefore, the transmission is perfect, ok?

Tomorrow, just listen to the audio feed.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Fa Dao said:
A few days ago when the webcast was closed I downloaded the file. I just now downloaded the newer file and the primary mantra has a one word addition, (dont want to repeat it in open forum)  which one do I use?

Mr. G said:
I downloaded the file yesterday.  Following along with the webcast, it seemed to match.  Perhaps Namdrol or Nangwa can comment on this.


Malcolm wrote:
Use the later one. The earlier one had a typo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Fa Dao said:
I dont mean to be a pest but if one is already doing Guru Tragphur what would the difference/benefit be from doing this practice?


Malcolm wrote:
Drollo is more connected with Dzogchen explicitly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
michaelb said:
Oh, I see.


Malcolm wrote:
It is a question of shifting lingo from one dharma scene to another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
michaelb said:
Oh, I must have misunderstood that bit. What form the the transmission take? I suppose I was expecting a bit of a shout and that.


Malcolm wrote:
he explained Guru YOga of white A. That is transmission -- transmission and introduction are two different things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Mr. G said:
I decided to take a day off work Sunday for the Donwang.  However, I may miss Monday and Tuesday.

I was wondering, Will this still enable me to practice Drolo in the future if I wanted to, and be OK for me to replay the instructions for Monday and Tuesday?

Malcolm wrote:
Better you also take off monday, however, it is as eight am eastern time, so maybe you can just be late


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
michaelb said:
I don't think he gave Guru Yoga transmission.


Malcolm wrote:
He gave transmission for Guru Yoga-- he clearly said so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Fa Dao said:
TBRC??


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center -- the largest online repository of Tibetan texts in the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Namdrol said:
There is only one way to be a text translator. Just do it.

First read a lot of books for five years and learn Dharma. Then learn source language. Meanwhile practice as much as you can.

Then, having learned the souce language's grammar, practice in that langauge and translate the shit out of texts for 6-10 years before you even produce something worthwhile. Spend the next ten years polishing your craft. Minimum 60 hours a week working on translations. Read books the rest of the time, when you are not practicing. Do not, under any circumstances, join a Buddhist studies program and so on. Do not expect to make a living. Expect to be poor for many years.

If you want to translate, learn the grammer, start translating and ask qualified people to look at your stuff -- oh and study Abhidharma first.

If you are a poor writer in English, either improve your English skills or abandon hope because your translations will always be hopeless garabage even if you have understood the texts. There is so much hopeless garbage out there it seems we will never dig our way out of it.

Having the blessings of your guru helps.

Many days I generally work from 8 am to around 9 pm, usually without much of a break. I don't do it to get paid, I do it because I love it. For example, this morning i began at 7 am. It is 10 pm. I am still working.

Also remember, if you are happy with your translation, it probably sucks.

N

Mr. G said:
Namdrol,

Have you ever thought of running a course like the Tibetan Language Institute for those that want to learn how to translate texts for their own personal use?  A combination of video lectures online, forum discussion, and personal tutoring options?  It'd be a great way for beginners to avoid the pitfalls that others have gone through in attempting to learn by themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
I have been asked to teach others in the past, but no one stays with the program.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Will said:
It is good that enough rugged individualists have trod the narrow, winding path of Dharma translation into English that we have what we have now.  But it is bad for the future if only a few 'hobbyists' decide to do this work.

Malcolm wrote:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: What are 84000 teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are on your own from here on out.

As I said, it is a convention.

DarwidHalim said:
I think Ananda must have meaning buy saying 82000 from Buddha.

Another 2000 he received it from his colleagues.

In Vajrayana context For example, the scholars say tantric teachings are inside this 84000 teachings.

But Theravada said there is no such thing. Buddha doesn't teach tantra.

So, if they claimed so, they themselves must have the complete 84000 teachings all must be in Pali.

If in Pali, they only have 5000 it means many teachings are missing.

This is a source of gray area and dispute.

I dont think Ananda will say 84000 as many many teachings. He can use as many Gangga sands or other fancy term.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: What are 84000 teachings?
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Then what is the actual meaning of this 21000?

21000 techniques to handle ignorance?

21000 types of ignorance?

21000 way we get ignorance?

Or what?

Malcolm wrote:
Originally, it was a number enunciated by Ananda. It is a way of saying, for every problem there is a solution. It is just a convention. In reality, afflictions are innumerable, and so are dharma teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: What are 84000 teachings?
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
They are calculated from 21,000 afflictions ofdesire, 21,000 afflictions of hatred, 21,000 afflictions of ignorance and 21,000 combined afflictions = 84,000. Thus, there is a dharma teaching for each affliction.
Ok. What are the title of each those teachings for ignorance for example?

They are 21000. That is a lot. What is the name for each 21000 items?

Malcolm wrote:
Sutra for anger, vinaya for desire, abhidharma for ignorance, and so on.

But there isn't 84,000 names of dharma teachings for 84,000 individually named afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: What are 84000 teachings?
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
I have heard about this term 84000 teachings both in Mahayana and Theravada teachings?

What does it mean?

How do they calculate this number?

Is it like 1. Anapasatti Sutta 2. Prajna paramitha Sutta, 3. Xxxx, etc. ?

How many of them in Pali and how many of them in Sankrit? Other language?

Or 84000 teachings are just symbolic meaning? In this case why the number is 84000?

Malcolm wrote:
They are calculated from 21,000 afflictions ofdesire, 21,000 afflictions of hatred, 21,000 afflictions of ignorance and 21,000 combined afflictions = 84,000. Thus, there is a dharma teaching for each affliction.

Another way of calculating it is the eighty thousand dharma skandhas, mentioned in Abhidharma; 20 thousands dharma skandhas of sutra, abhidharma, vinaya, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
MrDistracted said:
Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
Just be aware, my course is more of a "How do you read the Kosha", rather than a line by line exposition. I cover the high points mainly, trying to make it practical Vajrayāna and Dzogchen practitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Namdrol said:
Yes, there is indeed a short sadhana, you can find it on TBRC.

Nangwa said:
Do you know where it is in the files?
I have a pretty large Adzom Drukpa Drolo file from TBRC but have no idea where the short sadhana is in there.

Malcolm wrote:
Pg. 133-135


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://rsl-ne.com/abhidharma1.shtml " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Will said:
Why avoid Buddhist studies' programs N. ?


Namdrol said:
Because they mostly fill one with bias, and give one false sense of accomplishment.

Will said:
But is the Dharma language learning part (which I thought was mandatory) so terrible?

Malcolm wrote:
In most Academic Buddhist studies programs, you are being trained to be teacher not a translator.

In the non-Academic ones, you are being trained to propagate a lineage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
zerwe said:
FPMT has the Lotsawa Rinchen Zangpo Translator Programme includes two years of classroom study in Dharamsala
and two years serving as translator to a resident Geshe in centers worldwide. I will put this out there for Namdrol
that, although FPMT are Gelug, I have encountered nothing but a very open non-sectarian style of presenting the Dharma in my 2+ years as a
practitioner within this organization. I am sure others might have a different view, but that is my two cents.
Shaun


Malcolm wrote:
By bias I don't mean sectarian, I mean that one will be conditioned by a given school's way of presenting things. There is a difference between bias and sectaranism. To be a good translator, you have to be familiar with all kinds of things and scholastic bias causes one to have blinders.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
Does anybody know if they'll post a copy of the full Sadhana on the webcast page, or if not, does anybody have a PDF of it?


Namdrol said:
It is already up.

The full sadhana consists of a seed syllable and two mantras. That is just how we roll in the DC.

N

heart said:
Yes, but how did Adzom Drugpa roll? For sure there is a sadhana, right?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is indeed a short sadhana, you can find it on TBRC.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Will said:
Why avoid Buddhist studies' programs N. ?


Malcolm wrote:
Because they mostly fill one with bias, and give one false sense of accomplishment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
Does anybody know if they'll post a copy of the full Sadhana on the webcast page, or if not, does anybody have a PDF of it?


Malcolm wrote:
It is already up.

The full sadhana consists of a seed syllable and two mantras. That is just how we roll in the DC.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is only one way to be a text translator. Just do it.

First read a lot of books for five years and learn Dharma. Then learn source language. Meanwhile practice as much as you can.

Then, having learned the souce language's grammar, practice in that langauge and translate the shit out of texts for 6-10 years before you even produce something worthwhile. Spend the next ten years polishing your craft. Minimum 60 hours a week working on translations. Read books the rest of the time, when you are not practicing. Do not, under any circumstances, join a Buddhist studies program and so on. Do not expect to make a living. Expect to be poor for many years.

If you want to translate, learn the grammer, start translating and ask qualified people to look at your stuff -- oh and study Abhidharma first.

If you are a poor writer in English, either improve your English skills or abandon hope because your translations will always be hopeless garabage even if you have understood the texts. There is so much hopeless garbage out there it seems we will never dig our way out of it.

Having the blessings of your guru helps.

Many days I generally work from 8 am to around 9 pm, usually without much of a break. I don't do it to get paid, I do it because I love it. For example, this morning i began at 7 am. It is 10 pm. I am still working.

Also remember, if you are happy with your translation, it probably sucks.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
I'm not sure the "Three Natures" is completely irrelevant, I think it has some value--even if it's "wrong."   After all, it takes a mind, even one that doesn't ultimately exist, to even say that things are empty or come to that (non)conclusion!   There's some soteriological value to some of these concepts and ideas........But I certainly can't disagree with your assessments about "revisionism," or about the confusion regarding what "early" or "True" Yogacara's positions and doctrines were, given the plethora of late Indian versions, and the Tibetan penchant for logorrhoea.

BTW, speaking of "frameworks of Buddhist philosophy," I bet you love Kongtruls' "Secret Mantra Madhyamaka," the apex of that portion of the Sheja Dzod, eh?

Malcolm wrote:
There is some justification for Dolbupa's position in so-called the three bodhisattva commentaries i.e. on Kalacakra, Hevajra, and Cakrasamvara.

What is clear to me is the rigid typological boundaries in the four tenet systems tend to fall apart when it comes to Vajrayāna, since in Vajrayāna, the view is not an intellectual construct, but rather, an experiential introduction. That being the case, whether one's intellectual view is cittamatra or madhyamaka is not very important since one's practice will be based on the view communicated during the empowerment, not a view arrived at analytically.

However, here we are dicussing emptiness in yogacara, and whether it really is true that they posit non-dual consciousness that substantially exists. I think in face of the evidence it is a little hard to deny that in fact they did so.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
Interesting, also, that even in India there were a variety of interpretations.

Malcolm wrote:
Not until quite late. The salient point is that Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu all use the type 1 presentation which means they all were cittamatrins by gshan stong pa standards.

conebeckham said:
As an aside, I tend to think of all this ultimately as less about ontology, and more about practice and experience. I always come to the conclusion that conceptual mind cannot directly know reality, much less formulate some sort of framework describing it.

Malcolm wrote:
The issue has been, as always, whether post-Yogacara Madhyamakas like Bhavaviveka were justified in their critiques of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu.

It is clear that after the attacks of Bhavaviveka and so on on the Yogacara school, that there was a response which involved a) altering the Perfection of Wisdom in 25 and 18 thousand lines with the addition of the Maitreya chapter in order to b) provide justification of the reworking the three nature model.

Basically, we can identify three phases of Yogacara: the sutra period, original commentatator period, and the post-Madhyamaka response period.

What we observe in period two is trenchent attacks by Asanga in particular on the austerity of the perfection of wisdom vision and a concern that it lead to a form of annihilationism.

What we observe in period three is a revamping of Yogacara, recasting the three natures in terms of the two truths.

This latter phase represents a defeat for the Yogacara system in general, since the three natures are completely unnecessary given the presentation of two truths. However, late Yogacarin partisans managed to communicate their ideas to Tibet, and since the time of Dolbupa, centuries of followers of gshan stong have been seriously confused about what the actual teaching of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu might have been, especially as this has been conflated with the tathagatagarbha theory.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
Cake? What cake?  Who said anything about cake...???

Malcolm wrote:
Read this, especially the conclusion.

http://wordpress.tsadra.org/?p=1215 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Uncontrived
Content:
Beatzen said:
I think it's ironic that ritualists like Tibetan buddhists criticize anything about zazen as contrived.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think you can sum Tibetan Buddhism up as ritualist, it means you have not understood anything at all about Tibetan Buddhism.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 3rd, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Using a mala
Content:
MalaBeads said:
I am interested in buying a mala. I have heard that different malas are used for different mantras. I would like to do Tara and Chenrezig mantras mostly. What kind of mala should I buy


Malcolm wrote:
You should get a bodhiseed māla since the Buddhist tantras state quite clearly this is preferred general purpose māla.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As an aside, what the Madhyamakas are trying to explain to the Yogacarin is that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
Looks like it's an open webcast after all!

This is from an email I got from Conway, MA:
3rd Feb.

4-6pm. - Introduction of this retreat teaching and the transmission of Ati Guru Yoga.
^ is that the correct US time and is that when the Dorje Drolo wang will be given?

...or more likely this day:
5th Feb.

10-12am. - Donwang of Guru Dorje Drolod and the instruction for doing the practice of Dorje Drolod in daily life.
Donwang appears to have the word "wang" in it.

Again, are these the correct US times? No need to add or subtract 2 or 3 hours? I pretty much always miss these things. Don't want to miss this one.

Malcolm wrote:
Argentina is two hours ahead of NY, so when the retreat starts at 4:00 pm, tune in at 2:00 pm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
well, yes, thats what they say, but I'll be damned if it makes any sense at all.


Malcolm wrote:
It makes sense: for them, paratantra is like a cloth; when it is dirty it is made dirty through the imagination of the false; but the dirt does not inhere to the cloth, when it is removed, it is perfect.

In reality, it is just an attempt to explain the Buddha's statement here:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. [paratanta] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." [parikalpita]

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. [paratanta] And it is freed from incoming defilements." [parinispanna]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanissaro mentions that the commentaries mention that this refers to the bhavanga citta, and we know for a fact that the Asanga equates the bhavanga citta with the ālayavijñāna. 

For the yogacara, the emptiness of the mind lies in its innate freedom from affliction, this is why in the passage above that I introduced Vasubandhu terms this emptiness "unconditioned" while the imagination of the false is termed "conditioned".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if the alaya is a designation only, then what kind of reality does it have beyond being parikalpita? if the seeds that are the basis of that designation is what is being called paratantra then, when there are "no more seeds", what is left? you said "a non-dual consciousness... now called wisdom" but what is that basis for that designation?

Malcolm wrote:
The non-dual consciousness is present from the beginning. This is why Yogacaras use the three own natures.

Paratantra is not parikalpita. Please dont confuse yourself and others by misusing these terms.

"The imagination (parikalpita) of the unreal exists (paratantra),
duality does not exist (parinispanna) in that (paratantra).

Therefore, the basis of the designation for wisdom is paratantra in which the seeds have been removed [as the result of the transformation in the basis]. When the seeds have not been removed, paratantra is termed ālayavijñāna. The other seven consciousnesses are termed parikalpita, they are themselves the seeds which function dualistically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Uncontrived
Content:
Beatzen said:
But in zazen, we aren't doing such things.  Steadying the mind on the breath in the tanden region, we empty our mind of it's contents and relax into glimpsing our original face.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a pretty contrived meditation, from this Tibetan Buddhist's POV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:


Anders Honore said:
I freely admit, I am more interested in interpreting Yogacara prescriptively than descriptively. So my point of curiosity in this is: Without regard for what yogacara scholars may be saying about their own texts, is yogacara necessarily realist?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as your citation below shows.

Anders Honore said:
Ie, you say yogacara goofed on the whole transformation thing, but did they have to commit this fallacy to retain the integrity of their system or not? I am thinking of passages like this from the platform sutra:
Although the sixth and seventh are transformed within the cause, the [first] five and the eighth are transformed on the basis of the result. Only the names are transformed; the [consciousnesses] are not transformed in their essences.)
Which strikes me as a simple solution to the controversy. If it is indeed so, it does make me wonder why the yogacarins were allegedly so vested in not opting for this solution.


Malcolm wrote:
This passage means that Yogacarins are cittamatrins.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the whole paratantra thing was parikalpita from the start.

Malcolm wrote:
This is one reason I find it unrewarding to have this discussion, as most people are incapable of weeding out how gzhan stong pas present the three natures [as you have above] and the way Yogacara scholars in India actually present them.

If, as you suggest, paratantra is parikalpita, then you are asserting that parinispanna is also completely non-existent. Why? Because the yogacara authors very clear explain that the absence parikalpita in paratantra is parinispanna. This bears that consequence that paratantra must exist.

In any event, I did not invent the term āśrayaḥ parivarta. You can blame Yogacarins for that. If you carefully examine their literature, they are indeed asserting that there is a transformation of the kind described. This is especially clear in the Mahāyāna samgraha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:
Mariusz said:
Are Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, Santarakṣita the Madhyamikas, who did not "never locate reference points"?


Namdrol said:
You should read them for yourself and find out what they think.

Mariusz said:
I can not find suitable english books these days. Can you recommend any books which deals directly with what I asked?  As far as I know the quotes from Candrakirti, He never located reference points in the Two Truths, but for the purpose of the debate to help others understand Madhyamka He sometimes used suitable reference points as the "antidote, medicine" for them only. To free them "from all reference poits",from clinging to the Two Truths, the freedom "beyond" the seeming=unblurred, unimpaired vision.


Malcolm wrote:
Procure and read Nāgārjuna's Reason Sixty. A somewhat clumsy translation, to be sure, but it has Candrakirti's commentary. Incidentally, Candarkirti's densest treatment of worldly convention seems to be contained in his commentary on the seventy verses on emptiness.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
Regarding your comments about the internal contradiction in the three natures, my understanding of the Three Natures is that the False Nature is purely imaginary, thus obviously nonexistent, the Dependent nature is empty dependent origination, and the Perfect nature is neither existent nor nonexistent.

Malcolm wrote:
And this is a perfectly gzhan stong interpretation.

The way this is parsed in authentic Yogacara texts is that the non-existence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected nature. Hence the citation above states that the imagination of the false is empty and not empty as well has existence, non-existence, and as well as existence.

The ālayavijñāna is the dependent nature; when the seeds within it are exhausted, there is a transformation in the basis, it's nature as the ālayavijñana ceases, becoming wisdom. Why? The Yogacara designate the ālayavijñāna based upon the storage of seeds. When there are no more seeds, then there is no basis for designation of a container or storage place of seeds. What remains is a non-dual consciousness. That is not longer termed "mind", it is now termed "wisdom".

The sole thing that is refuted by the Yogacara school as being non-existent is duality. Duality does not exist in the imagination of the unreal. But the imagination itself exists. It's emptiness is soley emptiness of the unreal.

For this reason then we can understand their school is a non-dual realism i.e. "everything is not only empty".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Doctors, please read
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Would Chulen that is taken for the purpose of needing less sleep and having more energy for a retreat, have to be taken according to the instructions that Padma Norbu posted in the original post?

Or could these said Chudlen be taken the same way as say Bimala or Semde?


Malcolm wrote:
Chulen pills have a method of being blessed as in Mandarava practice, so use that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness in Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
Do we agree that the real question, regarding Yogacara, is not whether Buddhahood is the result of transformation or revalation, but whether Yogacaras posit an absolute existent, such that they are to be considered "realists?"

