﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Dan74 said:
Of course genuine insight is possible even outside formal Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Define what you mean by "insight."



Dan74 said:
Whether it's due to past accumulations or present explorations, who can tell, but one has to be blinkered in the extreme to believe that outside formal practice no genuine insight is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Define what you mean by "genuine insight."


Frankly, speaking, there are six so called abhijñās, or higher knowledges: 1) miraculous powers, 2) the divine eye, 3) the divine ear, 4) recollection of past lives, 5) knowledge of the minds of others, 6) the knowledge the exhaustion of contaminants.

The first five are shared with nonbuddhists. The sixth is reserved for Buddhist āryas and is a result of the direct perception of emptiness, even in Dzogchen.

Dan74 said:
Great that you share what you know, Malcolm. But you're not able to sort the wheat from the chaff in your great knowledge? Define define. Look in your heart. The place we all ignore at our peril.

Malcolm wrote:
Your answer is chaff. As such, it will be winnowed out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Wayfarer said:
There's only one place I've seen that spelled out, and that is in the book by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, published in some places as Luminous Mind, and others as Mind at Ease:
In Buddhism, we distinguish between spiritual experiences and spiritual realizations. Spiritual experiences are usually more vivid and intense than realizations because they are generally accompanied by physiological and psychological changes. Realizations, on the other hand, may be felt, but the experience is less pronounced. Realization is about acquiring insight. Therefore, while realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences, they are not identical to them. Spiritual realizations are considered vastly more important because they cannot fluctuate.

The distinction between spiritual experiences and realizations is continually emphasized in Buddhist thought. If we avoid excessively fixating on our experiences, we will be under less stress in our practice. Without that stress, we will be better able to cope with whatever arises, the possibility of suffering from psychic disturbances will be greatly reduced, and we will notice a significant shift in the fundamental texture of our experience.

Malcolm wrote:
The best definition of "realization" ( rtogs pa, avabodha ) I have ever head is from Lama Karma, presently living at Tara Mandala. He defined realization as the the combination of experience ( nyams su myong ba, anubhāva ) and understanding ( go ba, vijñā ).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Dan74 said:
Of course genuine insight is possible even outside formal Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Define what you mean by "insight."



Dan74 said:
Whether it's due to past accumulations or present explorations, who can tell, but one has to be blinkered in the extreme to believe that outside formal practice no genuine insight is possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Define what you mean by "genuine insight."


Frankly, speaking, there are six so called abhijñās, or higher knowledges: 1) miraculous powers, 2) the divine eye, 3) the divine ear, 4) recollection of past lives, 5) knowledge of the minds of others, 6) the knowledge the exhaustion of contaminants.

The first five are shared with nonbuddhists. The sixth is reserved for Buddhist āryas and is a result of the direct perception of emptiness, even in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Grigoris said:
I reckon (and of course I could be wrong) that a "mystical experience" is a (post-experience) incorrectly defined glimpses of one's true nature.  The definition being based on habit (formed via karma, of course).

Malcolm wrote:
Impossible. The consequence of seeing one's true nature is attaining the first bhumi. You really need to go to Shedra.

Marc said:
Hi Malcom,
Isn't there a difference between recognizing one's rigpa & realizing emptiness / reaching the first bhumi ?
Thx

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, an ordinary person can confirm vidyā in a direct perception. An ordinary person cannot confirm emptiness in a direct perception, they can only infer emptiness. It is the fact that ordinary persons can conform vidyā in direct perception that makes Dzogchen the highest path, bar none.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Grigoris said:
What I am saying is that we fetishise enlightenment and the stages of enlightenment to the point where they become an ideal, rather than an actual possibility.

Malcolm wrote:
The stages measure qualities, paths measure realization. In Vajrayāna, each tradition has a very detailed outline of the experiences one will have on that path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Impossible.  The consequence of seeing one's true nature is attaining the first bhumi.

Grigoris said:
Are you saying that attaining the first bhumi is impossible?

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I am saying is that anyone who sees the truth has a direct perception of profound emptiness, and is therefore an ārya.

Your proposition amounts to claiming that people see emptiness but don't understand what they've seen-- that is impossible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 12:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Text Recommendations for Chapel
Content:
Dorje Shedrub said:
While my local small town hospital the other day translating for someone, I visited the chapel and to my surprise, on the altar found two Christian Bibles the Book of Mormon, a copy of the Jewish Tanakh, and copy of the Koran.

I would like to hear suggestions for a Buddhist text that would be appropriate for a hospital chapel or chaplain. Thanks!

DS



Malcolm wrote:
The most highly revered Sūtra in India was the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 lines.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
No.

Lukeinaz said:
Ok, may I ask what word is being translated here and why it did not find a place in the glossary?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, the word being translated here as attachment is chags pa.
It is not a very interesting word, hence no entry.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Mystical Experience
Content:
Grigoris said:
I reckon (and of course I could be wrong) that a "mystical experience" is a (post-experience) incorrectly defined glimpses of one's true nature.  The definition being based on habit (formed via karma, of course).

Malcolm wrote:
Impossible. The consequence of seeing one's true nature is attaining the first bhumi. You really need to go to Shedra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:



Vaktar said:
OK then, it's the moon of non-moon. Analogous to the meditation of non-meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Not even remotely...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Hi Malcom, In chapter three is mthong being translated as attachment?

Malcolm wrote:
No.

Lukeinaz said:
Ok, may I ask what word is being translated here and why it did not find a place in the glossary?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, the word being translated here as attachment is chags pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Precious human birth is qualified by eighteen conditions which are conducive to meeting the Dharma. If even one of these is lacking, one's human birth is not precious.

...with faculties intact...

If one lacks even one of these 18, one does not have a precious human birth.

Seeker12 said:
I've wondered what is meant exactly by having faculties intact - does that necessarily mean that the senses are all intact, or is it more about basically full intelligence being intact?

Malcolm wrote:
Means generally not being deaf or blind, etc. For example, it is held that if you are blind or deaf, your body mandala is incomplete, and in this life Vajrayāna practice will be of little benefit. I have known of very senior lineages masters who have told people with defects of sight for example, there is no point in their taking this or that empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Oh heel no they don’t. Atiyoga is impossible to glimpse by accident.

Grigoris said:
Who said anything about accidents or chance?  There is this thing called past karma/accumulations.

On the other hand:  What do you think the chances are of having a truly "mystical experience" if you try to have one?

There is only one absolutely essential ingredient necessary to realise one's true nature and EVERY - BODY/THING has that.

Crazywisdom said:
Afflictions make self discovery impossible. Mystical experience is sort of meaningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, every phenomena can have one or more intrinsic characteristics (svalakṣana), for example, water has the intrinsic characteristics of limpidity, coolness, and wetness.

The intrinsic characteristics of a blue vase will be blueness, etc.

You need to go to Shedra, Greg.

Grigoris said:
I agree that this is true at the relative level.

Otherwise you are describing Socratic noumena and as a Diogenian Cynic I will have to disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
Intrinsic characteristics are not held to be ultimate. Buddhist epistemology is nominalist, not realist. In other words, so called universals are considered to be conventionally unreal in Buddhadharma, whereas particulars are considered to be conventionally real.

To understand Dzogchen terminology, one must have a basic grounding in Buddhist epistemology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:
Queequeg said:
M, thanks for all the constructive input!

How about closing it out with, "Get off my lawn!"

Malcolm wrote:
If you don't accept rebirth, definitely, get off my lawn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Hi Malcom, In chapter three is mthong being translated as attachment?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Grigoris said:
Who said anything about accidents or chance?

On the other hand:  What do you think the chances are of having a truly "mystical experience" if you try to have one?

There is only one absolutely essential ingredient necessary to realise one's true nature and EVERY - BODY/THING has that.

Malcolm wrote:
The absolutely essential ingredient necessary to realize one's true nature is the upadeśa of the guru, and virtually no one has that.

Grigoris said:
I would say that the absolutely essential ingredient is one's true nature.  It is there even when the Guru is not there.

Malcolm wrote:
That is like the pauper who spends their whole life using a rock as a pillow, who dies not understanding that there is a wishfulfilling gem inside the rock.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Grigoris said:
So are you now saying there is more than one intrinsic characteristic?  Does very phenomenon have their own intrinsic characteristic then?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, every phenomena can have one or more intrinsic characteristics (svalakṣana), for example, water has the intrinsic characteristics of limpidity, coolness, and wetness.

The intrinsic characteristics of a blue vase will be blueness, etc.

You need to go to Shedra, Greg.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Oh heel no they don’t. Atiyoga is impossible to glimpse by accident.

Grigoris said:
Who said anything about accidents or chance?

On the other hand:  What do you think the chances are of having a truly "mystical experience" if you try to have one?

There is only one absolutely essential ingredient necessary to realise one's true nature and EVERY - BODY/THING has that.

Malcolm wrote:
The absolutely essential ingredient necessary to realize one's true nature is the upadeśa of the guru, and virtually no one has that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Grigoris said:
By definition there can be no difference among/between non-conceptual experiences, the idea of difference only exists conceptually/relatively.


Malcolm wrote:
A direct perception (pratyakṣa) by definition is nonconceptual and apprehends an intrinsic characteristic.

Since the intrinsic characteristic of red is different than that of blue, the nonconceptual direct perception of red and blue respectively are both experientially different and substantively different, just as the direct perception of something which is hot and something which is cold is experientially different and substantively different, even though both experiences are nonconceptual.  The same applies to tasting salt and sugar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
krodha said:
Most who have practiced both paths in a serious manner state that in addition to being conceptually different, they are also experientially different.

Grigoris said:
Of course they would.  They are, in both instances, judging a non-conceptual experience via their currently existing karmic view, after all.

PS  My statement was regarding "mystical" experience on any/all paths.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonconceptual experience, for worldly people, leads to rebirth in the formless realms or as an unconscious deva. Not desirable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Most of us are not qualified to judge. That said, there are some with little dust in the eyes...
To bring this back on point - its possible my son and/or daughter have little dust. If not, teaching them things like cause and effect, dependent origination, etc. can only help them on their way in this world.

Malcolm wrote:
They will learn that in science class.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:
Queequeg said:
]

To be clear, my primary view, as my signature suggests, is that the Dharma should be caused to be heard because there are those who are open and receptive. If they don't hear it, they will miss the opportunity presented by this precious life and fall away in samsara, very likely not encountering dharma again for many eons.

Malcolm wrote:
Precious human birth is qualified by eighteen conditions which are conducive to meeting the Dharma. If even one of these is lacking, one's human birth is not precious.

Queequeg said:
Most of us are not qualified to judge. That said, there are some with little dust in the eyes...

Malcolm wrote:
It is very straightforward actually: there are the eigtht freedoms:

Freedom from the eight states where there is no opportunity to practise the Dharma:

hells
preta realms
animals
long-living gods
uncivilized lands
incomplete faculties
with wrong views
a buddha has not come

The five external endowments:

a buddha has come
he has taught the Dharma
the teachings have survived
there are followers of the teachings
there are favourable conditions for Dharma practice

And five personal endowments:

being a human being
born in a central land
with faculties intact
lifestyle not harmful or wrong
with faith in the three pitakas


If one lacks even one of these 18, one does not have a precious human birth.


Queequeg said:
Yes, in a previous life, Shakyamuni was Sadaparibhuta who greeted everyone with a salutation to their buddhahood. They did not ask for such an address and many got angry and beat and attacked Sadaparibhuta. That practice is what enabled Shakyamuni to quickly attain enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, getting beaten up is a really slow way to attain buddhahood. How do we know this? It took the Buddha three incalculable eons to attain full buddhahood.

Queequeg said:
Someone is right. Presumably, we all agree the Buddha is right. There's the road map.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is, we Buddhists don't even agree on which Buddha, which sūtra, which map. Whose right, no one knows.

Queequeg said:
Ya see, as you say, its not about the converts.

Malcolm wrote:
That's for sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:
Queequeg said:
]

To be clear, my primary view, as my signature suggests, is that the Dharma should be caused to be heard because there are those who are open and receptive. If they don't hear it, they will miss the opportunity presented by this precious life and fall away in samsara, very likely not encountering dharma again for many eons.

Malcolm wrote:
Precious human birth is qualified by eighteen conditions which are conducive to meeting the Dharma. If even one of these is lacking, one's human birth is not precious.


Queequeg said:
We believe dharma should be proclaimed openly, without holding anything back, particularly in this age of degeneration - why? Because there is nothing to lose except this opportunity to deepen the connection to Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha never taught unless he was asked three times by interested parties.  We should follow the Buddha's example.

Queequeg said:
We do believe that directly confronting wrong view, especially when it is causing harm, can be appropriate depending on circumstances.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, everyone thinks the views of others are wrong. They can't all be right.

Queequeg said:
If you've ever seen Japanese monks chanting Daimoku in public, this is the practice they are carrying out. The Peace Walks while chanting Daimoku and the construction of Peace Pagodas around the world are also expressions of this practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is true. They don't gain many converts though. Most people think they are weird, bald hippies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 9th, 2019 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Vaktar said:
For a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usu_cLGXLg4&t=965s. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.

So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.

Grigoris said:
I also believe that all of them glimpse the same thing (on the basis of the reported accounts of their experiences), but that post-experience, when karma driven conceptualisation kicks in, it is defined according to the criteria of each believer.

Malcolm wrote:
No one reports any experiences that resemble the experience of the direct perception of dharmatā outside of the teachings of the Dzogchen, because outside the teachings of Dzogchen, the subject to be experienced (dharmatā) and the means of experiencing it (direct perception) are not known at all, not even in Anuyoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:



SonamTashi said:
As a former Mormon, I'm curious about what you consider this Mormon approach to be in comparison with the Calvinist approach. The Mormon approach to raising children immersed in religion is probably much more intense than what you're talking about, although I'm having a difficult time telling for sure.

Malcolm wrote:
He is referring to an old conversation we had about the value of evangelizing Buddhism (a huge Nichiren concern).

My point of view is that people meet the Dharma or not because they have the causes to meet it or not, and no amount of evangelizing or proselytizing is of any value.

Thus, Q thinks this POV is "Calvinist," i.e. only the elect will be saved. He is more in favor of active evangelizing the Gospel and proselytizing among the heathen, hence "Mormon."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
The former is svabhAva, the latter prakRti.

Sherab said:
Just to clarify, by former you are referring to the nature of the Tathagata and by latter you are referring to the nature of the world?

After posting the above, I went to search for your quotation in Tibetan and noted that rang bzhin was used throughout.  There was no reference to ngo bo:
de bzhin gshegs pa'i rang bzhin gang/
de ni 'gro 'di'i rang bzhin yin/
de bzhin gshegs pa rang bzhin med/
'gro ba 'di yi rang bzhin med /
If Nagarjuna when referring to the nature of the Tathagata used rang bzhin to mean ngo bo, wouldn't he have committed the fallacy of equivocation in the quotation?

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, I thought you were referring to how the term rang bzhin is used in Dzogchen as opposed to MMK. In this case, the former is prakRti and the latter is svabhAva.

As an aside, when the MMK was first translated into Tibetan in the 8th century, svabhāva was translated as ngo bo nyid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 12:15 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world;
as the Tathāgata has no nature, the world also has no nature.
-- Nāgārjuna, MMK.

Sherab said:
How would you align the meaning of nature used above with the definition of nature that you provided here: https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30257#p478030?

Malcolm wrote:
The former is svabhAva, the latter prakRti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:


Queequeg said:
You clearly do not have children.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but I do have the benefit of more than three full decades of observing many adult Buddhists and their growing children, and most children of most American Buddhists do not themselves become Buddhists, whether they are encouraged to or not. In fact, what I observe is that the children of those parents who let them just find Buddhism for themselves are the children who stick. The others go the "weird parent" route.

Queequeg said:
How about ethnic Tibetans?

Malcolm wrote:
They have the usual first-gen ambivalence towards the faith of their parents.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:


Queequeg said:
You clearly do not have children.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but I do have the benefit of more than three full decades of observing many adult Buddhists and their growing children, and most children of most American Buddhists do not themselves become Buddhists, whether they are encouraged to or not. In fact, what I observe is that the children of those parents who let them just find Buddhism for themselves are the children who stick. The others go the "weird parent" route.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: How does the Buddha eat?
Content:


Queequeg said:
My son has an analytical bent - a putative scientific outlook which we encourage, but of course I am wary of the conceits propagated by materialist approaches to science and their tendencies toward nihilism. There is a part of me that considers it might be necessary to exaggerate some aspects of the supernatural to counter these influences he will no doubt encounter through his education.

Malcolm wrote:
It is rare for children to follow parents into the Dharma. If he is interested, explain; if not, leave him alone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 8th, 2019 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Vaktar said:
And all wrong views aside, to disprove the "claim" (more like a friendly suggestion) that Atmavadis, or Christians, or Sufis, are pointing at the same moon as Dzogchenpas, you'd have to prove there was no moon where they were pointing.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no moon where they are pointing. They have never been able to show it, much less prove it.


Vaktar said:
And that's not possible in a Buddhist context, unless you can disprove the theory of Buddha-nature altogether.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world;
as the Tathāgata has no nature, the world also has no nature.

-- Nāgārjuna, MMK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 7th, 2019 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


Vaktar said:
The implied proposition is, what people are a calling "Atman" and so on--even if they do not understand what it is -- is what Dzogchen calls "mind nature". That is not so far-fetched. Take "mind nature" as metonymic for tsal, and the proposition is that much more plausible.

Malcolm wrote:
No, a) nonbuddhists do not have the view of dependent origination, b) they do not understand phenomena to be essenceless, and c) misidentification of the mind essence cannot be construed as an equivalence.

Vaktar said:
Or excuse me, in case it turns out Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche didn't  understand Dzogchen at all, or in any "real sense" that you might care to define it.

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty sure that Nyoshel Khnepo would not make such a claim.

Vaktar said:
And also, Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche expressed some other heretical views, for example, that practicing Vipassana could substitute for the traditional ngondro.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a heretical view at all. The 400 one hundred thousands is not a requirement for entering Dzogchen teachings.

Vaktar said:
So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, given that Shankara is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, it would be very surprising to learn of any so called khenpo of Dzogchen claiming that Atman was just a Hindu name for the mind essence. You yourself admit the idea does not even exist in their system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 7th, 2019 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Essence = nature, but emptiness ≠ clarity
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
They are not synonymous in the Western philosophical tradition.

Viach said:
This is not the case:  they are not translatable in principle, for the yogic terms are based on experience (yogic), but the terms of Western philosophy on thinking (even if deep). Therefore, even their non-synonymity does not allow making an adequate translation.

Malcolm wrote:
Essence and nature are not synonyms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 7th, 2019 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


Vaktar said:
For a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin.

Malcolm wrote:
I had a discussion with this person once. He rejects Dzogchen because, according to him, in Dzogchen there is dualistic appearance. He is right, of course, that Dzogchen does not negate dualistic appearances, it also does not affirm nondualism in the naive way in which everyone takes Dzogchen to be a nondualist tradition.


Vaktar said:
At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call..."Atman", or "God" and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
No. No one can study Dzogchen in a real sense and come away with this conclusion, since these propositions are strictly negated in Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 7th, 2019 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Essence = nature, but emptiness ≠ clarity
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Here's an article on Kant's usage: http://www.academia.edu/15156078/Kant_on_Essence_and_Nature

But of course the distinction predates Kant. Nor is Kant's distinction the only one: both terms, "essence" and "nature," have their history, and so does their difference (or, for that matter, identity). For a different take, read Spinoza's Ethics.

If you want to trace their development, you need to start with Plato and Aristotle and go through the scholastics into modernity -- but to be perfectly honest I do not think that it will get you any closer to understanding the difference between ngo-bo and rang-bzhin (if that is what you want, that is).

In the context of Dzogchen teachings, ngo-bo is called "essence" because in the Occident "essence" has often been used to denote either the main defining property of a thing or a being (that which makes it what it is, that which makes X X and not Y, the xness of an x) or even the substance of a thing or a being (that which it is made of or consists in) -- whereas rang-bzhin would be rendered as "nature" because "nature" has often been employed in the West to refer to what a thing or a being does because of its being what it is (or how a thing or a being can be known to be what it is).

A still greater oversimpliciation: the "essence" of a thing answers the question "What is it really?," whereas the "nature" answers such questions as "What does it do?," "What is it like?," "How does it behave?," etc.

A trained philosopher will be very unhappy at that point, but I think it might help you.

Malcolm wrote:
Ngo bo = svarūpa:

svarUpa	n. (ifc. f. %{A}) oñone's own form or shape , the fñfrom or shñshape of (gen. or comp. ; with or without %{zabdasya} or %{zabda-sva-r-} , `" a word itself or in its own form "' [opp. to its synonyms or varieties] ; with %{nAmnAm} = `" names themselves "') MBh. Pan5cat. BhP. &c. [1276,3] ; own condition , peculiarity , character , nature (%{eNa} or ibc. , `" by nature "' , `" in reality "' `" by itself "') RPra1t. Nr2isUp. Mn. &c. ; peculiar aim W. ; kind , sort ib. ; a partic. relation (in phil. see under %{sambandha}) MW. ; occurrence , event Campak. Uttamac. Sin6ha7s. ; mfn. having oñone's own peculiar form or character MW. ; having a like nature or charñcharacter , similar , like , S3a1m2khyak. (w.r. for %{sa-r-}) ; pleasing , handsome (for %{sa-r-}) L. ; wise , learned L. ; m. N. of a Daitya MBh. ; of a son of Su-nanda1 Ma1rkP. ; of a pupil of Caitanya W. ; m. or n. N. of a place Cat. ; (%{A}) f. N. of a place MW. ; %{-gata} mfn. endowed with oñone's own form or nature , having a like character W. ; %{-tas} ind. in oñone's own form BhP. ; according to oñone's own fñform , analogously , similarly , identically MW. ; by nature , in reality , by itself Ma1rkP. ; (%{-to} , %{godAna-prayogaH}N. of wk.) ; %{-tA} f. (or %{-tva} n.) the state of oñone's own form or nature (%{-tayA} , `" literally "' , `" in reality "') MBh. BhP. S3ak. Sch. Sa1h. ; the having a natural form , identity of form or nature W. ; w.r. for %{su-rUpa-tA} Ra1jat. ; %{-dhArin} mfn. having one's own form MBh. ; %{-nirUpaNa} n. %{-nirNaya} m. %{-prakAza} m. N. of wks. ; %{-bhAva} m. (a short word) whose essence is of the same efficacy (as that of the full form) Mn. ii , 124 ; %{-vat} mfn. having the form of (comp.) MBh. ; %{-sambandha-rUpa} n. %{-sambodhana} n. %{-sambodhana-paJca-viMzati-vRtti} f. %{--rUpA7khya-stotra} n. N. of wks. ; %{--rUpA7cArya} m. N. of a teacher Cat. ; %{--rUpA7nusaMdhAna} n. %{--rUpA7nusaMdhAna-stotra} n. N. of wks. ; %{--rUpA7siddhi} f. a form of non-proof (where the quality alleged to belong to a subject is not really proved) Tarkas. ; %{--rUpo7tpre7kSA} f. a kind of simile Sa1h. Kuval. ; %{--rUpo7paniSad} f. N. of an Upanishad.

Thus, the ngo bo, the essence, svarūpa, is related to sku, kāya.



Rang bzhin = prākṛt:

prAkRta	mf(%{A} , or %{I})n. (fr. %{pra-kRti}) original , natural , artless , normal , ordinary , usual S3Br. &c. &c. ; low , vulgar , unrefined Mn. MBh. &c. ; provincial , vernacular , Pra1kritic Vcar. ; (in Sa1m2khya) belonging to or derived from Prakr2iti or the original element ; (in astron.) N. of one of the 7 divisions of the planetary courses (according to Para1s3ara comprising the Nakshatras Sva1ti , Bharan2i1 , Rohin2i1 and Kr2ittika1) ; m. a low or vulgar man Mn. (viii , 338) MBh. &c. ; (with or scil. %{laya} , %{pralaya} &c.) resolution or reabsorption into Prakr2iti , the dissolution of the universe Pur. ; n. any provincial or vernacular dialect cognate with San6skr2it (esp. the language spoken by women and inferior characters in the plays , but also occurring in other kinds of literature and usually divided into 4 dialects , viz. S3auraseni1 , Ma1ha1ra1sht2ri , Apabhran6s3a and Pais3a1ci1) , Kav. Katha1s. Ka1vya7d. &c.

The rang bzhin, the nature, prākṛt is related to ye shes, pristine consciousness, jñāna, which is the original substance from which all phenomena are in fact composed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 7th, 2019 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Who, out of Rinpoches senior students, is knowledgeable about and practices Longde? Sure would be nice to get a little help now and again...

Malcolm wrote:
Clemente, Guarisco, Landsberg.

Fa Dao said:
cool..any of the three more accessible/open to helping than the others? and if so how can they be contacted?

Malcolm wrote:
You can get in touch with Tsegyalgar Gar, Landsberg lives in NYC.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Who, out of Rinpoches senior students, is knowledgeable about and practices Longde? Sure would be nice to get a little help now and again...

Malcolm wrote:
Clemente, Guarisco, Landsberg.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I’m thinking apotropeia of Ekajati isn’t just there for window dressing.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: Gampopa and Rechungpa?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that Jigten Sumgon got his training from Phagmo Drupa, as did the founder of Drukpa Kagyu.

conebeckham said:
Interestingly, the founder of the Drukpa was originally a Rechung Kagyu practitioner.  Even now, Rechungpa is important to the Drukpa, and there is apparently a terma of Rechungpa's became one of the prinicpal backbones of the Drukpa transmission.

Crazywisdom said:
They don’t say Drukpa Kagyu since a few years back. Just Drukpa.

Malcolm wrote:
That applies only the the followers of Drukchen, Other Drukpa Kagyus have no problem with the appellation "Kagyu."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Gampopa and Rechungpa?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The background to the OP is Drikung Kagyu. They are going with the Milarepa book of songs and basically canonizing it. So Rechungpa becomes the naughty boy to Mila just loved but wasn’t the bodhisattva disciple of the Buddha manifestation like Gampopa. In there Mila always have to teach Rechungpa lessons about one obstacle after another.

Malcolm wrote:
I would say more Dwagpo Kagyu, i.e., Phagmo Drupa.

Crazywisdom said:
Ha. Where’s their monastery?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that Jigten Sumgon got his training from Phagmo Drupa, as did the founder of Drukpa Kagyu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Gampopa and Rechungpa?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The background to the OP is Drikung Kagyu. They are going with the Milarepa book of songs and basically canonizing it. So Rechungpa becomes the naughty boy to Mila just loved but wasn’t the bodhisattva disciple of the Buddha manifestation like Gampopa. In there Mila always have to teach Rechungpa lessons about one obstacle after another.

Malcolm wrote:
I would say more Dwagpo Kagyu, i.e., Phagmo Drupa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Ahimsa at the Cozmic Café
Content:



Seeker12 said:
I guess I was just looking for clarification as to the distinction that you were making, and whether or not you can sort of 'essentialize' other things into being inherent in taking refuge, rather than somehow 'separate' vows.

Malcolm wrote:
The vows (samvara) are restraints, don't take life, etc.  A commitment is a promise. If one breaks a vow, one does not lose one's refuge; but if one break's one's promise, one loses one's refuge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
This Ekajati tantra. Is ChNN’s invocation matchy with this?

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN's invocation is his own terma. The khros ma nag mo rgyud should never be translated and made public.

Crazywisdom said:
Not even translated?

Malcolm wrote:
...made public. It does not have any Dzogchen in it, it is completely apotropaic in content.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 6th, 2019 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
This Ekajati tantra. Is ChNN’s invocation matchy with this?

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN's invocation is his own terma. The khros ma nag mo rgyud should never be translated and made public.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Ahimsa at the Cozmic Café
Content:
pemachophel said:
In the TB tradition, the first line is not to commit any sin (digpa). It doesn't say "harm." In the second line it says to to perform merit (gewa) perfectly. In the third line, it says to tame, discipline, or subdue (dulwa) one's mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Dge ba (kalyāṇa) is not merit, that is bsod nams (punya). Dge ba is the good, dge ba is normally translated as virtue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Gampopa and Rechungpa?
Content:
Grigoris said:
Rechungpa went on to found the Shamngpa Kagyu lineage...

Malcolm wrote:
No, Khyungpo Naljor founded the Shangpa Kagyu lineage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: Ahimsa at the Cozmic Café
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It must be pointed out that refraining from inflicting harm (avihimsa) is not a vow, per se, like the five precepts of a lay person and so on. It is a commitment one undertakes as a result of taking refuge in the Dharma.

Seeker12 said:
What else could you say the same of?

Malcolm wrote:
The commitment of refuge in the Buddha is to not accept nonbuddhist teachers as one’s own Teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Visions thread
Content:
Sherab Rigdrol said:
What happened to it? I was on page 5 and now I get this you aren’t authorized to read this forum message!! It was a great thread. WTF?!!

Malcolm wrote:
Easy come, easy go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Ahimsa at the Cozmic Café
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It must be pointed out that refraining from inflicting harm (avihimsa) is not a vow, per se, like the five precepts of a lay person and so on. It is a commitment one undertakes as a result of taking refuge in the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Are Bonpos vegetarian?
Content:
Grigoris said:
If this conversation goes in the direction of debate about the merits of vegetarianism/veganism I will shut it down and point people in the direction of https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=1374&hilit=the+great+vegetarian#p1374 to continue the debate.

Malcolm wrote:
good call...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 5th, 2019 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Are Bonpos vegetarian?
Content:



spaces said:
To Mr. Malcom:
That Buddha did not teach diet as a path of liberation is highly debatable. At least in "Food for Bodhisattvas" by Shakbar you can many citations, even by (that is academically debatable) Buddha Shakyamuni. E.g. Lankavatara Sutra (version with additional chapter). Even in Hinayana texts he obviously mentions that food should be pure in three ways. So, although is definitely not vegetarianism, he DID in fact teach some diet restriction and understood food restrictions as part of the path.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not even slightly debatable.

Why? If it were the case that diet was a factor in liberation, no one who ate meat would ever have attained liberation, let alone buddhahood, including the Buddha. Since many meat eaters have indeed attained liberation and even buddhahood, it is quite clear that the Buddhist path to liberation has nothing to do with what kind of food one puts in one's mouth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 4th, 2019 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Dudjom Namchak Pudri
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is a commentary on the general Vajrakilaya cycle written by Kenpo Achuk, a disciple of Dudjom R., who achieved rainbow body in the late 90's. However, it is still in cursive so relatively inaccessible.

CoconutMan said:
noted with thanks...
hopefully it will come out soon.

is there any other commentary which you think good for reading?

Malcolm wrote:
Bolt of Lightening from the Blue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 4th, 2019 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Which is the so called “Introductions Tantra”?

Malcolm wrote:
This list is slightly wrong. The Ekajati tantra (misdescribrd above as yogini) is not part of the 17.  So the ontroduction tantra is missing from this list.

Crazywisdom said:
Not the Mirror Heart of Vajrasattva?

rDo rje sems dpa’ snying gi me long gi rgyud ces bya ba

I read 21 intros there. Those are nice and clear. So, then let’s say there’s this sort of short cut of the 21 Yangti dharma here. very cool deal.

Malcolm wrote:
The tantra I am referrring to is called ngo sprod rin po che spras pa shing khams bstan pa’i rgyud in Tibetan, and The Tantra Which Shows the  Buddhafield of Preciously Adorned Introductions. It is the basis for all the intimate instructions of the 21 introduction which are found in most extensive terma cycles belonging to Dzogchen Nyinthig.

I am not sure if Wilkinson translated it yet, but it will be forthcoming in my volume of those of the 17 tantras which lack commentaries (so eight tantras, as the Self-Originated Perfection Tantra is mainly devoted to ancillary rituals and empowerment, and I have already published the rang shar and the rang grol).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 4th, 2019 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Which is the so called “Introductions Tantra”?

Malcolm wrote:
This list is slightly wrong. The Ekajati tantra (misdescribrd above as yogini) is not part of the 17.  So the ontroduction tantra is missing from this list.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 4th, 2019 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Are Bonpos vegetarian?
Content:
spaces said:
So if I am an absolute die-hard vegan, where can I find a master that would fit with my basic beliefs? P.S. Please don't preach that my attitude to master-student relationship is already wrong if I want to study with a vegetarian master.

Malcolm wrote:
Chinese Buddhism. Some of the Larung Gar Khenpos are very strict vegans. But the Buddha did not teach diet as a path of liberation.

Perhaps you would be better off studying with the Jains.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 3rd, 2019 at 11:23 AM
Title: Re: Relationship between Dzogchen tantras and Nyingthiks
Content:



Marc said:
Hi Malcolm,

Any specific holder of that lineage that comes to mind ?

Do you know how long it would approximately take for such a Lung to be transmitted ?
A few days ? A week ? More ?

May be could / should we try, as a virtual sangha, to make such a transmission happen...
It woud be such a source of merits...

Malcolm wrote:
It takes approximately 5 days for the lung of the 17 tantras. Any senior Nyingma Lama can grant this lung. Probably the best people to receive it from at present are Dzongsar Khyentse, Namkhai Nyingpo Rinpoche or Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche (who is actually a Kagyu master). This is not to exclude the many excellent lamas who can also give this lung, such as Khenchen Namdrol, etc.

PeterC said:
Malcolm - assuming it's not going to be easy to persuade a lama to spend five days doing the full lung, what's your view on the acceptability of other transmission methods for these texts - e.g. having a lama hit you over the head with them, or the Drikung Kagyu guru yoga that allows you to read anything?

That said I second the suggestion of arranging a proper lung. Would be of great benefit to many.

Malcolm wrote:
Pewang means you can read it; lung means you have received the transmission.  There are exceptions, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 3rd, 2019 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Dudjom Namchak Pudri
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is a commentary on the general Vajrakilaya cycle written by Kenpo Achuk, a disciple of Dudjom R., who achieved rainbow body in the late 90's. However, it is still in cursive so relatively inaccessible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 3rd, 2019 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Relationship between Dzogchen tantras and Nyingthiks
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Lung for the 17 tantras (as well as the Vima and Khandro Nyinthigs) still exists and is still transmitted.

Marc said:
Hi Malcolm,

Any specific holder of that lineage that comes to mind ?

Do you know how long it would approximately take for such a Lung to be transmitted ?
A few days ? A week ? More ?

May be could / should we try, as a virtual sangha, to make such a transmission happen...
It woud be such a source of merits...

Malcolm wrote:
It takes approximately 5 days for the lung of the 17 tantras. Any senior Nyingma Lama can grant this lung. Probably the best people to receive it from at present are Dzongsar Khyentse, Namkhai Nyingpo Rinpoche or Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche (who is actually a Kagyu master). This is not to exclude the many excellent lamas who can also give this lung, such as Khenchen Namdrol, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 3rd, 2019 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Relationship between Dzogchen tantras and Nyingthiks
Content:



Rinchen Sherab said:
Malcolm,
Are the 17 Tantras contained within the volumes of the Nyingtik Yabzhi?

Malcolm wrote:
No.



Rinchen Sherab said:
Also, while I'm at it: I am reading your introduction to the Rigpa Rangshar right now. Note 26 mentions that Rlung is routinely mistranslated as prana.  This is very interesting to me.  For years I've only ever heard tsa, lung, and tigle equals nadi, prana, and bindu in Sanskrit. Is this incorrect in the tsa lung context as well as in the Dzogchen context?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is incorrect in every context. It is properly: nāḍī, vāyu, and bindu.

Prāṇa is translated as srog. Thus, prāṇavāyu is translated into Tibetan as srog 'dzin rlung, i.e., life-sustaining vāyu.


Rinchen Sherab said:
I also have noticed the term prana used in the context of the 4 empowerments within ngondro practice texts (specifically connected with the 2nd empowerment). Should this be vayu across the board?  Very interesting indeed.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it should be vāyu across the board.

Rinchen Sherab said:
Thank you very much for your work. I deeply rejoice in your ongoing service to the teachings and beings and pray that you have good health, long life, and freedom from obstacles.

Malcolm wrote:
Thank you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Lhundrub
Content:
weitsicht said:
I wasn't addressed (neither in time nor in person) yet
let me refer to this quote, recommended for further reading
Since they cannot be separated,
kadag is the emptiness aspect of lhundrup;
and lhundrup is the form aspect of kadag.
https://vividness.live/2015/11/27/emptiness-form-and-dzogchen-ethics/

Malcolm wrote:
Lot of misconceptions in thus article, especially about Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Beginner in Mahamudra
Content:
Zolbec said:
Hey, guys. I'm actually more interested in Shamatha. At the moment, I am practicing the second 'level' (Internal object = Watching Thoughts). I want to move to the third 'level' (no object). That's why I'm interested in these two books. But then I wondered if that would require a teacher, or I could learn from a book. What is your opinion?

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot effectively learn any kind of meditation practice from books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Beginner in Mahamudra
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Hell, I've seen *you* casually recommend some instructions of the type in the book in posts on DW, knowing nothing of the posters background.

Malcolm wrote:
We do know something of the OP's background: beginner. A He wanted to know about these two books. One has nothing to do with mahāmudra.

When I recommend a book about something that requires transmission, I always emphasize this.

Finally, you don't know what I know and what I don't know about the people with whom I interact here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Beginner in Mahamudra
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
I think it's tremendously silly that someone is asking about a book which involves Shamatha/Vipaysana and people are talking as if it's a restricted sadhana or something, even with the distinction in the material of "Mahamudra vipaysana" etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Śamatha and vipaśyāna practiced according to the Mahāmudra tradition is qualitatively different than sūtra śamatha and vipaśyāna. The former depends on introduction and the latter does not.

passel said:
This book is not sutra mm, it's just sutra. Commentary on the Bhavanakramas.

Malcolm wrote:
The OP wanted to know about mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Beginner in Mahamudra
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
I think it's tremendously silly that someone is asking about a book which involves Shamatha/Vipaysana and people are talking as if it's a restricted sadhana or something, even with the distinction in the material of "Mahamudra vipaysana" etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Śamatha and vipaśyāna practiced according to the Mahāmudra tradition is qualitatively different than sūtra śamatha and vipaśyāna. The former depends on introduction and the latter does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Beginner in Mahamudra
Content:
passel said:
If you go w Thrangu's Practice of Tranquility and Insight, that's good too- it's actually not an mm book, it's on the standard sutra-style shamatha and vipasyana.


Zolbec said:
So can I practice the teachings of this book without a teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha attained full Buddhahood countless eons ago.

Seeker12 said:
Is that the case for all supreme Nirmanakayas such as Shakyamuni?

If so, where does the Mahayana path of the Bhumis culminating in the realization of Buddhahood fit in? Is Maitreya a fully awakened Buddha who is simply manifesting a show of Tushita, birth, etc?

Are there any beings who are not simple emanations of Buddhas but are instead 10th Bhumi Bodhisattvas? Do they then manifest the appearance of a supreme Nirmanakaya in the same manner, but somehow they are different than a pure emanation such as Gautama?

Malcolm wrote:
As for question one, yes; as for two, yes.

As for three, tenth stage bodhisattvas will never manifest supreme nirmanakāya when one has left a dispensation in the world. However, for all intents and purposes, tenth stage bodhisattvas are buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:



heart said:
Could be, I really don't know. But even Shakyamuni had to practice, right?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.

heart said:
Yeah maybe, but he did.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really. He made a display of seeking out teachers and engaging various disciplines to inspire others, that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.

Seeker12 said:
When you say this, is it from the perspective that Gautama was a 10th Bhumi Bodhisattva prior to his manifestation of unsurpassed awakening or that he was a perfect emanation beyond the Bhumis?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha attained full Buddhahood countless eons ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 1st, 2019 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
heart said:
Tulkus, I been told, have recognised the primordial pure ground but get slightly obscured by taking a body voluntarily and so have to again study and practice.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a real tulku. Real tulkus emanate from the dharmakāya and are omniscient.

This is referring to "blessed" tulkus, who at best are bodhisattvas on the stages.

heart said:
Could be, I really don't know. But even Shakyamuni had to practice, right?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
heart said:
Tulkus, I been told, have recognised the primordial pure ground but get slightly obscured by taking a body voluntarily and so have to again study and practice.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a real tulku. Real tulkus emanate from the dharmakāya and are omniscient.

This is referring to "blessed" tulkus, who at best are bodhisattvas on the stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.

so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?

tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.

it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base  again...

And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?

that's it, more or less clear.

Malcolm wrote:
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.

javier.espinoza.t said:
if an emanation of GP is so, then i'm asking that. I'm not wondering if higher -than the bhumis- realizations allows voluntary rebirth, but if a "cover" of nature occurs for it to happen, and if we all already under such "cover" then prior to that we must have had knowledge of uncovered basis meaning that we all are, in the real sense, perfect Buddhas and not only have an impure appeareance, but also that means that at some point we was in the primordial knowledge and then somehow after a voluntary rebirth we got stuck-conditioned.

Malcolm wrote:
Bodhisattvas on the impure stages have very strong traces for meeting the Dharma.When they take rebirth, the force of past realization causes them to enter the path and continue up to and beyond the realization they had before.

Emanations do not forget or need to re-realize anything, and this is also true of eight stage bodhisattvas and beyond. According to one account, a buddha is conscious when they die, in the womb, and during birth; a bodhisattva on the stages is conscious when they die, in the womb, but become unconscious at birth, while sentient beings are unconscious when the die, are in the womb, and at birth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:



javier.espinoza.t said:
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
Your question isn't clear.

Marc said:
Could there be a confusion between "recognizing" and what Javier calls "rediscovering" ?

@Javier:
The basis being precisely what was not known before, by definition, it cannot be re-discovered...  However, once the basis has been recognized there are of course, for most of us, distractions, and we must then remember again and again...
May be that is what you meant by "rediscovering" ?

javier.espinoza.t said:
to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.

so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?

tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.

it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base  again...

And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?

that's it, more or less clear.

Malcolm wrote:
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: red lion of speech Manjushri sadhana
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is red. You can find my translation of this sadhana at Light of Berotsana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:



javier.espinoza.t said:
But Malcolm, how is that for example a realized teacher is named tulku then? How can one show or teach the basis without realize it? And being realized, how is that birth is taken without get it "covered"?

Malcolm wrote:
Most tulkus are not nirmanakāyas. "Tulku" is a Tibetan custom, it is not essential. Most tulkus are not even realized, they are just ordinary people like you and I.

javier.espinoza.t said:
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?

Malcolm wrote:
Your question isn't clear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
They are sambhogakāya fields, in fact.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Haha now I'm even more in the dark. If they're actually sambhogakaya fields, why are they termed natural nirmanakaya fields? Can you say a little more about them, such as their features and the advantages of rebirth there that are particular to them?

Malcolm wrote:
If you happen to be born in one, one will attain buddhahood in five hundred human years.

They are called nirmanakāya because there are nirmanakāyas there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...or a natural nirmanakāya buddhafield.

Pema Rigdzin said:
I've heard this term in teachings, and in books, but I've never sought an explanation of precisely what this means. It specifically says "natural" nirmanakaya buddhafield, which would seem to distinguish them from some other kind of nirmanakaya buddhafield. Could you please you expand upon this, Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
They are sambhogakāya fields, in fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
The basis once rediscovered seems perfect (whatever perfect mean) but ¿how can it be covered and then discovered over and over? ¿How is this play possible?l

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is not rediscovered. It is called "the basis" because it is something that one has not realized.

javier.espinoza.t said:
But Malcolm, how is that for example a realized teacher is named tulku then? How can one show or teach the basis without realize it? And being realized, how is that birth is taken without get it "covered"?

Malcolm wrote:
Most tulkus are not nirmanakāyas. "Tulku" is a Tibetan custom, it is not essential. Most tulkus are not even realized, they are just ordinary people like you and I.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 31st, 2018 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Where can i find a concise explanation of how and why the base arises from the base?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood in this Life, topics one and two.

Lukeinaz said:
It seems the all basis (not sure what you are calling this and have yet to discover in Buddhahood) would be superfluous if all samsara and nirvana already arise from the generic basis.

Malcolm wrote:
The all-basis ( ālaya, kun gzhi ) is just a name for the imputing ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
The basis once rediscovered seems perfect (whatever perfect mean) but ¿how can it be covered and then discovered over and over? ¿How is this play possible?l

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is not rediscovered. It is called "the basis" because it is something that one has not realized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:



javier.espinoza.t said:
What you mean when you mention "realizing", you talk of realizing as if it is some sort of builded achievement?

Josef said:
The third statement of Garab Dorje. Full integration. Total realization.

javier.espinoza.t said:
To realize means to become aware of, and even if one cant force realizing nature it is not a self occurring thing either, is it?

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen texts there are three stages generally described: recognition, realization, and liberation.

Some people think the third statement means full integration, but it does not. It means that the practitioner can continue in the confidence of liberation because they have previously decided one thing. Continuing in the confidence of liberation means that one has true knowledge of one's primordial state and therefore, with this knowledge, one's liberation is no longer in issue in terms of inevitability, it is only an issue of whether it occurs in this life, the time of death, the bardo, or a natural nirmanakāya buddhafield.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life Transmission: 09/15/17
Content:
Queequeg said:
Is Sri Simha who was Vimalamitra's ordination master the same Simha decapitated by the king of Damila?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen teacher in Bon tradition
Content:
spaces said:
Mr. tatpurusa - If I only could go to Europe. If I only could. But I can't and getting visa is difficult for me. But I sympathize with your words - everything can be Dzogchen with proper attitude. But where to find the transmission of that attitude? I will try, that's what I least can, try. Speaking about it brings emotions in us. Sarva Mangalam, my friends true religion knows no opposite.

Malcolm wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about, since you have yet to meet a teacher, train, and study these teachings in a proper way. You cannot understand Dzogchen from books (which you are not in any case qualified to read). Your inability to meet a proper teacher and follow their instructions to the letter, no matter what they tell you to do, also indicates you are not a suitable candidate for this level of instruction. You really should just stick with Sutrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen teacher in Bon tradition
Content:


spaces said:
So, if that's true, your're contradicting your argument - that I am not ready to receive Dzogchen teachings. Why? Because you yourself, sir, confirmed that Dzogchen emerged outside of creation stage, treating it as optional. Therefore pure Dzogchen existed, according to your words, even if only "pure" as unnecessarily supported by creation stage/conceptions etc. So if it existed that way, why in our times I should be constrained in abilities to follow it by necessity of following traditional way: ngodro, creation stage etc.? It's self contradictory.
Don't take it personally. All this discussion is unimportant really.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not confirm that that Dzogchen emerged "outside" of the creation stage. I confirmed that the  milieu in which Dzogchen arose regarded the creation stage as optional, meaning that it was not necessary for everyone. For whom is the creation stage not necessary, according to those who belonged to this milieu? Those who immediately understood the meaning and were liberation through that understanding. Everyone else was recommended to practice the indirect approach, as Mañjuśṛīmitra states:

Furthermore, since the teacher has declared that awakening can be correctly grasped with a symbol,
in that case, this is the basis of the meditation that generates awakened mind. 
After the three samadhis are stable and after binding the three symbolic mudras, 
generate the mind as the great dharmamudra and meditate the recitation of the essence [mantra].

"Optional" does not mean deciding that you want salad instead of fries with your burger. "Optional" means that if one does not wake up immediately into full buddhahood through receiving Dzogchen transmissions, there are many practices with which one works with concepts to overcome concepts, like the creation and completion stages, and various other kinds of preliminary practices in Dzogchen such as yogas that work with vāyu, conceptual analysis, and so on. These are options of which the practitioner can avail themselves. BTW, your allergy to conceptual practices is entirely conceptual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Where can i find a concise explanation of how and why the base arises from the base?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood in this Life, topics one and two.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of ka dag: shared and unshared. The first is the emptiness free from extremes. The second kind is the path of trekchö.

Thomas Amundsen said:
Loppon, what does this mean? Does "shared" refer to being shared with common Mahayana?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that the first is shared with Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 30th, 2018 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
In KB's book he makes a few mentions of how Samantabhadra and the aspiration prayer can be viewed as an aspiration prayer of mind's own nature - "primordial rigpa" - "to recognize itself, its own face, or its own essence, which is nothing other than perfect buddhahood, or the dharmakaya."

If this is accurate, does that mean the rigpa of every sentient being has this prayer at heart and thus, eventually, all sentient beings will become enlightened?

Malcolm wrote:
The Aspiration of Great Power is a liberation through hearing text. The context of the aspiration is that all sentient beings have the same basis for either recognizing or not recognizing the nature of the mind, and thus, either waking up or not waking up.

It explains how the energy of delusion-based afflictions can become the energy of knowledge-based qualities through recognizing the innate nature of this or that affliction to be a pristine consciousness, thus purifying the associated realm (hell realm, etc.).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 29th, 2018 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen teacher in Bon tradition
Content:
spaces said:
Hello,

Anybody knows how I can find authentic Bon teacher who gives complete transmission of Dzogchen without prerequisite of Tantra practice?
Lopon Tenzin Namdak have that attitude. But is he giving any teaching to westerners anymore? If yes, where I can find him or other teachers who teach Dzogchen openly without requiring their students to undergo tantra? In Nepal maybe? Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
You will be happier practicing Chan, Zen, or Sūtra Mahāmudra. Secret mantra in general, of which Dzogchen is a part, is clearly not for you. You are not a suitable student to receive or practice Secret Mantra because you have too many concepts and will not follow a guru's instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 29th, 2018 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen outside of Tantra
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
GGT belongs to the Ati class.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really doesn’t. But we do not need to rehash that here.

Crazywisdom said:
See the sig. You’re rolling down a one-way street, selling one flavor of ice cream.

Malcolm wrote:
You do not understand the context of Longchenpa's classification system. For example, in the Shing rta chen mo, when he analyzes, mahāyoga, he says:


The Śṛī Guhysamāja, Mañjuśr̄i Yamantaka, etc. are the yoga tantras called "mahāyoga." These principally teach the creation stage, the aspect of method, and their completion stage is vāyu. Saṃsiddhi (yang dag), Vajrakīlaya, Cakrasamvara, Hevajra, and so on, are wisdom or mother tantras, called "anuyoga." These principally teach the wisdom and the completion stage. Also with respect to the completion stage, since they employ the bindu of the bodhicitta element, they assert [the completion stage to be] the pristine consciousness of nonconceptual bliss and emptiness. The nondual tantras are Mahāmayajala tantras and so on, called "Atiyoga." They principally teach the union of creation and completion, the essence of inseparable method and wisdom. Their completion stage is asserted to be the great pristine consciousness of bliss, clarity, nonconceptuality, and unconceivable luminosity that is arises from nāḍīs, vāyu, and bindu.

We understand that he is classifying the Guhyagarbha within Mahāyoga, because he says:

Within mahāyoga tantras, [mahā] mahā emphasizes vaȳu, the creation stage, and method. [Mahā] anu emphasizes the element, completion stage, and wisdom. [Mahā]ati emphasizes that everythiing is nondual pristine consciousness. Further, all phenmoena are uniform from the start. Practice by recognizing this to be so.

Further, in the Treasury of Philosophical Positions, the five early lungs of translated by Vairocana, the thirteen lungs translated by Vimalamitra, the Kun byed rgyal po, the rmad du byung ba and the mdo bcu are mentioned, but no mention of Guhyagarbha. A number of klong sde tantras are mentioned, and a whole slew of intimate instruction series tantras are mentioned, but there is no mention at all of the Guhyagarbha. With respect to the unsurpassed secret cycle, the seventeen tantras are mentioned, as well as their ancillary literature, but there is no mention of the Guhyagarbha at all. Thus, there is no evidence for you assertion that the Guhyagarbha is to be accepted as an ati ati level tantra, let alone a tantra of the unsurpassed secret cycle. There are a whole number of reasons why this is so, and I am quite sure that Khen Rinpoche would be in accord with my perspective on this, since it is in fact Longchenpa's own perspective.

Further, in the Ngal skor gsum as well as the Treasury of Philosophical Positions, the Vajrasattvamayajala tantras are listed as belonging to the mind tantras that form part of mahāyoga, with the root tantra of all mahāyoga tantras listed as Guhyasamāja. But no where, in any list of atiyoga tantras, apart from the mahā ati division of mahāyoga, is the Guhyagarbha mentioned in any list of tantras.

Thus, while it is true that Longchenpa wrote his commentary on the Guhyagarbha from the perspective of general Ati yoga on the basis of the Rosary of Views by Guru Rinpoche, and the commentary on the Guhyagarbha authored by Suryasimaphrabha (a very interesting text), he did not consider the text in and of itself a tantra belonging the 6.4 million slokas of the Great Perfection taught by Garab Dorje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 28th, 2018 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen outside of Tantra
Content:


spaces said:
But is there anyone teaching it in it's pure form nowadays? I made distinction between Tantra and Dzogchen as it is historically-provable distinction.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not so, from a text critical POV. The earliest, datable text we possess that uses the term “Dzogchen” is the Guhyagarbha, a tantra belonging to the mahayoga class.

What we can say for sure is that what we today call Dzogchen emerged out of a movement in 8th century that regarded the creation stage as optional.

Crazywisdom said:
GGT belongs to the Ati class.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really doesn’t. But we do not need to rehash that here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 28th, 2018 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen outside of Tantra
Content:


spaces said:
But is there anyone teaching it in it's pure form nowadays? I made distinction between Tantra and Dzogchen as it is historically-provable distinction.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not so, from a text critical POV. The earliest, datable text we possess that uses the term “Dzogchen” is the Guhyagarbha, a tantra belonging to the mahayoga class.

What we can say for sure is that what we today call Dzogchen emerged out of a movement in 8th century that regarded the creation stage as optional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 27th, 2018 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:
ford_truckin said:
How hard is it these days to find a trustworthy guru?