Malcolm wrote:
The two questions are inextricably related. The Tibetan gzhan stong debates have caused the issue to become skewed.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:


conebeckham said:
In fact, Eighth Karmapa's commentary on the Abhisamayalamkara indicates that it is a mistake to think that, for instance, the Alayavijnana turns into Mirror-like wisdom, as many Mahamudra practitioners do.  He says it is "not possible within the sphere of knowable objects that something impure turns into something pure," or vice versa.

Malcolm wrote:
This nevertheless is the fault of the yogacara school, the inner contradiction of their position that dependent nature must exist since it is what imagines the false. You must read very carefully what Vasubandhu says in the citation above.

The Karmapa's commentary, incidentally, will be based on either Ārya Vimuktisena's commentary Haribhadr's or a combination of both, depending whether he prefers a three kāya scheme following the former, or a four kāya scheme following the latter, so his commentary on that will hardly be relevant here.

We are discussing what Yogacara scholars say about their own texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:
Mariusz said:
Are Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, Santarakṣita the Madhyamikas, who did not "never locate reference points"?


Malcolm wrote:
You should read them for yourself and find out what they think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:
conebeckham said:
Mahayanasutralamkara, VI. 8:
The mind that is aware that nothing other than mind exists.
Then, it is realized that mind does not exist either.
The intelligent ones are aware that both do not exist
and abide in the Dharmadhatu, in which these are absent.
This would lead to "revealed," rather than transformed, yes?
Though it's true the Yogacara texts are constantly going on about the "fundamental change of state."

Malcolm wrote:
My repsonse to this is the evidence provided in the Madhyāntavibhagatīka:

As it is said:
"The imagination of the unreal exists,
duality does not exist in that,
emptiness exists in this,
that also exists in that.
Now then, the imagination of the false means the concept of an apprehended object and the apprehending subject. Duality means free from a real apprehended object and an apprehending subject. Emptiness means the imagination of the false being free from a real apprehended object and an apprehending subject. "That also exists in that" means the imagination of the false. As such, that non-existence of something somewhere, that is truly seeing the empty truly just as it is. Whatever remains here, that is understood just as it truly is to exist here. As such, the characteristic of emptiness is demonstrated without mistake.
Not empty and not not empty, 
in that way is everything explained,
because of existence, because of non-existence, because of existence, 
that is the middle path.
"It is not empty" means emptiness and the imagination of the false. "It is not not-empty" means duality i.e. the apprehended object and an apprehending subject. 'Everything' means 'the imagination of the false' is the conditioned and 'emptiness' is the unconditioned. 'Explained' means demonstrated. 'Exists' means the imagination of the false. 'Non-existence means duality. 'Existence' means emptiness exists in the imagination of the false, and the imagination of the false exists in that too. "That is the middle path" means everything is not only empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:
Namdrol said:
What they propose is that a mind freed from subject object transforms into wisdom, and if this wisdom does not really exist, liberation is impossible. In order for this wisdom to exist, then the mind out of which wisdom is transformed necessarily must exist. Yogacara thus becomes a non-dual realist system. This is not simply a prasanga disctinction -- this is a universal mahdyamaka charge against the treatises of yogacara.

N

gad rgyangs said:
"transforms into wisdom" or "is revealed as wisdom"?

Malcolm wrote:
Transforms.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:
conebeckham said:
Some "Yogacaras" don't posit that Mind ultimately exists, I should point out.  Or, so say some Tibetan commentators.  The standard objection of some Tibetan "Prasangika Madhyamika adherents" often ignores this....


Malcolm wrote:
What they propose is that a mind freed from subject object transforms into wisdom, and if this wisdom does not really exist, liberation is impossible. In order for this wisdom to exist, then the mind out of which wisdom is transformed necessarily must exist. Yogacara thus becomes a non-dual realist system. This is not simply a prasanga disctinction -- this is a universal mahdyamaka charge against the treatises of yogacara.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
dakini_boi said:
How do you log on to a closed webcast?  Go to the normal webcast site?  Anything special you have to do?


Malcolm wrote:
Use your webcast team assigned user name and password on the login page which is found on the files page


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:


mañjughoṣamaṇi said:
Technology is only one part of the equation.  Without addressing the other two we will just rip through whatever savings we may find through more efficient technologies.

Malcolm wrote:
Then there is the Jevons Paradox:

In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.

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

This led to a reexamination and restatement as the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate:

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

"When individuals change behavior and begin to use methods and devices that are more energy efficient, there are cases where, on a macro-economic level, energy usage actually increases." The effect of higher energy prices, either through taxes or producer-induced shortages, initially reduces demand but in the longer term encourages greater energy efficiency. This efficiency response amounts to a partial accommodation of the price rise and thus the reduction in demand is blunted. The end result is a new balance between supply and demand at a higher level of supply and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response.
http://www-dse.ec.unipi.it/persone/docenti/luzzati/italiano/didattica/herringefficiency.pdf " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Dependent origination Vs Interdependent
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
If the seed exists in the sprout then it is not a cause it is an effect.  Something cannot be a cause and an effect simultaneously.
If the sprout arises from the seed then the sprout exists as the seed.  Something cannot be an effect and a cause at the same time.
If the seed exists independently of the sprout or the sprout exists independently of the seed then we fall into eternalism as we have uncaused effects.
If neither the seed nor the sprout exist we fall into nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
Nagarjuna says about this, and repeated by Candrakirti in the Prasannapāda is that causes and effects are neither the same nor are they different, using the example of milk and butter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
By the way, the concept of particle only valid for Vaibhasika and Sautrantika. Cittamantra already reject particle. Cittamantra itself is rejected further by Madyamika. Cittamantra say everything is mind, and the existence of mind is rejected by Madyamika.


Malcolm wrote:
Some Madhyamakas, such as Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, accepted the model of relative truth proposed by the Sautrantikas, but rejected that of Yogacara. Others, such as Santarakṣita, accepted the relative truth proposed by Yogacara but rejected Yogacara presentations of the ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Sherlock said:
The wang will be given through the webcast too?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a so called don dbang, a meaning empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Aemilius said:
Actually romans did have machines, here  is  a picture of a roman sawmill, as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R%C3%B6mische_S%C3%A4gem%C3%BChle.svg

Namdrol said:
Yes, run by slaves. The cotton gin was also a machine, albeit run by slaves.

Aemilius said:
The roman saw mill uses the power of gravity, ie the flowing of water to a lower level, as in a normal waterpowered electricity generator.

Malcolm wrote:
Manned by slaves again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Partless particle is absurd.

Partless means no part.


Malcolm wrote:
Partless particles are a Sautranika tenet, not a tenet of Bhavaviveka.

Partless particle have no sides i.e. no top bottom, east, west, etc. They do not adhere to one another as in the building block idea of atoms of the Vaibhaṣika school that have sides, etc., which form matter by adhering to the sides of each other.

This is all basic Abhidharma, and do not really have much to do with Mahdyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:
Namdrol said:
No that, in his lingo, is self-perfected.

Pero said:
Yeah but I think sometimes he says infinite potentiality (not primordial, my mistake). You know like when he's saying not only emptiness (ka dag) but also infinite potentiality. Couldn't we say that lhun grub is the potential for manifestation and thugs rje is the way this potential manifests (as either dang, rolpa or tsal)?


Malcolm wrote:
We talk about three wisdoms, but really, these three are aspects of a single state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:
Namdrol said:
It's a meaning gloss. On the other hand, "energy" does not fully express thebnirmanakāya activity of benefitting sentient beings, of which it is the base (hence the reason the wisdom of the basis is described as thug rjes or karuna). So I prefer to translate it as compassion, save energy for "rtsal". "Energy", in my opinion is too vague since it does necessarily included the fact that nirmanakāyas manifest to guide sentient beings.
Someone who understands Dzogchen teachings will then understand the unpacked meaning of thugs rje with the seen the three wisdoms described. ChNN these days tends to translate it as "primordial potentiality". No matter what, when ever it is explained, you always have to mention that it literally means "compassion".

Pero said:
Hmmm I thought primordial/infinite potentiality was lhun grub.


Malcolm wrote:
No that, in his lingo, is self-perfected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Teacher & Root Guru
Content:


AlexanderS said:
Wouldn't it be necessary, to actually have formally have asked a teacher to be your root guru before it is so. I mean, that there is a formal and conscious relationship between the teacher and the student. I wouldn't want to break heavy samaya by slandering or having wrong views about my root guru without actually consciously knowing he is my root guru.

Malcolm wrote:
Whenever a guru gives a major empowerment or direct introduction, there is always a possibility that one or more students will have an authentic discovery of their true state. He already accepts that some students their may discover their real nature, and that they might come to regard him or her as their root guru. That is what it means to take responsibility for giving transmission. When someone gives transmission they are doing so in order to help people become realized, to realized their own nature. When that happens, that guru becomes the root guru for that student, and from then on that student has real knowledge of their own nature. The person who removes that doubt for you is your root guru and no other. It also does not mean you realize that right away. Sometimes it may take you a little while to figure out. So there is never any need to ask formal permission from some Lama "Oh, can I consider you my root teacher"-- if they say yes, than what shall you do? If you do this, it means you do not have real knowledge of your state or that you have some doubts or are in a state of confusion. Especially if the request is based on just some sort of love-sick emotion that poses as faith (which happens a lot, and why unstable western students often leave this or that lama when the infatuation wears off). The identity of your root guru is based on your own knowledge. No one can tell you who your root guru is, not even some Lama who is acting as a guru. If some Lama declares to you "I am your root guru" before you have some real knowledge of the teachings, then be careful, especially if you have never received some sort of empowerment or direct introduction from that person. If you take a major empowerment from some guru, as I have said, according to the system of Sakya, etc., this person already is your root guru. In this system, one can therefore have as many root gurus as one has received major empowerments. Receiving the four empowerments automatically makes them your root guru. If you received sixteen major empowerments from sixteen different gurus you have sixteen root gurus. According to this system, however, there is also the concept of the karmic link root guru which resembles the Kagyu and Nyingma approach i.e. based on this guru’s instructions you have an authentic realization of the nature of your mind. So, if you are approaching this from a Kagyu and Dzogchen point of view, and you do not have real confidence in your state, then you don't have to consider anyone your root guru. Of course you still have gurus -- but when you have real conviction and knowledge then those people who have given you that conviction and knowledge are your actual root gurus. Before that time, they are just your gurus."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Teacher & Root Guru
Content:


AlexanderS said:
Wouldn't it be necessary, to actually have formally have asked a teacher to be your root guru before it is so. I mean, that there is a formal and conscious relationship between the teacher and the student. I wouldn't want to break heavy samaya by slandering or having wrong views about my root guru without actually consciously knowing he is my root guru.

Malcolm wrote:
Whenever a guru gives a major empowerment or direct introduction, there is always a possibility that one or more students will have an authentic discovery of their true state. He already accepts that some students their may discover their real nature, and that they might come to regard him or her as their root guru. That is what it means to take responsibility for giving transmission. When someone gives transmission they are doing so in order to help people become realized, to realized their own nature. When that happens, that guru becomes the root guru for that student, and from then on that student has real knowledge of their own nature. The person who removes that doubt for you is your root guru and no other. It also does not mean you realize that right away. Sometimes it may take you a little while to figure out. So there is never any need to ask formal permission from some Lama "Oh, can I consider you my root teacher"-- if they say yes, than what shall you do? If you do this, it means you do not have real knowledge of your state or that you have some doubts or are in a state of confusion. Especially if the request is based on just some sort of love-sick emotion that poses as faith (which happens a lot, and why unstable western students often leave this or that lama when the infatuation wears off). The identity of your root guru is based on your own knowledge. No one can tell you who your root guru is, not even some Lama who is acting as a guru. If some Lama declares to you "I am your root guru" before you have some real knowledge of the teachings, then be careful, especially if you have never received some sort of empowerment or direct introduction from that person. If you take a major empowerment from some guru, as I have said, according to the system of Sakya, etc., this person already is your root guru. In this system, one can therefore have as many root gurus as one has received major empowerments. Receiving the four empowerments automatically makes them your root guru. If you received sixteen major empowerments from sixteen different gurus you have sixteen root gurus. According to this system, however, there is also the concept of the karmic link root guru which resembles the Kagyu and Nyingma approach i.e. based on this guru’s instructions you have an authentic realization of the nature of your mind. So, if you are approaching this from a Kagyu and Dzogchen point of view, and you do not have real confidence in your state, then you don't have to consider anyone your root guru. Of course you still have gurus -- but when you have real conviction and knowledge then those people who have given you that conviction and knowledge are your actual root gurus. Before that time, they are just your gurus."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Teacher & Root Guru
Content:
Namdrol said:
According to the traditions of Sakya, Gelug and Jonang, a root guru is anyone from whom one has received the four empowerments.

In Kagyu, a root guru is someone who actually caused you to recognize the nature of your mind in a non-intellectual way.

In Dzogchen, a root guru is the person who introduces one to one's primordial state in an unmistakable way.

Clarence said:
N-la,

Is there a difference between what is shown in Kagyu and Dzogchen or do they both show the same thing, only the way to get there is different?

Best, C


Malcolm wrote:
You will probably get different answers, but the former is included in the latter, so there is some similarity of meaning. The terminology is very different however, and there are key differences between the two presentations that depend on their respective paths.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Teacher & Root Guru
Content:
Namdrol said:
According to the traditions of Sakya, Gelug and Jonang, a root guru is anyone from whom one has received the four empowerments.

In Kagyu, a root guru is someone who actually caused you to recognize the nature of your mind in a non-intellectual way.

In Dzogchen, a root guru is the person who introduces one to one's primordial state in an unmistakable way.

Clarence said:
N-la,

Is there a difference between what is shown in Kagyu and Dzogchen or do they both show the same thing, only the way to get there is different?

Best, C


Malcolm wrote:
You will probably get different answers, but the former is included in the latter, so there is some similarity of meaning. The terminology is very different however, and there are key differences between the two presentations that depend on their respective paths.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Teacher & Root Guru
Content:
Totoro said:
In another post Gregkarvanos said:
A teacher is one thing, but a root guru is a completely different deal!
When does a teacher become a root guru?   Say, if a teacher decides to spend a couple of years or so to check out a disciple and vice versa, before 'accepting' him as a serious student, what will happen to change that status to 'root guru'?  THanks.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the traditions of Sakya, Gelug and Jonang, a root guru is anyone from whom one has received the four empowerments.

In Kagyu, a root guru is someone who actually caused you to recognize the nature of your mind in a non-intellectual way.

In Dzogchen, a root guru is the person who introduces one to one's primordial state in an unmistakable way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Teacher & Root Guru
Content:
Totoro said:
In another post Gregkarvanos said:
A teacher is one thing, but a root guru is a completely different deal!
When does a teacher become a root guru?   Say, if a teacher decides to spend a couple of years or so to check out a disciple and vice versa, before 'accepting' him as a serious student, what will happen to change that status to 'root guru'?  THanks.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the traditions of Sakya, Gelug and Jonang, a root guru is anyone from whom one has received the four empowerments.

In Kagyu, a root guru is someone who actually caused you to recognize the nature of your mind in a non-intellectual way.

In Dzogchen, a root guru is the person who introduces one to one's primordial state in an unmistakable way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Chod vs Mahamudra Chod
Content:
twonny said:
As far as I know there is no such think as Dzogchen or Mahamudra chod

Malcolm wrote:
Sure there are. Jigme Lingpa's chö is an example of Chö from the Dzogchen tradition. Troma Nagmo from Dudjom Tersar is another. These chö practices are marked by using termonology from the system of Dzogchen.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Aemilius said:
Actually romans did have machines, here  is  a picture of a roman sawmill, as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R%C3%B6mische_S%C3%A4gem%C3%BChle.svg

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, run by slaves. The cotton gin was also a machine, albeit run by slaves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
thugs rje rig pa'i ye shes su bzhugs pas mkhyen pa'i cha ma 'gag par so sor gsal kyang bya ba dang byed pa'i rnam pa yul yul can du snang ba ni med do/

Namdrol said:
Though the knowing part manifests individually without ceasing [mkhyen pa'i cha ma 'gag par so sor gsal kyang] since compassion is present as the wisdom of vidyā [thugs rje rig pa'i ye shes su bzhugs pas], the aspect of action and agent [bya ba dang byed pa'i rnam] appearing as [du snang ba] an object and a subject [yul yul can] does not exist.

gad rgyangs said:
thanks, this is awesome! first, i'm wondering how the published version translated "rig pa'i ye shes" as "intrinsic awareness (rig pa) of pristine wisdom (ye shes)", it seems backwards to me, or doesn't it really matter?

Malcolm wrote:
It matters. It is a genetive constuction. Also intrinsic awareness in an inappropriate gloss. Pristine is a little weird because it is usage that dates from 16th century which is not generaly current. These days pristine means "new or fresh", generally not "original, former, primitive and undeveloped", unless we are talking about old growth forests and wilderness as in "pristine wilderness".  Ye nas "has always" is a synonym of rtag tu, "will always, permanently", etc., and as a clause in Tibetan functions the same way.


gad rgyangs said:
I've been thinking about "energy" as the translation of thugs rje...

Malcolm wrote:
It's a meaning gloss. On the other hand, "energy" does not fully express thebnirmanakāya activity of benefitting sentient beings, of which it is the base (hence the reason the wisdom of the basis is described as thug rjes or karuna). So I prefer to translate it as compassion, save energy for "rtsal". "Energy", in my opinion is too vague since it does necessarily included the fact that nirmanakāyas manifest to guide sentient beings.
Someone who understands Dzogchen teachings will then understand the unpacked meaning of thugs rje with the seen the three wisdoms described. ChNN these days tends to translate it as "primordial potentiality". No matter what, when ever it is explained, you always have to mention that it literally means "compassion".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
arsent said:
It seems to me it will be an open webcast..


Malcolm wrote:
It isn't


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 6:56 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
thugs rje rig pa'i ye shes su bzhugs pas mkhyen pa'i cha ma 'gag par so sor gsal kyang bya ba dang byed pa'i rnam pa yul yul can du snang ba ni med do/

Malcolm wrote:
Though the knowing part manifests individually without ceasing [mkhyen pa'i cha ma 'gag par so sor gsal kyang] since compassion is present as the wisdom of vidyā [thugs rje rig pa'i ye shes su bzhugs pas], the aspect of action and agent [bya ba dang byed pa'i rnam] appearing as [du snang ba] an object and a subject [yul yul can] does not exist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
Thanks for the clarification, Namdrol. I'm sure I would practice incorrectly, but maybe it's something I could do on my deathbed.

Malcolm wrote:
It is best to have such a teaching so it can be practiced when needed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if sentient beings and buddhas are the basis' awareness, what the basis' awareness manifests as, then it is not necessary to posit an aware entity that is dangerously close to being a deity. the basis sleeps in its bardo, and its awareness (us) is withdrawn. it wakes, and we manifest.