Malcolm wrote:
Lineage heads make good starter lamas.

ford_truckin said:
Any lineage heads that give teachings on a regular basis in North America?

Malcolm wrote:
His holiness Sakya Trichen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 27th, 2018 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:



Dharmaswede said:
One of my teachers told me you run a greater risk of damaging your nervous system with wrathful Yidams if you practice beyond your capacity, such as in retreat. The energy being more 'agitative'.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a vacuous assertion.

Pero said:
Why?

Malcolm wrote:
This kind of statement is found nowhere in the tantras, etc. It is a ridiculous assertion meant to intimidate people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB
Content:
bhava said:
What are common points and differences in the way mind essence is introduced (how the recognition is further developed) in tibetan buddhism and in advaita vedanta system?

Malcolm wrote:
Advaita and Buddhadharma have nothing in common at all, apart from a shared theory that suffering is a result of afflictions. Their respective solutions to this problem are like the difference between night and day, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:
ford_truckin said:
1. What would be some of the pros and cons for practicing with a wrathful deity?

Dharmaswede said:
One of my teachers told me you run a greater risk of damaging your nervous system with wrathful Yidams if you practice beyond your capacity, such as in retreat. The energy being more 'agitative'.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a vacuous assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
They are not using different originals, GD's thesis is the word by word commentary.

We definitely disagree.

Crazywisdom said:
The mantras don’t match up, transliteration schemes notwithstanding, the bija don’t match. So I know there are different source texts for this. Then, the books notwithstanding, KN re wrote the book via oral transmission, by that I mean the arrangement of the mandala don’t match either book, among others. Or GD has some big errors, not sure if a lama helped him.
GD is calling one of the seats a Bull and SK/KN is calling it an elephant. Maybe GD meant bull elephant. But don’t know how one mixes the two up. Further evidence of alternative sources.

Malcolm wrote:
The word for elephant and ox/bull are nearly the same in Tibetan. This is an easy error to make in translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Theravada and Bodhicitta
Content:



Marc said:
Hi Malcolm,
Could you please expand a bit on that point ?
Many thanks in advance
Marc

Malcolm wrote:
For example, a śrāvaka bhikṣu is prohibited from handling gold, a bodhisattva bhikṣu is not. A śrāvaśrāvakaka bhikṣu is not prohibited from eating meat (pure in three ways), a bodhisattva bhikṣu is.

Marc said:
Thx Malcolm. Do you happen to know of any text that goes into a detailed comparison of śrāvakayana vinaya vs. mahayana vinaya ?


Malcolm wrote:
There is a text in the Ratnakuta collection translated by Garma cc Chang which details this, it is also the same Sūtra that is the source of the thirty five Buddha’s of confession. Sapan also spends some time on this issue in his three vows text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Having trouble pasting, but KN and GD don’t match. They’re using different originals. He says, Ati of Maha. As well manifold Ati.

Atiyoga in this context, the main emphasis is on the Maha aspect of Ati as well as the Ati of Maha.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not using different originals, GD's thesis is the word by word commentary.

We definitely disagree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
I don’t agree with that. He’s saying the completion stage culminates in a dark retreat which culminates in a rahu mandala and all the visions unfold naturally up to great perfection vidhyadhara. Specifically in Ch 15 the wrathful mandala places it in the unsurpassed secret.

Malcolm wrote:
It is possible to clarify the lower by means of the higher, but one cannot elevate the lower to the higher. As for the dark practice recommended in this passage, it is based on the Kalacakra approach of the saḍaṅgayoga, not the dark practice of the Great Perfection. Why? Because it mentions the five signs, etc., fireflies, butterlamps, etc.

As for your contention, no, this chapter does not place place the tantra in the unsurpassed secret cycle, and Longchenpa himself would never make such a claim.

Why? There are two faults here: one, the teaching that the deities exist in the body with faces and hands a) does not go beyond mahāyoga in general; and with respect to the outer, inner, secret, and unsurpassed secret cycles, this assertion belongs to the secret cycle, not the unsurpassed secret cycle.

Crazywisdom said:
I’m sure he did make this claim and so did Khenpo Namdrol. The Kalacakra is not the only place these signs are described, also the Guhyasamaja. He is not saying the deities abide as faces and hands but as bindis of light like mustard seeds in the crown. This is the all-in-one tantra that covers all the bases.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Longchenpa never made this claim in the text of the commentary itself.

As for the signs under discussion, they are rejected in Dzogchen as being mental phenomena, not phenomena of pristine consciousness. You can consult Dudjom R's big red book on this point.

There isn't even a single mention of the topics of the unsurpassed secret cycle, let alone the four bindu cycles, the three series, etc. There are only one or two mentions of the Great Perfection in the root tantra. Commenting on this tantra from a Great Perfection perspective does not make it a great perfection tantra. It is a mahāyoga tantra being commented upon from a Nyinthig POV. Someone who never encountered Nyinthig would have no idea Longchenpa is talking about in this commentary at all. Mipham states:
Because this tantra is classified as the
Ati or highest division of Mahayoga. it is essentially
identical to the Maha classification of Atiyoga, among the
three divisions of the Great Perfection. For in the secret
Great Perfection there are three categories of teaching,
namely that which reveals the mandala in which creation &
perfection are indivisible and mind & pristine cognition are
manifest in themselves, that which reveals mind-as-such to
be the natural expression of primordial buddhahood without
regard for creation or perfection. and that which reveals
pristine cognition in its essence. manifesting in and of
itself as the nature of buddhahood. them. this
exposition sccords with the first.
-- Gyurme Dorje's thesis.


In other words, what is being claimed here is that when Mahāyoga is subdivided, there is mahā mahā, mahā anu, and mahā ati. And within Ati, there is ati mahā; ati anu, and ati ati.

Clearly, this commentary is commenting from the point of view of the indivisible creation and, with an emphasis on the completion stage. I think you have slightly misunderstood Longchenpa's meaning and purpose here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
His commentary on Ch 13 was not meant to be introductory, it’s the completion stage hidden section on clear light. Longchenpa elevated this tantra to be on par with any other Ati tantra

Malcolm wrote:
No. This is not possible to do. The Guhyagarbha does not belong to the unsurpassed secret cycle. For example, one can also comment on the Mañjuśrināmasaṃgīti from the POV Dzogchen Yangti or Kalacakra, but still, the Mañjuśrināmasaṃgīti is a Cāryayoga tantra.

Crazywisdom said:
I don’t agree with that. He’s saying the completion stage culminates in a dark retreat which culminates in a rahu mandala and all the visions unfold naturally up to great perfection vidhyadhara. Specifically in Ch 15 the wrathful mandala places it in the unsurpassed secret.

Malcolm wrote:
It is possible to clarify the lower by means of the higher, but one cannot elevate the lower to the higher. As for the dark practice recommended in this passage, it is based on the Kalacakra approach of the saḍaṅgayoga, not the dark practice of the Great Perfection. Why? Because it mentions the five signs, etc., fireflies, butterlamps, etc.

As for your contention, no, this chapter does not place place the tantra in the unsurpassed secret cycle, and Longchenpa himself would never make such a claim.

Why? There are two faults here: one, the teaching that the deities exist in the body with faces and hands a) does not go beyond mahāyoga in general; and with respect to the outer, inner, secret, and unsurpassed secret cycles, this assertion belongs to the secret cycle, not the unsurpassed secret cycle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Black fringe
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Black Fringe, because we all need to add more Tibetan gear for our practice...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Theravada and Bodhicitta
Content:
fckw said:
I don't think that the term "Hinayana" actually qualifies for today's Therevada. I believe there are actually no schools left that really qualify for Hinayana.


Malcolm wrote:
The second basis is training: what is permissible for a śrāvaka is prohibited for a bodhisattva, and what is prohibited for a śrāvaka is permissible for a bodhisattva.

Marc said:
Hi Malcolm,
Could you please expand a bit on that point ?
Many thanks in advance
Marc

Malcolm wrote:
For example, a śrāvaka bhikṣu is prohibited from handling gold, a bodhisattva bhikṣu is not. A śrāvaka bhikṣu is not prohibited from eating meat (pure in three ways), a bodhisattva bhikṣu is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Doesn’t explain why he place pith instructions on the four visions of togal in the peaceful mandala. He’s also refuting Ronzom.

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to Rongzom, Longchenpa says his opinion is irrelevant in one place, incorrect in another, and mentions him positively twice, amounting to four mentions, none of this amounts to a serious refutation. Longchenpa's commentary clearly depends on Rongzom's.

With respect to the description of the four visions, this description is not sufficient for practicing thogal. It is merely given in order to clarify certain points with respect to the completion stage from Longchenpa' Nyinthig perspective.

Crazywisdom said:
His commentary on Ch 13 was not meant to be introductory, it’s the completion stage hidden section on clear light. Longchenpa elevated this tantra to be on par with any other Ati tantra

Malcolm wrote:
No. This is not possible to do. The Guhyagarbha does not belong to the unsurpassed secret cycle. For example, one can also comment on the Mañjuśrināmasaṃgīti from the POV Dzogchen Yangti or Kalacakra, but still, the Mañjuśrināmasaṃgīti is a Cāryayoga tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:



Crazywisdom said:
Well. I guess Longchenpa refuted the Mahayoga only rendition of Guhyagarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not so much that he refuted it, he chose to emphasize in his commentary a Dzogchen sems sde perspective on the Guhyagarbha, following the system of Rongzom, rather than that of Zur.

Crazywisdom said:
Doesn’t explain why he place pith instructions on the four visions of togal in the peaceful mandala. He’s also refuting Ronzom.

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to Rongzom, Longchenpa says his opinion is irrelevant in one place, incorrect in another, and mentions him positively twice, amounting to four mentions, none of this amounts to a serious refutation. Longchenpa's commentary clearly depends on Rongzom's.

With respect to the description of the four visions, this description is not sufficient for practicing thogal. It is merely given in order to clarify certain points with respect to the completion stage from Longchenpa' Nyinthig perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:



Crazywisdom said:
Well, that is one way. Another way according to the wrathful mandala itself is the 20 wrathful female deities constitute all that.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN was talking about this not from a Mahāyoga POV, ala Guhyagabhra, but rather, Anuyoga, i.e., Zhitro. In Mahāyoga the peaceful and wrathful deities are separate mandalas with separate sadhanas and separate empowerments. In anuyoga, this is not the case.

Crazywisdom said:
Well. I guess Longchenpa refuted the Mahayoga only rendition of Guhyagarbha.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not so much that he refuted it, he chose to emphasize in his commentary a Dzogchen sems sde perspective on the Guhyagarbha, following the system of Rongzom, rather than that of Zur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
I think must be his own upadesha. I’ve not see. That distinction in other terma. If someone knows better that’s helps.

Malcolm wrote:
The peaceful deities, located in the heart, are related to the eight consciousnesses. The wrathful deities, located in the brain, are related to the sense organs.

Crazywisdom said:
Well, that is one way. Another way according to the wrathful mandala itself is the 20 wrathful female deities constitute all that.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN was talking about this not from a Mahāyoga POV, ala Guhyagabhra, but rather, Anuyoga, i.e., Zhitro. In Mahāyoga the peaceful and wrathful deities are separate mandalas with separate sadhanas and separate empowerments. In anuyoga, this is not the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 25th, 2018 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
I think must be his own upadesha. I’ve not see. That distinction in other terma. If someone knows better that’s helps.

Malcolm wrote:
The peaceful deities, located in the heart, are related to the eight consciousnesses. The wrathful deities, located in the brain, are related to the sense organs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 25th, 2018 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Theravada and Bodhicitta
Content:
fckw said:
I don't think that the term "Hinayana" actually qualifies for today's Therevada. I believe there are actually no schools left that really qualify for Hinayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it does. You have to understand the basis for defining a "Hinayāna" in order to understand why this is applicable to the "eighteen schools."

The first basis is the difference in bodhicitta and qualifications for who may aspire to full buddhahood. In Hinayāna schools, the bodhicitta is arhat or pratyekabodhicitta, that is, the wish to attain the stated of awakening of an arhat or pratyekabuddha.

In Theravada, the only people who can generate the bodhicitta for full, perfect buddhahood are those who have been predicted by Gautama Buddha, and who are male.

Mahāyāna, the aspiration is for full buddhahood, and this can be adopted at any time by anyone.

The second basis is training: what is permissible for a śrāvaka is prohibited for a bodhisattva, and what is prohibited for a śrāvaka is permissible for a bodhisattva.

The third basis is emptiness: the Buddha, in the Agamas and Nikayas, did not fully explicated emptiness. Emptiness is only fully explicated in Mahāyāna sūtras.

The fourth basis is the path: the Hinayāna path is the eightfold path, whereas the Mahāyāna path is the path of the six or ten perfections. While the Theravada school borrowed the perfections from Mahāyāna, they are not practiced with full buddhahood in mind.

The fifth basis is differences in method and compassion: the Buddha did not explicate the profound Mahāyāna skillful means nor nonreferential compassion in the Agamas and Nikayas, so these teachings and their corresponding practices are absent in Theravada.

There are many more differences than can be discussed, but this list will already engender unhappy responses, so I will leave it here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 25th, 2018 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: CBD oil
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
It disturbs the fire element for me and makes me cold. I go into severe shivers that feel like being in shock.

Malcolm wrote:
That’s actually a disturbance of wind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 24th, 2018 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Reaching Eagle Peak
Content:
The Cicada said:
It's translated as "Eagle Peak...

Malcolm wrote:
Probably not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 24th, 2018 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Reaching Eagle Peak
Content:
The Cicada said:
Does chant the daimoku guarantee that a practitioner will reach Eagle Peak upon their death? If not, then what conditions must met according to Nichiren? What actions will definitely prevent this reunion with Lord Shakya?

Malcolm wrote:
It is Gṛdhrakūṭaparvata, Vulture Head Mountain, not Eagle Peak. Kūṭa literally means "heap," but in this case, it is a simile for head. Gṛdhra means vulture, as well as greedy, probably in reference to the way vultures compete for food, leading to the Sanskrit metaphor, gṛdhrāṇa, "greedy as a vulture."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: According to the Prasangika, what is wrong with statement that the two truths are two ways of looking at one object?
Content:
prsvrnc said:
According to the Prasangika, what is wrong with statement that the two truths are two ways of looking at one object?  Jeffrey Hopkins in "Meditation on Emptiness" says that the assertion that the two truths are two ways of looking at one object is a false statement and a misunderstanding of the Prasangika.

Malcolm wrote:
Than Candrakīrti also misunderstood Prasaṅga:

Because all entities may be seen veridically or nonveridically, 
all entities bear two natures.

prsvrnc said:
Why can't we call these two ways of ascertaining objects be two ways of looking at one object?

Malcolm wrote:
Good question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Is there no contradiction here?
Content:
Viach said:
On the one hand, after enlightenment, Buddha doubted for several weeks whether to preach the dharma(Four Noble Truths) comprehended by him, calling it deep. And then he preached it to the five cool yogis, his fellow yoga practitioners. On the other hand, today FNT is set out by modern teachers at the very first introductory lessons for beginners. Is there no contradiction here?

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not the Dharma the Buddha had doubts about teaching. What he had doubt about teaching was whether he could teach the ambrosial Dharma he had realized—profound, immaculate, luminous, and uncompounded.

Because he could not teach this directly, he taught a path whereby people could realize this for themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Is there no contradiction here?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I believe the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha are of great depth, and that they represent all that ever needs to be understood.

Malcolm wrote:
It is certainly the case that all Dharma teachings, including Dzogchen, are included in the 4NT, but the understanding of the 4NT gets more subtle and profound as one moves up through the yānas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 12:50 PM
Title: Re: Confronting Mortality
Content:
The Cicada said:
What activities and practices should be undergone by someone confronting their mortality such as 1) a terminally sick person, 2) a soldier being sent to war, or 3) a prisoner awaiting execution? Asking here to get a wide range of responses from those of different lineages.

Malcolm wrote:
Look at the Wisdom at the Time of Death Sutra. It pretty much spells out how any Mahayana practitioner should die.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 11:25 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:
ford_truckin said:
How hard is it these days to find a trustworthy guru?

Malcolm wrote:
Lineage heads make good starter lamas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Does it matter if you reveal your yidam?
Content:
mechashivaz said:
What about pictures of yidams as art appreciation? If you don't have an empowerment for the yidam would it break samaya to "show it off"? I prefer to err on the side of caution but I see it happening often.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 23rd, 2018 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: New US Law Against China for Travel Restrictions to Tibet
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Interesting

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/world/asia/trump-china-tibet.html

amanitamusc said:
This is the strongest measure coming from US  that I know of.

Malcolm wrote:
And toothless nevertheless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 22nd, 2018 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Lam Rim Discussion: Part 1
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Lamrim is a specific presentation of all of Buddha's teachings that originates from the great Indian Master Atisha in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. It is true that later masters from different traditions wrote commentaries which clarified the meaning of Atisha's presentation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so that makes it a kind of literary presentation.

For example, Lamdre is the Sakyapa explanation of the path which originates with the Mahasiddha Virupa, and it contains the entire explanation of path of both sūtra and tantra— soup to nuts— with nothing missing. So, I don't see how anyone can claim Lamrim is superior to Lamdre.

Also, Lamrim without Sngags rim is not complete. This is why Tsongkhapa wrote two texts, not only one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 22nd, 2018 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oppression is oppression. Doesn't matter who does it to whom.

Grigoris said:
While this is true, the point is that it was not trying to overthrow oppression, it was just trying to replace one oppressive class (or system of oppression) with another.

Malcolm wrote:
Not from the point of view of the American colonies themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 22nd, 2018 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
conebeckham said:
Although you could argue KonChok Chidu (or even LaDrup Tigle Gyachen) are not yidam practices, in some sense they are Lama practices that function as yidam practices, and both of these definitely have Togal as well.   Konchok Chidu has everything, soup to nuts...

dechenpa said:
This is true but according to Tsewang Norbu's instructions, trekcho nor togal are not part of the Konchok Chidu development or completion stage, as OP asked. They are separate practices. Development, completion, trekcho and togal are the 'four vajras' of Konchok Chidu.

conebeckham said:
Ah, yes, that's a good point esp. in relation to the OP's question, now that I see it.
Probably not the place to talk about the unique completion state of KonChok ChiDu here....


Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking, when including Dzogchen instructions in creation and completion, it is just fine to include them in the completion stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Definitive Teachings
Content:
ford_truckin said:
Discussion split from https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=475954#p475954


Yes, It seems like every guru/lama has a different opinion on this or that. With theravada you can go directly to the source (pali canon) and get a definitive answer.

Malcolm wrote:
About some things shared with Hinayāna, but not other things.

ford_truckin said:
Examples?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness, the bodhisattva path, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The union nearly fell apart over slavery after the war. I think it is fairly safe to say that the Revolution was fought to eliminate oppression.

Grigoris said:
English oppression.  Or English Royal oppression.

Malcolm wrote:
Oppression is oppression. Doesn't matter who does it to whom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The union nearly fell apart over slavery after the war. I think it is fairly safe to say that the Revolution was fought to eliminate oppression.

Grigoris said:
English oppression.  Or English Royal oppression.

Kim O'Hara said:
Indeed.
They found the prospect of paying taxes oppressive.
https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution

revolution.png

Kim

Malcolm wrote:
There were any number of inequities to which the Colonies objected, leading to the Declaration of Independence:
"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

"He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

"He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

"He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

"For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
So, the American Revolution was about far more than taxes


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Wrathful deities
Content:
ford_truckin said:
1. What would be some of the pros and cons for practicing with a wrathful deity?

2. Does one achieve quicker progress with them as opposed to peaceful deities?

3. Are wrathful deities suited more for people who possess deeper afflictions?

Malcolm wrote:
1. No cons, only pros.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Queequeg said:
Just to put this in practical terms - isn't chattel slavery a form of oppression? How was it not condoned in the Revolution?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is a form of oppression.

The American Revolution did not take place in order to defend slavery as an institution. The vast majority of American soldiers who fought in the Revolution were from New England.

Attitudes towards slavery in Massachusetts, for example, where quite jaundiced and by 1790 there were no slaves in Massachusetts as a result of case law (Walker v. Jennison and Commonwealth v. Jennison). Slavery was abolished ouright in Vermont in 1777. Connecticut began an emancipation process in 1784. Rhode Island abolished slavery in the 17th century, however the legislation was ignored. However, in 1794, it passed a manumission act which led the eventual ending of slavery in that state.

The first and second Continental Armies were composed largely of troops from the New England states. It was only in the third Continental Army where each state was required to send one battalion. Ten percent of the Continental Army was freed slaves.

Queequeg said:
Right.

My impression was that there was more or less a sense in New England that slavery would be tolerated for the sake of getting all the colonies on board but that it would come to a head some day. Is that condoning? Maybe we're splitting hairs at this point.

Malcolm wrote:
The union nearly fell apart over slavery after the war. I think it is fairly safe to say that the Revolution was fought to eliminate oppression.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:



Pema Rigdzin said:
Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're saying yes and no to exactly. Could you briefly clarify?

Malcolm wrote:
In Troma, there is a special Guru Rinpoche guru yoga one practices in connection with those practices.

Crazywisdom said:
That must be part of the longer sadhana

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is an entirely separate practice. The liturgy is quite short.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Queequeg said:
Just to put this in practical terms - isn't chattel slavery a form of oppression? How was it not condoned in the Revolution?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is a form of oppression.

The American Revolution did not take place in order to defend slavery as an institution. The vast majority of American soldiers who fought in the Revolution were from New England.

Attitudes towards slavery in Massachusetts, for example, where quite jaundiced and by 1790 there were no slaves in Massachusetts as a result of case law (Walker v. Jennison and Commonwealth v. Jennison). Slavery was abolished ouright in Vermont in 1777. Connecticut began an emancipation process in 1784. Rhode Island abolished slavery in the 17th century, however the legislation was ignored. However, in 1794, it passed a manumission act which led the eventual ending of slavery in that state.

The first and second Continental Armies were composed largely of troops from the New England states. It was only in the third Continental Army where each state was required to send one battalion. Ten percent of the Continental Army was freed slaves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:


Queequeg said:
I take it you're a Marxist?

Malcolm wrote:
Grigoris is an anarchist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

Grigoris said:
The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but the American Revolution cannot be construed as condoning oppression.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 21st, 2018 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
In Dudjom Tersar, is there a specific guru yoga outside of the ngondro versions that Dzogchen is practiced in, or is Dzogchen typically practiced in the context of the completion stage of yidam practice? Or some other option?

Malcolm wrote:
In troma, yes. In other dudjom tersar systems, no.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're saying yes and no to exactly. Could you briefly clarify?

Malcolm wrote:
In Troma, there is a special Guru Rinpoche guru yoga one practices in connection with those practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 20th, 2018 at 12:24 PM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
In Dudjom Tersar, is there a specific guru yoga outside of the ngondro versions that Dzogchen is practiced in, or is Dzogchen typically practiced in the context of the completion stage of yidam practice? Or some other option?

Malcolm wrote:
In troma, yes. In other dudjom tersar systems, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 20th, 2018 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
pema tsultrim said:
Does troma also have tsa lung? Specifically the Dudjom troma?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 20th, 2018 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... People always choose tribes over class. The market, however, is the one place where people are able to exercise influence irrespective of class or tribe, where the movement of capital by design is not impeded by protectionist policies, which are never effective.

Quay said:
You shoot down your own assertion that people always choose tribes over class with that last sentence. The extremely wealthy have deliberately chosen class over tribes because they do indeed exercise influence over the markets and can move capital wherever they like irrespective of tribes. Just look at the gatherings in Davos or the guest list at any ultra-exclusive resorts of the world. One can even look at European aristocracy over the last five or six centuries and see the trend of crown embracing crown irregardless of who they were before they acquired them.

Having said that it is also true that people without economic mobility will usually choose tribe over class. One of those odd things that makes Marxism a one-size-fails-all kind of solution.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the market does not care what tribe or class to which one claims allegiance. It has no feelings. It doesn't care about anything. It will, as a quasi-organism, always seek to expand to the limits of whatever growth is possible.

The ultra wealthy are not proper class, and often, if not always, move against each other. They are different than the aristocracy, not bound by tribe and family. Sure, they can influence the markets, but it is usually in their best interest not to mess with the markets.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 20th, 2018 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Relationship between the zhi (base) and tathagatagarbha
Content:
mechashivaz said:
What is the relationship between the two? Are they synonymous?

This question comes about because some one on another forum said, "Buddhanature dreaming a (person's name)" and something about that statement feels very off. Buddhanature isn't dreaming anything, it's the aspect that's free from those delusions and recognizing it's own state. But if buddhanature is equivalent to the zhi it kind of makes sense as all things are manifesting from the zhi, but to say buddhanature dreaming something just feels off. Any help clarifying is much appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
The generic, original basis is tathāgatagarbha.

mechashivaz said:
Is tathagatagarbha ever explained in the same way as the zhi in that the tathagatagarbha is responsible for things manifesting as they do or is it unique to dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
The gzhi is the nature of your own mind. The nature of the mind is tathāgatagarbha. Basis = mind essence = tathāgatgarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 20th, 2018 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of ka dag: shared and unshared. The first is the emptiness free from extremes. The second kind is the path of trekchö.

Thomas Amundsen said:
Loppon, what does this mean? Does "shared" refer to being shared with common Mahayana?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and mahāmudra, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Thanks! By saying that Togal is the dzogrim there,  are you suggesting that it literally comes into play where more generally a tsalung practice would be used?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Definitive Teachings
Content:
ford_truckin said:
Discussion split from https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=475954#p475954

2ndchance said:
Well I am mainly a Varjrayana practitioner with interest in Mahayana teachings as well.

Lately, I have been delving into Theravada teachings as they seem pretty straightforward compared to Vajrayana teachings.

ford_truckin said:
Yes, It seems like every guru/lama has a different opinion on this or that. With theravada you can go directly to the source (pali canon) and get a definitive answer.

Malcolm wrote:
About some things shared with Hinayāna, but not other things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Hi Malcolm, I have been reflecting on this discussion and am still a little bit confused.  I don't offer this as a point of contention but just to broaden my own understanding.

It seems to me perhaps we were talking past each other in that your comments may have been focused around the term "alpha" whereas I am referring to the broader meaning of "alpha-purity" in context.

Malcolm wrote:
The "alpha" is a poor choice, for reasons I have already explained.


LoveFromColorado said:
I'm not necessarily concerned with the use or non-use of the term "alpha" but the overall meaning for my own understanding of the text in context as I am a non-Tibetan reader.  In other words, I understand KB's use of "alpha-purity" to mean "original/primordial/beginingless purity" which seems to coincide with what you discussed.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetan term under discussion is ka dag.

LoveFromColorado said:
the inflexibility of the word alpha but my understanding coincides (at least from a high level) with what is rendered in Tibetan.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not correspond, as I explained already, because "ka" here is not referencing the first consonant of the Tibetan syllabary.