Namdrol said:
This is basically how it is -- but since there is no individuating consciousnesses driven by affliction, the awareness latent in the basis is not discussed in plural terms, that is until there are individuating consciousnesses when samasara and nirvana "turn their back to each other".

gad rgyangs said:
ok. now: next problem. what the heck is this cyclic thingy of the basis, its "sleeping" phase, with latent awareness, and its manifest phase? first of all, this is temporal, and certainly anything that is beyond concepts of existence or non-existence is going to be way beyond temporality. so, the basis cannot actually have a cycle, its tsal maybe does whatever it wants, including cycles, but not the basis itself.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, this comes about because of traces of action and ignorance. Nothing in the basis changes, of course, what happens is that there is sort of cosmic pulsation of ignorance and its subsidance which results in the appearance and disappearance of samsara and nirvana; and as we know, traces can accumulate in wisdom.

You have to understand that all of this explanation of cosmic cycles is really intended to be brought down to the level of the indivdual's life cycle in terms of the four bardos:

The bardo of death == destruction of the universe up to the two higher form realms
The bardo of dharmatā == the arising of the sound, light and rays of the basis
The bardo of becoming == non-recognition of the basis
The natural bardo of this life == the appearance of samsara and nirvana

It is an explanation for practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
heehee, I should do this retreat just so you can all see just how bad the results can be... but, seriously, thanks again for the info. Will steer clear of this one for sure.

asunthatneversets said:
Why steer clear? It's not often opportunities like this come up, even if you receive the wang, lung and tri and don't do the practice at this point in time it's still good to receive the teaching... you may change your mind in the future and then you're already locked and loaded. Not everyone has access to teachings like this, or teachers like ChNN, you have the opportunity, I'd say take advantage of it. Authentic teachers are few and far between and life is delicate and can be lost at any moment, now is the time!

padma norbu said:
Uh... I don't need any more obstacles and I'm crazy enough already. Based on what Namdrol has said here, at least I have enough sense to avoid this teaching. I'm just thankful for the knowledge and wanted to express my thanks. I've received other teachings without knowledge of what it fully entails and didn't appreciate it too much. I would be furious if I learned this practice can create obstacles or madness after the fact, when my life seems to be going even more haywire than it already is.

Malcolm wrote:
Receiving the teaching does not cause problems -- practicing it incorrectly does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if sentient beings and buddhas are the basis' awareness, what the basis' awareness manifests as, then it is not necessary to posit an aware entity that is dangerously close to being a deity. the basis sleeps in its bardo, and its awareness (us) is withdrawn. it wakes, and we manifest.

Malcolm wrote:
This is basically how it is -- but since there is no individuating consciousnesses driven by affliction, the awareness latent in the basis is not discussed in plural terms, that is until there are individuating consciousnesses when samasara and nirvana "turn their back to each other".


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
Adumbra said:
There is really no strong refutation of theism once you trade in the idea of a good and perfect creator for one who is, at best, amoral and capable of error such as the demiurgos of Plato's conception.

gregkavarnos said:
Of course there is, Dependent Origination, yah know???


Malcolm wrote:
Thank you, Greg.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Peak Oil
Content:
Aemilius said:
They didn't have machines, that's true, but they had some form of mass production of tiles. It is justified when historians  have said that  certain emperors owned tile factories.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, millions of slaves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:


Namdrol said:
The basis is the three kāyas. The three kāyas are free from thought, but the basis is not a mere inert void.

gad rgyangs said:
2 questions:

1. is the basis aware in any way, or are we sentient beings and not-quite-perfect-buddhas the only manifestations of sentience?

Malcolm wrote:
Define what you mean by "aware".


gad rgyangs said:
2. can we agree (in the interests of communication) that rang byung ye shes (self arisen wisdom) usually pertains to the base, is in fact a synonym for the base, and rigpa is the manifestation of that ye shes in/as a sentient being?


Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis and that is all. Rigpa is not the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
michaelb said:
I know. I attended some teachings in London a couple of years ago, and have watched quite a few open webcasts, and met up with local members for the transmission. but joining just for one closed  webcast when i really  want teachings on another terma may not be the best reason to join.


Malcolm wrote:
It could be a perfect reason to join.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Clarence said:
Having everything decentralized just doesn't work efficiently in this case.


Malcolm wrote:
It is mostly an issue of differences in international law.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so its more like the basis is a container for this aggregate of latent awarenesses, rather than it being the awareness of the basis itself?

Namdrol said:
It is part of the rtsal of the basis.

The basis is not one thing, it is not many. It is the dharmadhātu.

N

gad rgyangs said:
so sentient beings and buddhas are part of the tsal of the basis, but the basis itself has no awareness, since during the bardo phase, the latent awarenesses in the basis are really the dormant sentient beings and non-'samyak sambuddha' buddhas? where are the samyak sambuddhas then, if the basis is the dharmakaya, they must be there too? i mean, there's no "larger context" within which the basis is found, no"where" outside the basis where the samyak sambuddhas would be?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is the three kāyas. The three kāyas are free from thought, but the basis is not a mere inert void.

There is no larger context and you know better than to ask one of the fourteen questions Buddha refused to answere (i.e. where do tathagatas go after death).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Understanding The Basis
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so its more like the basis is a container for this aggregate of latent awarenesses, rather than it being the awareness of the basis itself?

Malcolm wrote:
It is part of the rtsal of the basis.

The basis is not one thing, it is not many. It is the dharmadhātu.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
so what becomes of the latent awareness of the basis? are we it?

Malcolm wrote:
When the latent awareness (shes pa bag la nyal] of the basis recognizes the basis as its own display, it becomes prajñā [shes rab] and realizes buddhahood as Samantabhadra.

When the latent awareness of the basis does not recognize itself, under the power of the imputing ignorance that imputs appearances as other and that awarness as a self, it becomes consciousness [rnam par shes pa].

The 'latent awareness of the basis' is an aggregate name for all those beings who have not acheived total buddhahood in the previous eon, but acheived a so called "buddhahood that reverts to the cause", [as I have explained now several times within the last few weeks] in the same way that we refer to the aggregated consciousnesses of all sentient beings as the vijñānadhātu, along with dhātus of earth, water, air, fire and space, the so called sadadhātu, the six dhātus.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Call me Fruity if you like, but I then start wondering why Nagarjuna is so highly valued in Mahayana circles, and his work explained on such a broad basis, instead of the narrow one for which it seems it was initially meant.

It does make good sense to me in the narrow way, and it explains why in the broad way it often feels like missing the mark.

Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
Most of Nagarjuna's works are critical, but they are based in Mahāyāna sūtra perspectives, specifically, the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
My smart phone knows my name.

Malcolm wrote:
So it is a "knowing knower?"

Related to your other comment, there are instances where Nagarjuna's refutations are completley irrelevant in the modern context, and instances where they are relevant and very much so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Apparently not in Dzogchen, since during this phase, there are niether buddhas nor sentient beings, no samsara, no nirvana. This the reason why the basis is also called "the bardo of samsara and nirvana", meaning that niether are manifest during this period.

gad rgyangs said:
hang on: the basis isnt only during the bardo. what about the basis right now?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is called the basis because it has not been realized.

At present the basis is not latent, like it is between eons. At present the basis is in a state of manifestation as Buddhas and sentient beings. When the basis is latent, we term it "the time of the basis" or "the bardo of samsara and nirvana". After the basis manifests we term this phase "samsara and nirvana turn their backs to one another". When we

When we fully realize the path of dzogchen, it is called  "the universe manifests as the basis": in other words, our total experience will be the three wisdoms subsumed under the name, great original purity.

The basis itself has not changed in anyway during these three time periods.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
i was thinking of the general sense of knowing awareness, more specifically self-awareness. in the sense of rigpa maybe? im just interested in the idea that if the basis is not conscious, so where does consciousness in general, and rigpa specifically, come from?

Namdrol said:
The basis possesses a neutral or latent awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan or shes pa bag la nyal] which is unaware of itself. But this is only a very general way of speaking, just was we speak of the six dhātus: earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness.

gad rgyangs said:
isnt awareness (of any kind) a characteristic of a sentient being, indeed the definition of a sentient being?


Malcolm wrote:
Apparently not in Dzogchen, since during this phase, there are niether buddhas nor sentient beings, no samsara, no nirvana. This the reason why the basis is also called "the bardo of samsara and nirvana", meaning that niether are manifest during this period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
i was thinking of the general sense of knowing awareness, more specifically self-awareness. in the sense of rigpa maybe? im just interested in the idea that if the basis is not conscious, so where does consciousness in general, and rigpa specifically, come from?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis possesses a neutral or latent awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan or shes pa bag la nyal] which is unaware of itself. But this is only a very general way of speaking, just was we speak of the six dhātus: earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Thugs rjes (karuna) is the word used to describe the nirmanakāya function of the basis. As long as we understand that is what compassion means, we do not need a better word than compassion to describe this aspect of the basis.

N

gad rgyangs said:
so on what level does cognizance make its appearance: dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, or nirmanakaya?


Malcolm wrote:
What is the Tibetan word for you are using "cognizance"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
then the basis is just a metaphor (fine with me).

Namdrol said:
Well, no -- compassion is the basis for the expression of the nirmanakāya and its activities.

gad rgyangs said:
maybe "compassion" and "responsiveness" are not good translations then, since they are so clearly agentive. Rinpoche in Crystal +Way of Light seems to be translating thugs rje as "energy"

Malcolm wrote:
Thugs rjes (karuna) is the word used to describe the nirmanakāya function of the basis. As long as we understand that is what compassion means, we do not need a better word than compassion to describe this aspect of the basis.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
AdmiralJim said:
Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings

Malcolm wrote:
We are seeking liberation from beginningless samsara; and bodhisattvas do not save all sentient beings, they merely wish to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
AdmiralJim said:
where did these  previous beings from the previous universe come from? it just goes around in circles and would only work if there were a finite amount of beings

Malcolm wrote:
From the universe prior to that ad infinitum. The logic of dependent origination does not permit of any sort of beginnings whatsoever. No first causes, no first moment, no first universe, etc. There are an infinite number of sentient beings who also have no beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
AdmiralJim said:
Design means to draw or create deliberately according to some plan -- but instead the universe arose because the blind force of the collective actions of ignorant sentient beings [from a previous universe[/quote
where did these previous beings come from?

Malcolm wrote:
The previous universe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
You caught my sense Tom, it was about the ball, MMK CH2:1 is about the rolling.


Malcolm wrote:
MMK refutes moving movers, such as rolling balls. The minute you suggest that balls roll, then automatically the subroutine that refutes rolling rollers kicks in.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
Yes, persons and aggregates exist conventionally.
We can reject the alaya as a non-existent by carefully reading Chandrakirti.


Malcolm wrote:
So in other words, you admit that it is not explicitly obvious that Candrakiriti rejects ālaya conventionally, and this rejection must be based on a "careful" reading of the MAV.

cloudburst said:
In the MAv verse you cite above, he says that although things are natureless, he taught that they exist. This can only mean that although things are natureless, he taught that they exist by nature, because otherwise he wouldn't have set up natureless and existence as opposites and used the word "though." So Buddha taught that the alaya, persons, aggregates, etc exist inherently or by nature whereas they do not.

Malcolm wrote:
Here is Candra's statment commenting on 6:46:

"Now then, if it is said that ālayavijñ̄ana is something which is said in the Ārya Lankāvatara and so on to be the basis [possessing a special power of limitless phenomena] of all seeds which are the cause of the arising of all things, like waves and an ocean. Does that not exist as arising in any way at all?"

Such is not the case, but that was demontrated as stated because it is demonstrated as existing to those to be disciplined. In order to introduce the nature [svabhāva] of all things, only emptiness is demonstrated by the word ālayajiñāna."

If you read this passage alone, you will come away with the idea that Candra is basically saying there is no ālaya. But...

Jayananda's expansion of this passage is interesting, and I think it is likely a source of disagreement among Tibetan scholars on this point because of a) how he qualifies Candra's discussion b) because his is the only Indian commentary we possess after Candrakirti bhasyaṃ of MAV. I have parsed out the passage for clarity and have spent some time doing so today since I don't know that anyone has actually looked at this before (maybe, perhaps in some journal somewhere).
That 'suppose' is for demonstrating the argument of the cittamatrins, it is said "Supposing in that way...". When 'presented in connection with the result of actions', though the ālayavijñāna does not exist, since the actions lack a nature, the conclusion of a perished action is presented as the production of the the result of action in the relative [samvṛtti]. 

The 'basis which has a special power of limitless phenomena' means a consciousness of the appearance of infinite phenomena such as blue, yellow, and so on. The power of those means the traces (vāsanā). For example, like the scent arising from approaching a flower, in that same way, the consciousness of blue and so on perfume the ālayavijñāna; it is the basis or support of the traces. Therefore, this is the significance of saying it is the cause of all the seeds (bijas) i.e. consciousnesses. 

Now in order to demonstate the example, waves and so on are mentioned. 

'The cause of the arising all things' means because it is the cause of giving rise to the consciousness of the appearances of blue and so on.

"Ārya Lankāvatara and so on..." says
The ālayavijñāna is deep and subtle, 
like a flowing river upon which all the seeds fall,
I do not teach this to the immature
since they will imagine they should impute a self.
'Does that not exist in anyway?' means 'has it never existed'? 

Now then, in order to respond to the question, it is said 'Such is not the case...' and so on. 

'Such is not the case' means 'it is not non-existent', but on the other hand, 'it was taught as existent for a purpose by the Bhagavan.' 

'That was demonstrated as stated because it is demonstrated as existing to those to be disciplined' means 'Since the ālayavijñāna was demonstrated as existent, the ālayavijñāna was demonstrated as existent to those persons who were to be disciplined'. 

Ultimately [don dam], because the 'ālayavijñāna' is demonstrated as being an description of only emptiness, it is said '...the nature of all things' and so on. 

For what reason is it said 'In order to introduce the nature  of all things'? It is for introducing the the emptiness of things with "Not from self, not from other..." i.e. only emptiness is the ālaya, but because of the consciousness of that [emptiness] itself [de nyid] i.e. because of the perfect comprehension of that is free from perception of all phenomena [chos thams cad mi dmigs pa], therefore, emptiness itself is demonstrated by the term ālayavijñāna."

I submit therefore that this passage opens up a very different way of looking the Candrakirtian treatment of the ālayavijñāna. Since we ought to accept that Jayānanda possessed the oral lineage of interpreting this text, I think we can safely say that this passage means we really ought to carefully rethink whether Candrakirti so thoroughy rejects ālayavijñana as some Tibetan Madhyamaka scholars seem to think he does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
in the Dzogchen view, the characteristics of the basis are purity (kadag, emptiness), inexhaustible and uninterrupted manifestation (lhundrup) and responsiveness/compassion (thugje). now, can there be compassion and responsiveness as an impersonal phenomena? I don't see how, since it is by definition intentional, and intentionality is a characteristic of consciousness, of awareness.


Namdrol said:
Gems are inert, so they have no intention. Whoever possesses that gem can get what they want.

Likewise, compassion has no intentionlity, but since everyone posssess that basis, liberation is possible for all sentient beings.

gad rgyangs said:
then the basis is just a metaphor (fine with me).

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no -- compassion is the basis for the expression of the nirmanakāya and its activities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Title: Candrakirti and the ālaya
Content:
cloudburst said:
Did Gorampa accept that the Alaya as a consciousness was non-existent like the hair on a bald man's head? If not we DO disagree there which as the original point.

Malcolm wrote:
Candra says: in MAv 6:43-44 (my translation):

''The ālaya exists', 'the person exists',
'only these aggregates exist',
these teachings are for those who
cannot understand the profound dharma. 
Just as the Buddha taught 'I' and 'mine',
though free from the view of a self [satkāyadṛiṣṭi];
likewise, though indeed things are natureless, 
'existence' is demonstrated as the provisional meaning [neyartha].

The first question I have for you is: do persons and aggregates exist conventionally, and if they do, upon what basis are we then to reject the ālaya as being the son of a barren women, if we on the other hand admit that persons and aggregates are the sons of fertile women?

The second question I have for you is: what in your view, is the difference between the provisional meaning and conventional truth?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Rinpoche has given the Medicine Buddha transmission numerous times. Is there a specific DC practice for this or can it be done in Anuyoga style? Also I have heard the mantra done a couple of different ways, how does Rinpoche teach it?


Malcolm wrote:
There are two -- Orgyen Menlha and the Medicine Buddha from Namcho. I am not sure where you can get them, but I think if you send an email to the secretary of DCA, he can help you further.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


Tom said:
The reason for which is the lack of existence of motion in any of the three times. It just seemed your previous statement could be read as drawing an ontological distinction between moved objects and moving objects.

Namdrol said:
There is no basis for saying that something is moving, apart from something which has not moved or has moved. If you are familiar with the argument rejecting motion in the MMK than all of this is old hat.

Tom said:
I don't disagree, you are basically just quoting MMK CH2:1, my point is just that this verse is about the rolling not the ball.

Although, I do understand that motion and movement exist interdependently. Without motion there is no mover and without a mover there is no motion and that this precludes existing either independently or inherently.


Malcolm wrote:
I was responding to this: "a basketball rolling across the floor."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


Tom said:
The reason for which is the lack of existence of motion in any of the three times. It just seemed your previous statement could be read as drawing an ontological distinction between moved objects and moving objects.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no basis for saying that something is moving, apart from something which has not moved or has moved. If you are familiar with the argument rejecting motion in the MMK than all of this is old hat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
If something like this worked, it might be easier to understand Nagarjuna's fivefold reasoning applied to, say, a basketball rolling across the floor.


Namdrol said:
No, Nāgārjuna would say something much simpler:

"Apart from a ball which has rolled and a ball which has not rolled, there no ball rolling."

CF his negation of movement.


Tom said:
Isn't it problematic to posit a rolled ball and a not rolled ball and then refute the rolling ball?  They all exist in the same way, by way of conception.

What is refuted is that there is rolling in the past, rolling in the future, or rolling in the present (which is an instant).

Malcolm wrote:
The subject of the analysis in MMK is "I am going to town". "The ball is rolling" is the same sort of statment, treated the same way.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
If something like this worked, it might be easier to understand Nagarjuna's fivefold reasoning applied to, say, a basketball rolling across the floor.


Malcolm wrote:
No, Nāgārjuna would say something much simpler:

"Apart from a ball which has rolled and a ball which has not rolled, there no ball rolling."

CF his negation of movement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Fatigue in high humidity climates.
Content:
Huseng said:
Question for Namdrol.

I've noticed that in high humidity climates my strength drains away and I suffer fatigue. I can't sleep enough and feel tired until at least around 10am/11am.

I don't seem to have this problem in low humidity climates like in Ladakh or Canada, or even around Bihar when I was there in February. But in summertime Japan and during the rainy season there, as well as here in Taiwan where the humidity is always high, I suffer fatigue. Getting up at 6am is a hard struggle. Though in low humidity zones this isn't an issue for me.

Any suggestions?


Malcolm wrote:
The best thing I can suggest is to try sleeping on an outside veranda with screening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Namdrol said:
How about "suffering cannot be removed with the hand..."

Sherab said:
No source of the citation was provided.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a citation produced in a thousand Tibetan texts. My example was found in a text on Madhyamaka called Moonrays penned by Rongton Shebya Kunrig.

I have tried text searches on the bka' 'gyur and bstan 'gyur to no avail. If it exists there, it does not exist in the common translation one sees in a thousand tibetan books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
cloudburst said:
look at me go!  I would say we can both spit out a basic presentation of how madhyamaka works. Did Gorampa accept that the Alaya as a consciousness was non-existent like the hair on a bald man's head? If not we DO disagree there which as the original point.