LoveFromColorado said:
In other words, I want to be sure I am not reading something different into the text here as I'm failing to see the difference in meanings we have discussed but it appears you do have a difference of understanding and I certainly would respect (and honor) that difference if one exists.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of ka dag: shared and unshared. The first is the emptiness free from extremes. The second kind is the path of trekchö.

I have not read KB's book yet, but I am sure it covers both somewhere in some commentary.

LoveFromColorado said:
(sidebar: of course, I understand the significance of semantics like word choices for the sake of textual integrity but I do not take it as a hindrance here if my understanding is in line with the overall meaning of the word)

Malcolm wrote:
My comments concern Trungpa's use of the malapropism "alpha" for "ka" and "ka nas." I think I explained it pretty well above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Relationship between the zhi (base) and tathagatagarbha
Content:
mechashivaz said:
What is the relationship between the two? Are they synonymous?

This question comes about because some one on another forum said, "Buddhanature dreaming a (person's name)" and something about that statement feels very off. Buddhanature isn't dreaming anything, it's the aspect that's free from those delusions and recognizing it's own state. But if buddhanature is equivalent to the zhi it kind of makes sense as all things are manifesting from the zhi, but to say buddhanature dreaming something just feels off. Any help clarifying is much appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
The generic, original basis is tathāgatagarbha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 3:02 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:




Kim O'Hara said:
...and it it ain't Left, it condones oppression.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.

Kim O'Hara said:
Gee, thanks. Nicest thing anyone has said to me for weeks. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.
Where's the strawman smiley gone? I need it!
Seriously, once upon a time conservatism was reasonable enough, compassionate enough, for my comment to have been unfair. Not any longer - or not in the US or Australia, at least, where conservatism has been hijacked by the neoliberals and the loony right.
But I suspect that's a topic for another thread.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
I am not a conservative, however, the so-called “conservatives” of today have abandoned even a thread of pretense which connects them to the actual meaning  of the word.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 12:16 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:


MiphamFan said:
The Marxist argument for open borders and immigration...

Social democracy, which is not even Marxism, cannot work without clearly defined borders, whether it's a municipiality or a nation-state

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, it’s capitalism that wont be confined within borders and national identities. Rightly so. At tremendous expense to our ecosystem, less humans, percentage wise, live in abject poverty today than when I was born in 1962. No form of Marxist socialist economic could have accomplished this. In fact, most of the beneficiaries of modern capitalist development are in formerly communist countries.

MiphamFan said:
Yes, that's part of Marx's economic argument. Capital constantly seeks new markets and will expand as far as it can, in doing so it lowers the price of goods for consumers and benefits them unintentionally. But it will eventually run into diminishing returns, resulting in a falling rate of profit and eventually be unable to expand further, which in Marxian theory results in communism.

Malcolm wrote:
I know. Marx”s description is correct, his prescription for capitalism entirely wrong, since all Marxist movements degenerate into nationalisms and ruined economies. Why? People always choose tribes over class. The market, however, is the one place where people are able to exercise influence irrespective of class or tribe, where the movement of capital by design is not impeded by protectionist policies, which are never effective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 12:00 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:


MiphamFan said:
The Marxist argument for open borders and immigration...

Social democracy, which is not even Marxism, cannot work without clearly defined borders, whether it's a municipiality or a nation-state

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, it’s capitalism that wont be confined within borders and national identities. Rightly so. At tremendous expense to our ecosystem, less humans, percentage wise, live in abject poverty today than when I was born in 1962. No form of Marxist socialist economic could have accomplished this. In fact, most of the beneficiaries of modern capitalist development are in formerly communist countries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 19th, 2018 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Grigoris said:
As far as I am concerned:  if it don't talk Class, it ain't Left.



Kim O'Hara said:
...and it it ain't Left, it condones oppression.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
This is as facile as it is untrue. For example, Burke, the father of political conservatism, was a supporter of the American Revolution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Wondering is anyone aware of a yidam that takes the Dzogchen or Yangti  tantra style method as completion stage?

Malcolm wrote:
Troma.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Fascinating.  So it does make sense to say that Togal is the completion stage of Throma?

Where would Throma tregchod be in that model?


Malcolm wrote:
Troma has both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Yidam w Togal as dzogrim
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Wondering is anyone aware of a yidam that takes the Dzogchen or Yangti  tantra style method as completion stage?

Malcolm wrote:
Troma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:


ford_truckin said:
Karma is a personal thing. If the killing isn't done themselves then it isn't wrong livelihood. A cook or medic doesn't kill so therefore no negative karma accrued. That's all I'm going to say about it, done with this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to this, if one agree with the goals of an army, i.e., support the killing in which it engages, one accrues the negative karma of killing one person, times the number of people in the organization. For example, if a mob of 100 lynches someone, everyone in that mob who agrees with and supports the action, where the intent to kill, the object that is the object of affliction (hatred in this instance), the deed itself and satisfaction in the performance of the deed of killing all possess 100 times the karma of one person killing another person. This is true, even if only one person shot the gun or strung the noose. But if one belongs to such a group, but does not agree with and find satisfaction in the commission of acts of killing, then one is free of that karma. In this case then, if one is a cook who is gungho and totally supports the military goals of that army, one accrues the negative karma of each act of killing times the number of people in that army who actively support and are satisfied with such actions. If one is a cook who does not support the acts of killing, but simple prepares food for the troops, then one does not have even one person's negative karma of killing. The same is true of nations. If you belong to a nation at war and you actively support and take satisfaction in the success your army has in killing enemies, then you have the karma of the number of people in that nation who are similarly-minded. If you disagree however, you bear none of that karma.

ford_truckin said:
This is sounds more like a hindu interpretation of karma. Can you explain the difference?

Malcolm wrote:
This is straight out of the Abhidharmakoshabhasyam. The Hindu idea of karma is very different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since we are talking about robots, how many soldiers will one infantry bot replace?

Grigoris said:
Infantry work in units of at least ten to cover angles and for carrying out a variety of functions, so...

Anyway, human infantry are cheaper and more expendable than robots.

Malcolm wrote:
So one bot = one squad?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since we are talking about robots, how many soldiers will one infantry bot replace?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
ford_truckin said:
When did being a chef or medic who saves lives become wrong livelihoods?

Grigoris said:
When you are feeding people and patching them up specifically so that they can be more effective at killing.  When you are integral part of the killing machine/process.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, yah know?

ford_truckin said:
Karma is a personal thing. If the killing isn't done themselves then it isn't wrong livelihood. A cook or medic doesn't kill so therefore no negative karma accrued. That's all I'm going to say about it, done with this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to this, if one agree with the goals of an army, i.e., support the killing in which it engages, one accrues the negative karma of killing one person, times the number of people in the organization. For example, if a mob of 100 lynches someone, everyone in that mob who agrees with and supports the action, where the intent to kill, the object that is the object of affliction (hatred in this instance), the deed itself and satisfaction in the performance of the deed of killing all possess 100 times the karma of one person killing another person. This is true, even if only one person shot the gun or strung the noose. But if one belongs to such a group, but does not agree with and find satisfaction in the commission of acts of killing, then one is free of that karma. In this case then, if one is a cook who is gungho and totally supports the military goals of that army, one accrues the negative karma of each act of killing times the number of people in that army who actively support and are satisfied with such actions. If one is a cook who does not support the acts of killing, but simple prepares food for the troops, then one does not have even one person's negative karma of killing. The same is true of nations. If you belong to a nation at war and you actively support and take satisfaction in the success your army has in killing enemies, then you have the karma of the number of people in that nation who are similarly-minded. If you disagree however, you bear none of that karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
clyde said:
Or does simply not agreeing with a government’s “poor choice” absolve you?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. And when needed, this dissent can lead to civil disobedience and outright revolution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
clyde said:
Here’s my point: Paying taxes supports the military. You would not murder someone even if threatened with jail and/or a large fine. So, why are you paying taxes that support the military? Is it too inconvenient to stop paying taxes?

I pay my taxes with the understanding that I am complicit in actions that my government takes which I disagree with.

Malcolm wrote:
I pay my taxes because I am legally obligated to, with the understanding that I am not complicit in the poor choices others make with respect to where that money is employed. For example, I am not complicit in the decision of the US Government to pay money to the Trump Organization because Donald wants to play golf on his own golf courses at our expense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Dungse Rigzin Dorje Rinpoche
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Is KDL's body in Assam or Arunachal Pradesh?

Malcolm wrote:
It is at Zangdog Palri in Arunachal Pradesh, AFAIK.

Adamantine said:
They kept the Kundung preserved? In a stupa?

Malcolm wrote:
It is preserved, but not in a stupa I think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Dungse Rigzin Dorje Rinpoche
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Is KDL's body in Assam or Arunachal Pradesh?

Malcolm wrote:
It is at Zangdog Palri in Arunachal Pradesh, AFAIK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That class identification never took deep roots among white Anglo Americans.

Grigoris said:
I beg to differ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World.

IWW.jpg

Malcolm wrote:
No, The AFL was more powerful, aligned with the Democratic Party, and anti-immigrant as well. The union movement in the US was more guild conscious than class conscious, and it remains so.

The IWW had as many conflicts with competing unions as it did with companies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Since English is such a 'borrowing' language, (alpha from the Greek sure fits,) then why not incorporate more Buddhist Sanskrit terms if the translator cannot abide prosaic English versions?

Norwegian said:
Certainly it is the case that a number of terms in Dzogchen can be in Sanskrit, such as dharmata for example. But in general the lexicon of Dzogchen is Tibetan, and so one should familiarize oneself with these terms (in Tibetan) and how they are taught by a qualified teacher of Dzogchen, from whom one receives those teachings. That way ones understanding will truly become something useful.

Nicholas Weeks said:
I was thinking of translation practice in general, not just DZ, but all of Buddhism.


Malcolm wrote:
A consensus is being slowly reached, which differs from the Tibetan and Chinese conventions of translating everything. Foreign names, of people and places, for example, should not be translated. Technical terms like samsara and nirvana already exist in the OED. There is room for the importation of terms from Sanskrit, such as dharmakāya, etc., into English, because translations like "truth body" and "law body" inadequately convey the meaning of the original term.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Good luck with that, people still put nation before class.

Grigoris said:
I agree.  People do not want to identify as working class as the idea that the working class is actually the motor of modern history has become unfashionable.  People like to identify as something higher or loftier.  Identification with one's class worked during a period when class mobility was basically non-existent and even then people seemed to identify more with a movement based in the working class, than with the class itself.

Malcolm wrote:
That class identification also happened when one family dominated all the European countries, i.e., the Sax-Coburgs.

That class identification never took deep roots among white Anglo Americans. Most of the immigrant labor was in factories, etc. It is interesting to see the decade by decade decline in farming communities relative to the total population of the US here:

https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I guarantee that a large number of yellow jackets voted fir Le Pen.

Grigoris said:
A number of times some far-Right elements tried to infiltrate the demonstrations, but were beaten and kicked out by other protestors.

In Greece, during the anti-austerity protests, Golden Dawn members physically supported the police, helping them to attack protests, doing the dirty work of personally targeting unionists and organisers, etc...  I think you will find the supporters of Le Pen are currently doing the same thing.

The French far-Right will try to hijack the movement to draw electoral support against the two main political parties (like they did in Greece), that doesn't mean that the movement is far-Right.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on where in France one lives. I have a friend who lives in the South of France, near the Spanish border. In his little village, everyone voted for Marine Le Pen. The left and the far left in France, UK, etc., is mainly in urban centers; the rural areas, like the US, are dominated by the right and the far right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
In English dictionaries alpha as a modifier is 'dominant' or 'first'.  I would hope that 'dominant' purity is not the gist - sounds like a battle among purities.

Spelare said:
I mean, in post-Christian cultures and languages, such as those of Western Europe, there's still the echo of the Book of Revelation, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."  So, in literary contexts, "alpha" does carry resonances of origin, primacy, priority, and therefore ultimacy.

Nicholas Weeks said:
You cite a good reason that some translators ignore, the several meaning the chosen english word has.  Yes, alpha has a single meaning that seems (to translator) a just dandy fit for the meaning of the Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc. word.  But an English reader will hear the chimes of 'alpha dog' 'alpha Centauri' etc.

Since English is such a 'borrowing' language, (alpha from the Greek sure fits,) then why not incorporate more Buddhist Sanskrit terms if the translator cannot abide prosaic English versions?

Malcolm wrote:
The question is always whether such borrowings are apt. In this case, borrowing "alpha" for "ka" is not apt because there is no way the term can be used to handle the ablative case (which is missing in English, German, and Greek). The ablative case does exist in Latin, however, thus the ablative for "origo" is "orīgine." Of course, if you go to a Latin-English translation tool, and type in originally pure and original purity, you will not derive orīgene in any way from this.

The earliest usage of the term original in middle English was in the phrase, "original sin." Of course, original purity is the very opposite of original sin, and far more reflective of the point being made with this term then the clumsy "alpha."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 17th, 2018 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Backwards Ati
Content:
PeterC said:
There are many better things to do with one’s time than try to guess what CTr meant in a comment without context delivered at an unknown time to an unknown audience...

Malcolm wrote:
However, the fetishization of CTR's psychobabble as Dharma is not a positive thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Dan74 said:
We need global action.

Malcolm wrote:
Good luck with that, people still put nation before class.

Dan74 said:
I don't know if people put nation before anything much. Look at France, once a bastion of national pride, now people are disaffected and seem to worry primarily about their hip-pocket - the haves, to stay the haves, and the have-nots to have more, even if it costs future generations more than double.

The body politic, the common project is dying. But this is not to say that nothing can be done. If good inspirational people step forward bravely, who knows what could be achieved.

Malcolm wrote:
I guarantee that a large number of yellow jackets voted fir Le Pen. Alternative fir Germany is at something like 30% in the German legislature, Brazil just voted in a fascist, the list goes on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 1:01 PM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
According to KB in the end notes, ka dag "refers to the original and beginningless purity or emptiness of all phenomenon in general and of rigpa in particular."  That appears to describe how he handles "alpha" (i.e. original and beginningless).

I certainly cannot comment on the translation of ka dag but I was just offering a small juxtaposition to the idea previous in the thread that "alpha" might be understood as "dominant", "first", or the like.  In context, I did not understand it to mean anything along those lines, but I'm also self-admittedly a stickler for reading end notes.  Certainly simply saying something like "original purity" might be clearer, however.  I recognize the importance of words but for the lay reader like myself I think the broader context carries more meaning than the semantics.  For scholars, of course, it may be a different story and I certainly respect that fact.

Malcolm wrote:
I already explained what ka dag means above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 12:26 PM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
I understood it to mean "original beginingless" or the like in context.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what the term ka dag means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Erik has published a translation of Samantabhadra's Prayer which can be found in Quintessential Dzogchen pp 79-84


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:
Dan74 said:
We need global action.

Malcolm wrote:
Good luck with that, people still put nation before class.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
"Kadag, it means since the beginning pure."  -ChNN

"kadag ~ ka dag ~ pure from the beginning, syn. shunyata" -DC Glosary

No different from alpha purity.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the equivalent is simply bad English grammar.

Here is the problem: ka dag is a contraction of the term "ka nas dag pa", which is a noun formation in the ablative case.

Alpha is just a simple noun modifying 'pure.'

It might seem trivial to you, but then, scores of polemics in Buddhist discourse are based on just such grammatical niceties. In the case, we are dealing with a term that is in fact an adjectival phrase, where the ablative case in Tibetan is rendered as an adjective.

There is no way to properly represent the ablative case with "alpha", mentioned above, because alpha cannot take the adjectival/adverbial "ly" ending. In English, you cannot say "pure from alpha", as this makes no sense at all. You cannot say "alphaly" but you can say "originally" and "primordially," and so on.

"Ka nas" does not mean "from the syllable ka." Ka" is a tibetan noun which means beginning, origin, or first. Its synonyms in Tibetan are rtsa  ba, thog ma, and gdod ma; root, first, or beginning, respectively. Rtsa ba nas, thog ma nas, gdod ma nas, and ka nas are all synonyms in Tibetan, of which the ablative case may easily be rendered in English translation, i.e., from the root, from the first, from the beginning, etc. You can see this work as follows: fundamentally pure (rtsa nas dag pa); thog nas dag (initially pure), gdod nas dag (primordially pure), ka nas dag (originally pure). Or if we are taking the noun to be purity, then, fundamental purity, initial purity, primordial purity, and original purity. Since alpha is not flexible in this respect, it is not really very suitable as term for rendering ka/ka nas. This is the reason I found it to be an odd choice on KB's part, because he is an excellent scholar and a linguist. But it was a bad translation choice when Trungpa first suggested it, and it remains a bad translation choice still.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 16th, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
In English dictionaries alpha as a modifier is 'dominant' or 'first'.  I would hope that 'dominant' purity is not the gist - sounds like a battle among purities.

Without translators we the unwashed louts would be far worse off.  Yet they are fond of carving out new or unique frames for Dharma words.

I wish they would just incorporate more Sanskrit equivalents and then have good glossaries.

Would primary or root purity fill the bill or adi-śuddha?

Malcolm wrote:
Adi is “dang po”” in Tibetan. The meaning of ka dag is that the basis, the nature of mind, has never been contaminated with ignorance, ignorance is adventitious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 15th, 2018 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: Upcoming book by Karl Brunnhölzl on The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra
Content:
Spelare said:
Looks like Brunnhölzl has opted to render ka dag as "alpha-purity."  I recall that being a contentious choice around these parts when Keith Dowman employed it in his  work.  But apparently it meets KB's more rigorous standards.  A quick search showed that usage had already appeared in works by Chögyam Trungpa, Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, and Tony Duff, so I guess it was never purely Dowman's to begin with.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, it's an odd choice since ka dag is just a contraction of "ka nas dag pa," and Mipham considers it a translation of śuddha.

The original author of this usage is CTR and the Nalanda Translation Committee.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 15th, 2018 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Question about Nagarjuna's Heart of Dependent Origination
Content:
Seeker12 said:
Link Here : http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-masters/nagarjuna/heart-dependent-origination

In verse 6, he says,

"Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising."

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.


Malcolm wrote:
The extremely subtle existents are particles, paramanus.


A more precise translation would be:

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing transfers.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’.

The auto commentary states with respect to this:

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

The purpose of this is to point out that even though nothing transfers from this life to the next, the assertion that even a subtle particle is annihilated is false. Why? Because in Madhyamaka causes and effects are neither the same nor different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 15th, 2018 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Question about Nagarjuna's Heart of Dependent Origination
Content:
zerwe said:
I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this stanza points to the following--
If one refutes the aggregates, if one refutes their conventional existence, thus perceiving them as non-existent--this is nihilism,
then you will be unable to see Nagarjuna's final intention that emptiness and dependent arising are co-dependent and non-contradictory.

Shaun

TrimePema said:
Maybe the 4th stanza describes the valid way to see them? Is that nominal existence/designation?

zerwe said:
Yes, I believe that is correct. However, I am not sure that the 4th stanza is necessarily explicit in the sense that it says
that they exist as a "mere designation," "merely labeled by mind," or "in mere name", etc...Those were likely added as the Madhyamika interpretation, debate and vocabulary continued to develop.

Shaun

Malcolm wrote:
No, “dependent designation” is a found in the MMK with respect to dependent origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 15th, 2018 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Human, you are not necessary.
Content:


Queequeg said:
That's why I also put it in terms of the wealth distribution system. As I see it, we all have a right to share in the prosperity of our civilization. The question is how do we fairly distribute this wealth? The system we have now is not working. And robots will make it worse.

Malcolm wrote:
No one in the US is going to get on board with broad redistribution of wealth schemes. Why? The white working class in the US is basically right-wing. Even market based socialist policies have a hard time getting off the ground here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 14th, 2018 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Backwards Ati
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Again, Trungpa Rinpoche gave his students TGS transmission when we entered into the vajrayāna, and therefore his students would usually be on an emotional roller coaster throughout the four ngöndro practices. I think that’s because of the disruptive quality of the TGS transmission itself
Guru yoga brings claustrophobic experience of TGS. It’s like constant open-heart surgery without anesthetics. Trungpa Rinpoche described guru yoga as a form of rape: you’re being raped by the lineage and the guru. It’s “rape” because you’re helpless: you can’t protect or defend yourself. Because of the practices you’ve done and your relationship with your teacher, your egocentric defense mechanisms don’t function in their usual way anymore.
Not sure what Trungpa taught (if this indeed is a fair description in any way) or what the author of these words learned. It sure as hell is not what my teachers have taught, if I have understood anything.

TrimePema said:
He seems to be referring to the notion of Guru Yoga being unstoppable. He's speaking about the Mahaguru, at the essence of this. It's not about the person who you consider the Guru... Once you contact bodhichitta your mindstream is changed forever. There is no longer a choice about anything. While I'm sure the metaphor can be changed and the transmission the same... in this instance he used the imagery of choicelessness for your ego being like your ego being raped by wakeful compassion.

TGS is only an emotional rollercoaster if one forgets the instructions...

Malcolm wrote:
It is a stupid metaphor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 14th, 2018 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Question on Duality/Other
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
All of the universe and beings, samsara and nirvana
have one basis. The two paths and two results
are the enchantments of knowledge (rig pa) and ignorance (ma rig pa)...

The basis being discussed, as clarified here by Jigme Lingpa, is not the original, generic basis (aka the unfabricated mind essence). The basis here is the "contextual" all-basis, which is not dharmakāya at all, it is one's consciousness. It is extremely important to distinguish the all-basis from the dharmakāya.

Dorje Shedrub said:
Does each sentient being's base arise out of the dharmakaya (through ignorance)?

DS

Malcolm wrote:
Each sentient beings basis is just their own consciousness. The three kayas are not outside of oneself in anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 14th, 2018 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:


Seeker12 said:
Thanks, I was wondering if this was something that was due to personal insight or whether it was some sort of 'formally acknowledged' thing by an 'authority'.

Malcolm wrote:
It has to do with the first Dudjom, Duddul Dorje, a famous terton in his own right, who had a vision of Padmasambhava in which Padmasambhava invested the Dudjom line of incarnations as regents of Nyingma teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:





Johnny Dangerous said:
How do I even obtain that Ngondro? I don't remember if I received the lung for it either.

Malcolm wrote:
CHNN gave this lung frequently. Just look up retreats you gave attended on line, and track down the lung list. I am 100 precent certain you will discover you have received this transmission. Anyway, there is nothing in any Ngondro that is missing from Medium Thun. You really do not need anything beyond the short, medium, and long thun practices. The only reason to do some other Ngondro is if you meet some Lama who insists that you must, and you are actually inspired to practice under their direction. But in the mean time, since this is not the case, you do not need this transmission at all.

Tata1 said:
Are thun practices considered part of Chnn termas?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you understand by "terma."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Achi Chökyi Drolma as Padmasambhava’s consort
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Seems to me to be a past life reference.


Crazywisdom said:
Hi folks,

There’s an Achi sadhana From Achi Peibum, and composed by Achi where she says, she’s the Karmamudra of Padmasambhava and the most tenacious one. The sadhana contains the Harinisa mantra, which is connected with the dakini sadhanas of Padmasambhava. The Sarma sadhana go with a different mantra.

So my question is: Does anyone know of any other mention of Achi as Padmasambhava’s consort? It would be interesting to learn more about this connection. I don’t think they were contemporaries. But not sure. Thank you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
pemachophel said:
The short Dudjom Tersar ngon-dro is wonderful. Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche was Guru Rinpoche's regent in this time. (some say Guru Rinpoche Himself.) There have been many great Lamas in the last 100 years, but Dudjom Rinpoche is most definitely one of the very greatest. So if you have any inclination of doing this ngon-dro, I highly encourage you to do it. My wife did it when she was 68-69. So never too late.

I would also second the opinion of getting it in person as opposed to over the phone. If you had to get it over the phone, at least make a promise to yourself to get it in person when you get chance.

Malcolm wrote:
The short ngondro actually is from the Troma cycle of Dudjom Lingpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Question on Duality/Other
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Thank you Malcolm, that is indeed very helpful.

Speaking colloquially (due to my small understanding), would it be then safe to say that each consciousness has as its base its "own" rigpa? Would rigpa be a manifestation arising from the dharmakaya?

Thank you for these clarifications - this is indeed where my understanding is murky at best. Looking forward to your book once I get a chance to order it.

Malcolm wrote:
Every consciousness is characterized by the ability to know and to discern. When it knows and discerns correctly, then this is rig pa. When it knows and discerns incorrectly, this is ma rig pa.

BTW, it is quite well known that Dzogchen does not reject external phenomena. The view of Dzogchen concerning external phenomena is the same as Prasangika Madhyamaka. Phenomena are not mind, but they are also not other than mind, that is to say, they are dependent on mental designations of appearances, but appearances, such as the appearance of a mountain, does not arise from the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Question on Duality/Other
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
I am still working my way through the beginning of the book.  At the beginning, it is explained how Samantabhadra is before all activity in consciousness, effectively once awareness arises and recognizes itself.  Samantabhadra is thus the same in all mindstreams.

Malcolm wrote:
This is also an error of interpretation. Samatabhadra arises out of recognizing the activity of consciousness as "his" own state. In other words, even Samantabhadra possesses ignorance. Samantabhadra is never deluded, but delusion and ignorance are not the same thing. Ignorance can lead to delusion, but it does not necessarily lead to delusion.

LoveFromColorado said:
This line of thought is what got me thinking (as mentioned above) - is consciousness a manifestation of rigpa and what differentiates one consciousness from another given that they are not the same in terms of oneness but are the same in terms of Samantabhadra?

Malcolm wrote:
Rig pa is another name for a pure consciousness that recognizes its own state. If a consciousness does not recognize or mis-knows (ma rig pa) its own state, it then continues into delusion. On the other hand, rig pa and ma rig pa are likened to the front and the back of the hand-- they essentially belong together and are both forms of knowing.

In order to understand this, you need to understand the three-fold ignorance model: ignorance identical with its cause; connate ignorance; and imputing ignorance. These there are discussed in the section on how delusion arises which forms the second of the eleven topics of the Great Perfection. The prayer you are studying uses a two-fold ignorance model -- this presentation is also fine, but I have seen that it can be more easily misunderstood. The tantra this prayer is found in defines things as follows:

In the beginning, since the the unconscious mind overflows from the latent all-basis, the connate ignorance arises. As above, since the deluded vision of sounds, lights and rays arises gradually, the subtle mind that thinks "the external world arises from me," or "I arise from the external world" moves as a mistaken belief.

Here, the all-basis refers to the ālayavijñāna, which is defined as neutral. The "unconscious mind" is the way this tantra defines the first ignorance, the ignorance identical to the cause. Here, this simply means that in the beginning one is unaware of oneself, i.e., unconscious. At the moment the sounds, lights, and rays arise, which are manifestations of one's own state, the connate ignorance arises because now there is a perception which can be mistaken for duality.