Malcolm wrote:
I think the question you are asking is "Does Gorampa accept that idea that Candrakirit thinks the ālaya as a consciousness is like the hair on a bald man's head."

As I stated before, I think that Gorampa thinks that Candrakirti's view on the conventional existence or non-existence of the ālayavijñāna is more nuanced and subtle then what some other scholars are willing to allow and that he disagrees with how some other scholars present Candrakirti's refutation of the ālayavijñāna, and so on, for reasons that are complex.

I have no idea whether Gorampa is correct or incorrect because Candrakirti is not around to be questioned. My suggestion is that one should examine the Bhasya and Jayānanda's commentary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
I am not discussing my own POV.

cloudburst said:
Whose POV are you discussing?
In this particular exchange, I am discussing what gorampa has to say, and because what Gorampa has to say is a little complicated about a very specific point, I was teasing out the threads so it would easier to understand.

As far as learning Tibetan goes, it is my observation that people get led very far afield because they become attached to certain English phrases which are not very precise renditions of Sanskrit and Tibetan terms, or in the case of Khenpo Karl, rather novel attempts at accuracy which have not gained wide currency. Thus, if they learn Tibetan, they will have more ability to check a given translation in order to better understand it.
I must say, that is an excellent point and I accept it and applaud you and second it. I find one of the best ways to question this is to debate it, honestly.

Malcolm wrote:
It might help you, then, to debate with someone who is more highly trained than myself, or the average run of the mill internet user. For example, let us say you defeat in debate someone who is inarticulate at expressing Tsongkhapa's view -- have you defeated Tsongkhapa's view? No.

I really hestitate to boldly state: "This scholar is wrong, this scholar is right".  The reason I continually encourage people to go back to the basic Indian texts is that, quite frankly, Tibetan scholarship on these issues extremely complex.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
Gorampa is saying that conventional thing possess internal contradictions — this fact [that they possess internal contradictions] is what allows them to be refuted ultimately. He is not saying that these internal contradictions are what appear prior to analysis.



cloudburst said:
Though I fear to give you further feelings of futility and despair, I cannot agree with Gorampa. If you must think it is for sectarian reasons so be it. I think that whatever internal contradictions they appear to have are resolved at the conventional level. Contradictions may appear, but these contradictions only arise when you fail to be satisfied with valid appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
You just agreed with Gorampa. Gorampa said contradictions exist within conventionalities which do not appear until analysis. All analysis appears at the conventional level. No one is disputing that; but all analysis has one aim, at least in Madhyamaka, to discern the real state of a given event or thing, such as a self-cognizing mind or a self-illuminating lamp, and so on.

cloudburst said:
Does a lamp dispel darkness? Yup. Does an orange seed give rise to an orange tree? Yup.
If you begin to analyze these conventions, they will become unstable, but if analyzed, as all the Madhayamaka masters advise, they appear and function in a thoroughly non-contradictory manner.

Malcolm wrote:
You just agreed with Gorampa.

cloudburst said:
in the MMK Nagarjuna's investigation seeks out HOW the darkness is dispelled.... does it meet with the light? But how could it, where the lamp is there is no darkness! etc.
This contradiction arises as a result of the beginning of an ultimate search. Conventionally, we can say that the lamp dispels the darkness and there is a conventional reason for that. What about that reason, does it too have a reason? Yes. and so on until the answer is I don't know why that is, but we know that in fact it is.

Malcolm wrote:
You just agred with Gorampa. This the sort of hastiness that has lead to centuries of Tibetan trench warfare.

Namdrol said:
I am not saying that Gorampa is better than you, for on this score, indeed he is not.


you are no better than either of us low-down beings who cannot refrain from polemics. Declaim all you like but

Malcolm wrote:
I am trying to show you that such polemics carried out in the way we all have previously carried them out bring no one closer to any real understanding of anything, and in fact merely dig deeper sectarian trenches.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: Yantra Yoga - 2 DVDs set
Content:
spanda said:
I addressed this question because I thought that Yantra Yoga can be learned only if I attend retreats with yantra yoga instructors. Now I can learn by myself, using this DVDs, if I have the transmission?

Also: it is possible to replace with this system of yantra, another system of tsa-lung, connected with a tummo practice from another lineage/cycle of teachings?
I can practice this system of yantra yoga with tummo from a different cycle of teachings, with the same efficiency?


Namdrol said:
Sure. why not.

spanda said:
So, we can't say in any way that a specific system of yantra (from kalachakra, or Lamdre, for exemple), is better than this one, for tummo practice?

Malcolm wrote:
The best system is the one you will practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:



Namdrol said:
Because the force of our ignorance is stronger then their power.

spanda said:
Are you serious here? This is not a joke?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am being completely serious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
spanda said:
Being a bodhisattva on the paths and stages does not mean one has knowledge of methods. It just means one has realized emptiness and is practicing the six perfections.
.
My mistake.  Fully enlightened beings. Why they don't coordinate the elements of all the people in sufferings, to make them healthy, if it is possible? There are limitations for them also, here?


Malcolm wrote:
Because the force of our ignorance is stronger then their power.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: Yantra Yoga - 2 DVDs set
Content:
spanda said:
I addressed this question because I thought that Yantra Yoga can be learned only if I attend retreats with yantra yoga instructors. Now I can learn by myself, using this DVDs, if I have the transmission?

Also: it is possible to replace with this system of yantra, another system of tsa-lung, connected with a tummo practice from another lineage/cycle of teachings?
I can practice this system of yantra yoga with tummo from a different cycle of teachings, with the same efficiency?


Malcolm wrote:
Sure. why not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
spanda said:
And by the limitation imposed by Namdrol (somehow logical) its' very difficult to explain how this practices work.

Malcolm wrote:
They work because we are all connected through the elements, and the elements are empty.

At the level of Dzogchen they function because of rtsal.

But there are serious limitations on what we can do for someone else.

Being a bodhisattva on the paths and stages does not mean one has knowledge of methods. It just means one has realized emptiness and is practicing the six perfections.

For example, in Tibetan Medicine we discuss the issue of karmic diseases. When someone has a karmic disease there is nothing they can do about it except accumulate merit. They can hire someone do rituals on their behalf, and this is effective because they are causing the action to take place, etc. etc.

When a community of people do a long life practice for teacher for example, as a community they are generating merit, and since the teacher belongs to that community too, also their own merit increases, etc. It is mutually reinforcing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Yantra Yoga - 2 DVDs set
Content:
spanda said:
Detailed instruction on ALL series of Yantra Yoga? If I have learned from an instructor, only the basis of Yantra Yoga (Warm Ups - The Nine Purification Breathings - Tsigjong, Lungsang,  Tsadul), I can learn the rest of Yantra yoga (the five series) form this DVDs? It's to nice to be real...


Malcolm wrote:
There are two different sets -- this covers everything up through first series of yantras; there is another CD which covers the rest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
in the Dzogchen view, the characteristics of the basis are purity (kadag, emptiness), inexhaustible and uninterrupted manifestation (lhundrup) and responsiveness/compassion (thugje). now, can there be compassion and responsiveness as an impersonal phenomena? I don't see how, since it is by definition intentional, and intentionality is a characteristic of consciousness, of awareness.


Malcolm wrote:
Gems are inert, so they have no intention. Whoever possesses that gem can get what they want.

Likewise, compassion has no intentionlity, but since everyone posssess that basis, liberation is possible for all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
Will said:
[

So intelligent design, Yes - Supreme Creator, No.

Malcolm wrote:
Design means to draw or create deliberately according to some plan -- but instead the universe arose because the blind force of the collective actions of ignorant sentient beings [from a previous universe]. So, no intelligence, no design and no creator.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
Namdrol said:
The universe, therefore, arose from distant cause of ignorance.

gad rgyangs said:
just as long as this is not interpreted as a mistake, or something that needs to be "corrected"


Malcolm wrote:
It needs to be corrected so that the universe will arise as the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Sherab said:
I've also stated that vajrayana practices/customs point to the ability of giving and taking something that has been manifested.


Malcolm wrote:
For example? What practices? Customs are not Dharma. They are customs. For example is was the custom in a part of Eastern Bhutan to slaughter animals for ganapujas until Kunzang Dechen Lingpa put an end to it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:


Sherab said:
I've asked for quotations to show that manifested results cannot be remove from a being by another...

Malcolm wrote:
How about "suffering cannot be removed with the hand..."

This is about as clear a citation as you can get.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Namdrol said:
The idea that Buddhas can take on the karma of sentient beings is the worst sort of theistic thinking.

Sherab said:
Assertion like this without providing explanations does not help move a discussion forward to a resolution and is merely an attempt to impose a particular viewpoint.  And I think no one here is really referring to the action karma or any latency but to the manifested results.


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhas are free from experiencing the ripening of the result of karma [karmavipakaphala], hence it stands to reason they cannot take on the results of karma.

Birth in one of the six lokas is the manifested result of karma. Do you think Buddha can just place one in nirvana?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
As everyone can see

Namdrol said:
Good luck with your studies.

N

Mariusz said:
Sorry, its my english. I did not mean wordly beings but worldly beings, and worldly daily-life consensus.


Malcolm wrote:
worldly daily life consenseus = lokavyavahara = worldly convention, which is what we are discussing. So you just agreed with Gorampa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Tibetanmedicine-edu.org 3 year online course
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
Namdrol,
Is the Shang Shung Institute's online Tibetan Medicine school up and running yet? It seems that they said they'd have info by September of last year, but I still don't see anything. I'm planning on applying for the full 4-year program. Do you have any info or advice?

Malcolm wrote:
I am pretty sure that it is.

You ought to contact Dr. Phuntsog Wangmo and find out from her directly.

Best,

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
As everyone can see

Malcolm wrote:
Good luck with your studies.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Can someone please post some works of Nagarjuna?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Bocking's Nagarjuna in China is one of the clearest. Full MMK plus commentary closely related to Buddhapalita which clear identifies positions.

Jnana said:
There's also Akira Saito's doctoral dissertation: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/8139, which includes an English translation of Buddhapālita's commentary and edited Tibetan text.


Malcolm wrote:
Awesome, saves me the task of completing my translation of the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan question
Content:
Jack Dawkins said:
Hi, I'm hoping someone can help on an issue of punctuation. I want to quote the first two lines - but only the first two lines - of the following:

།འཁོར་བ་མྱ་ངན་འདས་པ་ལས།
།ཁྱད་པར་ཅུང་ཟད་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན།
།མྱ་ངན་འདས་པ་འཁོར་བ་ལས།
།ཁྱད་པར་ཅུང་ཟད་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན།།

Can anyone tell me which punctuation marks I should include? If the first two lines are put on a single line (i.e.):

།འཁོར་བ་མྱ་ངན་འདས་པ་ལས།།ཁྱད་པར་ཅུང་ཟད་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན།
Do I need to delete one or both of the shads in the middle? Also, do the shads at the beginning and end remain the same?

The text is of course from MMK 25.19

Many thanks,

JD

Malcolm wrote:
It has to look like this:

།འཁོར་བ་མྱ་ངན་འདས་པ་ལས། །ཁྱད་པར་ཅུང་ཟད་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན།

You need more space between final shad and the beginning shad.

But if you did it in Sanskrit it would be just one long string i.e. two verses of Tibetan generally = one verse of Sanskrit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The idea that Buddhas can take on the karma of sentient beings is the worst sort of theistic thinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:


Will said:
Buddha defined karma as intentional or purposive (cetana) action; thus action/karma requires a being or beings.  So the universe arises from beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, the universe arises from the actions of beings in it. Actions are motivated by afflictions. Afflictions arose from  knowledge obscuration of ignorance The universe, therefore, arose from distant cause of ignorance.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
cloudburst said:
You no longer wish to debate but for some reason you do while complaining about it.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not debating. I have no position to lose, or point to score. I am not discussing my own POV.

My purpose was to respond to Mariusz who produced a citation in which it can can easily shown that the ninth Karmapa, following the eighth, is engaging in the kind of straw man polemics Tibetan scholars are so famous for. Gorampa does it, Tsongkhapa does it [though he, like Rongton, is quite moderate in his production of strawmen], they all do it.

By immediately responding that Gorampa was wrong on this or that point, all you immediately do, if indeed you think he was an arya, is accumulate the negative merit of criticizing aryas.

I am attempting to encourage people to take a more constructive approach: instead of saying, as I have many times in the past, "Tsongkhapa was wrong to say that we may leave off the second two alternatives of the four extremes because they are double negatives", it is better think long and hard why he might give such an opinion. Rather than immediately assume that Gorampa is wrong in asserting that Candrakiriti accepts things like svasamvedana conventionally, it is better to ask yourself why he might assert that. These great scholars almost always have very solid reasons for saying what they do about this and that thing, and the thing is, we have to really question ourselves if we think something they said is wrong. That is my point.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
cloudburst said:
To say that Tibetans invented them is misleading.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not at all misleading. There were no separate schools of Madhyamaka in India [unless you count Yogacaras as Madhyamaka, and they certainly thought of themselves in this way.]

There was a difference in opinion among different Madhyamaka scholars about how best to use reasoning to refute opponents and that is the extent of it. The whole controversy hinged solely on Bhavaviveka's criticism of Buddhapalita for not using a fully formed syllogism to refute self-production; with Candra coming to Buddhapalita's defense. End of story.

The development of a "Prasanga" school occured at Sangphu because Phyapa and his students were hostile to Candrakirti's texts when they were introduced by Batsap. Thus, the division between Prasangika and Svatantrika is wholly a Tibetan invention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:


cloudburst said:
Gorampa is making a mistake here.
In the MMK Nagarjuna is refuting inherent production, and it is in this context that he brings in the example of the lamp. All his consequences are designed to show that nothing is inherently produced.

Because lamps do dispel darkness conventionally, there are no contradictions conventionally. The contradictions arise when the analysis probes under the convention, and this is the beginning of analysis for the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
If there were no contradictions, then these things could not be rejected ultimately. It is because these conventional entities do possess internal contradictions that they cannot bear ultimate analysis.

cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti clearly refutes the existence of the alaya even conventionally in the avatara and it's bhasya.

Malcolm wrote:
That is indeed what some people think. Other people think Candrakirti's view is more nuanced than that. Candrakriti, in citing the Lanka in the Bhasya, clearly states that ālayavijñāna is a synonym for emptiness, thus laying the ground for ālayavijñāna to be accepted conventionally.


cloudburst said:
Shantideva refutes self-cognition even conventionally in Bodhicharyavatara etc so Gorampa's defense of these is not based on good scholarship.

Malcolm wrote:
Santideva is rejecting a truly established mind and the argument of reflexive cognition that cittamatrins introduce to defend it. That is the context of Santideva's argument, and that is all.

cloudburst said:
Gorampa makes an error here as well:
"Someone's position that after one understands the passages which reject a reflexive cognition that is able to bear analysis have been understood from the MMK, the Vigrahavyavartani and the Prasannapāda, one should apply them to a rejection of reflexive cognition conventionally is errorenous.  [It is erroneous] because just as in the MMK a lamp illuminating itself is rejected having refuted the given example for reflexive cognition, a lamp, through analysis, since also removal of darkeness [by a lamp] also rejected [in the MMK], the consequence would be that even conventionally [a lamp's ability] to remove darkness would not be acceptable.
the example of a lamp illuminating itself and others  in MMK is used to show that there is no ultimate production. As for this, there is production conventionally, but not ultimately, just as a lamp does not illuminate itself or others ultimately. Conventionally, it does illuminate other, but is not self-illuminating.

Malcolm wrote:
So some would have it.

cloudburst said:
If we follow the position Gorampa puts forward, then even though things are contradictory conventionally, we should still accept them. This gives disastrous consequences. Without the ability to refute something conventionally as a result of internal contradictions in the position, we have no power to refute anything.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess you are not understanding Gorampa's point [which is why I find this whole exercise to be one of utter futility since you seem only interested in rejecting rather than understanding]. Gorampa is saying that conventional thing possess internal contradictions — this fact [that they possess internal contradictions] is what allows them to be refuted ultimately. He is not saying that these internal contradictions are what appear prior to analysis. Thus your statement is the kind of unthinking fault-finding that I find troublesome in these conversations to begin with and why I no longer wish to participate in these kinds of discussions.

You do not read Gorampa openly. You read him polemically. I.e. for every statement advanced, a fault is found, for every fault that is found, a counter fault is found, and it just goes on and on. It seems impossible that people are capable of enjoying the subtlety of Tsongkhapa, Gorampa, and so on because they are so caught up in their political parties.

I am not saying that Gorampa is better than you, for on this score, indeed he is not.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Evidence for Design?
Content:
mint said:
Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

Malcolm wrote:
"The variety of the world arises from karma."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:


kirtu said:
The suttas referenced wrt merit transfer for dead relatives are the Sigaloavada Sutta, Tirokudda Kanda Sutta, and the Janussonin Sutta.


Malcolm wrote:
Sigaloavada Sutta has alms offerred on behalf of the dead -- which is clearly a pre-Buddhist custom such as that mentioned in the first part of the Mahāparinibbana.

Tirokudda Kanda Sutta: has clean good and drink offereed to pretas, but the merit accrued is one's own.

Janussonin Sutta: http://online-dhamma.net/nanda/AccessToInsight/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.177.than.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This sutras says that gifts made to one's ancestors who have been reborn as hell beings, animals, gods or human cannot be enjoyed by them. However, gifts made to hungary ghosts can be enjoyed by them. In all cases the donor enjoys the merit of the gift.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
If we look at the controversies between great masters or schools in this way, they can be helpful as models to gauge and refine our personal insights.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I don't agree with this. Controversies merely breed more controversy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:


Mariusz said:
If there were anything to be observed
Through direct perception and the other instances [of valid cognition],
It would be something to be established or rejected.
However, since no such thing exists, I cannot be criticized.[/i]


Malcolm wrote:
The point that Goramapa is making is that this is rejection of authority ultimately, not conventionally. The purpose of the Vigrahavyavartani is to reject svabhāva and the notion that there are inherently authoritative cognitions.

Nagarjuna is not rejecting conventional inference [anumāṇa] and direct perception [pratyakṣa] -- he is rejecting the notion that authorities [pramāṇa] amd objects of authority [prameya] are inherently authoritative. He is also rejecting the argument in this text that since emptiness is not an object, it cannot lead to valid knowledge, since valid knowledge knowledge must come from truly valid direct perceptions and inferences based objects of knowledge that truly exist.

Nagārjuna, Buddhapalita, Candrakirti, as well as Shantideva all use instances of conventional direct perception and inference in their writing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
However, these not contradict possibility the analysis for one's own help will lead to the collapse until realization? The analysis is not meaningless. As for Mahamudra or Dzogchen it can be also the support.

Malcolm wrote:
I told you in the very beginning that Karmapa was misrepresenting Gorampa's position.