Samantabhadra wakes up without entering delusion because in the second moment of the basis arising from the basis, he recognizes these sounds, lights, and rays as being his own state, and his consciousness becomes prajñā, and prajñā is rig pa, or vidyā. The way the Sound Tantra explains this is:

As such, in saṃsāra at the start and nirvāṇa at the end,
since the buddhas did not become deluded,
the sense organs that rose up out of the basis
recognized the self-appearances as natureless;
there was no lapse into mental analysis of external objects;
and [the self-appearances] were ascertained to be their own
movements.

Remember, ignorance does not equal delusion. This is an important point.

When we do not recognize these sounds, lights, and rays as being our own state, as stated above, we engage in dualistic grasping, which is the third ignorance, the imputing ignorance. For this reason, the Powerful Aspiration states:

The connate ignorance
is an amnesiac confused consciousness.
The imputing ignorance
grasps at both self and other. 
The two ignorances, connate and imputing, 
are the basis of the delusion of all sentient beings.
Through the aspiration of the Buddha, myself, 
may all the sentient beings of samsara’s three realms
awaken from the thick darkness of amnesia, 
purify the consciousness of dualistic grasping, 
and recognize their own vidyā.

Thus in Buddhahood it is said:

If it is asked how delusion came about, delusion arose from the difference between the basis and the conscious aspect of the basis.

Remember, the basis is just one's unfabricated mind that is clear and empty. Buddhahood again:

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of the sole reality, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place, etc. Thus, that is called self-originated pristine consciousness.

In reality, one should study these things at the feet of a qualified teacher, because with Dzogchen, it is very easy to make mistakes and adopt wrong views.

As a famous Sakyapa master said, until you gain certainty in the view, the view should not be expressed in words. I understand that you want to understand these things, but talking about them here on Dharmawheel and other places on the internet is likely to just lead you deeper into confusion and an incorrect understanding.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Question on Duality/Other
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Hi everyone, if I am correct in understanding the teachings I have heard and books I have studied, rigpa is the single ground awareness, the dharmakaya.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an incorrect understanding. There is no such thing as a "single ground awareness."

LoveFromColorado said:
Our consciousness is a manifestation of this ground awareness. Everyone "else" is likewise a manifestation of ground awareness. It is definitely hard for me to translate what I have learned thus far into words but hopefully this is on track in the right direction.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is leading you in the wrong direction.

LoveFromColorado said:
I realize everything is not "one" in the sense of being the same singular substance, but would it be correct to recognize "other" as the same in that it is the same manifestation of ground awareness? Or would they be different manifestations from the same essence?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a "single ground awareness." This represents a complete and total misunderstanding of the nature of the basis (ground).

If rigpa were a single ground, then there couldn't be two paths and two results of rig pa and ma rig pa:

All of the universe and beings, samsara and nirvana
have one basis. The two paths and two results
are the enchantments of knowledge (rig pa) and ignorance (ma rig pa)...

The basis being discussed, as clarified here by Jigme Lingpa, is not the original, generic basis (aka the unfabricated mind essence). The basis here is the "contextual" all-basis, which is not dharmakāya at all, it is one's consciousness. It is extremely important to distinguish the all-basis from the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: New terma and their continuation outside of a lineage.
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
i heard a similar insinuation from  a lotsawa friend: "idc havn't produced any realized practitioner/instructor in the entire world".

Malcolm wrote:
This person must have amazing clairvoyance to be so confident of their opinion; however, what it actually shows is that they know nothing at all about Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 13th, 2018 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Methods for keeping Samaya clean
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW best method to repair samaya is completion stage.

Jangchup Donden said:
Are you talking about the dissolution stage during deity yoga or the physical practices like the six yogas of Naropa?

Malcolm wrote:
The former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: Methods for keeping Samaya clean
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW best method to repair samaya is completion stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Grigoris said:
Unfortunately, I cannot be responsible for my empowerment.

Malcolm wrote:
Greg, we are talking about people who have already received transmission from ChNN. Not new people who never met him.

That is a different problem, one the community in the west will in time resolve. We already know that in China there is a Khenpo appointed to continue CHNN's lineage there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some people might need more assistance. But in fact ChNN also made a vast library of all of his secondary practices, including both his own termas and other lineage practices such as Green Tara, with complete explanations.

Grigoris said:
Which is great, but it is not enough.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is, by ChNN's own design. He himself stated, again and again that since he had recorded this and that teaching, he had no need to teach them again. All anyone needed was the lung for the practice in question, and access to the books and recordings.

Remember, we are talking about SECONDARY practices, like the short thun, medium thun, ganapuja, etc.

If people are unhappy with this, or feel they need more support, they can go and follow other teachers. Everyone is free.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: My father died on Dec 2
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Please mention Yesh Paul Puri in your prayers. And me too. My whole family, mom, dad and brothers are all dead.

Malcolm wrote:
Condolences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Methods for keeping Samaya clean
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Reciting Vajrasattva long mantra 21 times a day prevents degeneration.

Lobsang Chojor said:
Does reciting Vajrasattva short mantra 108 times a day prevent degeneration as well?

Malcolm wrote:
Better to do the long one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Methods for keeping Samaya clean
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Is any transmission or empowerment necessary to recite the long Vajrasattva mantra?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, everyone who has received an anuttarayoga empowerment has the transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Grigoris said:
Good on you!  But I did not say anything about being attached at the hip.  My teacher lives 5,432km away and I see him once a year for a week.

It is one thing to do practices that are taught as part of an established lineage and another thing to practice the terma of a specific teacher that are not part of a lineage collection (tersar). In the first instance any teacher that belongs to the lineage should have the experience to guide you, in the second instance...

Malcolm wrote:
By ChNN's design, there are plenty of senior DC instructors around to support people in this interim period.

Grigoris said:
Which is exactly what I said before:  In the absence of the terton you need somebody with some degree of realisation/accomplishemnt in the practice to guarantee it's continuation and to help you in your practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Some people might need more assistance. But in fact ChNN also made a vast library of all of his secondary practices, including both his own termas and other lineage practices such as Green Tara, with complete explanations. One really has no need of more instruction about these secondary practices than what ChNN taught. Yantra Yoga and Vajra Dance, of course, cannot be learned from tapes and videos. But everything else can be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
There are, but honestly the impact is somewhat limited when all you can do is email someone, valuable as that can be at times. There are no gars near me or anything, no DC practitioners to meet up with. I personally don't want to attempt something like the Tuns simply from a book. The DC practices I do engage in I feel like I learned from Rinpoche during webcast retreats. On the other hand, I have other lineages that I can receive instruction in in person, and which I have already done a number of times with groups, so I know the melodies etc. somewhat, which was my idea with this Ngondro. I'm tabling the idea for now anyway as my interest in Ngondro has always run hot and cold.

Malcolm wrote:
There are going to be many practice retreats in which you can participate, to learn this or that practice.

The thun practices are really not that daunting and can be easily learned from books and tapes.


Johnny Dangerous said:
There are logistical problems there, such as working full time when most activities on web casts end up happening at 3am, but I hear you, where there's a will there's a way. Where can I learn the melodies to the Tuns ?

Malcolm wrote:
http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=74_76&products_id=346


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Grigoris said:
Good on you!  But I did not say anything about being attached at the hip.  My teacher lives 5,432km away and I see him once a year for a week.

It is one thing to do practices that are taught as part of an established lineage and another thing to practice the terma of a specific teacher that are not part of a lineage collection (tersar). In the first instance any teacher that belongs to the lineage should have the experience to guide you, in the second instance...

Malcolm wrote:
By ChNN's design, there are plenty of senior DC instructors around to support people in this interim period.

Johnny Dangerous said:
There are, but honestly the impact is somewhat limited when all you can do is email someone, valuable as that can be at times. There are no gars near me or anything, no DC practitioners to meet up with. I personally don't want to attempt something like the Tuns simply from a book. The DC practices I do engage in I feel like I learned from Rinpoche during webcast retreats. On the other hand, I have other lineages that I can receive instruction in in person, and which I have already done a number of times with groups, so I know the melodies etc. somewhat, which was my idea with this Ngondro. I'm tabling the idea for now anyway as my interest in Ngondro has always run hot and cold.

Malcolm wrote:
There are going to be many practice retreats in which you can participate, to learn this or that practice.

The thun practices are really not that daunting and can be easily learned from books and tapes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Methods for keeping Samaya clean
Content:
Jangchup Donden said:
I was looking to get a general list of methods used for keeping Samaya clean.  I know there's the usual ones such as the Vajrasattva mantra and participating in tsok practices, but I was wondering if there were any others.  Does a daily practice session count? Or guru yoga? All of the above?

Malcolm wrote:
Reciting Vajrasattva long mantra 21 times a day prevents degeneration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 11th, 2018 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Sennin said:
I use to feel the need to be attached at the hip to the Guru. Now I don't.

Grigoris said:
Good on you!  But I did not say anything about being attached at the hip.  My teacher lives 5,432km away and I see him once a year for a week.

It is one thing to do practices that are taught as part of an established lineage and another thing to practice the terma of a specific teacher that are not part of a lineage collection (tersar). In the first instance any teacher that belongs to the lineage should have the experience to guide you, in the second instance...

Malcolm wrote:
By ChNN's design, there are plenty of senior DC instructors around to support people in this interim period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 11th, 2018 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Just to be clear, is it this book?

http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=74_75&products_id=332







Johnny Dangerous said:
How do I even obtain that Ngondro? I don't remember if I received the lung for it either.

Malcolm wrote:
CHNN gave this lung frequently. Just look up retreats you gave attended on line, and track down the lung list. I am 100 precent certain you will discover you have received this transmission. Anyway, there is nothing in any Ngondro that is missing from Medium Thun. You really do not need anything beyond the short, medium, and long thun practices. The only reason to do some other Ngondro is if you meet some Lama who insists that you must, and you are actually inspired to practice under their direction. But in the mean time, since this is not the case, you do not need this transmission at all.
Yes, and other texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 11th, 2018 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Grigoris said:
I completed the full accumulations for the Kagyu Ngondro, but when I started practicing in the Dudjom Tersar; LOTR asked me to do accumulations of the concise Dudjom Tersar Ngondro too.

Malcolm wrote:
And this is very excellent.

However, JD's root guru is the late ChNN. There is no reason for him to practice other termas when he can practice the fresh termas of his master from whom he has already received the full and complete transmission. If he wants to practice guru yoga, he can practice the guru yoga of the medium thun. It is no different at all from the guru yoga of Dudjom Tersar, Longchen Nyingthig, etc., in meaning. And there is the ngondro practice in the Longsal teachings, mentioned above. I am just reminding him of this.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Is one needed, or just a lung?

Malcolm wrote:
You don't really need this. All you need is the medium thun, since you are a DC guy. And if you want to practice a Ngondro, well, there is the Ati Lamgi Ngondro.

Johnny Dangerous said:
How do I even obtain that Ngondro? I don't remember if I received the lung for it either.

Malcolm wrote:
CHNN gave this lung frequently. Just look up retreats you gave attended on line, and track down the lung list. I am 100 precent certain you will discover you have received this transmission. Anyway, there is nothing in any Ngondro that is missing from Medium Thun. You really do not need anything beyond the short, medium, and long thun practices. The only reason to do some other Ngondro is if you meet some Lama who insists that you must, and you are actually inspired to practice under their direction. But in the mean time, since this is not the case, you do not need this transmission at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 10th, 2018 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: (Film) Searching for the Lotus-Born Master
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The whole thing is idiotic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 10th, 2018 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
However, JD's root guru is the late ChNN.

Grigoris said:
Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but what does it mean to have a root guru that is no longer incarnate?  Especially in regards to their terma.

Malcolm wrote:
It means you have a root guru who has passed, that's all. It changes nothing.

Grigoris said:
It is something that I have been thinking about in connection to my own teacher and his terma.  My view is that one has to achieve a certain level of realisation before their teacher's passing, because after they are gone, one will not have anybody to rely on (unless, of course, others have achieved realisation before you have).

Malcolm wrote:
One has the path the outer guru taught, which is the inner guru. This is what I am pointing out. As long has one has complete instructions, then one is going to be fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 10th, 2018 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Is one needed, or just a lung?

Malcolm wrote:
You don't really need this. All you need is the medium thun, since you are a DC guy. And if you want to practice a Ngondro, well, there is the Ati Lamgi Ngondro.

Grigoris said:
I completed the full accumulations for the Kagyu Ngondro, but when I started practicing in the Dudjom Tersar; LOTR asked me to do accumulations of the concise Dudjom Tersar Ngondro too.

Malcolm wrote:
And this is very excellent.

However, JD's root guru is the late ChNN. There is no reason for him to practice other termas when he can practice the fresh termas of his master from whom he has already received the full and complete transmission. If he wants to practice guru yoga, he can practice the guru yoga of the medium thun. It is no different at all from the guru yoga of Dudjom Tersar, Longchen Nyingthig, etc., in meaning. And there is the ngondro practice in the Longsal teachings, mentioned above. I am just reminding him of this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 10th, 2018 at 10:03 PM
Title: New terma and their continuation outside of a lineage.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Discussion moved from https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=29837.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Is one needed, or just a lung?

Malcolm wrote:
You don't really need this. All you need is the medium thun, since you are a DC guy. And if you want to practice a Ngondro, well, there is the Ati Lamgi Ngondro.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 9th, 2018 at 1:06 PM
Title: Re: oldest, dateable depiction of the Buddha in human form
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As above, the dominant culture of Bactria, etc., was Persian.

Grigoris said:
Maybe, but you haven't really provided any evidence.

The ruling strata though, were definitely Hellenistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Read a history devoted specifically to Central Asia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 9th, 2018 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: oldest, dateable depiction of the Buddha in human form
Content:
Wayfarer said:
It seems the name that has been omitted in the above was Alexander the Great, whose empire it was that straddled Gandhara, and whose language and artistic culture had profound influence in that part of the world. The Questions of Kind Milinda were an account of a dialogue between a Buddhist monk, Ven. Nagasena, and a Greco-Bactrian King. It is said to be one of the very oldest continuously extant written texts in the Buddhist corpus, or indeed world literature.

I have always found the 'Gandhara' style of Buddhist iconography beautiful, such as https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gandhara+buddhist+art&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU576AU576&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG6aSp0Y7fAhUJp48KHZ7-Dx4Q_AUIDigB&biw=1190&bih=693. I understand that it's a kind of 'hybrid tradition', but then many others were as well - the Kusharan culture nearly always depicted bodhisattvas with moustaches! But then, that's how tradition, like language, evolves.

Malcolm wrote:
As above, the dominant culture of Bactria, etc., was Persian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 7th, 2018 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: oldest, dateable depiction of the Buddha in human form
Content:
Tiago Simões said:
Here's a nice video to put things in historical context:


Grigoris said:
It was not a "Greek Empire" it was a Hellenistic Empire of Macedonians.  There was no Greece back then, there was the Macedonian Empire that had initially conquered and unified Hellenic city states, before setting out towards the east.

Tiago Simões said:
Isn't "Hellenistic" just a synonym for Greek? Like the official name of Greece, "Hellenic Republic".

Malcolm wrote:
Considering that the region was largely made of Iranian speaking peoples who used Aramaic as their lingua franca (the official business language of the Persian Empire at that time), it was at best Hellenic only at the very top.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 6th, 2018 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:





Thomas Amundsen said:
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=6591#p78290

I'm assuming that 2018 Malcolm overrides 2012 Namdrol?

Malcolm wrote:
One statement is made from the point of view of Great Perfection, the other statement is made from the point of view of general Vajrayāna. While the vehicles may contradict each other, the lower being contradicted by the higher, I am not guilty of such a contradiction myself.

Thomas Amundsen said:
I've wondered about this for quite some time. Thanks for the clarification!

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate of the lower is the relative of the higher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 6th, 2018 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A Vajrayāna practitioner, by virtue of their practice, can gather the two accumulations necessary for full buddhahood in a very short period of time.

This is impossible in the cause vehicle.

Of course there are some fools who think that gathering the two accumulations are unnecessary for buddhahood. They are objects of pity.

smcj said:
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=29902&start=20

Malcolm wrote:
The result does not depend on the two accumulations.

Thomas Amundsen said:
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=6591#p78290

I'm assuming that 2018 Malcolm overrides 2012 Namdrol?

Malcolm wrote:
One statement is made from the point of view of Great Perfection, the other statement is made from the point of view of general Vajrayāna. While the vehicles may contradict each other, the lower being contradicted by the higher, I am not guilty of such a contradiction myself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 6th, 2018 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Shambhala closes NYC center
Content:
SonamTashi said:
Speaking from experience, missionary activities straight up just do not work. Imo, missionary work would be one of the quickest. Ways to hurt the dharma. No one likes a missionary. One of the things Buddhism has going for it in the West is not being pushy.

tatpurusa said:
Definitely.
How would you like hearing on the streets about the "God News" of the Pali Kanon? Let's stop suffering right now, cheer up, because Buddha loves you ..!!..
And what about "Testimonies of the Buddha" knocking on your door?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha's Witnesses, promising the Kingdom of Buddha here on earth, visiting you in your home.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Merit needed to see Buddhas
Content:
ford_truckin said:
from my readings, buddhas only make an appearance in human flesh once there are no traces of dharma left in the world.

Seeker12 said:
This is specifically regarding a supreme nirmanakaya such as Shakyamuni, but there are other types of nirmanakaya forms it’s taught.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and we do not have the merit to see the Buddha in person now...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 1:28 PM
Title: Re: Merit needed to see Buddhas
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Since motivation of bodhisattvas & buddhas is same - to help as many beings as possible become free of all obscurations & suffering, our merit may have little to do with their appearance.  They teach & help devas too, whose types of suffering we would not consider suffering at all.  The hell beings, animals and all lower realms are helped by Them, and those creatures have no merit.

Any realm, high, middling or low, has beings in need of bodhisattvas & buddhas.  Since They are totally free - why They show up is Their decision.  We should just be grateful.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason human beings can obtain Buddhahood and the other five classes cannot is that we humans have just the right mix of suffering and happiness, so we can escape our plight and in the process help others as best we can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Tantra and the Luminosity of Dzogchen
Content:
the.eleven said:
Acquainted with tantra, yes.

However, would it be incorrect to assert that as long as concepts are proliferating there is no dzogpa chenpo?

Malcolm wrote:
Stillness and movement are the same state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Grigoris said:
That makes no sense at all.  Why would a Buddha appear when sentient beings least need them???

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas do not appear when sentient beings have so much merit they do not need them, and when they have so little merit they cannot be helped. We are nearing the lower end of that curve.

Jangchup Donden said:
What would be an example of sentient beings having so much merit they do not need a Buddha? AFAIK every pure realm has at least one.

Malcolm wrote:
This is referring to our Sahaloka.

Even in Sukhavati, however, in order to actually see Amitabha Buddha for example, one needs sufficient merit. Otherwise, one gets stuck in a lotus and does not even hear the sound of his voice for what would be millions of years passing on the earth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, maybe we aren't. After all, this is why Śākyamuni passed on. We justify it as a lesson in impermanence, things like lifespan and so on are inextricably linked with merit. Since a Buddha is beyond karma, etc., their appearance in the world is a function of the merit of living beings in the world, and when that declines, Buddhas do not appear.

Grigoris said:
That makes no sense at all.  Why would a Buddha appear when sentient beings least need them???

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas do not appear when sentient beings have so much merit they do not need them, and when they have so little merit they cannot be helped. We are nearing the lower end of that curve.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is quite clear he knew prior to his passing that he was going to pass soon.

krodha said:
What indication did he give?

Malcolm wrote:
Please read the letter translated by Sangye.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 4:30 AM
Title: Merit needed to see Buddhas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Split from https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=27705
The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, he was clearly a realized person,

Grigoris said:
I never doubted this.  But he might be trying to teach us some other lesson than "you guys aren't good enough for the likes of me".

Malcolm wrote:
Well, maybe we aren't. After all, this is why Śākyamuni passed on. We justify it as a lesson in impermanence, things like lifespan and so on are inextricably linked with merit. Since a Buddha is beyond karma, etc., their appearance in the world is a function of the merit of living beings in the world, and when that declines, Buddhas do not appear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so. But you can think what you like.

Grigoris said:
Well, the Buddha's teachings on life spans and what influences them is pretty clear AND it pretty funny to hear you (somebody so opposed to the notion of collective karma) to be arguing about the influence of collective merit.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason I say this is because, in my opinion, he was clearly a realized person, and should he have seen it was beneficial to remain for sentient beings, he would have remained. It is quite clear he knew prior to his passing that he was going to pass soon.

With respect to collective karma and merit, there is no such a thing in a real sense; but we can call the aggregate of individual actions and their ripening "collective" if the causes and results are sufficiently similar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This happened because of our collective lack of merit. He was not especially old, unlike HH Dudjom Rinpoche, HH Dilgo Khyentse, HH Penor Rinpoche, and HH Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche.

Grigoris said:
I think you will find that it may have something to do with his store of merit.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so. But you can think what you like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2018 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Shambhala closes NYC center
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
According to Lionsroar.com, Shambhala is to close it's NYC center in Manhattan.

Based at 22nd Street between 5th and 6th, the article states that they can no longer afford the $30k per month rent.

Are we seeing the first tangible knock on effect of the recent scandal?

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, it is ridiculous and obscene that any Dharma center pay $360,000 dollars a year in rent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Tantra and the Luminosity of Dzogchen
Content:
Spelare said:
But now I wonder: is dzogchen truly realizable without some acquaintance with tantra?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is part of secret mantra, so no. In other words, it is part of "tantra."

Spelare said:
Now, maybe what I'm talking about is not dzogchen proper at all, but anuyoga or some lower level.  If so, it seems fine to practice where I happen to be now, as it seems to be what I need.  And perhaps, in the fullness of the fourth time, the practice of dzogchen will be open to me.  Any reflections?

Malcolm wrote:
The three inner tantras are generally practiced in union.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Miroku said:
The first has lots to do with samayas and it is mostly fault of the students if there are breakages and it takes toll on teachers lifespan (unless teacher broke them ofc). I'd say that it is highly irrelevant if he is a head of a lineage or a head cheerleader really.

Arnoud said:
I don't think lineage head and head cheerleader can really be equated. No offense to cheerleaders.

To hold one lineage is already a great responsibility and comes with a lot of supernatural traps if we believe the hagiographies of old. I can just imagine the same applies to the lineage head. Especially of the Nyingmapas where the protectors and dakinis aren't the most peaceful. That's why I was wondering if there could be a relationship between him being head of the lineage, his realization and his death.
In all honesty, the account of his dead read far from auspicious and not just for us.

Malcolm wrote:
This happened because of our collective lack of merit. He was not especially old, unlike HH Dudjom Rinpoche, HH Dilgo Khyentse, HH Penor Rinpoche, and HH Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Does Consciousness Continue After Cessation?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the Mahāyāna definition supersedes the Hinayāna definition since it is a higher tenet system.

Astus said:
But this is not a Mahayana-Hinayana difference, but an ekayana-triyana one. Furthermore, ekayana doctrines also affirm that arhats realise that the aggregates are not self, therefore such a person is necessarily free from attachment to the body, the feelings, the concepts, and any state of mind, unless the pudgala-nairatmya for sravakas is a mere intellectual belief. But if it is genuine realisation, there can be no appearance or state that binds them, so there is no reason to be stuck in any equipoise either.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is a difference in tenets. There is no ekayana tenet system that differs from Mahāyāna


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Refugee said:
I still question that. A lesson in impermanence & the problems of samsara can go a long way. He told my lama he will not Yangsi so we have Dewachen Buddha to look forward to. May his activities reach countless beings

Malcolm wrote:
When given lemons, make lemonade.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
ford_truckin said:
What kind of siddhis is a first year bodhisattva supposed to manifest?

Malcolm wrote:
A first year bodhisattva? None.

ford_truckin said:
Sorry I meant first level/bhumi.

Malcolm wrote:
The signs of progress of bodhisattvas on the stages is detailed in the Dasabhumi Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
ford_truckin said:
What kind of siddhis is a first year bodhisattva supposed to manifest?

Malcolm wrote:
A first year bodhisattva? None.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
Arnoud said:
Thanks JD and Malcolm. Much appreciated.

Malcolm, is there not such a thing as liberation of the mind which does not spill over into physical phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Not really. The process of successive rebirths over three incalculable eons has to do with increasingly better physical bodies, etc., and gathering the various major and minor marks of a perfect, complete buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Does Consciousness Continue After Cessation?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, since the Lankavatara points out that arhats are roused from an equipoise of cessation and then set on the bodhisattva path, their motivation now redirected towards full buddhahood.

Astus said:
What I mean by a straw man arhat is that per definition an arhat is one no longer attached to the aggregates. If that meaning is changed, then it is not the same idea. The ekayana description rather fits a non-returner who resides in the pure abodes.

Malcolm wrote:
There are also arhats in the pure abodes, not just nonreturners.

In any case, the Mahāyāna definition supersedes the Hinayāna definition since it is a higher tenet system.

The ultimate of the lower system
is the relative of the higher.


Śrāvaka arhats and pratyekabuddhas are not buddha arhats. It is a simple as that. They simply experience a temporary relief from samsara, but mistake the equipoise of cessation for actual nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Terminology of Three Natures
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Pari means totally, kalpita means imagined, conceptualized, etc.
Para means other; tantra means dependent.
niṣpanna means "accomplished" or "perfected, as in completion stage, niṣpannakrama. Thus pariniṣpanna means "totally perfected"

Seeker12 said:
Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. Other dependent, then, is simply referring to the 12 nidanas, correct? Connecting the term niṣpanna to the completion stages is very interesting.

No need to reply if other dependent indeed is simply referring to the 12 nidanas, as I'm fairly certain it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Some interpretations understand it that way, but in reality it refers to the ālayavijñāna which carries the seeds which produce appearances as the imagined nature. When those seeds are eradicated, the dependent nature becomes the perfected nature. So, to ignorant sentient beings, the dependent nature appears in the form of the imagined nature; when the dependent nature is purified, it is the perfected nature. Literally speaking, the nonexistence of the imagined in the dependent is the perfected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Terminology of Three Natures
Content:
Seeker12 said:
The three natures as presented in the Mahayana are the parikalpita nature, the paratantra nature, and the pariniṣpanna nature.

Does anyone know or can any point to any resources on the actual breakdown of these terms? They are translated in various ways, such as Imaginary, Other-dependent & Perfect (Karl Brunnhölzl), Imagined, Other-dependent & Consummate (Jay L. Garfield), and Imputation, Dependence & the Absolute (Lama Chökyi Nyima) - I am interested in the sort of etymology of the terms.

For example, I'm guessing parikalpita has various parts such as pari and kalpita or whatever - what do the various parts mean?

Thanks. I hope it's clear enough.

Malcolm wrote:
Pari means totally, kalpita means imagined, conceptualized, etc.
Para means other; tantra means dependent.
niṣpanna means "accomplished" or "perfected, as in completion stage, niṣpannakrama. Thus pariniṣpanna means "totally perfected"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
Refugee said:
I wouldn't be so quick to judge a masters passing as in auspicious. What do we know?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not inauspicious for him, it is inauspicious for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Beyond cause and effect
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
By going beyond the mind.