I guess you have not understood what I was trying to say -- so please try to listen. If you are going to follow what some Tibetan says, fine. Pick one scholar. Follow their point of view. Unless you are prepared or capable of reading the scholars with which they choose to disagree, please do not jump on Team Goramapa, Team Tsongkhapa, Team Karmapa or Team Mipham. I have made that mistake in the past. I now clearly recognize that it is an error to jump on the bandwagon of Post-Indian Madhyamaka developments. It is one thing to try to understand the intellectual history of Tibetan Madhyamaka --that can be interesting for some people. It is quite another to jump on the bandwagon of this or that school -- then this just becomes scholastic politics.

As far as Mahamudra and Dzogchen go, Madhyamaka is not absolutely required at all. While Madhyamaka can be a support, more often than not it turns into a meaningless intellectual game of proof and rebuttal, accepting and rejecting — leading to outlandish thread titles like the one that heads this thread.

What is meaningless is the endless games of dialectics [in which I have also playing] where each school and scholar triumphantly asserts that only they have the real key to Nagarjauna's intention. It is total nonsense.

What we do not need to transmitted to the West is the scholastic environment of competive sectarianism. This helps not one's practice at all. When we see clear misrepresentations of one scholar's point of view by another, as we have in this thread, how can we trust any of it?

Without understanding the political background of anxiety of Kagyu and Sakya about the burgeoning success of the Gelug tradition, how can we fairly assess the criticisms of Tsongkhapa by Rongton, Gorampa, Shakya Chogden, and so on? Without understanding the relationship between Shakya Chogden and his Karma Kagyu patrons, how can we understand his seeming championship of the gzhan stong position? Without understanding the relationship between Rendawa Zhonnu Lodo and his very critical assessment of various schools and trends during his day, how can we understand the writing of his main disciple, Tsongkhapa? Without understanding the hostile reception Candrakirti's works met at Sangphu when they were initially translated by Batsab with Jayananda, how can we really understand the Tibetan invention of Prasangika and Svatantrika? All of these things must be understood by any responsible scholar of Tibetan Madhyamaka. And even more basic, the conditions that produced Indian Madhyamaka were quite different than the conditions that produced Tibetan Madhyamaka. Tibetans introduced all kinds of issues in their prosecution of Madhyamaka that would have never occured to Indians. You have Tibetans arguing over points that to Indians would seem utterly irrelevant. I personally think Candrakirti would have been appalled at all the divisions and sub-divisions of Madhyamaka in which the Tibetans sincerly and ernestly engaged.


So please be more careful in future. And honestly, learn Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Namdrol said:
Merit is not shared in a real sense, but by sharing your merit you create much more for yourself.

xabir said:
So the story in the sutras about mogallana saving his mother in hell by dedicating merits have no basis in dharma at all?

Also, "according to the Sutra of The Great Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva, one can "transfer" 1/7 merit of an act they have performed to a deceased loved one"... You think this is not true?

Malcolm wrote:
If the transfer of merit could rescue beings from samsara, then considering that no one has greater merit than a Buddha, and no greater generosity, why have we not all been liberated?

In any event, I think the Ksitigarbha sutra is 100% Chinese apocrypha.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mariusz:

Let's examine what you intitially introduced:

There are some, such as Gorampa and Shākya Chokden, who
say that this verse [verse 6.75 of the Entrance] proves that
Chandrakīrti holds, from his own perspective, that self-aware-
ness exists conventionally.

What does Gorampa actually say?

He says, quote "This master [Candrakirti] explains the all-basis, the afflicted mind, reflexive cognition and so on from authoritative citations. Even though no distinction of whether they are true or not is made, the internal contradictions of conventions are accepted conventionally, but the refutation of those upon analysis is maintained from the perspective of the ultimate."
He continues:
"Someone's position that after one understands the passages which reject a reflexive cognition that is able to bear analysis have been understood from the MMK, the Vigrahavyavartani and the Prasannapāda, one should apply them to a rejection of reflexive cognition conventionally is errorenous.  [It is erroneous] because just as in the MMK a lamp illuminating itself is rejected having refuted the given example for reflexive cognition, a lamp, through analysis, since also removal of darkeness [by a lamp] also rejected [in the MMK], the consequence would be that even conventionally [a lamp's ability] to remove darkness would not be acceptable. [It is erroneous] because when, in the Vigrahavyavartani, the self-evidential validity of that authoritative cognition is rejected, since validity through another is also rejected, the consequence would be that there can never be an authoritatively cognizing subject even conventionally. [Finally,it is erroneous] because when the Prasannapād cites sutras that state that a mind which experiences cognition without reflexive cognition cannot be found, the consequence would be that even the experiencing mind itself would not exist conventionally."
So you see, that passage is not about whether reflexive cognitons exist. The passage is concerned with how Candrakirti treats citations concerning conventionality.

In this case, what is being affirmed is not reflexive cognition. What is being rejected is the Gelug over-negation of reflexive cognition through showing contradictions implicit in rejecting reflexive awareness, as well as other conventions, conventionally.

If this passage and its reasoning is not clear for you, I can explain it further. But it not a passage stating that relexive cognition exists conventionally, it is a passage stating that reflexive cognition is to be accepted conventionally [i.e. without analysis], even if that convention contains many internal contradictions, which Gorampa admits that it does right up front. However, conventionally, those internal contradictions are not subject to analysis; just in the same way as when we turn on a light, we say "Turn on the light" in order to remove darkness, even though when analyzed, a light capable of removing darkness can never be found.

In other words, for Gorampa there is no doubt that these things like ālaya-vijñāna, the afflicted mind, and so on cannot bear analysis -- but as conventions we leave them alone with all their myriad internal contradictions just as we leave the convention that lamps remove the darkness of rooms alone.

For this reason, it is little irresponsible merely to just throw out soundbites of positions. I am sure that Gorampa's critique of Tsongkhapa's position [though I have not read it] on this issue also has problems, or that he selectively misreads Tsongkhapa's point of view and so on.

So just compare what Gorampa says here to the Jayananda citation I produced above. And for Buddha's sake man, at least learn Tibetan. I don't have time to do this in general!

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
Since meditation in Vajrayāna systems is based on an example wisdom gained during the introduction of the third and fourth empowerments, Gorampa points out in a treatise refuting some on Tsongkhapa's interperations of the Guhyasmaja sadhana that it does matter very much what your intellectual view might be; whether cittamatra or madhyamaka, since your meditation is not based on an intellectual analysis, but rather a path wisdom derived from the introduction of third and fourth empowerment.

kirtu said:
Shouldn't this read:
that it does not matter very much what your intellectual view might be
Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Thank you for catching that typo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
dakini_boi said:
What about the case of a Buddha liberating demons?  While not exactly taking on their karma, if a Buddha can actually liberate them, then their karma is completely dismantled.

Malcolm wrote:
This is entirely symbolic -- demons arise because of your affliction and karma. When you have eliminated your own affliction and karma, then demons become gods.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Is negative karma cannot be taken, how can merit then be giving and shared?

Malcolm wrote:
Merit is not shared in a real sense, but by sharing your merit you create much more for yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Namdrol said:
One becomes a rudra much more rapidly than other practices. It is a dangerous practice for one's ego.

The guardians of Drollo are the worldly eight classes, in general.

There is nothing more wrathful in any school.

Jikan said:
would such or similar dangers inhere also in practices that invoke Dorje Drollo, such as Trungpa's  _Sadhana of Mahamudra_? (as opposed to a practice in which one takes the same as a yidam)

Malcolm wrote:
The sadhana of mahamudra is a yidam practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Namdrol said:
One becomes a rudra much more rapidly than other practices. It is a dangerous practice for one's ego.

The guardians of Drollo are the worldly eight classes, in general.

There is nothing more wrathful in any school.

AilurusFulgens said:
Thank you for the reply, Namdrol. Just one last question in this respect: are termas the exclusive source for all existant Dorje Drollo sadhanas or are there also other sources - like for instance tantras transmitted directly by Guru Rinpoche and coming down through various unbroken lineages i.e. sources, which are NOT termas?


Malcolm wrote:
Termas are the exclusive source.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:


spanda said:
Could someone explain me, what exactly Milarepa did? Was Milarepa capable (if he wanted) to take someones else's suffering? If yes, this mean that he could "take"/reduce someone else karma?

Malcolm wrote:
This is a story in a Tibetan novel. Pure fiction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Namdrol said:
It is a little complicated. But the long and short of it is is that it is the most wrathful practice there is. If your view is very stable, then there is no problem, but if not. Drollos name is "krodha lokottara" i.e. "transcendent wrath" -- gro wo lod is a corruption of that.

AilurusFulgens said:
If you can talk about this in an open forum, may I then ask what exactly are the negative side-effects of the Dorje Drollo practice specifically i.e. in case something goes wrong?

What exactly would be the benefits if you do everything correctly? What precisely does the Dorje Drollo practice do - aside from the very general statement that it clears the obstacles?

Is the Dorje Drollo the most wrathful practice in all of Vajrayana or is this just valid for the Nyingma school?

A. Fulgens

Malcolm wrote:
One becomes a rudra much more rapidly than other practices. It is a dangerous practice for one's ego.

The guardians of Drollo are the worldly eight classes, in general.

There is nothing more wrathful in any school.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
If you want to know Candrakirti's own point of view on this passage in the Madhyamaka -avatara from his autocommentary, however, well, here it is:

gang phyir gang gis yul myong 'gyur de las/ /dran pa 'di gzhan nga la yod min pa/ /de phyir nga yis mthong snyam dran 'gyur te/ /'di yang 'jig rten tha snyad tshul lugs yin/ /gang gis yul myong ba de yul nyams su myong ba'i shes pa de las dran pa'i shes pa gzhan nyid du ji ltar med pa de ltar na sngar bshad zin to/ /gang gi phyir dran pa gzhan nyid yod pa ma yin pa de'i phyir/ gang nyams su myong bas myong ba de dran pa'i shes pas myong ba ma yin pa ma yin pas dran pa yul dang ldan par 'byung la/ nyams su myong ba'i shes pas yongs su gcod pa gang yin pa de dran pas yongs su ma bcad pa ma yin pas bdag gis mthong ngo zhes bya bar 'gyur ro/ /'di yang 'jig rten tshul lugs yin gyi shin tu dpyad par bya ba ni ma yin te/ brdzun pa'i don can nyid kyis 'jig rten gyi tha snyad yin pa'i phyir ro/

Mariusz said:
Ok. Give me a minute. I will translate it in google translator


Malcolm wrote:
Here is Jayanada's sub-commentary on this passage:

brjod par bya ste zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te gang gis yul myong 'gyur zhes bya ba ni sngon po'i shes pa gang gis yul nyams su myong bar 'gyur ba'o/ /'di las dran pa 'di gzhan nga la yod min pa/ /zhes bya ba ni yul shes pa de la dran pa'i shes pa gzhan ma yin pa'o/ /de'i phyir nga yis mthong snyam dran 'gyur te/ /zhes bya ba ni gang gi phyir nyams su myong ba'i dran pa las dran pa'i shes pa gzhan nyid ma yin pa de'i tshe gang nyams su myong ba'i shes pas gang nyams su myong ba de nyid dran pa'i shes pas kyang nyams su myong ba yin pas ngas mthong snyam du dran par 'gyur ba'o/ /gal te shes pa rnams skad cig ma yin pa dang rang rig med pas ngas mthong ngo snyam du ji ltar dran zhe na/ de la lan ni/ 'di yang 'jig rten tha snyad tshul lugs yin/ /zhes bya ba gsungs te/ 'jig rten pa'i tha snyad brtag dpyad kyi go skabs med pas na 'jig rten na ci ltar yod pa de ltar khas blang bar bya dgos pas so; /des na 'jig rten pas rang rig med du zin kyang mthong ngo snyam pa'i tha snyad byed pas/ nyams su myong ba'i shes pa dag gcig tu zhen pa yin pas skyon yod pa ma yin no zhes pa'o/

Here is the salient point of the passage, to make of what you will:


/gal te shes pa rnams skad cig ma yin pa dang rang rig med pas ngas mthong ngo snyam du ji ltar dran zhe na/ de la lan ni/ 'di yang 'jig rten tha snyad tshul lugs yin/ /zhes bya ba gsungs te/ 'jig rten pa'i tha snyad brtag dpyad kyi go skabs med pas na 'jig rten na ci ltar yod pa de ltar khas blang bar bya dgos pas so; /des na 'jig rten pas rang rig med du zin kyang mthong ngo snyam pa'i tha snyad byed pas/ nyams su myong ba'i shes pa dag gcig tu zhen pa yin pas skyon yod pa ma yin no zhes pa'o/
"If it is asked, 'how is can there be a memory such as in the thought "It was seen by me" if cognitions are momentary but there is no reflexive cognition [rang rig, svasamvedana]?'

The reply to that is: 'This also is the standard of worldly convention.'

Since there is no opportunity to analyze the conventions of the worldly, however it seems in the world, it is necessary to accept it as such. Therefore, as the worldly also maintain there is no reflexive cognition [rang rig, svasamvedana], since the convention of the thought ''it was seen' was generated, there is clinging to the cognitions of the experience [nyams su myong ba' shes pa dag] as being the same, thus there is no fault."
Therefore we can infer from this that since Candrakirti rejects reflexive cognitions based on world convention, in order to be consistent he must accept outer objects since those too are accepted based on worldly convention.

Tibetans may now argue amonst themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
The Madhyamikas debate is always beneficial and healthy.


Malcolm wrote:
It might be if you were really talking about what Candrakirti and Nagarjuna said, but you are not -- you are arguing about what Tibetans say about categories of Madhyamaka invented wholly by Tibetans.


Mariusz said:
Can I ask personal question to Namdrol? Why did you not protest when questions to Tsongkhapa, but protest when questions to Gorampa?

Malcolm wrote:
You have forgotten that I spent several weeks defending Tsongkhapa from what I considered to erroneous crticisms of his view on e-Sangha.

You have also forgotten that when someone opined that one could not realize the meaning of Dzogchen if they held Tsongkhapa's point of view about "Prasangika" [Prasangika being a Tibetan invention, a term coined at Sangphu by Batsab Nyima Drag in the 12th century] I swiftly reminded them that both Jigme Lingpa and Shabkar upheld Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Prasangika.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
Very excuse me. Madhyamaka is not meaningless.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say Madhyamaka was meaningless, I said that worrying about Tibetan scholastic nit picking this or that point was meaningless.

If that is really what you want to spend your life doing, then the only fair way to do it it to select the scholars from all four schools: present what each and everyone of them says about each passage in the Madhyamaka avatara for example with their refutations of each other's POV and leave it like that.

Otherwise, this cherry picking just leads to confusion and a very incomplete understanding and causes people to criticize amazing scholars we could not even withstand for five seconds in debate.

I am quite sure that if you read Tsongkhapa with a open mind, at the end of the day, you will be completely sure he is correct and perfect.
But then, I am quite sure that if you read Gorampa with a open mind, at the end of the day, you will be completely sure he is correct and perfect.
Then, I am quite sure that if you read Dolbupa with a open mind, at the end of the day, you will be completely sure he is correct and perfect.
Next, I am quite sure that if you read Mipham with a open mind, at the end of the day, you will be completely sure he is correct and perfect.

And it just goes on and on.

Why? Because there is no end to intellectul analysis.

If you want to know Candrakirti's own point of view on this passage in the Madhyamaka -avatara from his autocommentary, however, well, here it is:

gang phyir gang gis yul myong 'gyur de las/ /dran pa 'di gzhan nga la yod min pa/ /de phyir nga yis mthong snyam dran 'gyur te/ /'di yang 'jig rten tha snyad tshul lugs yin/ /gang gis yul myong ba de yul nyams su myong ba'i shes pa de las dran pa'i shes pa gzhan nyid du ji ltar med pa de ltar na sngar bshad zin to/ /gang gi phyir dran pa gzhan nyid yod pa ma yin pa de'i phyir/ gang nyams su myong bas myong ba de dran pa'i shes pas myong ba ma yin pa ma yin pas dran pa yul dang ldan par 'byung la/ nyams su myong ba'i shes pas yongs su gcod pa gang yin pa de dran pas yongs su ma bcad pa ma yin pas bdag gis mthong ngo zhes bya bar 'gyur ro/ /'di yang 'jig rten tshul lugs yin gyi shin tu dpyad par bya ba ni ma yin te/ brdzun pa'i don can nyid kyis 'jig rten gyi tha snyad yin pa'i phyir ro/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:


Pero said:
I really doubt this. Anyone else heard the same elsewhere?

Namdrol said:
Yup.

Drollo practice can cause lots of obstacles.

Pero said:
Wow... But why is that? I thought Drollo was for clearing obstacles.


Malcolm wrote:
It is a little complicated. But the long and short of it is is that it is the most wrathful practice there is. If your view is very stable, then there is no problem, but if not. Drollos name is "krodha lokottara" i.e. "transcendent wrath" -- gro wo lod is a corruption of that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Birth, Life and Death with Dr. Malcolm Smith
Content:
Mr. G said:
Namdrol,

Will this be offered in MP3 format for purchase at a later date for those that can't make it in person?


Malcolm wrote:
I have no idea -- that is a question for SSI.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Misdeeds cannot be washed away with water,
the suffering of living beings cannot be removed with the hand,
my realization cannot transferred to another,
but by showing the true nature of things, there will be liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:
Spiny Norman said:
Good stuff, but I'm not sure about describing it as the "unity" of awareness and emptiness.  Isn't it just awareness of emptiness?

Spiny


pensum said:
As you are not sure Spiny I strongly recommend you visit a lama...

Malcolm wrote:
He did that, decided Vipassana was more suited to his nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
The term "self-liberation" is nothing new. For example is also in Dzogchen where "cutting through until primordial purity", or "the all is the play of Mahamudra" from the tradition IX Karmapa is.


Malcolm wrote:
The difference of course is introduction. There is no introduction in sutra, hence, no introduction for Madhyamaka.

Madhyamaka is not equivalent with Dzogchen and Mahamudra. As both Longchen pa and Jigme Lingpa points out, while the intellectual structure of the view of Prasanga and Dzogchen are identical i.e. free from all extremes, the former is based on an intellectual analysis whereas the latter is based on a personal experience.

In Dzogchen and Mahamudra meditation is based on an example wisdom. This is not the case with Madhyamaka.

Since meditation in Vajrayāna systems is based on an example wisdom gained during the introduction of the third and fourth empowerments, Gorampa points out in a treatise refuting some on Tsongkhapa's interperations of the Guhyasmaja sadhana that it does matter very much what your intellectual view might be; whether cittamatra or madhyamaka, since your meditation is not based on an intellectual analysis, but rather a path wisdom derived from the introduction of third and fourth empowerment.

Therefore, I feel personally that all of this scholastic nit picking about Tibetan scholar's disagreements about what they think Indian scholars think is pretty much just an empty diversion. Hence the reason I lack patience with it, and and not very interested in defending Gorampa or criticizing Dolbupa, or Tsongkhapa, etc. I simply think that it is a waste of time.

If people want to spend their time reading books about Madhayamaka, I have no problem with that, but silly thread titles like "Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa" for me are meaningless. Honestly, who cares? (well obviously mariusz does). Also Ganden Chophel faults Gorampa for this and that point -- and there is no doubt the eighth Karmapa can be faulted for this and that point. It is all just meaningless dancing on books to me, something scholars do when they have a bit a free time for fun. The whole history of Tibetan Buddhist scholastics is scholars faulting each other for this and that point.