Spelare said:
In order to discern and grow in familiarity with the capacity to do so, would it be advisable to engage in exercises aimed at discrimination between sems and sems nyid?

Malcolm wrote:
that helps. But what one really needs is a guru with the intimate instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Ok man. Malcolm says don't judge anyones practice

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we really cannot judge anyone's practice of Vajrayāna based on external criteria. In order to judge, we would need to be able to be able to know the minds of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I am more thinking of meatspace experiences.

Malcolm wrote:
We cannot judge anyone's practice. Look at Milarepa, he spent twenty years running around wanting to learn sorcery, studying with this and that teacher, and even, according to legend, killed sentient beings, fellow Vajrayāna practitioners. Who could have had worse samaya to repair than Milarepa?

There are many examples of this nature.

In any case, many tantras state that in the Kali Yoga, only mantrayāna is an effective means of liberation. If one does not accept this, then there is no point in following Vajrayāna at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
Honestly some Vajrayana/Dzogchen people seem to practice for questionable reasons - some sense of gaining spiritual power or self-aggrandizement-, and often they also refuse to get a basic grounding in Mahayana as well. I've even seen some put the Mahayana as a whole down nonstop because it's "too conceptual"..

Malcolm wrote:
It is too conceptual. This is a valid criticism. And without siddhis one will not benefit many people at all.

Johnny Dangerous said:
But I feel like in at least some cases, people simply jump into Vajrayana without a real base, and tend to disregard the Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
We depend on Mahāyāna for view and motivation, but not for methods.

Johnny Dangerous said:
young people collecting Vajrayana practices at a feverish pace...

Malcolm wrote:
These young people will, if they maintain their samayas, attain full buddhahood eons before mindfulness practitioners. I salute them.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Really we're all a mess though, honestly.

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are buddhas,
obscured by transient afflictions.

-- Hevajra Tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen does not suffering from dogmatism because it based in personal experience which is absolutely unmistakable, the same is true for the rest of Vajrayāna practice. Progress in Dzogchen teachings is based on unmistakable phenomena which one cannot fake or imagine. This is true also of general Vajrayāna. In other words, if your vajra and bell are not floating, you are not making much progress.

Grigoris said:
Mine fall down all the time from my small practice table...  Does that count as progress?

Malcolm wrote:
Only if they are blown off to the side by the wind while they are levitating during your practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
That makes sense and does not sound contraversial at all to me. I get the not improving nor corrupting the view. Thank you for clarifying.

krodha said:
Perhaps not controversial to you, but certainly to those involved with more common systems. Which is why it is best to avoid broadcasting openly. It can inadvertently create aversion, etc., which becoming an obstacle for someone else, in the sense of a barrier to Dzogchen, is extremely negative.

LoveFromColorado said:
The level of contraversy likely springs from the level of dogmatism present in the individual. If one is dogmatic about a belief or ideal, then the very nature of that dogmatism instills a sense of duality ("truth" and "everything not truth"). I was raised in an extremely dogmatic environment and am now in quite the opposite position which makes accepting change, realizing nuances, and taking a "middle" approach to many things much easier.

Just my own two cents for what they are worth

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen does not suffering from dogmatism because it based in personal experience which is absolutely unmistakable, the same is true for the rest of Vajrayāna practice. Progress in Dzogchen teachings is based on unmistakable phenomena which one cannot fake or imagine. This is true also of general Vajrayāna. In other words, if your vajra and bell are not floating, you are not making much progress.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Bön and Ati Muwer
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Well this esoteric violence caused nearly the disappearing of a very old  "Tibetan" culture, which was venerated a very long time by the Tibetan kings, it assured them the ladder to heaven.

Malcolm wrote:
The extent to which Tibetan Kings from Nyatri Tsanpo onward take Zhang Zhung names shows that Tibet was a vassal state of Zhang Zhung between the late second century BCE to the 7 century CE, dominated by a powerful neighbor. But the climate changed in Western Tibet, from the 6th century onwards, because of long term deforestation, overgrazing and so on, causing the upper Tibetan plateau to became nonviable for sustaining intensive agriculture and so on, leading to the decline and eventual collapse of the Zhang Zhung civilization.

It is true that "Bonpos", clans with political allegiances to the old Zhang Zhung kingdom, hostile to Indian influence at the Tibetan court, were expelled from Central Tibet during the late 8th century, in part because of their opposition to the importation of Indian Buddhism. However, the Bonpo accounts of this Imperial period history are distorted, as irrefutable textual scholarship has shown. Ligmincha was not assassinated in the 8th century by Trisong De'utsan, as Bonpo accounts generally hold, but rather by Srongtsan Gampo in the 7th century, as comparative analysis with surviving old Tibetan documents show.

The Bon that existed (if Bon existed at that time at all) at the time of the Imperial period is not the Bon which exists today. So called Yungdrung Bon, the Bon that exists today, is modern system which dates no earlier than the 11th century. Bonpo partisans may persist in their ideas about the origins of Bon, but no modern scholar with any credibility accepts them. Bon largely derives its modern day teaching from Indian Buddhism, drawing upon both Nyingma as well as Sarma sources. In Bon literature, traces survive of pre-Buddhist Tibetan religious practices, but not enough to constitute a systematic tradition.

The truth is that Tibetans had no system of writing prior to Songtsan Gampo's reign. While some scholars, like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu have endeavored to show that Tibetans indeed has a system of writing prior to this period, there is also no evidence that there was writing in Zhang Zhung, and extensive paleographical analysis proves that all Tibetan writing systems, including dmar yig, and so on, descend ultimately from the late Gupta script used in Nepal and North India, adapted to the Tibetan language in Tibet during the 7th century, no earlier than 630 CE. Sam van Schaik has written an excellent article on the subject ( https://www.academia.edu/2039996/A_New_Look_at_the_Tibetan_Invention_of_Writing ), which anyone interested in Tibetan history should read.  He leaves open the possibility that Tibetans might have used writing earlier than this, but there is no documented evidence or contemporary confirmation of such usage. The fact that Tibet had no system of writing, as reported by the Chinese Tang Annals, as well as the Tibetans themselves, should be enough to cast doubts on Bonpo claims for an antiquity competing with or exceeding that of Indian Buddhism.

The truth is that Yungdrung Bon is a modern system, heavily dependent on Indian Buddhism and entirely indebted to it. Of course, being a copy of Indian Buddhism, by and large, we cannot say that the doctrines it espouses are false or wrong, because that would call into question the original: Indian Buddhism. But we can certainly point out that the Bon origin narrative are wholly fabricated, assembled out of vague memories of important pre-Buddhist religious and clan leaders, and cast in myths which provides a source for their religion which is not located in India, but rather the previously culture region that was dominant in Tibet prior to the 7th century, the then predominantly-Buddhist, Iranian-speaking regions of Central Asian, as the origin stories told about Tonpa Shenrab, and several clan histories of Tibetan clans show.

A possible Bon response to this would be to point out that likewise, there is virtually no evidence to support many Buddhist narratives about the Seven Past Buddhas and so on, and I agree, there is no evidence to support the existence of the six buddhas prior to Śākyamuni apart from annals that recorded their names in Vinaya texts, Sūtras, and the like, and list their names. However, these lists all correspond and can be dated to the 1st century BCE. Since we are dealing with religious texts, we are likely to find many myths and legends in them that are unprovable.

I don't state any of the above because I bear some grudge against the Bon tradition. Quite the contrary, I am perhaps one of the few Buddhist scholars who openly admits to enjoying reading and delving to Bonpo literature, because I think it is important for deepening understanding Tibetan culture and literature. On the other hand, it would be dishonest for me to support Bonpo claims to antiquity and so on, simply put, because there is absolutely no evidence for it. In the case of Tonpa Shenrab, there are only a few fragments concerning him in Dunhuang material and the old Tibetan documents, and they do not paint a picture of a nirmanakāya, but rather, a picture of a religious personage engaged in ritual activities along with other Tibetan priests in the pre-Buddhist period.

Finally, with respect to the idea that there are two Padmasambhavas, one good, and one evil, this is a notion also bandied about by some sectarian fools in the Geluk school. It is a silly idea, and a total fabrication.

There is only one Padmasambhava, who came from a region in what is now Pakistan, to assist the king of Tibet in building Samye. In terms of the oldest accounts we have, there is some disagreement about the manner of his birth, how long he stayed, and what he did in Tibet, but there is 100 percent agreement among all that he introduced the system of Vajrakilaya into Tibet, that he tamed the gods and demons of Tibet at Mt. Hepo, that Yeshe Tosgyal was his partner, and when his work was finished, he departed towards the southwest from the plains of Gungthang.

Now, given that you are posting in a Buddhist forum, it ought to be brought to your attention that very few people here have faith in Bon. Bon is tolerated because it is Tibetan and because it is derived from Buddhism, but most Tibetan Buddhists are not interested in Bon, for better or for worse. Your aggressive promotion of Bon has been tolerated for many years now. But when you engage in politics and start making false claims about Padmasambhava, such as claiming there was a Good Bonpo Padmasambhava and a Bad Indian Yogi Padmasambhava, you are no better than Buddhists who reduce all Bonpos to practitioners of animal sacrifice. You are just engaging in blatant sectarianism. Whether or not the tradition of the tigress being Ati Muwer is true or false, the fact is that Padmasambhava was invited to Tibet to subdue native Pre-Buddhist Tibetan, a.k.a., Bonpo gods. His endeavor to do so was regarded as a success by the Tibetan Kings. His form of Buddhism was adopted and whatever native religious traditions that existed in Tibet went rapidly into decline, never to be resurrected. The power of the clans with allegiance to Zhang Zhung, as well as allegiance to China was permanently broken, and from 9th century onward most Tibetans regarded India as the source of their spiritual tradition. The vast majority of members here are Buddhists who also look to India as the source of their tradition, and speaking for the majority, most of us find Bon of barely passing interest, not because it is of no value, but because we are not going to become disciples of Bonpo lamas and take up the various practice cycles one can find there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Does Consciousness Continue After Cessation?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not according to definition of “arhat” in the lower schools. But, they are still arhats from the POV of the Mahayana.

Astus said:
So the arhat of ekayana is not the arhat of triyana (that includes Mahayana as well), and since no ekayanist has a sravaka motivation, their arhat idea has never actually been aspired to by anyone, thus nobody to convince or argue with on the superiority of bodhisattvayana. In other words, the ekayana arhat is a straw man.

Malcolm wrote:
No, since the Lankavatara points out that arhats are roused from an equipoise of cessation and then set on the bodhisattva path, their motivation now redirected towards full buddhahood.

Ekayāna does not mean that everyone has the same motivation; it means that despite the three kinds of bodhicitta formed as a cause, all paths lead to full buddhahood (with a little intervention required in the case of arhats and pratyekabuddhas).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:


anjali said:
While this is certainly true, I can't imagine that you are advocating that one ignore the law of cause and effect. Otherwise, that would be a case of conduct getting lost in the view, no?

Lukeinaz said:
if dzogchen, our real nature, is beyond cause and effect, what is left to be ignored?

LoveFromColorado said:
Thanks all for the conversation. I have read The Crystal and the Way of Light as well as The Source and have some intellectual understanding of this discussion but have not received a direct transmission from ChNN.

That said, if I were to attend a teaching of ChNN's and in the middle of it jumped on stage and physically attacked him then certainly someone would stop me. If I said, "Well, this is all beyond mind" surely the response would not be, "Oh yeah, you're right, sorry." It feels that there is something bordering on nihilism here in this conversation that is out of balance. I get that our experience and mind are dependent arising and that rigpa is beyond both but that does not seem to address the delicate balance of interacting with our experiences. With this pretense, it would seem that even regarding someone as a guru would be false. Why do guru yoga then? Why make practices for ChNN's health if we merely stop at rigpa being beyond experience and mind? There would be no point - surely there is something deeper here?

Does that make sense, and can anyone shed any light here?

Malcolm wrote:
I think I said you need to study this point with a qualified teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: Does Consciousness Continue After Cessation?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Śṛī Mālādevi Sūtra points out that arhats and pratyekabuddhas, as well as bodhisattvas, have not in fact abandoned all afflictions.

Astus said:
That is the former case, where arhats are not free from clinging to the aggregates, so not really arhats.

Malcolm wrote:
Not according to definition of “arhat” in the lower schools. But, they are still arhats from the POV of the Mahayana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Does Consciousness Continue After Cessation?
Content:
Supramundane said:
could you elaborate

Astus said:
If the 'subtle mental body' refers to the mental aggregates, then an arhat must still be attached to the aggregates, hence that person cannot actually be called an arhat. But if it is something beyond the aggregates, then there are actually six aggregates. So, in either case, the idea that an arhat is stuck in a subtle mental body contradicts either the definition of arhatship or the doctrine of the five aggregates, unless there is somehow a third option.

Malcolm wrote:
The Śṛī Mālādevi Sūtra points out that arhats and pratyekabuddhas, as well as bodhisattvas, have not in fact abandoned all afflictions.

“O Lord, arhats and pratyekabuddhas are afraid. Because these arhats
and pratyekabuddhas still have not extinguished their lives, these [psychophysical
forces] continue. They have not completed the practice of purity, and so
remain impure. Because their actions are not ultimate, they still have actions
to perform. Because they have not reached that [final stage], they still have
defilements that should be severed. Because these are not severed, one is far
from the realm of nirvana...The inconceivable death
of transformation [for a purpose] refers to the mind-made bodies of the arhats,
pratyekabuddhas, and greatly powerful bodhisattvas until the time of their
supreme, complete enlightenment.

Pg. 24, https://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/pdf/dBET_Srimala_Vimalakirti_2004_0.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=480


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen there is no need to engage in virtuous deeds

LoveFromColorado said:
Hi again everyone! I have been reflecting on this statement over the past couple of days and I must confess that I'm having a difficult time coming to grips with it.  For example, the ninth virtuous deed is to give up wishing harm for others and instead cultivate compassion. The tenth would be to give up wrong views and establish oneself in the correct view. And so on... avoid killing, renounce stealing, practice compassion, speak truthfully, etc.

How can one not engage in these and expect inner peace, awakening, etc.? For example, if you have resources and come across someone who is in true need and withhold those resources, then how can your mind be calm?

Beyond that, it seems to go against some basic teachings regarding the Bodhisattva path and even the kindness of the guru.

Thanks in advance!

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is a path beyond mind. Positive and negative deeds are created by the mind. If you really want to understand this point, you really need to study with someone who is an authentic Dzogchen master. Be careful, because there are not many of those around. But there are many people who use the reputation of Dzogchen to sell themselves as teachers, putting out a deer's tail, but selling donkey meat instead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:
pemachophel said:
"And the fifth precept with respect to laypeople is really the fourth, actually, since if you do not forgo drinking alcohol, you also do not possess the precept of avoiding sexual misconduct (on the theory that the former will lead to the latter)."

Apropos of this, there's a Lama, maybe Kagyud, (Whose name I cannot dredge up) Who won't give any of the other four precepts if you don't take the fifth for this very reason. Since alcohol diminishes mindfulness and knowing what should and should not be done -- drenpa and sheshin -- it makes any of the preceding four all the more easy to break, not just sex.

IME, the problem with alcohol is that you don't necessarily know you've drunk too much, and when you do, it's already too late.


Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, a four vow holder holds the vows of refuge, as well as the the precept of not taking life, not stealing, and not lying. This is how it is classified in the three vows.

But of course, as Mahāyānis, the principle of the precepts is not the physical action, but rather, the intention behind the action -- for this reason, Mahāyāna bhikṣus may handle money, associated with women, and so on, because much of what is prohibited in Śrāvakayāna vows is permitted in Mahāyāna and vice verse. The Trisamvara Chapter of the Ratnakuta goes into this at length, as does Sakya Paṇḍita in his Distinguishing the Three Vows.

Also, having a beer or a glass of wine, or even a whole bottle of wine, does not necessarily imply that one must lose one's mindfulness. It depends on one's capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2018 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:
pemachophel said:
According to Khenchen Konchog Gyaltshen, the tshog chang is amrit and not/no longer alcohol. So it does not violate the fifth precept.

Malcolm wrote:
Can't violate it if you don't hold it. Observing the pratinokṣa vows is a choice, not an obligation. And the fifth precept with respect to laypeople is really the fourth, actually, since if you do not forgo drinking alcohol, you also do not possess the precept of avoiding sexual misconduct (on the theory that the former will lead to the latter).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2018 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is a special position of the Gelugpa school. It is considered very erroneous by all other Tibetan Buddhist schools.

Coëmgenu said:
How does Tibetan Buddhism navigate this disagreement?

Malcolm wrote:
Debate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2018 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:



Coëmgenu said:
This practice seems to take ānāpānasmṛti up to the third dhyāna. I suppose this kind of concentration does not require vitarkavicara?

Malcolm wrote:
They are required for analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2018 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:
Grigoris said:
Oh...  Just to be clear...

I uphold the fifth precept, but still engage in ritual use of alcohol twice a month.

Malcolm wrote:
I drink wine ritually too, every day, more or less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2018 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:
pemachophel said:
Tulzhug Lingpa, a.k.a. Duddul Rolpai Dorje, a well-known Terton of the mid-20th century and student of both H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdral Yeshe Dorje, and Chatral Sangay Dorje, wrote a small book on the importance of avoiding alcohol for Buddhist practitioners -- The Youthful Armor for Those Who Want Liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa definitely does not agree with this:

Imbibing booze, one is happy; when tasted, one is sated;
internally, the body and mind are supremely blissful;
appearances are  blissful and vivid, resembling the realization of dharmatā:
the qualities of good-tasting booze are abundant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 1st, 2018 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, even so, one does not take emptiness as an object of śamatha. Śamatha is basically the first dhyāna and does not move beyond this, because it is necessary to posses the mental factors of vitarka and vicara so one can apply ultimate analysis. Once this ultimate analysis on the path of application has achieved its result, nonconceptual realization of emptiness, at this point, śamatha and vipaśyāna are conjoined in genuine sense. Prior to the path of seeing, one's vipaśyāna remains conceptual. Śamatha is merely a support for vipaśyāna.

Coëmgenu said:
What do you make of this passage from Venerable Lhundub Sopa's commentary on Venerable Tsongkhapa's Lamrim Chenmo?
Emptiness as the object for cultivating serenity is only for those of exceptionally astute aptitude who have realized emptiness inferentially. Temporarily forsaking analysis, they concentrate on emptiness that has been conceptually understood

Malcolm wrote:
This is a special position of the Gelugpa school. It is considered very erroneous by all other Tibetan Buddhist schools. A mind conceptually focused on a proliferation, in this case a generic mental image of the absence of inherent existence, cannot free itself from proliferations by means of a proliferation. The point of ultimate analysis is to exhaust proliferation, as Śantideva points in the ninth Chapter of the Bodhicaryāvatāra:

When neither an entity nor a nonentity 
is present before the mind;
there being no other alternative,
the mind is pacified.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 12:24 PM
Title: Re: Beyond cause and effect
Content:
Spelare said:
How, concretely, does one realize the view beyond cause and effect?

Malcolm wrote:
By going beyond the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:



Quay said:
For me I’m not so much interested in the authors of these pieces but rather what the pieces actually say.

I think that putting the original letter and this response side-by-side produces a clear winner. The former seemed too glib, overly simplified, and factually questionable while the latter was clear, fact-based, and persuasive.

Malcolm wrote:
I really cannot stand this Western Liberal bias for facts.

amanitamusc said:
What news sources do glean facts from?

Malcolm wrote:
Multiple sources fir everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 8:30 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One thing I highly disagree with in this translation is rendering śamatha as "cessation." Śamatha is not cessation (nirodha). Śamatha is an equipoise.

Coëmgenu said:
On this we both agree again.
Malcolm wrote:
With respect to Zhiyi, emptiness is not an object of śamatha at all. Taking emptiness as an object of śamatha is really quite incorrect because it takes something that is free from proliferation and turns it into a conceptual proliferation, and such a meditation, at best, will lead to birth in the āyatana of "infinite emptiness."

Also the idea that śamatha is sustained by vipaśyāna is quite bizarre to me.

Coëmgenu said:
Isn't the union of śamatha and vipaśyanā the endeavour of Mahāyāna in general? It is in the name of the text in question, Mahāśamathavipaśyanā.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, even so, one does not take emptiness as an object of śamatha. Śamatha is basically the first dhyāna and does not move beyond this, because it is necessary to posses the mental factors of vitarka and vicara so one can apply ultimate analysis. Once this ultimate analysis on the path of application has achieved its result, nonconceptual realization of emptiness, at this point, śamatha and vipaśyāna are conjoined in genuine sense. Prior to the path of seeing, one's vipaśyāna remains conceptual. Śamatha is merely a support for vipaśyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 7:58 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Even though he recognizes them in some sense to be synonyms, the way he parses them is highly misleading.

Coëmgenu said:
I actually agree. This is "interpenetration", "round fusion", "interfusion", 圓融. This is a triple contemplation, something that you disagree with here: One cannot reside in equipoise on both truths at the same time. Why? It is because they are the objects of mutually exclusive cognitions: one true, one false.
But this is three elements of equipoise.

It seems like an extraordinary contemplative feat, perhaps impossible, if we are to be skeptical instead of inquisitive. I can't imagine it. When the truths of emptiness, conventionality, and the middle are contemplated as the objects of cessation [śamatha], it is realized that these are three truths yet one truth. When cessation is sustained by means of insight [vipaśyanā] into the three truths, it is realized that these are three cessations yet one cessation.
(CSQI 467)

So it's not really necessarily 3 residences of equipoise. He says it is one residence. Then is ambiguous. IMO now.

Malcolm wrote:
One thing I highly disagree with in this translation is rendering śamatha as "cessation." Śamatha is not cessation (nirodha). Śamatha is an equipoise.

With respect to Zhiyi, emptiness is not an object of śamatha at all. Taking emptiness as an object of śamatha is really quite incorrect because it takes something that is free from proliferation and turns it into a conceptual proliferation, and such a meditation, at best, will lead to birth in the āyatana of "infinite emptiness."

Also the idea that śamatha is sustained by vipaśyāna is quite bizarre to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:


Coëmgenu said:
The description of this contemplation is at CSQI 461, it is an entering into the ultimate through the conventional, followed by a re-entering into the conventional from the ultimate, to establish emptiness of both.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate truth is understood based on convention. This is perfectly correct. However, there is no need to renter the conventional from the ultimate at all. As Āryadeva says in the 400, understanding the emptiness of one thing is understanding the emptiness of all things. How is anything at all excluded from that statement? There is no need to establish the emptiness of emptiness at all in this way. Seems like a lot of wasted effort.

Coëmgenu said:
Well, Ven Zhiyi does say: This is the gradual-and-successive type of contemplation that involves expansion and growth, and is not the type of contemplation I wish to utilize here in Mo-ho chih-kuan.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem arises in CSQI pg. 467, where Zhiyi treats emptiness, dependent designation, and the middle way as three different truths, when in fact they are merely synonyms. In this he really departs significantly from Madhyamaka. Even though he recognizes them in some sense to be synonyms, the way he parses them is highly misleading.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:


Coëmgenu said:
The description of this contemplation is at CSQI 461, it is an entering into the ultimate through the conventional, followed by a re-entering into the conventional from the ultimate, to establish emptiness of both.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate truth is understood based on convention. This is perfectly correct. However, there is no need to renter the conventional from the ultimate at all. As Āryadeva says in the 400, understanding the emptiness of one thing is understanding the emptiness of all things. How is anything at all excluded from that statement? There is no need to establish the emptiness of emptiness at all in this way. Seems like a lot of wasted effort.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Two truths or Three?
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
(Referencing Swanson Clear Insight Quiet Serenity (CQSI) translation of Ven Zhiyi Mahāśamathavipaśyanā)

If you read the source material, how Ven Zhiyi introduces the threefold contemplation is actually

1) Contemplation of 2 truths
2) Contemplation of equality
3) Contemplation of the middle

This is all in gradual, not perfect.

If you observe the way that contemplation 1 functions, it does not establish an equity between 2 truths, it simply destroys conventional dharmāḥ.

Malcolm wrote:
Conventional phenomena are not destroyed by apprehending their ultimate truth. If they were, their ultimate truth could not be apprehended; and they could be not be perceived as conventional phenomena in post-equipoise.

The idea that conventional phenomena are destroyed in analysis is an error.

Coëmgenu said:
If you look at the way that the contemplation 2 functions, you can see that this view establishes 2 truths as equally empty.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot reside in equipoise on both truths at the same time. Why? It is because they are the objects of mutually exclusive cognitions: one true, one false.

Coëmgenu said:
Contemplation 3, the middle, directly on page 462, it is only here wherein "emptiness of emptiness" is established.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no cognitions apart from veridical and false cognitions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:


ford_truckin said:
Why would you want others to keep accumulating bad karma by selling alcohol so you can have some for your puja?

Maybe learn how to make some at home if you need it badly. That way you aren't supporting an industry that contributes to many social ills, misery, and death worldwide.

Malcolm wrote:
The precept against drinking is the only one of the five precepts that is a prohibition as opposed to a natural nonvirtue. Thus, brewing, selling, and consuming alcohol is not nonvirtuous by nature. The consumption of alcohol does not necessarily lead to nonvirtuous deeds, but those for whom this is case should refrain from drinking.

ford_truckin said:
Not sure where you're getting your info.

"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.040.than.html

Malcolm wrote:
Please tell me which of the ten nonvirtuous actions of body, voice and mind include the prohibition against alcohol? The point is that precept against intoxication is a prohibition, not a natural nonvirtue. The other four precepts—taking life, taking what is not given, lying, and sexual misconduct—are natural nonvirtues. Not only this, we can understand that the precept against drinking alcohol for monks is classed as the same kind of offense as pulling leaves off of trees. Not that serious.

Further, in Mahāyāna, drinking alcohol is permitted for the purposes of conviviality with common people, and in unsurpassed secret mantra, it is permitted, period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/response-dzongsar-jamyang-khyentse-rinpoche/?utm_source=social&utm_medium=fb

Quay said:
For me I’m not so much interested in the authors of these pieces but rather what the pieces actually say.

I think that putting the original letter and this response side-by-side produces a clear winner. The former seemed too glib, overly simplified, and factually questionable while the latter was clear, fact-based, and persuasive.

Malcolm wrote:
I really cannot stand this Western Liberal bias for facts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 5:05 AM
Title: Two truths or Three?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Conventional is not false. Its empty.

Malcolm wrote:
It appears you don't understand what "conventional" ( vyavahāra ) means.

Queequeg said:
the pot is a convention. in a given context, it holds up well as a pot, like when I'm boiling my porridge. In other words, the pot is true. Its also empty. And yet, its conventionally there.

Malcolm wrote:
The definition of "conventional" is predicated on a given thing being able to serve a function according to how it is designated. A given pot in which things can be cooked is a valid pot because it functions according to its designation, it is thus a conventional truth.

When a conventional pot is perceived by an ordinary person, this is a superficial truth, because their cognition of the pot is mistaken with respect to its actual nature, emptiness, though their perception is not mistaken with respect to its aspect: a working, functional pot.

When the same conventional pot is perceived by an ārya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise, their perception of the conventional pot is unmistaken, an ultimate truth, because such a bodhisattva is perceiving the pot in terms of its actual nature, emptiness. When such a bodhisattva leaves meditative equipoise, their perception of the conventional pot is again mistaken with respect to its essence. The key difference however between the ārya bodhisattva and an ordinary person like you or I, is that the ārya bodhisattva now has a direct, nonconceptual experience of ultimate truth, which in post-equipoise irrevocably undermines their clinging to phenomena as real.

These two perceptions are mutually exclusive and cannot be cognized at one and the same time by anyone, anywhere, just as no one can simultaneously see the same entity as wholly black and wholly white at one and the same time.

Queequeg said:
Suffering comes from naively thinking the pot is essentially real. That's ignorance of emptiness. That's not what we're talking about.

Malcolm wrote:
Suffering comes about from the afflictive obscuration that causes us to continue to have attachment to entities even though we, as ordinary Buddhists, know intellectually that dependent origination is empty, dependently designated, and the middle way. This is precisely what I am talking about, and have been talking about all along.  We have this suffering because, as we have to admit, we do not truly know the distinction between the two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To assert, conventionally, that true and false cognitions are ontologically identical is not only facially incoherent, but also soteriologically negative.

Queequeg said:
Conventional is not false. Its empty.

Malcolm wrote:
Asserting that true and false cognitions are ontologically identical, conventionally speaking, is a false statement. The explanation you summoned from the internet in an attempt to explain your third truth makes this claim, and it is facially incoherent. So either you believe that true and false cognitions are ontologically identical or you don't.

Queequeg said:
Your asserting something beyond the two truths - "The two truths are inseparable"... Some might call that a third truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Observing that the two truths are inseparable is merely stating that a given entity, such as a pot, can be the object of a veridical cognition (ultimate truth) or the object of a false cognition (superficial truth). It does not mean this is a third truth.

Understanding the distinction between the two truths is vitally important for liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:


Queequeg said:
We're not in a court of law. We're talking about the alleviation of suffering, and more specifically, Zhiyi's medicine. You're just reiterating what you already think. You're not discussing Zhiyi.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure I am. Zhiyi claims there are three truths. This is a novel claim since it is not found in the sūtras nor in Madhyamaka, not even in Yogacāra, for that matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:


Queequeg said:
Zhiyi was not engaging in some theoretical postulating.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither was Nāgārjuna, nor am I.


Queequeg said:
What he described as extreme were people who sink into emptiness and stay there. The third truth was a palliative to turn the contemplation back to compassionate activity.

Malcolm wrote:
As before, it isn't necessary.

The two truths cannot be the same, ontologically, because one, ultimate truth, is the object of a veridical cognition, and the other, relative or superficial truth, is the object of a false cognition. The only way the two truths could be ontologically identical is if true cognitions and false cognitions where the same. This is an incoherent position. If you claim your putative "third truth" to be the ontological identity of the two truths, your claim is facially incoherent.  The soteriologically negative consequences of such a position are staggering, to say the least.

Queequeg said:
Conventional truth is not false. Its empty.

Malcolm wrote:
To assert, conventionally, that true and false cognitions are ontologically identical is not only facially incoherent, but also soteriologically negative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:


Queequeg said:
Zhiyi was not engaging in some theoretical postulating.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither was Nāgārjuna, nor am I.


Queequeg said:
What he described as extreme were people who sink into emptiness and stay there. The third truth was a palliative to turn the contemplation back to compassionate activity.

Malcolm wrote:
As before, it isn't necessary.

The two truths cannot be the same, ontologically, because one, ultimate truth, is the object of a veridical cognition, and the other, relative or superficial truth, is the object of a false cognition. The only way the two truths could be ontologically identical is if true cognitions and false cognitions where the same. This is an incoherent position. If you claim your putative "third truth" to be the ontological identity of the two truths, your claim is facially incoherent.  The soteriologically negative consequences of such a position are staggering, to say the least.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:



Queequeg said:
The running problem in this exchange is that Zhiyi is not considered on his terms - meaning, we're not really talking about Zhiyi.

Malcolm wrote:
When you are in a court of law, do you only discuss things on the defendent's terms? If so, no one would ever be found guilty.

Queequeg said:
We're unfortunately just talking about some users' perception of Zhiyi. That's an uninteresting and futile discussion. Introducing canonically irrelevant sources doesn't further the discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing a canonically irrelevant source, unless one is trying to refute a higher position with the textual sources of a lower one: for example, attempting to refute Madhyamaka positions with Yogacāra texts. Are you asserting that Zhiyi has a higher position than the Buddha or Nāgārjuna? If so, you need to demonstrate that. If Zhiyi does not have a higher position than the Buddha or Nāgārjuna, then Mahāyāna Sūtra citations dealing with the two truths and Madhyamaka commentators on Nāgārjuna must be admissible sources. It then only remains to be shown whether his positions are consistent with Mahāyāna Sūtra sources on the two truths and Madhyamaka in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Atīśa and śrāvaka texts
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
It looks like he just had teams work on revised translations for readability. Did he actually "ban" any particular scriptures? Or is this advanced broken telephone

Context: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=31909&p=471769&hilit=Tibetan#p471769

Malcolm wrote:
Ralpacan decided it was a waste of time to translate the Agamas in their entirety. Thus, there are only a few representative texts. However, the Abhidharmakosha literature was all translated.

Coëmgenu said:
I imagine most significant āgama scriptures that were untranslated were likely translated in quotation in various Abhidharma texts, like kośa, kośabhāṣya, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a commentary on Kośabhāṣyam through citations called the Abhidharmakośaṭīkopayikānāma by Śamathadeva. But you can only read it in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
Queequeg said:
Please explain.

Malcolm wrote:
Please give Candrakīrti”s Madhyamavatara a careful read. It’s the pinnacle of Nagarjuna”s intent.

Queequeg said:
Please define what 'it' means.

Malcolm wrote:
It refers to the Madhyamakavatara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Beyond these things, however, is an understanding that enlightenment can be moment to moment and indeed may take shape over the course over a number of lifetimes.

No. Awakening is an irreversible state.
Thanks Malcolm. My information here was received from a teaching by Anam Thubten a couple of weeks ago in which he made mention that one can experience enlightenment in any given moment. Do you have a source that states otherwise? I ask this purely out of interest, not contention.

Malcolm wrote:
One can experience awakening in any given moment, and when you do, you are a first stage bodhisattva. But the idea that you can experience awakening and then return the state of an ordinary, unawakened being is very mistaken-- it represents a complete confusion of the paths and stages. Once one has experienced awakening, one joins the rank of the āryas. On the other hand, it is possible to experience a similitude of awakening below what is called "the path of seeing." This similitude of awakening, however, is still conceptual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 30th, 2018 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: How do we know our practice is working?
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
I am certainly a small practitioner who is not nearly as well taught or experienced as many on this forum, but I do have a couple of thoughts that came to mind in reading this question.  Please forgive me if I am off base.

From my limited understanding, the basic hallmark of "progress" on a spiritual path is avoiding the ten unwholesome actions and embracing the ten virtuous actions.  Even more broadly speaking, if you see compassion and wisdom increasing in your life, then you can have some degree of confidence that you are making "progress" on the path.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen there is no need to engage in virtuous deeds —— but the sign of practice is that one has less inclination to engage in nonvirtuous deeds.


LoveFromColorado said:
Beyond these things, however, is an understanding that enlightenment can be moment to moment and indeed may take shape over the course over a number of lifetimes.


Malcolm wrote:
No. Awakening is an irreversible state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:


PeterC said:
It is however an issue if you happen to be one of his students.  And out of consideration for those people we should exercise moderation - though not deference.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a reason why high lamas should stay out of politics and avoid scholastic debates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Fact: Last time I checked, you were a product of Western Civilization. Must be interesting to be a self-hating westerner.

Grigoris said:
I disagree with this analysis.  It is not necessary to embrace all aspects of western culture.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said it was.

Grigoris said:
Some here are railing about the fact that Rinpoche has benefited from western culture and thus does not have a right to criticise it.  Sorry, but that is BS.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, some people are saying that. That is not my point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
Queequeg said:
Please explain.

Malcolm wrote:
Please give Candrakīrti”s Madhyamavatara a careful read. It’s the pinnacle of Nagarjuna”s intent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:



Queequeg said:
No. If that's how it comes across then its a shortcoming of how I'm communicating.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no third (object of) cognition that we can call "the middle," and thus you agree, there are only two truths, and not three. Why? Because things can only be perceived correctly or incorrectly, there is no third cognition beyond those two.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Queequeg said:
I can't find where Nagarjuna says cognition of the conditioned is incorrect. I agree, if one things the conditioned is permanent, that is incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on how you are cognizing it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/response-dzongsar-jamyang-khyentse-rinpoche/?utm_source=social&utm_medium=fb


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:


Nemo said:
So pointing out the hypocrisy of the comments here about what the letter calls a "blatant double standard" is irrelevant? I am discussing the content of DJKRs letter. What are you talking about? And how is Myanmar not simply following the US example. US went to war on the Muslim world in 2001 and is still bombing daily. Rohingya expulsion began over a decade after. If you are murdering people every day maybe censuring others is a bit much. Take back Obama's Peace Prize or just live with being a hypocrite.

Malcolm wrote:
You are making a lot of personal assumptions here, which are unwarranted. 1) When did I ever defend Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? 2) When did I ever advocate killing Muslims as a sound and acceptable US Policy? I voted against Obama because of his policies in in 2012 [but not for Romney]. Finally, the Nobel Peace Prize is not mine to bestow or retract. You are just being deliberately antagonistic.

Ok, having dispensed with your ad hominem remarks, the regime in Myanmar is not basing themselves on any US policy, perceived or otherwise. They are simply engaged in ethnic cleansing of a minority, a minority which enthusiastically backed Aung San Su Khyi's government, a minority they have sought to expunge for decades. The Myanmar Gvt. and its predecessors have been systematically depriving the Rohingya rights as a community since 1962.

Finally, the idea that as an American, I ought to be quiet because my Gvt. is engaged in actions of which I do not approve is just absurd. You are Canadian, and your Gvt., as well as the British Gvt. was right in there in with American troops, "murdering Muslims" after 9/11 as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan. Yes, it is true that Canada sensibly avoided both Bush wars in Iraq, but your country did not avoid the Afghanistan war.

With respect to Dzongsar Khyentse's letter, as I said before, he is entitled to his own opinions but he is not entitled to his own facts, just as you are not entitled to your own facts.

These are the facts:
Fact: The Rohingya have been getting a raw deal for more than half a century, since the military coup that happened in 1962.
Fact: The Rohingya have been a persecuted, stateless people under Myanmar Law since 1962.
Fact: Aung San Su Khyi's government was won in part because of popular support of the Rohingya population.
Fact: Aung San Su Khyi has turned a blind eye to the suffering of a significant ethnic group for whom she is responsible as the de facto head of the state.
Fact: Dzongsar Khyentse's piece contains factual errors, whether or not one agrees with his opinions about the lowliness of Western Civilization or the glory of Asian Civilization.
Fact: Last time I checked, you were a product of Western Civilization. Must be interesting to be a self-hating westerner.

Just remember, the greatest Buddhist king in history, Aśoka, after his conversion to Buddhism murdered an entire community of 18,000 Jains for a slight toward the Buddha by one of them, and subsequently offered to pay a bounty of one dinara for the head of any Jain brought to him. By mistake Aśoka's brother, Vitaśoka, a Buddhist monk, was mistaken for a Jain, killed, and his head was turned in for the bounty. Only after this, only after misfortune was brought upon his own family because of his murderous policy, did Aśoka eliminate capital punishment. So much for the glory of Buddhist civilization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Just look at the Kośabhāṣyam.

Coëmgenu said:
Don't worry, I don't believe this dvayānika dharma. But I am interesting in learning what they believe nonetheless. I've read a few sections of Kośabhāṣyam, but TBH, the parts to-do with gandharvāḥ seem sparse on detail for my ever hungry proliferating mind.

My ever hungry proliferating mind is much like the others you have met. Not satisfied with "comprised of the air element", yet willing to admit that perhaps that is all we "need" to know.

Are gandharvāḥ elaborated on beyond chapter 3 of the Louis de La Vallee Poussin/Leo M. Pruden translation?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
The precept says nothing about "alcohol is  a poison", or "alcohol is inherently bad so don't have anything to do with it". There are other teachings that certainly  might say things like this, and we should adhere to the teachings which are definitive for us. If one is simply following the fifth precept though, then one just avoids intoxication which causes heedlessness, not much more to it than that from my point of view.

As far as Right Livelihood, IMO there is a certainly a substantial difference between someone who sells alcohol exclusively for a living, and someone who serves it as an incidental part of their job (waiter at a restaurant serving beer and wine, as one example). Also as I mentioned, if one does something like work at a bar, one will likely be put into situations which certainly would test one's Right livelihood - deciding to serve alcoholic regular customers for example.

Just working at a restaurant though? Objecting to that is just overzealous moralizing, from my point of view, not application of Buddhist ethics.

Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I am glad that alcohol is sold. Lonchenpa praises alcohol extensively.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Did you read the thread on the Gandhabba in the Classical Theravāda section of DhammaWheel?

I questioned Ven Dhammanando about Theravāda's lack of belief in an antarābhāva, yet belief in an gandhabba. He said
In reference to the Assalāyanasutta.

Malcolm wrote:
Who cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.

Coëmgenu said:
Well, Wayfarer is arguing a trajectory similar to mine in that thread, where I called the Gandhabba as likened to a "virtual particle", while trying to guess the classical dvayānika interpretation of the Assalāyanasutta: If the gandhabba isn't an intermediate being, or intermediate state of being, what else would it be? 

Hence my comment about virtual particles. 

A photon, for instance, is not a particle. It has no mass. But it is referred to as a particle for the sake of convenience of language when referred to it and dealing with it in general. 

It seems it's just something mysterious, then? 

[...]

Or perhaps it would be better to say that the Theravāda traditionally teach that there is or there would be "no time" so-to-speak, in an antarābhava, and as such it can't exist (I don't know if they would formally argue this, I am just drawing this as a possible conclusion leading why there can't be, and 'isn't an antarābhava'), but there is nonetheless a convenience of language to refer to the participation of the to-be-born, despite this not really being something that even "exists" in the same way that the beings mating do, assuming that that is indeed the case.

Malcolm wrote:
Just look at the Kośabhāṣyam.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Did you read the thread on the Gandhabba in the Classical Theravāda section of DhammaWheel?

I questioned Ven Dhammanando about Theravāda's lack of belief in an antarābhāva, yet belief in an gandhabba. He said
Assuming ‘gandhabba’ to be a term whose referent would have been understood by the Buddha’s listeners (an audience of unconverted brahmins in the Assalāyanasutta and the goofball Sāti in the Mahātaṇhāsankhayasutta) to be a living being rather than a dhamma, then the said referent would be a paññatti, not a dhamma, and as such would belong within the sammuti field of discourse.
In reference to the Assalāyanasutta.

Malcolm wrote:
Who cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 29th, 2018 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:


ford_truckin said:
Why would you want others to keep accumulating bad karma by selling alcohol so you can have some for your puja?

Maybe learn how to make some at home if you need it badly. That way you aren't supporting an industry that contributes to many social ills, misery, and death worldwide.

Malcolm wrote:
The precept against drinking is the only one of the five precepts that is a prohibition as opposed to a natural nonvirtue. Thus, brewing, selling, and consuming alcohol is not nonvirtuous by nature. The consumption of alcohol does not necessarily lead to nonvirtuous deeds, but those for whom this is case should refrain from drinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: Atīśa and śrāvaka texts
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
It looks like he just had teams work on revised translations for readability. Did he actually "ban" any particular scriptures? Or is this advanced broken telephone

Context: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=31909&p=471769&hilit=Tibetan#p471769

Malcolm wrote:
Ralpacan decided it was a waste of time to translate the Agamas in their entirety. Thus, there are only a few representative texts. However, the Abhidharmakosha literature was all translated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: Atīśa and śrāvaka texts
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Did King Atīśa issue a decree limiting the amount of hīnayāna scriptures translated into Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
Atisha was not a king. And no, it was Ralpachen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Nemo said:
So the country that just spent 6 trillion dollars killing 500,000 Muslims since 9/11 is very upset that some human rights were violated. You certainly are the experts.

Grigoris said:
While true, your logic is also a blatant case of " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism ".

Nemo said:
I hate to quote the Bible but, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Maybe the country that has killed 10 times as many Muslims and is still at war should fix itself before policing others?

Malcolm wrote:
Irrelevant to the present discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Learning Dzogchen online
Content:



Josef said:
Same. I have never experienced a separate refuge ceremony before an empowerment that includes one. That would just be redundant.

Malcolm wrote:
It makes some people happy to participate in a hair-cutting ceremony and be granted a refuge name.

Grigoris said:
And there is no need to deny them of that happiness!

Refuge, f taken seriously, is a serious entry into Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Going for refuge is the only entry into Dharma, whether one participates in a ritual or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Learning Dzogchen online
Content:
Grigoris said:
Ummmmm...  Every at single empowerment I have been to (Nyingma and Kagyu) there has been an "official" Refuge ceremony BEFORE the empowerments are given.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Greg, I’ve received many empowerments by a number of Nyingma lamas and I can’t remember them ever doing a separate refuge ceremony before the empowerment. The empowerment ritual itself contains refuge.

Josef said:
Same. I have never experienced a separate refuge ceremony before an empowerment that includes one. That would just be redundant.

Malcolm wrote:
It makes some people happy to participate in a hair-cutting ceremony and be granted a refuge name.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Learning Dzogchen online
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
How strange. One doesn't even have to have taken refuge to take an empowerment, since refuge is given in the course of the empowerment. Were those registrations for Nyingma empowerments?

Grigoris said:
Ummmmm...  Αt every single empowerment I have been to (Nyingma and Kagyu) there has been an "official" Refuge ceremony BEFORE the empowerments are given.

Malcolm wrote:
I have seen it done both ways. But it is not necessary. All empowerments being with refuge, and bodhicitta, because all empowerments must bestow the three vows, or renew them in those who have received them before.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 27th, 2018 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Namkhai Norbu's Chöd a dream terma?
Content:
Dharmaswede said:
As you the headline says.

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 27th, 2018 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Grigoris said:
The opinion piece was interesting too (which is why I reproduced it), though it looks like nobody bothered to read it...

amanitamusc said:
I read it and it clearly brings out her love of the army

treehuggingoctopus said:
This was rather frightening. "I have tremendous goodwill towards the military," she says, "so it doesn't in any way bother me to sit with them. I am pleased to be sitting together with them." It would bother me more than a bit to sit with killers. Or so I hope.

Her awareness of the redeemability of us mere mortals is nothing but admirable, obviously. But I do not exactly know how it would bear upon her silence. The writer insists she is "a spiritual politician." Her silence on the genocide subverts the claim, I am afraid.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist kingdoms have a long history of ethnic cleansing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 27th, 2018 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Jobs that serve alcohol?
Content:
pemachophel said:
So, what do you think Guru Rinpoche would say about making, selling, serving, or delivering alcohol for the purpose of earning one's personal livelihood?

Malcolm wrote:
Not much, actually. On the other hand, one does not want to wind up like these two clowns:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/two-buddhist-monks-injured-after-13636147

pemachophel said:
Two Buddhist monks were injured last night when they had a whisky-fuelled knife fight following an argument about spirituality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 27th, 2018 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I suspect it was a response to this article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-kyi-fall-from-grace-myanmar.

I infer that because she is pictured being embraced by Obama, it led to his statement concerning Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

Grigoris said:
Very informative article.

Malcolm wrote:
The opinion piece you posted above was a response to it. And, apparently, DKR has posted it as well a on his facebook page in support of his own letter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 26th, 2018 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:


weitsicht said:
With writing and publishing such letter he apparently wants to see a role of himself on the world political stage.

Malcolm wrote:
I suspect it was a response to this article in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/23/aung-san-suu-kyi-fall-from-grace-myanmar.

I infer that because she is pictured being embraced by Obama, it led to his statement concerning Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 26th, 2018 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
ford_truckin said:
I don't find anything wrong with what he wrote.

Malcolm wrote:
There are some errors of fact in his letter, beginning with, but not confined to, his statement about the origin of the Rohingya people in the Rakhine State in modern day Myanmar. They were not laborers imported by British colonialists during the nineteenth century, since they were among the people encountered and described by the British in what is now the Rakhine state during the 18th century. https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64276.pdf, writing in 1799, states, "The Mahommedans settled at Arakan, call the country Rovingaw; the Persians call it Rekan" and "The first is that spoken by the Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves Rooinga, or natives of Arakan."


I could point out other errors of fact in his letter as well, but there is little point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 26th, 2018 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Vajrakilaya Practice
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Thanks all!

Kunzang Tobgyal said:
To be fair, there are texts you can purchase that are available to the public. Like; The Practice of Vajrakilaya, The Dark Red Amulet: Oral Instructions on the Practice of Vajrakilaya, etc. If you're interested you can read these.

Of course, in order to actually engage in practice and gain accomplishment, you need empowerment. And for that you need a qualified Guru. The vajrayana simply doesn't work without empowerment and guidance from a qualified Guru.

All the best,

Drew.

Malcolm wrote:
And there is an argument to be made that these books should not be read without proper transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 26th, 2018 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Question about thigle
Content:
eziekiel said:
Hi,

I would like to know how and why is thigle created in Dzogchen {Bon}? And how do you personally understand the concept.

Thank you!

lelopa said:
what do you mean with "created"?
or:
why do you think it is created?

eziekiel said:
What i am trying to understand is why would a intangiable absolute consciousness, who has no karma and no need  for learning, enter samsara and start an existence in the first place. Under the guidance of my teacher, i went through practices of phowa. And as far as i understood my true existence is the existence of my thigle, which i practiced to move out of my body. I forgot to ask my teacher why did thigle came in to existence in a material form.

Malcolm wrote:
This consciousness is not absolute, it is relative. The bindu in the visualization is merely a symbol of one's consciousness. Consciousness is subject to karma and rebirth, hence the reason for phowa, or transference, in the first place.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 26th, 2018 at 11:52 AM
Title: Re: Vajrakilaya Practice
Content:
LoveFromColorado said:
Hi everyone,

Is there a Vajrakilaya practice that does not require empowerment?  Additionally, are there any texts describing Vajrakilaya that do not require permission/empowerment for study?

Thank you!!

Malcolm wrote:
No and no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 26th, 2018 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: DJKR letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The problem with this letter is not his opinions, to which he is certainly entitled, the problem with this piece is his apparent lack of knowledge of facts of the history of the Rohingya and Islamic presence in Burma for nearly a millennia. So, as the saying goes, he is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts. The notion that the Rohingya were 19th century British imports is simply false.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 25th, 2018 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
Dorje Shedrub said:
Is there any plan to publish this in electronic format?

DS

Malcolm wrote:
Next year


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 25th, 2018 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:
Wayfarer said:
A https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/ruined-dreams-the-people-locked-up-in-china-s-desert-re-education-centres-20181028-p50cid.html on Chinese 're-education camps', in today's Sydney Morning Herald. (Apologies if it's geo-blocked but I don't think SMH articles usually are.)

WeiHan said:
China is currently in the process of deleveraging and reforming its economy in preparation for the next phase of higher quality growth. There is already inherent destabilising risk with this current reformation. I don't think any other factors especially those from religions which the "communists" genuinely do not believe in will tolerate.

Personally, I am not in favor of  some islamic practices such as covering up  faces of women in public places, so other harsh measures aside, i am rather amuse by Chinese authorities efficiency it ruling this practice out.

Malcolm wrote:
The wearing of veils is a cultural practices which predate Islam, and was quite wide spread in all Western and Middle Eastern countries. In ancient Mesopotamian society, veils were not permitted to slaves and prostitutes. These two Wiki articles have interesting information about the practice of veiling faces and who was permitted to do so. In other words, veils indicated the high status of the women who wore them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Pre-Islamic_veiling_practices

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 24th, 2018 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Ashe Mahamudra retreats
Content:
misterkel said:
However, a number of CTR students do NOT follow the Shambhala path, but have no fundamental disagreement with the current Sakyong's presentation of it.

Malcolm wrote:
And a number of CTR students of both long and short term acquaintance of mine do follow the Shambhala Path, and are dismayed that is has been altered from how CTR presented it in its original form.

I predict there is going to be a split in the tree, where some older students of CTR will begin presenting Shambhala Training, including the terma texts, as it was originally conceived by CTR.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 23rd, 2018 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Difficulty doing Manjushri practices and prayers due to negative association
Content:
Karinos said:
now knowing above, how come any of living Rinpoche of past of future can be actual Manjusri - himself - in person.

Malcolm wrote:
Because Mañjuśṛī, in person, is beyond limitations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 23rd, 2018 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You keep mistaking the two truths for principles, rather than what they are, that is, cognitions.

Queequeg said:
No. If that's how it comes across then its a shortcoming of how I'm communicating.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no third (object of) cognition that we can call "the middle," and thus you agree, there are only two truths, and not three. Why? Because things can only be perceived correctly or incorrectly, there is no third cognition beyond those two.

Happy Thanksgiving.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 23rd, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Being the abhiṣikta of the daśadiktatathāgatāni (10-directional buddhas) is equivalent to having the realization of Śākyamunibuddha, that is why I am skeptical. I am not actually asking anything. In retrospect I should have never posted. My apologies.

Malcolm wrote:
It is possible for someone to attain full buddhahood from abhiṣeka, for example, King Indrabhuti I, etc., but it is exceedingly rare. For the most part, people receive the empowerment which creates a specific dependent origination of the cause (the five aggregates, etc.) with the result (the five buddha families, etc.), allowing one to view the five aggregates as the five buddhas, etc., thus allowing one to practice the result as the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 23rd, 2018 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: How are the 8 negations of nagarjuna derived?
Content:
nichiren-123 said:
I'm currently reading nagarjuna's middle way and it starts with the dedicatory verse:
"...there is neither cessation nor origination, neither anhilation nor the eternal, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going..."

I want to know the basic rundown of why these eight negations are so?

Malcolm wrote:
Because whatever arises dependently neither ceases nor arises, is neither annihilated nor permanent, is neither one nor many, and neither comes nor goes. This is why Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha, the best of teachers, who taught dependent origination for the pacification of all proliferation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 22nd, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:


Queequeg said:
It should be kept in mind that Zhiyi was responding to his contemporaries. The dumbed down version of two truths are attributed to what he called Provisional Mahayana. The three Truths you are describing may apply to the Separate Teaching. This is where the Middle is a sublime state beyond the binary two truths. In the perfect, the distinctions are effaced. It then transitions into a consideration of the means by which enlightened beings transform others.

Malcolm wrote:
You keep mistaking the two truths for principles, rather than what they are, that is, cognitions.