That is why I recommend going back to the basics: If you want read Madhyamaka, read the originals. If you have to learn Tibetan or Sanskrit to do so, great. But honestly, all this "Tsongkhapa is wrong!" "Gorampa is wrong!" "Karmapa is wrong!" Dolbupa is wrong" is really nonsensical and just perpetuates a sectarian intellectual culture that we should leave behind.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:


Pero said:
I really doubt this. Anyone else heard the same elsewhere?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.

Drollo practice can cause lots of obstacles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:
Namdrol said:
...This is simply a fact.

gregkavarnos said:
Yup!  And Department of Justice statistics verify this fact.  But certainly there are other factors involved.  For example, did you know though that "During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun."  So basically "only" 17% of convicted crimes were carried out using a firearm anyway?

Malcolm wrote:
Which puts to rest the notion that the US is a society filled with gun violence. It isn't.

gregkavarnos said:
Another factor may also be that underprivileged adolescent males (ie those most likely to commit violent crimes) have been shipped off (with fantastic economic incentives) to kill and die in foreign lands (Iraq and Afghanistan) instead of in their own country since the mid-nineties?

Malcolm wrote:
No, only since 2003. The number of military personnel in the US was cut by a third under Clinton.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sherab:

Mind can never transcend itself. This is why intellectualism is useless.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:


gregkavarnos said:
The strange thing?  In my fifteen years on the island there has not been a single reported instance of somebody shooting somebody dead using assault rifles.  Not one.  Actually, shooting deaths on the island are normally by shotgun and very rare.  On the island of Crete, where they have a handgun culture that rivals even the US, people get shot and killed all the time.  In Athens, again, mainly handguns and normally during robberies.

Malcolm wrote:
Though I am not a gun owner, and do not support the wide proliferation of firearms, however there is a very interesting fact about America: since the early 1990's, the number of guns of all kinds have proliferated enormously in the US, but the incidence of all crimes, including violent crimes of with guns, has steadily declined.

This is simply a fact.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
The suffering of chasing mirages never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.
The suffering of accepting and rejecting never ends.The only way to end it is simply to stop.

Sherab said:
I can agree with these.

Namdrol said:
..likewise, the suffering of intellectual pursuits never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.
..likewise, the suffering of proof and rebuttal never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.

Sherab said:
I have a problem with these.  Why?  I cannot leave contradictions and paradoxes unresolved as they eat away at my faith/belief in the Dhamma/Dharma and disturb my mental peace.  That's just me I guess.


Malcolm wrote:
intellectual pursuits are like mirages, always promising satiation and just creating more doubt.

Proof and rebuttal is merely intellectual accepting and rejecting.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 8:16 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
Sherab said:
However, all theses anecdotes do not square with what I was taught about karma .. that it cannot be taken away by someone else.  But I think the suttas and sutras are silent about this.  So what I've stated in my previous post is my way of resolving the impasse.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not silent about it. The sutras reject this idea explicitly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: "taking someone else's negative karma"
Content:
spanda said:
...Therefore I wonder, is really impossible to take someone else karma, or it is possible in exceptional cases?

Sherab said:
My speculation:
Enlightened beings can take away the karma that you have already created but they cannot stop you from creating new karma.  Without the stopping of creation of new karma, taking away karma already created is ultimately an exercise in futility.


Malcolm wrote:
Quite impossible, from a Buddhist pov.

However, in Hinduism, Jivanmuktis are considered able to accomplish this feat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Art and Initiations Question
Content:
Mr. G said:
I'm thinking of having a thangka commissioned to be done by a trained Tibetan Buddhist artist.  This is a gift for a teacher later this year.

My question is, does the artist need to have already received initiation on the Yidam in order to paint it?  I think the Yidam may be quite rare, so I'm curious.

Also, if anyone could give recommendations, that would be great.  I was thinking of the following:

http://www.tibetanpaintings.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.tashimannox.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Namdrol said:
Segei Noskov is quite excellent and fast, but he works with acrylics.

The tibetan painting people do quite excellent work, but they take three years.

Mr. G said:
Thanks Namdrol,  I found his site:

http://sergey-noskov.artistwebsites.com/index.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you think a thangka could be completed in a couple of months?  I was hoping before June.

Also, the Yidam I want done is from a terma.  Does one need initiation in the Yidam before painting?

Malcolm wrote:
not necessarily


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Art and Initiations Question
Content:
Mr. G said:
I'm thinking of having a thangka commissioned to be done by a trained Tibetan Buddhist artist.  This is a gift for a teacher later this year.

My question is, does the artist need to have already received initiation on the Yidam in order to paint it?  I think the Yidam may be quite rare, so I'm curious.

Also, if anyone could give recommendations, that would be great.  I was thinking of the following:

http://www.tibetanpaintings.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.tashimannox.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
Segei Noskov is quite excellent and fast, but he works with acrylics.

The tibetan painting people do quite excellent work, but they take three years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 7:06 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
dakini_boi said:
At the end of the retreat this morning, Rinpoche mentioned there would be a Dorje Drolo retreat soon.  He said it wouldn't be open, but would be on webcast - does that mean that DC members will be able to attend through webcast?  Anyone have any more info on when it will be?  Thank you.


Malcolm wrote:
Correct, that means if you are a member of the DC you can log in to the webcast page using you pre-assigned user name and password.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
conebeckham said:
The imputation of existence, as well as the bifurcation into subject/object dichotomy, are both cognitive errors.

PadmaVonSamba said:
YEAH!

Paul said:
That reminds me of a thread that Namdrol once started in E-Sangha that started off a real atom of posts - the original post being something very terse like "Reality is a cognitive error". People went a bit crazy - it was very amusing.


Malcolm wrote:
"Sentient beings are nothing more than cognitive errors".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
wayland said:
Some pretty profound vids on YouTube by Bentinho Massaro.
I'm unsure what to make of them. Would you say that he is abiding in rigpa?
Is this a direct introduction to mind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6-J5BjWb9I " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tij5PtEtHvU&feature=related " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaWfcrA6ByY&feature=related " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
Not profound.
Not rigpa.
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Unknown said:
it is when you throw "existence/reality"

Malcolm wrote:
You need to examine your attachment to the imputation you label "reality". That is the rabbit horn to which you are attached.

But part of the problem is that what you think is real is the external whole. You are happy to accept that your mental functioning creates an illusory identity, but you seem to think inert things like lettuce to be more real than your mind. Minds and lettuce however are of a piece, they are both depend phenomena and therefore, amount to no more than passing illusions.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: China party official warns members over religion
Content:
Beatzen said:
Marx was good at describing the structure of the cage, but in the end he offered no alternative to industrial capitalism. :p


Malcolm wrote:
Right, he thought the cage was progressive.

His nineteenth scientism is quaint and charming, but utterly irrelevant.

I much prefer Naess.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
And what of the gun nut poster?  It is not extreme, right?  It's a balanced, moderate and objective view, right?

Namdrol said:
Not a shining example of moderation either.

David N. Snyder said:
Huh? Not sure what that is supposed to mean?

Good moderation is to allow all sides to have their say. I haven't moderated or censored anyone's posts here in this thread or others, including the ad hom and emotional ones against me or others.


Malcolm wrote:
Not that moderation. More in the line of "everything in moderation".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
I have a simple explanation for shared reality, you do not.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure I do: functionality.

BTW, you seem to think I am trying to convince you Madhyamaka is correct -- I am not -- I am trying to help you understand what Madhyamaka is actually pointing out. Madhyamaka is not necessarily the appropriate POV for all practitioners.

Namdrol said:
So whatever clinging we have to any impermanent collection whether internal or external in terms of identity is certain to lead to suffering. This is the point of Madhyamaka i.e. to demonstrate that the beleif that attributions of identity onto impermanent collections are anything more than mere conventions is a delusion.
We agree on the internal part, we agree Madhyamaka extends this idea to external stuff, we've (hopefully) seen that I don't accept the latter, the meaning of "clinging to salt" is dubious and bears little relationship to "clinging to self" which, as you point out elsewhere, was Nagarjuna's main target in the first place.

Malcolm wrote:
The point was clinging to identity (atman). Atman, as you know, means self, it also means "essence" in Sanskrit, and it s synonym of svabhāva. This will be addressed below.

Namdrol said:
Of course these conventions work, but they are no more real than the habit of the "I" we attribute to our personal collection of aggregates. The habit of "I" certainly works, but that "I" is not real. The imputation of salt onto a given collection we have chosen to call salt "works" but the "salt" can't be found apart from the imputation we make onto that collection so we can use it effectively.
This flattening of external into internal just doesn't work for me, Namdrol.  It looks elegant on the surface but loses too much "reality".  And I have a strong suspicion that you and I have just about the same "salt experience."

Malcolm wrote:
Of course we do. Conventional truth is called "conventional" (vyavahāra) because it is based on empirically observed functionality shared by common people's ordinary healthy sense perception. What Madhyamaka rejects is that there is an salt atman or svabhāva, and further observes that claims for the existence of salt, or anything else for that matter, quickly become entangled with identity propositions.

Namdrol said:
Madhyamaka as a whole is an excercise in trying to introduce people to the real meaning of dependent origination i.e. the emptiness of persons and phenomena based in the Buddha's observation that statements about existence and non-existence were at odds with the real meaning of dependent origination.

Since there are no permanent phenomena, claims for the existence and non-existence of phenomena are completely naive on anything other than a conventional level.
"Permanent phenomena" is a straw man imho, a nonexistent used to assert something about existence.  Impermanence is measurable, quantifiable, rocks persist longer than thoughts, let's not throw out the baby with the bath.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and for this reason, in the Majjhima Nikāya, the Buddha quips that if one must choose a self between the body and the mind, it is better to choose the body since it at least lasts for up to 80 years, whereas a thought lasts mere miliseconds.

But permanent phenomena is not such a straw man, since we see in physics a trend to try and prove "self-origination" through the big bang theory and so on.

Namdrol said:
So you can keep insisting that salt harms snails as much as you like. Since you are making a conventional statement you are not going to get any complaint from me, but if you assert that there is saltiness in salt, for example, you have only two courses -- mire yourself in the myriad contradictions of asserting that there is an essence of salt or simply accede the point that "salt" is a conventional identity proposition that is at best a functional imputation and nothing more than that.
I think we're going in circles, Sir.  There are salt molecules.  "Essence" is your word, your quagmire, I was just offering something for it to mean wrt salt.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, I am trying to explain to you that Madhyamaka states the self, the identity, the atman of any given phenomena, not merely personal phenomena, is merely an imputed label which derives from the functionality of that phenomena. The absence of identity in external phenomena does not obliterate them, indeed, from a Madhyamaka POV that absence of idenity is all that makes them possible since whatever conditioned phenomena there are must be dependently originated and hence, must lack an intrinsic or unique identity, a "self", an essence, an atman.

We are not asserting, for example that dependent phenomenon are in the class of children of barren women or horns on rabbits or other such total non-existents -- which I suspect is your fear.

Dependent phenomena are free from both existence and non-existence since dependent phenomena are empty of a self or svabhāva, in other words, when a salt molecule ceases, there is no atman of salt that continues, and there is no atman of salt that ceases. When a salt molecule perishes all that has happened is that the causes and conditions for producing salt have ceased. Cessations are absence of causes, and are not caused per se.

If phenomena were to exist, they would not need causes and conditions, and since phenomena appear to be produced from causes and conditions, they are not non-existent either. They are not both existent and non-existent, since this is just a summary of the first extreme, and they are not neither, since this is just a summary of the second.

Therefore, since we cannot say that phenomena fall into one of these four extremes, Nagarjuna states dependent origination is free from eight extremes: in dependent origination there is no ceasing, arising, annihilation, permanence, going, coming, difference or sameness. He praises the Buddha for giving such a teaching because it frees one from ontological doubts i.e. pacifies proliferation.

All I am trying to get you to understand is that emptiness means that when you examine some conventional entity, something that we would say "exists out there in shared reality", there is no underlying reality proping it, apart from being labeled on the basis of functional appearances, such conventional entities cannot be found.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
And what of the gun nut poster?  It is not extreme, right?  It's a balanced, moderate and objective view, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Not a shining example of moderation either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Mariusz"Is it means the distress is really produced? In contrast, let's look what IX Karmapa wrote:
[/quote]


Of course not. There is no real production.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
[\\
At the end of the day, we would know that our saltiness experience required one of these saltiness producers and hope that it wasn't one of the nasty ones that causes zits.  Sorry.


Malcolm wrote:
And at the end of the day, we will still be left with the fact that all of these so called "things" are just imputations of identity onto impermanent collections, which themselves are composed of still further impermanent collections.

So whatever clinging we have to any impermanent collection whether internal or external in terms of identity is certain to lead to suffering. This is the point of Madhyamaka i.e. to demonstrate that the beleif that attributions of identity onto impermanent collections are anything more than mere conventions is a delusion.

Of course these conventions work, but they are no more real than the habit of the "I" we attribute to our personal collection of aggregates. The habit of "I" certainly works, but that "I" is not real. The imputation of salt onto a given collection we have chosen to call salt "works" but the "salt" can't be found apart from the imputation we make onto that collection so we can use it effectively.

The problem most laypeople have with the MMK is that people rarely are acquainted with the views that MMK is seeking to correct. Without understanding Abhidharma, most of the arguments in the MMK will seem rather pointless if not obscure in the extreme. Some people mistakenly think that MMK is a panacea -- when it fact it is rather narrow text with a rather narrow project i.e. to correct Abhidharma realism and bring errant Abhidharmikas back to a proper understanding of dependent origination and help them to abandon a kind of naive essentialism that had crept into Buddhism.

Madhyamaka as a whole is an excercise in trying to introduce people to the real meaning of dependent origination i.e. the emptiness of persons and phenomena based in the Buddha's observation that statements about existence and non-existence were at odds with the real meaning of dependent origination.

Since there are no permanent phenomena, claims for the existence and non-existence of phenomena are completely naive on anything other than a conventional level.

So you can keep insisting that salt harms snails as much as you like. Since you are making a conventional statement you are not going to get any complaint from me, but if you assert that there is saltiness in salt, for example, you have only two courses -- mire yourself in the myriad contradictions of asserting that there is an essence of salt or simply accede the point that "salt" is a conventional identity proposition that is at best a functional imputation and nothing more than that.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
In this sense, saltiness is an inherent quality of salt molecules, guilty as charged.

Tom said:
Quick question for Dave, and apologies if this interrupts the flow of debate - it is a quick one ...

I'm interested to know if you consider substances, say for example salt, that bear qualities, in this instance saltiness, to be more than conceptual fictions?

yadave said:
Hi Tom.

Yes.

Regards,
Dave.

Malcolm wrote:
I think the real question is, do you accept that these substances are intrinsically real, qualitatively real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
Saltiness arises when we combine salt molecules with a tongue.  I get that.  If we look at all the tastes a tongue provides and ask which ones are salty, what do we find?  Salt molecules.

Malcolm wrote:
HI dave, that's just not true. Monosodium glutamate is not salt. But it produces a salty taste.

There are lots of things that taste salty, that have no salt in them.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
So then, the question becomes: "to what may one apply the term "exist?" 
...and you are saying that "exist" can apply to conditionally arising phenomena,
...and (I believe) Namdrol is saying that it is erroneous to apply the term "exist" to conditionally arising phenomena.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
As the Buddha specified:

Dvayaṃnissito kho'yaṃ kaccaana loko yebhuyyena atthita–ceva natthita–ca
Kaaccana, this world abides in duality, normally abiding in ‘is’ and ‘is not’.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
I think if we place one salt molecule on a snail and watch under a microscope we will see tiny bubbles.  Not sure what you mean yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Salt molecules do not produce this effect all by themselves. You need a snail for that.

The rest is pointless to respond to.

I was not making a Madhyamaka claim, but the way with pointing out the karana hetu. Karana hetu (what you mistook as a Gaia statement) is a Abhidharma claim which Madhyamakas assert is merely a convention that cannot withstand analsyis, like salt.

The point of that description however, was that conventionally speaking, Madhyamakas are general considered to accept production from another, even if this does not withstand ultimate analysis, it is the conventional mode Madhyamakas are comfortable with because it accords with dependent origination. Thus salt a dependent collection upon which term salt is applied, the same goes for cars, persons and everything else without the need for some non-dependent entity to exist which can serve as a basis for designation.

Salt molecules are not independent entities, so "salt" therefore, is just a dependent designation on a collection, like "Dave" and "Malcolm".

The absolute truth of salt, Dave and Malcolm is emptiness i.e that when salt, dave and malcolm are sought as distinct entities in their respective collections, nothing can be found apart from a designation upon a collection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Right, but this is why we stopped looking for salt beyond a salt molecule earlier because all the smaller stuff isn't salty.


Malcolm wrote:
This is why for you saltiness is an inherent quality and intrinsic characteristic. But if you try to find salty in a salt molecule, you will not find it.

Look at the examination of intrinsic characteristics in the MMK.

but it is hopeless, you already decided you are a "realist" and that things "really exist".

Madhyamaka is not antirealist, Madhyamaka is beyond the extremes of "real" and "unreal".

Madhyamaka can be considered "antirealism" to the extent that realism is a wrong view, but not because Madhyamaka proposes there are "unreal" things.

To change the terms a little, "It is not that we claim that things are unreal, we merely remove claims of real things".

Salt is merely an imputation on a collection, but there is no real salt in salt. Dave is likewise an imputation on a collection, but there is no Dave in Dave. If would look for Dave in the collection called "Dave", where are we going to find it? In your head, brain, heart, liver, hand, etc? Apart from your head, liver, etc.? The same analysis of the person, by which we discover that persons are merely designations on a collection, must be extended to phenomena. That is the intent of Madhyamaka. In other words, just as the term car is merely a designation on a collection of parts, and not car is found in a car, likewise, we can make the same observation for all compounded phenomena. People are not one case and cars and salt another.

N

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 7:11 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
kirtu said:
How would Gorampa critique it?
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
As I explained elsewhere, according to Goramap the imputation of mere existence is sufficient to produce this distress.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"inherent existence" is an abstract concept only appearing to an onto-analytical consciousness of a philosopher, and even then not usually when he's drinking tea!

kirtu said:
No - inherent existence is an emotional grasping to objects.  If someone broke a favourite cup then this causes emotional distress with most people who liked that cup.  Grasping to inherent existence of phenomena takes place before conscious thought and is a product of momentary ignorance of impermanence and dependant origination.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Gorampa would not agree with this assessment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


cloudburst said:
Though you bridle, it is actually a form of obscurantism that you will not admit up front that you are using the term "existent" in a specialized sense. As a result, newbies can't figure out what you are saying.

Malcolm wrote:
I regularly qualify that in Madhyamaka the term "existent" is used in a very specific way. I discovered this through a close reading of Buddhapalita many years ago -- this is one of the reasons why I cite him more frequently than others.


Namdrol said:
There is some disagreement among Tibetans as to what we are not supposed to find.
However, when we clearly identify that the object of our investigation is a truly existent pheneomena, for example, the body that we normally perceive with our faulty perception, all schools agree that it does not exist in any way. We all fail to find the same thing.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that not all Tibetans agree that this is all we are supposed to find, i.e. the non-existence of a "chos bden par sgrub pa", a truly existent phenomena. Many Tibetans assert, and have done so for centuries prior to Tsongkhapa, that not only are we to not find truly existent phenomena, we are indeed to find no phenomena at all which exist according to any of the four extremes. If these Tibetans are incorrect, then how can we accept the realization of any Tibetans prior to Tsongkhapa, or in any school that differs in opinion with his view? How are we for example to accept the realization of Atisha, Milarepa, etc.?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
The emptiness of salt does not prove salt does not exist, it merely removes the claim that there is an existent called "salt" When salt is analyzed, no salt is found in salt. There is no entity among the components of salt that make salt salt.

yadave said:
Salt molecules are entities, conditioned entities, the smallest things we find that have properties we know of that make salt salt, make salty taste salty.  What are you looking for?

Malcolm wrote:
If salt molecules are conditioned entities they are unable to act as salt alone. Hence there is no "salt" in the appearance we are labeling salt because the conditions which support the appearance of "salt" do not end at "salt molecules", do they? Salt molecules, we will readily, are conditioned entities upon which we lable the aggregate we are calling salt. But a salt molecule itself is an aggregate, and so and so forth. A salt molecule cannot act as salt, it must be in an aggregate to have that function. And a given salt molecule itself cannot function without the aggregate upon which it depends. And that dependence has both depth as well as extension i.e. not only does it depend on its own specific causes and conditions, but its dependence is lateral, since it depends the presence of the element of sodium, chloride, as has been mentioned above. Not only does salt molecule depend on these two elements, it depends on conditions of pressure, heat, and so on. So a great deal more goes into producing the appearance we are labeling salt mere salt molecules. In fact, the presence of salt molecules is dependent on every other phenoemena in the universe i.e. karana hetu or "creative cause" or the "dominant condition" the principle that all phenomena are causes for all other phenomena apart from themselves. When all of this is taken into consideration, as any proper analysis must, we find that in a very real sense salt is empty of salt just as persons are empty of persons, and just as all conditioned phenomena are empty of conditoned phenomena.

Whatever arises dependently, that is empty -- that is Nagarjuna's message -- there is no place where we say "Oh, we can stop our analysis here". If you stop your analysis, you are in effect making a claim of independence, at least, that is what Nagarjuna is trying to force you to admit.


yadave said:
Well I apologize, Namdrol, I know we've been through this, but we do find a basis for our labels.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if we arbitrarily limit our analysis of dependent relations. And if we limit that analysis, the Madhyamakas will try to force us to admit that we have made a claim about essences.


yadave said:
The only way I can make sense of your assertion is by imagining some kind of blocks world where we are looking for a smallest indivisible block to label.  But we don't do this when looking for the smallest component of salt, we label this "salt molecule."  For Padma's composite thunderstorm, we find a basis consisting of wind, rain, lightning, an array of composite entities that we collectively label "thunderstorm."  We don't include "airplanes" in our collection because they are not required to have a "thunderstorm."

Malcolm wrote:
Airplains and all other phenomena are required, it is intrinsic to the logic of the six causes and four conditions, which are the six causes and four conditions that Nagarjuna sets out and dismantles completely in the first chapter of the MMK.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
in the west, it was Heidegger who pointed out that in our everyday lives, we don't really notice the cup at all: we just use it. we take it from the cupboard, pour tea in it, drink from it, wash it and put it away without ever thinking about it at all! so not only do we not perceive a cup's "inherent existence" , we normally don't even perceive its existence as an object for a subject at all! its only when the handle falls off or it breaks that we even notice the cup as a cup, it puts us in an entirely different state of consciousness in relation to the cup. the point is that the "philosophical" activity of contemplating the cup's existence or lack of it, is a quite artificial one to begin with. So, if conventional reality is defined in Madhyamaka as the way the world unthinkingly goes about its business with "objects" that function, then its really more the way Heidegger says it is, and certainly not the way tsongkhapa says. "inherent existence" is an abstract concept only appearing to an onto-analytical consciousness of a philosopher, and even then not usually when he's drinking tea!

Malcolm wrote:
Nagarjuna was critiquing the notion that a cup is there. He was critiquing how common everyday language is misleading. Hence his famed refutation of movement:

"Apart having moved or not having moved, there is no present movement".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
There is some disagreement among Tibetans as to what we are not supposed to find.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Tibetans put salt in their tea.


Malcolm wrote:
Is this really a helpful statement? If so how? If people spent less time being smart asses and trying to be clever, this conversation might be more worthwhile.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
My concern is when folks begin claiming that "emptiness of salt proves salt does not exist"

Malcolm wrote:
The emptiness of salt does not prove salt does not exist, it merely removes the claim that there is an existent called "salt" When salt is analyzed, no salt is found in salt. There is no entity among the components of salt that make salt salt.

It is the same for any composite entity. We experience an appearance, we impute a label upon it, this act lets us work with that appearance. When we exame the appearance to find the basis for the label, however, none can be found. That non-finding is the emptiness of the appearance in question.

There is some disagreement among Tibetans as to what we are not supposed to find.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Virgo said:
Just that it exists, but before I studied I thought there was actual "cup" and not just rūpa.

Kevin

Malcolm wrote:
What is the difference between "actual" and "exists"? Nothing substantive, as far as I can tell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It is not that people perceive things to exist, it's that they perceive things to exist inherently.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the unproven assertion at the heart of Tsongkhapa's system.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
Gorampa points out that Tsongkhapa's first assertion is untrue, since inherent existences does not appear

Virgo said:
But don't sentient beings naturally impute or assume this?

Malcolm wrote:
That is what Tsongkhapa believes and what Gorampa rejects.

You can ask yourself the question very simply-- when you see a cup of coffee, do you think, even for a second, that it exists inherently? Or do you merely accept that it is exists there?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
My understanding is that the Prasangikas who follow Gorampa completely deny the validity of conventional truth.  For them, conventional truths are completely false objects appearing to an ignorant mind, so when you become enlightened, you do not perceive conventional truths.  Tsongkhapa teaches that conventional and ultimate truths are mutually supportive and equally valid (albeit that conventional truths incorrectly appear as inherently existent to non-Buddhas) and that Buddhas realize the union of conventional and ultimate truth simultaneously.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that for Tsongkhapa, conventional truths are able to withstand ultimate analysis since all that is being analyzed is the subtle object of negation, inherent existence, not the existence, of a conventional truth.

For Gorampa, they can not, since no phenonena can survive examination via the course object of negation, existence. Gorampa accepts that Candrakiriti specifically identifies (in the Prasannapāda) a subtle object of negation, but according to Gorampa, it is just a formal identification since inherent existence is automatically eliminated when existence itself is analyzed.

According to Tsongkhapa, what is being misperceived by sentient beings in conventional truths is the inherent existence of conventional truths i.e. he claims that when an ordinary person sees a chair, they are seeing an inherently existent chair. However, Tsongkhapa also claims that ordinary sentient beings are incapable of distinguishing between mere existence and inherent existence.

Gorampa points out that Tsongkhapa's first assertion is untrue, since inherent existences does not appear, and Tsongkhapa's second assertion is self-contradictory, sentient being only see existences, not inherent existences.

Tsongkhapa replies that conventional truths are linguistic entities, mental imputations, and that therefore, the notion of inherent existence is embedded in all imputations of conventional truth. Gorampa counters that this interpretation of conventional truth is faulty, since in fact relative truths are first and foremost appearances to a deluded mind, and what such a deluded mind grasps is not a truly existent object, but rather a merely existing object, and imputations of inherency are confined to the philosophical speculations of scholars, not the naive imputations of ordinary persons such as Chai wallas, who would never imagine their tea cups had some intrinsic nature that made them teacups.

So, at base, a large part of the disagreement hinges on how these two masters understand conceptual operations in sentient beings and what they understand Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita and Candrakirti to be saying about such conceptual operations. This is why Tsongkhapa places such importance on seperating and identifying the correct object of negation, and why Gorampa thinks that such an effort misses the point and is unnecessary, since the coarse object of negation is sufficient for removing wrong views via the classic tetralemma (in ordinary persons -- awakened persons have no need of the caturskoti).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:


Namdrol said:
In the early period of Budddhism, there were two yānas, śamatha yāna and vipaśyāna yāna; beginners went to Śariputra to training in vipaśyāna for stream entry; then they would go train in śamatha with Maudgalyana for further progress.

Lance Cousins wrote a very interesting article about this.

Mr. G said:
Hi Namdrol,

Do you recall the name of the article, or if the article was published in a book?  I just searched on JSTOR and didn't find anything.

Malcolm wrote:
Cousins, L.S., 1984, ‘Samatha-yāna and vipassanā-yāna’ in Dhammapala D., et al., eds, Buddhist
Studies in Honour of Hammalava Saddhatissa, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka, pp. 56-68.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings...
Content:
catmoon said:
The idea that Dharma is the cause and Dzogchen the result can't possibly be universal, simply because the are billions of Buddhists who are not Dzogchenpas.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, the point being made is that Dzocghen is the cause and basis for all dharma traditions, whether of samsara or nirvana. But I don't expect anyone to accept that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Anders Honore said:
I am not sure how one can possibly avoid existence and non-existence.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the purpose of dependent origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:


Spiny Norman said:
Actually I think in the early teachings samatha and vipasyana were not seen as separate activities anyway.

Spiny


Malcolm wrote:
In the early period of Budddhism, there were two yānas, śamatha yāna and vipaśyāna yāna; beginners went to Śariputra to training in vipaśyāna for stream entry; then they would go train in śamatha with Maudgalyana for further progress.

Lance Cousins wrote a very interesting article about this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


cloudburst said:
In the meantime, since we both know you cannot take your own advice, please feel free to continue debating!


Malcolm wrote:
I have very little interest in debate, since debate generally consists of dancing on books.

However, please do not confuse my sincere answers to questions as debate, since that is not my intent. My days of debating this point and that point are finished.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
There are some, such as Gorampa and Shākya Chokden, who say that this verse [verse 6.75 of the Entrance] proves that Chandrakīrti holds, from his own perspective, that self-awareness exists conventionally. They also say that in Chandrakīrti’s tradition the all-base, self-awareness, outer objects, and the per-
son all exist conventionally, but they do not exist as “conventional phenomena that can withstand analysis.”

These positions are untenable. The master Chandrakīrti does not, as his own position, accept any phenomenon as existent or nonexistent in either ultimate or conventional truth

Anders Honore said:
Stupid outsider question here that I am sure has been covered a thousand times in the endless Prasangika/Svatantrika debates, but what exactly is wrong with saying that things exist conventionally? How could there even be language if we did not play along with the convention that things exist?

Malcolm wrote:
This is all nauseating hair-splitting by Tibetan scholars with nothing better to do with their time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
As you see the topic is linked to our discussion in Madyamika Sautrantika vs Prasangika forum, so I think it is beneficial.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. Don't care.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:
catmoon said:
Um, if mercury sulfate

Malcolm wrote:
My error, mercury sulfide.

In any case, detoxified mercury is not a commonly used medicine, because it si difficult to make, and if prepared improperly, can harm the patient. That being said, it is used, it is prepared, and when used properlt, is quite beneficial for many diseases.

Quite frankly, people get all het up about mercury, but think nothing of doing chemo.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:


dumbbombu said:
really?

Malcolm wrote:
Really.

Though my vehicles are inconceivable,
they are included in two categories:
samsara and nirvana.

--Rig pa rang shar tantra, the main explanatory tantra of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


cloudburst said:
In context, as explained above, we can see that since what Nagarjuna is talking about here is essential existence, it must either be svabhava or parabhava, and as you correctly point out, parabhava is actually just a form of svabhava.

thanks!

Namdrol said:
For Nag. that is the only kind of existence there could be i.e. bhāva = svābhava.

cloudburst said:
It would seem then that his principal disciples failed to understand him as they repeatedly refer to things existing conventionally, as did Buddha, upon whose explanations Nagarjuna's work is based.

I know precisely what you are trying to say. You are just having a awful, self-contradictory time doing it.

If svabhava, exhaustively refuted by Nagarjuna, were the only way in which things could exist, nothing would exist in any way.

Malcolm wrote:
As Buddhapalita states:

"It is not that we assert non-existence, we merely remove claims for existing existents".

Your concern is to maintain people's conventional sense of reality.

The Madhyamaka concern is to remove people's false conceptions.

See my post over in the Gorampa thread. All of this discussion is just chasing illusions and being wrapped in accepting and rejecting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Namdrol said:
You go first. Tell me where Gorampa actually says this. It is not sufficient to produce a charge without providing evidence.

Mariusz said:
My quote of the Karmapa is already in the first post where "The Feast for the Fortunate. A Commentary on the Entrance to the Middle Way That Easily Pulls Along the Chariot of the Takpo Kagyü Siddhas " of the Karmapa; 2.2.2.1.1.6.2.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2.2.2.2.2. (Refuting claims that the above refutation applies equally to our own explanation of memory).


Malcolm wrote:
Not playing. This kind of thing for me is no longer of any importance.But I do suggest that those who are interested may read Gorampa for themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
ccording to the Karmapa for Gorampa "outer objects exist conventionally" somewhere "out there" although can not withstand analysis.

Namdrol said:
This is a misrepresentation of Gorampa' view, thus it is worthy of no further consideration.

Mariusz said:
Why do you think it is a misrepresentation? Can you quote please?

Malcolm wrote:
The suffering of chasing mirages never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.
likewise, the suffering of intellectual pursuits never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.

The suffering of accepting and rejecting never ends.The only way to end it is simply to stop.
likewise, the suffering of proof and rebuttal never ends. The only way to end it is simply to stop.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Jikan said:
good morning webcasters


Malcolm wrote:
good morning!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


cloudburst said:
In context, as explained above, we can see that since what Nagarjuna is talking about here is essential existence, it must either be svabhava or parabhava, and as you correctly point out, parabhava is actually just a form of svabhava.

thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
For Nag. that is the only kind of existence there could be i.e. bhāva = svābhava.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:
catmoon said:
OMG are you guys serious? You are eating things laced with mercury and arsenic? That's crazy dangerous.

Malcolm wrote:
Arsenic is not present in all Shilajit.

"Mercury" used in Ayurveda and Tibean Medicine is a form of processed mercury, processed into mercury sulfate, which is inert in the human body, but very useful for treating many kinds of serious diseases. Mercury preperations are not commonly dispensed, however.

Both Ayurvedic and Tibetan medical texts are filled with warnings about using and handling raw mercury.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Anyone Know Anything About This?
Content:
alpha said:
So, for those who run the international dzogchen community is social networking something unacceptable?


Malcolm wrote:
No, but putting up websites that represent the community without checking is unacceptable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Gorampa untenable according to Karmapa
Content:
Mariusz said:
ccording to the Karmapa for Gorampa "outer objects exist conventionally" somewhere "out there" although can not withstand analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a misrepresentation of Gorampa' view, thus it is worthy of no further consideration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:
Nemo said:
I think there may be more than one type of shilajit and they have different properties.

.

Malcolm wrote:
Traditionally there are several kinds, depending on what minerals are present in it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:


Nemo said:
It's not the same as it was years ago. It used to come from the Himalayas and was black.


Malcolm wrote:
Try Siddhi Energetics stuff. It is from Ladakh and it is as black as obsidian. Tell em I sent you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: Anyone Know Anything About This?
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
So does anyone have any idea what the actual problems with Dzogchen World were? The reasons for shutting it down were not at all clear to me in that email.


Malcolm wrote:
They did not get the sign off of the international Gakyil among other issues. There are fairly rigid guidelines about what an official DC website can be.

I don't think that they anticipated social networking, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Jikan said:
Kundalini is mentioned in _The Crystal and the Way of Light_ (p. 124) in a way that is a bit confusing.  is it thigle, is it prana... ?

wisdom said:
Ah! It seems to indicate that thigle/kundalini is the essential nature of prana. It reads:
There are many types of prana, and they support the many types of dualistic mind; as long as the prana circulates in the many various channels, these dualistic minds persist. But when prana is brought into the central channel, its essential nature -thigle, or kundalini- is activated and enters the channels. Dualistic mind is then overcome, and realization achieved.
So its not saying prana is kundalini (which accords also with what Hindu tantra believes) but that when prana is brought into the central channel, its essential nature manifests as thigle or kundalini. In the same way, the mind has its thoughts, imputations, and so forth, and its essential nature which can be revealed.


Malcolm wrote:
In the Guhyasamaja system, bindu refers to a bindu of prana vāyu. Bindu therefore can refer to prana vāyu.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Clarence said:
Kundalini energy? I thought Buddhists don't recognize Kundalini? Namdrol-la, how are we to understand that?


Malcolm wrote:
The term kundalini never occurs in any buddhist texts. But the notion of unblocking the nadis of the cakras from the bottom cakra on up does exist in Buddhist tantras.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
In reading http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=96&t=4893&p=50672&hilit=Shilajit#p50672, it looks like Shilajit is more-or-less neutral temperature-wise, yet leaning a little towards warming.


Malcolm wrote:
You are right, I was in error. In Tibetan medicine is used to reduce fevers.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Beatzen said:
I knew that the mahayana extended that absense to external phenomenon.  But when it's analysis of the inner self, is it "emptiness of self" instead of where the pali would dictate "no self"?


Malcolm wrote:
These two terms are identical in meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Beatzen said:
Namdrol, is there a variance between teachings of anatman and shunyata?

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna traditionally maintains that the Pali canon and its kin and the traditions that derive from them focuses on teaching the emptiness of persons only and do not in general extend the analaysis of absence of idenitity to phenomena themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:
Paul said:
Thanks for posting that. It's reminded me of something that Erik Pema Kunsang said recently - that Dzogchen is beyond both a gradual path and an instantaneous path. It's far more complex than those two categories.


Malcolm wrote:
From my point of view, it is far less complicated; Dzogchen in a real sense is not a path, it is one's state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Kilaya said:
Video connection is working, too. Tenerife guys must have read our complaints and did something about bandwidth.


Namdrol said:
If you are in tenerife, then you are not listening the actual retreat....
There isa glitch where a recorded retreat is at the shang shung address.

Use this

http://www.freezecast.com:8000/audio " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kilaya said:
Rinpoche is presently speaking about sacred places. Am I listening to the actual retreat?


Malcolm wrote:
yes


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Is taking medication a sin?
Content:
waqqaskhokhar said:
I am an academic researching this topic from the point of view of patients asked to take medication which may have religiously forbidden ingredients e.g. Gelatine or stearic acid.
Would like to know that in the context of vegetarianism being accepted practice in many Buddhist traditions, is there any dietary law that prohibits any specific animals or use of animal products in medication?
Would appreciate comments, suggestions for further reading or expert opinions.


Malcolm wrote:
Nope, the traditional Buddhist medicine is Ayurveda and there are kinds of meat, as well as urines, feces, etc., recommended as remedies for diseases in Ayurvedic texts as well as texts on Tibetan Medicine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Kilaya said:
Video connection is working, too. Tenerife guys must have read our complaints and did something about bandwidth.


Malcolm wrote:
If you are in tenerife, then you are not listening the actual retreat....
There isa glitch where a recorded retreat is at the shang shung address.

Use this

http://www.freezecast.com:8000/audio " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Namdrol said:
But is said also in the suttas that the Buddha once levitated to an elevation of 14 palm trees.


PadmaVonSamba said:
maybe they were teensy weensy trees.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but even levitating half an inch off the ground is pretty damn amazing, don't you think?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Big Mind, Big Money, Big Scam
Content:
BuddhaSoup said:
I'm just amazed that Genpo stills markets himself as  Roshi, and a Zen Master.


Malcolm wrote:
He's got bills, like everyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Unseen Beings in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Paul said:
Is there such a thing as a poltergeist in Tibetan buddhism? I seem to remember mention of a type of being with "power over the movement of objects" in a sangcho text and it sounded very similar.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
... He just uses different terms like "staying in the I AM" ...

Sönam said:
It does not sound very dzogchen ...

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Agreed. Not very dzogchen at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:
Thug4lyfe said:
Isn't that the same thing what most other Mahayana schools are teaching?  If all Dharma gates are equal, why does it sound like your trying to say Dzogchen is da best au?  Know wat im sayin?

Astus said:
Sectarian thinking never becomes outdated.


Malcolm wrote:
Some people might think that is what is behind my statement, but they would be mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
People, hummingbirds, and snails must all "go around the tree" to get to the other side. Words and perceptions may differ, but the "tree" is real in this sense and no personal hubris of mine causes this to be so.

Namdrol said:
But some people don't.

yadave said:
Namdrol, are you saying some people go through the tree, as in walking through a wall?

Regards,
Dave.


Malcolm wrote:
One day Candrakirti was walking through a passageway in Nalanda, his head in a book, and he bumped his head on a pillar -- a student saw this and said "Aha! That pillar is not so empty, is it!". Candra looked at him, and passed his hand right through the pillar much to the student's embarassed astonishment. Or so this traditional story runs.

Of course there is kashina meditation -- ostensibly, if you meditate on the kashina of earth, you gain control over the earth element and can travel through mountains, etc.

It is my opinion that the apparent solidity of phenomena such as trees and rocks, etc., is directly related to the solidity of one's delusion. The more solid one's delusion, the more solid apparent phenomena seem.

On the other hand, people with very solid delusions regularly kill themselves too, through not recognizing that solid things will kill them, like the ground when they attempt to fly off buildings.

But is said also in the suttas that the Buddha once levitated to an elevation of 14 palm trees. Such yogic feats are described too often in Buddhist texts generation after generation for me to simply reject them out of hand.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
People, hummingbirds, and snails must all "go around the tree" to get to the other side. Words and perceptions may differ, but the "tree" is real in this sense and no personal hubris of mine causes this to be so.

Malcolm wrote:
But some people don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: How "Old School" of an Internet user are you?
Content:
kirtu said:
Way back when I do played around with the Altair 8800, PET, etc.  My first personal machine was in Germany and was an Atari 800.  I've been online permanently since 1984 both on the Internet and BBS's and was probably on BBS's a bit while in Germany (so maybe from '83).  Of course we had email even before that in college but no Arpanet access then (maybe Arpanet was just for college professors and researchers at that time).

I played around with Minitel in Strassbourg in early fall 1983 when visiting a friend there.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Had a mac in 85, never bothered with BBoards though I knew what they were. Got first modem in 1994 along with second mac. Found AOL., etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Namdrol has me pulling out my Jay Garfield MMK and I remember an important term missing from this list.  Jay says (page 220) "Essence by definition is eternal and independent" so


Malcolm wrote:
Right, but the point is that Nag. equates existence (bhāva) with svabhāva (essence in this translation). In other words, Nag. is asserting that bhāva is svabhāva by necessity.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:
Nemo said:
Where does Shilajit come from now? It is a completely different colour than it was years ago.

Did Nagarjuna leave any of his recipes for mercury medicines? I just read about his alchemical practices last night. Perhaps  we should dig up his old recipes for turning iron into gold to support the Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Shilajatu is a kind of bitumous exudate that oozes from cliffs in the heat of summer.

Nagarjuna's method of processing mercury into mercury sulfate still exists and is used in Tibetan mediciune.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


DarwidHalim said:
Nagarjuna view is clarified by his last student Chandrakirti that there is no such thing called arise, persist and perish even at conventional level.


Malcolm wrote:
You are simply mistaken about Candrakirti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:


dumbbombu said:
gotcha, thanks. so would it be fair to say Dzogchen views all schools favourably then although it perhaps views itself as the pinnacle or ultimate?


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen regards all vehicles favorably and perceives itself as the final meaning of all Buddhist, as well as non-Buddhist, teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:
Namdrol said:
All teachings spring from dzogchen, it is the source of all teachings, and the place to which all teachings return.

N

dumbbombu said:
hi Namdrol, this is an interesting statement. when you say it, are you meaning all Vajrayana teachings, all tantric teachings or all Buddhadharma teachings, period? if the latter, care to elaborate a little in layman's terms? cheers.

Malcolm wrote:
All dharma teachings. All dharma teachings arise from the need to educate people about their real state. That real state is called "Dzogchen". Some teachings are more direct, some are less so, but in the end, that is the state they are all pointing at, whether directly or indirectly.

Of course, dzogchen teachings temselves point to this state in the most direct way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Combining Ayurvedic/Tibetan Medicine and Herbs & Supplements
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Although in reading the thread here about Shilajit, it seems that it might be cooling, which wouldnt be good for Tummo practice; although it was also said that Shilajit could have a warming after-digestion effect.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite the opposite, Shilajatu is very warming.


Pregnant women in general should take no herbs at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: A 1st look: Red Pine’s Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as Jasmine Tea
Content:
Will said:
Could this "book of Indian letters" be some sort of dictionary and he was just back translating from Chinese into Sanskrit, then Tibetan?  Why say he then "established it"; why not simply write "he translated it."?

Malcolm wrote:
No,it cannot mean that.

It means that he had an Indian manuscript of the textin front of him. Established here means somthing like "edited it". Means he translated it and checked it for accuracy.

It is quite likely he had a Chinese version with him as well. Many early sutras translated into Tibetan were translations which triangulated between Sanskrit originals and Chinese translations.

For example, here is another colophon for the 'phags pa legs nyes kyi rgyu dang 'bras bu bstan pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo

zhus chen gyi lo tstsha ba bande chos grub kyis rgya gar dang rgya'i dpe las bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa/

The Zhuchen Lotsawa, the monk Chosdrup, translated it from an Indian and an Chinese text, edited it and established it.

Or here from one of the Ratnakuta sutras, the āryāyuṣmannandagarbhāvakrāntinirdeśa

lo tstsha ba 'gos chos grub kyis rgya nag gi dpe las bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa

Lotsawa Gos Chosdrup translated from a Chinese book, edited it, and established it.

I will grant you however, it seems that our Lotsawa Gos here is more comfortable with Chinese than Sanskrit. However, given than the Sanskrit was available to Gos at the time, and that he knew it, it seems unlikely he translated the Lanka directly from Chinese.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: The Sacred Space
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: A 1st look: Red Pine’s Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as Jasmine Tea
Content:
Will said:
In Porter's defense, he avoided translating the Lanka for many years because he could not understand Gunabhadra's Chinese.  It followed the Sanskrit syntax, which makes a profound text many times harder to understand, much less translate into English.  The fact that only one other translation has appeared since 1932, suggests it was & is a very hard nut to crack.


Namdrol said:
If you don't know Tibetan or Sanskrit, then yes it could be.

The Tibetan version reads very straightfowardly though.

Will said:
Good for Chos-grub, but he was translating from the Chinese of Gunabhadra, not the Sanskrit - why? - beats me.  Also I wrote "Sanskrit syntax", but Porter wrote "Sanskrit word sequence" - if that makes any difference.  A later Tibetan version by Anonymous is from the Sanskrit.

Malcolm wrote:
'gos chos grub kyis rgya dpe las bsgyur te gtan la phab pa'o

"Gos Chodrup translated from the Indian text and established it."

rgya dpe -  rgya gar gyi yi ge dpe cha,

rgya dpe -- a book of Indian letters

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Hey guys and gals,

Let me know if you don't want to discuss this anymore.  In the meantime, are the following statements equivalent in the language of Madhyamaka?

1. X ultimately exists.
2. X inherently exists.
3. X is unconditioned.
4. X is independent.
5. X is not dependently originated.
6. X is not empty.

Regards,
Dave.

Malcolm wrote:
Add to that:

7. X exists

And I would say you have a full deck.

You see, in chapter 15 of MMK Nagaruna asks, where is there an existent not included in svabhāva (inherent existence) or parabhāva (dependent existence defined as a stealth version of svabhāva in the previous verse)? He then goes on to say that if existents are not established, then non-existents are not established, since a non-existent is normally defined by people as something which existed before, does not exist now. Having set this out, he then says, whoever has a view involving existents, non-existents, inherent existents or dependent existents does not understand Buddha's view. He then cites the Reply to Katyayana, the only sutra cited in the whole of the MML i.e. "The world is bound by a duality, "It is" and "It is not".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: A 1st look: Red Pine’s Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra as Jasmine Tea
Content:
Will said:
In Porter's defense, he avoided translating the Lanka for many years because he could not understand Gunabhadra's Chinese.  It followed the Sanskrit syntax, which makes a profound text many times harder to understand, much less translate into English.  The fact that only one other translation has appeared since 1932, suggests it was & is a very hard nut to crack.


Malcolm wrote:
If you don't know Tibetan or Sanskrit, then yes it could be.

The Tibetan version reads very straightfowardly though.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Stranded on a desert island...which 3 books would you want?
Content:
Mr. G said:
Scenario:  You're stranded on a desert island and can only have 3 Dzogchen books with you.  Which ones would you pick?



Malcolm wrote:
The unwritten tantra
the sgra thal gyur
the rigpa rangshar


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Why do Tulku/reincarnate realized masters
Content:
reg said:
why are these demons or demonic forces or whatever so bent on harming or interfering with others' spiritual practice?

kirtu said:
They are dedicated to evil and want to turn at least our world into a hell realm.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are manifestations of karmic debts that we owe to sentient beings we have knowingly or unknowingly injured.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Virgo said:
Yes, but no one can protect you from your karma.  And when the five poisons increase... you do bad things.

Isn't it true Loppon?

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
True.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:


wisdom said:
Oh I fully agree in the objective existence of the protectors, and I believe that Virgo had the experience he says he had. I have enough experience with the objective spirit world to know of its power. I guess my question is why does tobacco have this quality, and not any other number of vices? I can smoke pot constantly by this theory, and still be protected, but one cigarette will exempt me from protection. Or if I am a perfect practitioner with perfect conduct, but walk into a bar where people are smoking, all the protectors will abandon me, and I will be left unprotected and unable to be helped? What about walking down the street, am I unprotected every time I walk past a smoker? Or at a bus stop? I guess my question is why do the protectors hate smoke this much, why are they unable to stand its presence?

Malcolm wrote:
Worldly protectors, the once that react to tobacco smoke, don't really live in cities anyway. Too many humans, too much pollution.

Wisdom protectors don't care.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Riwo Sangchod - ingredients question
Content:
ngodrup said:
Who can check Chogyur Linpga's recipe for magnetizing incense for musk?


Malcolm wrote:
Where is it located, send me the page number and I can tell you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Ngondro
Content:
Clarence said:
One day I will have learned enough acronyms to belong to the group of deep knowledge.

Anyway, I think I will order ToC.

gregkavarnos said:
Asking your lama would probably be a good idea too.  I was lucky enough to get a transmission of Gendeun Rinpoches advice for Ngondro to three year retreatants .  Unbelievable quantity of detail (and quality too), stuff that was neither in the sadhana, nor the ToC.  Stuff that you can only get from a lama!  Plus when you get it from a lama you also have the opportunity to ask questions regarding details and about stuff that was not said or read.


Malcolm wrote:
TOC is an incomplete translation. All the Sahaja Mahāmudra stuff was left out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:
wayland said:
Thanks Namdrol. I found the following on p194 of The Supreme Source by CNN, in the context of not following a gradual path: Training to progress along the levels of realization, one practices the methods for stabilizing the state of calm, however, meditation tending towards perfection is far from the equanimity of the state free of concepts.
Seeking to understand the ultimate nature of existence, one practices the methods of meditation for clarity, however, meditation directed to clarifying something is far from the equanimity of the state free of concepts.
Is this contrasting śamatha and vipaśyāna (as practiced by other schools) with that of the dzogchen path you quoted above?
They seem to be portrayed as a gradualist method in this context.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Nagarjuna said there is no arising, there is no duration, there is no cessation.

Malcolm wrote:
He said there is no arising, duration or perishing which can be found on analysis.

But the consequence of this is that there is nothing unconditioned or ultimate which can be found either.

If you can't find a thing, you can't find its nature.

But in terms of conventional truth, Nagarajuna certainly accepted that things arose, persisted, and perished. Just not ultimately so.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Adamantine said:
Do you really think it would have been hard for him to procure cigarettes?

Malcolm wrote:
Snuff and pipe smoking was common enough. But rolled cigarettes? Possible but not too likely in regular supply in Golog.

But perhaps they came in with the brick tea trade.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:
Lingpupa said:
I could be wrong, of course, but I would be surprised if cigarette smoking was widespread in 19th century Tibet. Snuff, perhaps, again, I don't know, but cigarettes? Do you think that one is true or just someone re-telling the story of Dudjom Lingpa and grafting it on to Gendun Chopel?
If anything it strikes me as more likely (I must stress again that this is not much more than an educated hunch) that the story might have been first attached to a figure of Gendun Chopel's time and then grafted back to Dudjom Lingpa.


Malcolm wrote:
People did not smoke cigarettes in Tibet during the 19th century. But they did smoke these tiny little pipes.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 18th, 2012 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: robaire on Buddhism & Christianity
Content:


robaire said:
I know enough.


Malcolm wrote:
Not, apparently, about Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: China party official warns members over religion
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Karl Marx talked about the inherent contradictions of capital that give rise to an impoverished proletariat and that the social/historical consequences of this dialectic will be the collapse of capitalism and the institution of a proletarian centred political/economic/social structure.

You are talking about Karl Marx right?  Not Groucho, Harpo or Chico Marx? Right???

Or maybe you read the Smith and Keynes translation of his works?


Malcolm wrote:
I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.

What Marx was, in fact, was an idealogue of urbanism and industrial civilization.

In terms of Smith, there is in fact very little in Marx that goes beyond Smith's labor theory of wealth. Marx's Capital is essentially a commentary on Wealth of Nations, properly understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:
wayland said:
To what extent are śamatha and vipaśyanā considered important in dzogchen and does dzogchen have its own definitions of them?


Namdrol said:
They are important and yes.

wayland said:
Hi Namdrol,
I'd be interested if you could point me in the direction of any information regarding how dzogchen interprets them. I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that they are a natural condition within dzogchen, as opposed to a gradualist presentation?
Thanks


Malcolm wrote:
When one loosely rests vidyā in its own state, after coarse and subtle concepts come to calmly rest on their own, vidyā vividly abides in its own state. That śamatha is called “dwelling in the essence of vidyā”. In that state there is no lethargy or agitation in vidyā. Clarity, pristine lucidity, vividness, nakedness, and limpidity respectively cannot be seen with the eye, cannot be described with words, and cannot be established as a thing. The clarity that is like seeing, the pristine lucidity that is like an experience, the vividness that is like description, the nakedness that is like apprehending a thing, and the limpidity that is like a thought occurs in vidyā in and of itself. That alone is the wisdom of vipaśyāna. Though śamatha and vipaśyāna are given two separate names, in essence there is no difference.

-- Explanatory Tantra of Distinguishing Mind and Vidyā


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Also, about "obsession with fluids and gender", try telling that to H.H. the Dalai Lama, who is, first and foremost, a Dzogchenpa.

Malcolm wrote:
I would be happy to discuss this with HHDL anytime. I have ample proof in the form of texts and so on that his presentation is not properly understood by others.

Anyway Lhugpa, you are not even remotely an expert on this subject. You have received what, a couple of direct introductions, at best from ChNN? Have you ever received a full on major empowerment such as Hevajra, Kalacakra, Guhyagarbha, etc? If you have not, then I would suggest that you are not qualified to have an opinion on this topic, let alone be discussing it.

You are not speaking from the perspective of a practitioner. You have not engaged in creation stage practice, so how can you pretend to have any insight at all into completion stage practices? At least, at the very least, I spent three years in solitary retreat doing these practices.

You are not speaking from the perspective of a translator, nor a scholar. You are speaking from the perspective of an enthusiastic layperson with very inadequate knowledge of the subject.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Anyone Know Anything About This?
Content:
Mr. G said:
Can someone verify they know the owner of this site, or at least confirm this site is fine?  There's a lot of personal questions that are asked upon registration.


Malcolm wrote:
I think it was set up by Song Park. He is the first registered user.

I know him pretty well, He is a good guy.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
I think it's interesting that a Dzogchenpa is this adamant about condemning homosexuality on an internet forum. I'd be interested to hear ChNNR's opinion on the matter...

Malcolm wrote:
Lhugpa is a noob (sorry, but its true). I would not call him a Dzogchenpa just yet.

He is working it out. He has a lot of conceptual baggage from non-Buddhsits he stills find authoratative.

He will realize eventually that all this obsession with fluids and gender is a complete waste of time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
In regard to all three above-mentioned Lamas now:

"Any reliable sources for your assertion?"


Malcolm wrote:
In the case of the latter, a personal student of Dudjom R-- personal communication verified by a second party.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
JinpaRangdrol said:
H.E. Garchen Rinpoche and Thrangu Rinpoche are two prominent gurus who support homosexual pairings in traditional Yab Yum practice, as well.

Malcolm wrote:
So did Dujdom R.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Smoking tobacco
Content:


JinpaRangdrol said:
All of the spiritual side effects aside (blocked channels, breaking of Samaya with protectors, addiction, distress in the Bardo, etc.), I think the bottom line lies in the Four Thoughts. The precious human birth is EXTREMELY hard to attain. Why would you EVER participate in a practice that is proven to destroy it, without any kind of tangible benefit whatsoever?

Namdrol said:
Catmoon is not a Nyingmapa, and so I don't think these dire warnings, which are from a Nyingma perspective, have much influence.

gregkavarnos said:
The four thoughts are a Nyingmapa thing???  We go through them before every single pracitce in the Karma Kagyu lineage.


Malcolm wrote:
No, I meant all the terma warnings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Role of śamatha and vipaśyanā in dzogchen?
Content:
wayland said:
To what extent are śamatha and vipaśyanā considered important in dzogchen and does dzogchen have its own definitions of them?


Malcolm wrote:
They are important and yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
How many is in a lapse of memory?

Malcolm wrote:
Forever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Which Buddhist text that explain the duration of thought is 13 milliseconds?

Malcolm wrote:
The Abhidharmakosha among others.

A kṣanas is the most fundamental unit of time in Buddhism. The duration of a kṣanas is the duration of a thought. So if you do the math:

120 kṣanas equals on tatkṣana; 60 tatkṣanas equal a lava; 30 lava equal a muhurta; 30 muhurtas equal an ahorata, which is a single 24 hour period of time. So, according to Buddhist principles then, a moment of thought has a duration of 0.0013 seconds.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhists, modernity and the European enlightenment
Content:
Beatzen said:
Give it a couple hundred years.  Some western yogis will develope novel approaches to dharma.


Malcolm wrote:
No need. We have what we need.