The terms "emptiness," "dependent designation," and "middle way" are synonyms. They refer to the same thing. In other words, there is no sublime middle that can be peeled away from the two truths. The two truths are inseparable, this is why Dharmamitra, in his commentary on Haribhadra's Sphutartha commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom states:

Called "deep," because some people do not understand the inseparable two truths, and for them it becomes a place of fear, its depth difficult to realize."

It is possible we are talking about the same thing, but thus far, I don't think so. Jayānanda states in his commentary on Candra's Introduction to the Middle Way:

The middle way is understood as dependent origination, having abandoned grasping to permanence and annihilation.

And:

The middle way is the path free from concepts of entities and nonentities.

Nāgārjuna again, in the Vigrahavyavartani:

I pay homage the supreme peerless Buddha who taught
emptiness, dependent origination, and the middle way to have one meaning.

Or Buddhapalita:

"Having a view of existence or nonexistence with respect to entities results in many errors, therefore, "entities lack inherent existence" is seeing the truth, i.e., the middle way, and that is proof of the ultimate.

Bhavaviveka states:

Whatever is emptiness, that is designated in dependence. Because the convention of mundane and transcendent is asserted, there is designation dependent on appropriation. That is the middle way, because the middle is free from the extremes arising and nonarising, existence and nonexistence...For the meditation of the middle way it is said that one does not conceive at all, "The eye is an existent entity," "The eye is not an existence entity," and so on. The Ārya Ratnakuta Sūtra states, "Kāśyapa, "Existence" is one extreme; 'Nonexistence" is the second extreme, whatever is between those extremes is without form and cannot be shown, is unimpeded, nonabiding, does not appear, is not perceptible, is not a place." Those are the proofs. "Path" is a convention for "method of obtaining."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 22nd, 2018 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: New Head of Nyingma: Kathok Getse Rinpoche
Content:
thogme19 said:
Nyingma head Kathok Getse Rinpoche dies after accident


https://www.tibetsun.com/news/2018/11/21/nyingma-head-kathok-getse-rinpoche-dies-after-accident?fbclid=IwAR3bn14n9qiEyddUVACbehlHpzGhatEr4J0JH4nFneUO15PkVn7IwFS5OIk

Malcolm wrote:
Very inauspicious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 22nd, 2018 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
If I can summarize the above, I think the reason, or a reason, why it can be difficult for someone coming from a thorough background in normative Madhyamaka to engage significantly with the three truths inasmuch as they are laid out in a gradual-and-successive framework (i.e. 1, 2, 3, the way we always see them "laid out" so to speak) may well be because the perspective is so coarse and basic. At the stage of the first contemplation, basic things like the "emptiness of emptiness" have not been established and are not established until the second contemplation. These are things that we take for granted in our daily discussion of the two truths. Ven Zhiyi, it seems, does not take emptiness of emptiness for granted, and wants to exhaustively and slowly introduce increasing levels of complexity to a practice that starts extraordinarily coarse and basic, so much so as to only vaguely be called Buddhism, and becomes progressively more refined, until the end-result perfect-and-sudden interfusion of contemplations is equivalent to normative Madhyamaka, not above it.

IMO, once again much of the above references CSQI 457-467

Malcolm wrote:
My principle objection is one of terminology. Satyas are something very specific, cognitions, not principles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 22nd, 2018 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:



MiphamFan said:
Where would shamatha fit in?

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna, sadhana recitation is śamatha.

Here, specifically, after the dissolution of the refuge field, Vajrasattva, or taking empowerment from the guru, one rests in the nature of mind.

MiphamFan said:
Right now I'm doing sun salutations and mentally reciting the refuge verses. Do you think that's OK or should I try to sound out? Seems a bit difficult though.

Malcolm wrote:
You recite the verses of refuge at the top, then do the prostration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Causes and effects however, cannot be interwoven since no cause exists at the time of its effect, and no effect exists at the time of its cause, unless one make the mistake of asserting, like the Sarvastivādins do, that "everything exists in the three times." This error is no better than the nonbuddhist Saṃkhya assertions that effects exists within their cause.

Queequeg said:
We distinguish cause and effect primarily because that's how we experience, but really, linear cause and effect is just us observing the present and observing continuities against what we remember about the past, and speculating about the future.

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
-Nagarjuna

And yet we conventionally see continuities. In context, they're True.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are not "true." This perception of continuities are in fact cognitions which are erroneous with respect the nature of the objects that are being perceived.

The entire point of the first chapter of MMK, is as Buddhapalita points out:

Because results, conditions, and non-conditions do not exist, descriptions for arising are merely conventional.

Queequeg said:
The Third Truth affirms dharmas, affirms their emptiness. The third truth declares their identity.

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
-Nagarjuna

Malcolm wrote:
As I have already shown elsewhere, the need for a third truth is expressly denied in The Meeting of the Father and Son Sūtra ( Āryapitāputrasamāgamana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra ):

The truths of the knower of the world are two;
not heard by you from another, but seen for yourself.
Those [two] are the relative and ultimate.
There isn't any third truth at all

The citation you provide merely means that  emptiness, dependent designation, and middle way are synonyms.  Candrakīrti states in the Prasannapāda:
Whatever is emptiness, that is a dependently designated"  is the presentation of "that emptiness itself is dependent designation." A chariot is designated in dependence on the parts of a chariot such as the wheels and so forth. Whatever is designated in dependence on its own parts, that by nature is nonarising. Whatever by nature is nonarising, that is emptiness. That emptiness bearing the characteristic of being nonarising by nature is the presentation of the middle way, that is, because in something that does not arise by nature there is no existence, and because there is no perishing in something which does not arise by nature, there is no nonexistence. Because of being free from the two extremes of existence and nonexistence, that emptiness bearing the characteristic of nonarising by nature itself is the middle way or the middle path. That being the case, therefore, "emptiness," "dependent designation," and "middle way" are different names for dependent origination.
This is all to counter the realism concerning dependent origination found in the lower schools, i.e., that there are dependently originated things, continuities, and so on.

Queequeg said:
Conventionally, we can assert the observation that all dharmas arise together. It doesn't negate the observation that this dependence is what it means to be empty.

Malcolm wrote:
No, we cannot assert that, since specifically, dependent origination means nonarising, as shown above by Candrakīrti, and as illustrated by this citation of the Buddha he produces:

Whatever arises from conditions does not arise.
There is no nature of arising other than that. 
Whatever arises in dependence on conditions is explained to be empty.
The one who knows emptiness, that one is prudent.

He also cites the Lanka:

Mahāmati, intending nonarising by nature, I have taught that all phenomena do not arise.

Queequeg said:
The third truth, the Middle Way, is just the actionable implication of Nagarjuna's two truths.

Its a way to understand.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a proliferation, an interpolation, and a fabrication. It does not aid in understanding the Buddha's teachings, it obscures the Buddha's teachings, since it is directly rejected in the sūtras, as shown above.

Queequeg said:
On the subject of environmentalism, it seems to me, the conventional observation that what we do individually has a real connection to the (in this case, literally) global circumstance is a critical expedient - until we intuitively understand that our personal conduct and choices impacts the planetary climate, its unlikely we are going to take the actions necessary to ameliorate the looming disasters.

Malcolm wrote:
Most of us, it seems, choose not to understand this, and this is evident by our actions as a collective species.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: the six consciousnesses (vijnanas)
Content:


clyde said:
I understand the dharmadhatu as being the sphere of all phenomena. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
No. There are two definitions of dharmadhātu; the Abhidharma idea, which I am using here, defined as the object of the mental organ; and the Mahāyāna idea, where dharmadhātu is a blanket term for the emptiness of all phenomena.

On the former presentation, there is no point of support, the dharmadhātu is not a point of support per se.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
narhwal90 said:
I raised the Gauss-Bonnet question with a mathmetician/physicist here at work, he gave me a basic primer on what it does and why we care.   Essentially it, among a number of other mathmatical propositions, permit a precise description of shape in various dimensions; for example, from a topological standpoint a coffee mug without a handle is viewed as a sphere with the top poked in, but it is a profoundly different topology than a mug with a handle, as is a mug with 2 handles.  The propositions handle a variety of problems relating to curvature of surfaces and how geometries are expressed in different dimensional spaces, there are well-specified relationships between these things.

That said, the theory does not posit a particular relationship between humanity and environment.   I think it is speculative to cite Gauss-Bonnet to support such an assertion.  The former can be mathmatically demonstrated, but that doesn't mean the latter is equally so.

Malcolm wrote:
So, the conclusion here is, more bad math.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
rory said:
Sung-Bae Park Buddhism and Sudden Enlightenment p. 110 Chapter Fourteen
Faith and Enlightenment in the Hua-yen Sutra
Hua-yen Buddhism is based on the idea of dharmadhatu* (Chinese: fa chieh), or the "dharma realm." In the dharma realm, there is li shih wu-ai, or "unobstructed mutual penetration between phenomena and noumena," and shih shih wu-ai, or "unobstructed mutual penetration between phenomena and phenomena." The formula Li shih wu-ai means that each dharma contains the totality, whereas shih shih wu-ai means that all dharmas mutually contain each other. All dharmas interpenetrate because they arise through pratityasamutpada*>, or "dependent origination." Since each dharma arises through pratityasamutpada*, it has no svabhava*, or "self-nature,'' and therefore mixes through and through with every other dharma. As a result of pratityasamutpada* in the dharma realm of mutual penetration, "all is in one" and "one is in all." Even though all dharmas penetrate each other mutually without obstruction, they still function separately and remain exactly as they are.
The Hua-yen dharma realm is often illustrated by the "jewel net of Indra." Here, the universe is likened to a net wherein each intersection has a jewel that reflects the totality (establishing li shih wu-ai) as well as all the other jewels (establishing shih shih wu-ai) from its own viewpoint in the net. There is thus a mutual reflection among all dharmas in the universe, so that one mirrors all and all mirror one.2
gassho
Rory


Malcolm wrote:
These things all make great poetry, but they don't stand up to analysis. Further, defining dharma as phenomena and dharmatā as noumena is a terrible idea. Noumena is a term we have from Kant, and means "a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes." There is no such a thing as a thing in itself (svabhāva). Saying "thing in itself" is just a reference to a self-nature. So it really does not work when applied to any Buddhist philosophy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Lecture by Ryoei Tyler, 2013
Content:
rory said:
Paul Swanson Vol 3 T'ien-Tai's Mo-Ho Chih-Kuan: Clear Serenity, Quiet Insight
p. 1998 Glossary: inter-inclusiveness of the ten realms: ..
Frn. les dix mondes qui se contiennent mutuellement
Def. the ten destinies from hell to buddhahood all interpenetrate each other and all include the other nine. see also: three thousand realms in a single thought.

Malcolm wrote:
The main problem with this definition is that śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas do not inhabit independent realms, unlike the six realms, which are gatis, karmic destinations, the four kinds of āryas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas, are beyond karma and beyond taking birth in the three realms. The four kinds of āryas are not destinies. Nominally, however, the four āryas only belong to the human realm (though there are arhats also in the five pure abodes located at the summit of the form realm) and are included within it. Thus, Venerable Zhiyi's math is, at best, aspirational. One certainly cannot take it literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
So from this thread I gather that tantrikāḥ believe that they have received abhiṣeka from the 10-directional Buddhas. This is the same abhiṣeka that "common-path" (or whatever the appropriate term here is) bodhisattvāḥ receive at the close of the 10th bodhisattvabhūmi. This abhiṣeka takes place in ākaniṣṭagandavyūha.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, Vajrayāna is called the result vehicle, because it takes the result as the path. When one enters into any mandala, one is entering into the mandala of Ākaniṣṭa Ghanavyūha (not gaṇḍavyuha, common error here), and one receives the empowerment there, from the guru who embodies the buddhas of the ten directions.

Coëmgenu said:
By question is: what does this mythic story of receiving abhiṣeka from the 10-directional Buddhas at the culmination of your bodhisattvayāna practice even mean in this new context? You already have the highest ordination that exists, if you believe in your empowerment.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of empowerment is to wake up. If you don't wake up during the empowerment, then you have a sadhana to practice. In that sadhana, you continue to take gather the two accumulations, take empowerment, and so on. And yes, one has received the highest ordination that exists, in this very life, rather than the long, slow, brutal, path of the common Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


TrimePema said:
Can you explain how a non-arya bodhisattva of limited range actually benefits beings in the same way a less limited, arya bodhisattva benefits beings?

Malcolm wrote:
If a common bodhisattva has a more limited range than an āryabodhisattva, it stands to reason they cannot immediately benefit as many sentient beings, right?

On the other hand, a first stage bodhisattva has a limited range compared with a tenth stage bodhisattva as well.

TrimePema said:
I understand what you are saying, Lopon. I am asking about the specific mechanics by which one can prove that a non-arya bodhisattva is already engaged in the same caliber of benefit to any given sentient being as an arya bodhisattva is but with less range. Here speaking of let's say only one subject of benefit.

I am asking this question regarding what I said earlier - that in order to benefit sentient beings as a bodhisattva one must really first attain at least the first bhumi (but now I think, after having read all of your responses, that I was mistaken and I really should have said the 8th bhumi).

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if there is no ārya bodhisattva around, but there is someone who wants to hear the dharma, and there is a regular guy named joe who has some understanding of Mahāyāna, and give an explanation, who is benefitting that being more? An absent ārya bodhisattva or a present common bodhisattva name joe?

And what is meant here by benefit? The only truly beneficial things Buddhas and bodhisattvas do is demonstrate the path. Of the three kinds of giving, the gift of Dharma is the most meaningful. Of course, giving material gifts to the needy and protection to the fearful is beneficial, but the most profound generosity is the gift of Dharma.

One might not be an ārya bodhisattva, but if one can bestow the gift of Dharma, the benefit of this gift is truly inconceivable, and it really does not matter whether you are an awakened bodhisattva or not. You never know if the person to whom you bestow the gift of Dharma won't manifest high level of realization.

The aspiration to attain full buddhahood itself is of inconceivable benefit from the point of view of the cause. It is the cause of all benefit in samsara. Therefore, even the aspiration of a common person to full buddhahood is inconceivably beneficial to all sentient beings, far more profound than the awakening of an arhat or pratyekabuddha.

The idea that one can only benefit sentient beings as a first or an 8th stage bodhisattva is therefore erroneous.

Shantideva says in The Way of the Bodhisattva 1:9:

Should bodhicitta come to birth
In those who suffer, chained in the prison of samsara, 
in that instant they are called Children of the Blissful One,
revered by all the world, the gods, and humankind...

Shantideva also mentions that of course the bodhicitta of aspiration itself is not sufficient, one needs to have engaged bodhicitta as well. And here, in 1:17-19, he says:

From bodhicitta in intention,
Great results arise for those still turning in the wheel of life;
But merit does not arise from it in ceaseless streams
As is the case for active bodhicitta. 

For when, with irreversible intent
the mind embraces bodhicitta,
Willing to set free the endless multitude of beings,
In that instant, from that moment on,

A great and unremitting stream,
A strength of wholesome merit, 
even during sleep and inattention,
Rises equal to the vastness of the sky.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 1:09 AM
Title: Discussion of Zhiyi's Doctrine (2 Truths or 3) - from Ryoei Tyler Lecture Topic
Content:
DGA said:
What do you notice in it?

Coëmgenu said:
Environmentalism? What were you thinking would be noticed?

I'll second the thank you for putting it up all the same though, it is a nice blurb.

DGA said:
The transition from environmental sentiment to the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem, by way of an adaptation of B Ziporyn's local/global coherence/incoherence dialectic, is noteworthy.

Malcolm wrote:
The rhetoric of interconnectedness between parts and whole is covered in the six causes and four conditions of Sarvastivāda Abhidharma. Causes and effects however, cannot be interwoven since no cause exists at the time of its effect, and no effect exists at the time of its cause, unless one make the mistake of asserting, like the Sarvastivādins do, that "everything exists in the three times." This error is no better than the nonbuddhist Saṃkhya assertions that effects exists within their cause.

Also, the "one is all, all is one idea" is negated throughly by an analysis of the self of the person; if there is no self in a person composed of five aggregates, under the stated principle of the article, one can't except to find a "one" composed of "all" or an "all" that composes "one" either.

So, while the lecture may make one feel warm and fuzzy, it does not stand up to critical analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 21st, 2018 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
LolCat said:
Would it matter that non-arya Bodhisattvas may be very afflicted, does the force of the Bodhisattva aspiration ensure beings are benefited even if they don't consciously intend it?
I can imagine Arya Bodhisattvas having powers like clairvoyance which would help them know what sentient beings need, but isn't it possible for non-arya Bodhisattvas to screw things up, even if they may have the best of intentions(and at other times perhaps not even that).

Malcolm wrote:
This is very far off the point of the original topic, however, the Mahāyāna bodhicitta is based on compassionate intention. As ordinary bodhisattvas, we do our best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Difficulty doing Manjushri practices and prayers due to negative association
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
2. What are good ways to get over such a major block to Manjushri practices (and prayers)?
Go meet HH Sakya Trizin, Mañjuśṛī in person, and receive Mañjuśṛī practice from him.

pueraeternus said:
Just to clarify, do you mean the now Sakya Trichen (41st HHST) or the current 42nd HHST?

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Trichen, old habits die hard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Difficulty doing Manjushri practices and prayers due to negative association
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, just to play Devil's advocate, are you sure that he could not have had a change of heart and issued emanations to Jamdudvipa out of pity?

ratna said:
Emanation, sure (the last sentence of his quote actually indicates the possibility of magical emanations). But reincarnation, well, he says no. To me it looks like he didn't want to get his name involved in the tulku business in any way.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it was a fruitless wish, wasn't it? There are two Mipham tulkus out there, at least.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Difficulty doing Manjushri practices and prayers due to negative association
Content:
Arupajhana7 said:
Want to add that the reason I asked question number 3 is that I would like to study the works of Mipham the Great but have some resistance to it because of the association with Osel Mukpo.

Malcolm wrote:
That''s a pity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Difficulty doing Manjushri practices and prayers due to negative association
Content:


Arupajhana7 said:
Given that it has come out that Mukpo has sexually abused many women I now feel quite negatively about him. I don't want to strengthen any karmic connections to him as a teacher.

I now have very negative emotions come up whenever I think about Manjushri too. I actively avoid prayers and practices that involve Manjushri.

I would like to believe that Manjushri is not actually uniquely tied to Osel Mukpo but this has been entrained in my mind quite strongly.

Malcolm wrote:
Than don't believe it. It is that simple. It is not Mañjuśṛī's fault that Penor Rinpoche decided to recognize Mukpo as a reincarnation.


Arupajhana7 said:
So I have two questions regarding Manjushri

1. Do you think Osel Mukpo is actually an emanation of Manjusjri? / what are some teachings that would imply less of this special connection than I was taught?



Malcolm wrote:
No, I do not believe this any more than I believe the earth is flat.


Arupajhana7 said:
2. What are good ways to get over such a major block to Manjushri practices (and prayers)?

Malcolm wrote:
Go meet HH Sakya Trizin, Mañjuśṛī in person, and receive Mañjuśṛī practice from him.



Arupajhana7 said:
While I am here I also want to ask,

3. Is there really a consensus in the Tibetan community that Osel Mukpo is the reincarnation of Mipham the Great? What is the argument that he is?  What is the argument that he is not?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such consensus at all. Some people believe it, some don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Difficulty doing Manjushri practices and prayers due to negative association
Content:
Arupajhana7 said:
3. Is there really a consensus in the Tibetan community that Osel Mukpo is the reincarnation of Mipham the Great? What is the argument that he is?  What is the argument that he is not?

ratna said:
Mipham the Great said before his death that there he wouldn't be reborn in this world:

wrote: said:
Now is a critical moment in these final times; the barbarians and so forth are close to destroying the teaching, so there is no point whatsoever in my taking rebirth. If this were the time of the brothers of sMin grol gling, it might have been possible to benefit sentient beings in all sorts of ways. Now, because of temporal contingencies, it is difficult. From now on, I will not be taking rebirth in impure realms."It is said that, staying only in pure realms and benefiting beings with magical emanations by the power of prayer, it is the nature of sublime beings to appear incessantly until the end of time.

ratna said:
From Beacon of Certainty, translated by John W. Pettit.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, just to play Devil's advocate, are you sure that he could not have had a change of heart and issued emanations to Jamdudvipa out of pity?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


TrimePema said:
Can you explain how a non-arya bodhisattva of limited range actually benefits beings in the same way a less limited, arya bodhisattva benefits beings?

Malcolm wrote:
If a common bodhisattva has a more limited range than an āryabodhisattva, it stands to reason they cannot immediately benefit as many sentient beings, right?

On the other hand, a first stage bodhisattva has a limited range compared with a tenth stage bodhisattva as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


ford_truckin said:
What practices can you recommend that would lead to a realization of the first bhumi? Something simple would be nice.

Malcolm wrote:
Ngondro practice, refuge, bodhicitta, Vajrasattva, Mandala offerings, and Guru Yoga. One does not really need any other practices.

MiphamFan said:
Where would shamatha fit in?

Malcolm wrote:
In Vajrayāna, sadhana recitation is śamatha.

Here, specifically, after the dissolution of the refuge field, Vajrasattva, or taking empowerment from the guru, one rests in the nature of mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: the six consciousnesses (vijnanas)
Content:


clyde said:
My question is this: I understand that light reflected from objects and making contact with the eye gives rise to eye consciousness, but how do thoughts which are sensed by the mind giving rise to mind consciousness arise?

Malcolm wrote:
Mental consciousness, unlike the other five consciousnesses, does not have a point of support. The object of the mental consciousness is the dharmadhātu, which contains the mental factors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:



Seeker12 said:
Thoughts on this quote from Mipham Rinpoche in the Khenjuk?

"The eighth category, intentional knowing, concerns hidden objects of investigation as well as the answers to whatever questions others may ask. Shravakas can perceive such things after wishing: "May I know this!" and then composing themselves in dhyana as, for example, Maudgaliputra did when explaining the royal history of the Shakyas. Shravakas can perceive any appropriate topic but not places, times, and forms that are extremely distant. The Buddha's intentional perception surpasses that of the shravakas because it is spontaneously and effortlessly accomplished; because it perceives all knowable unobstructedly; because, since he constantly abides in composure, it transcends perceiving when in composure and not perceiving when not in composure, and because he gives a satisfying answer to every possible question raised by sentient beings."

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this simply means that a Buddha does not need to enter into an equipoise of dhyāna in order to perceive a knowable. It does not mean he knows everything all the time. It means he can know any thing at any time.

Seeker12 said:
So if he WANTED to, for example, know the number of maggots in the world, he could then, correct? I believe that’s the standard Theravada position as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, should there be a need for the Buddha to answer that question, he could answer it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



Queequeg said:
From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -

"In Sanskrit, "dharma-realm," viz., "realm of reality," or "dharma element"; a term that has two primary denotations... [Abhidharma definition omitted] In the MAHAYANA, dharmadhatu is used primarily to mean "sphere of dharma," which denotes the infinite domain in which the activity of all dharmas takes place - i.e., the universe..."

ie.  "all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu)".

Malcolm wrote:
The inference you have made, based on the definition as you understand it, is incorrect. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. Since your definition is incorrect, your argument is flawed.

The basic statement you first made was, "a given particular compounded dharma is the dharmadhātu (an uncompounded dharma)." This is incoherent.

You then changed your tune to "because a given particular compounded dharma exists, all compounded dharmas exist." This is just the Sarvastivādin generative cause, kāraṇahetu, that is, all phenomena are generative causes of all other phenomena with the exception of themselves. This is classical Abhidharma.  See page 254, Abdhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ, Pruden. But this is not even at the level of dependent origination yet. The six causes and the four conditions are explained prior to dependent origination; which only has to do with afflictive causes that generate samsaric existence, not causes and conditions in general. The gatha you quoted by the Buddha was actually spoken by him in response to the question of who this or that monk had been in a past life. His intention, in that statement, was to point out from affliction and action arise suffering, and with the absence of affliction and action, suffering ceases.

Also, your error in the latter statement is equating all dharmas with the dharmadhātu.

As I said above, the dharmadhātu is uncompounded. For example, Vasubandhu explains in his commentary on the Mahāyānasūtra-alaṃkāra, "The dharmadhātu is uncompounded because it does not arise and it does not perish." Maitreyanātha explains in the Distinguishing the the Middle from Extremes, "When emptiness is summarized, it is called suchness, absence of characteristics, the limit of the real (bhūtakoṭi), and the dharmadhātu." Etc., there are many other places where this is explained in sūtras and saśtras.

Queequeg said:
You're trying to limit this discussion to Abhidharma. This subject is not limited by that sub-category of Buddhist teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, I am pointing out that in the Mahāyāna, dharmadhātu is a synonym of emptiness, suchness, the reality-limit (bhūta-koṭi), etc. As such, it cannot be construed the way the way you are trying to construe it.

Queequeg said:
I'll have to get back to you. I need to understand what you have written. Might take a while.

Malcolm wrote:
Feel free to take your time. I am in no hurry.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The omniscience of the Buddha does not mean he knew everything about the world, such as the number of maggots it contains. It means he understood everything relative to the paths of awakening of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas.

Seeker12 said:
Thoughts on this quote from Mipham Rinpoche in the Khenjuk?

"The eighth category, intentional knowing, concerns hidden objects of investigation as well as the answers to whatever questions others may ask. Shravakas can perceive such things after wishing: "May I know this!" and then composing themselves in dhyana as, for example, Maudgaliputra did when explaining the royal history of the Shakyas. Shravakas can perceive any appropriate topic but not places, times, and forms that are extremely distant. The Buddha's intentional perception surpasses that of the shravakas because it is spontaneously and effortlessly accomplished; because it perceives all knowable unobstructedly; because, since he constantly abides in composure, it transcends perceiving when in composure and not perceiving when not in composure, and because he gives a satisfying answer to every possible question raised by sentient beings."

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this simply means that a Buddha does not need to enter into an equipoise of dhyāna in order to perceive a knowable. It does not mean he knows everything all the time. It means he can know any thing at any time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Why is compassion central to Buddhism?
Content:
nichiren-123 said:
I often hear and read how compassion is vital to Buddhist practice, alongside wisdom.
My question is why is compassion important and how does it relate to wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
Love and compassion are the basis for Mahāyāna bodhicitta, the wish to attain perfect buddhahood for the benefit of sentient beings. However, love and compassion are not sufficient for eliminating obscurations, so for this one requires wisdom.

Without compassion, one cannot generate bodhicitta, and without bodhicitta, one cannot attain perfect buddhahood. So one can understand that compassion is the field in which the qualities of awakening grow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


ford_truckin said:
Signs at every stage of practice meaning lesser afflictions and supernatural phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
There are specific yogic markers outlined in Vajrayāna by which practitioners may judge their progress. There are specific yogic markers outlined in common Mahāyāna by which practitioners may judge their progress. The signs and practices differ, however, the markers measure the same level of progress. Vajrayāna markers are more swiftly achieved than common Mahāyāna ones. For example, there are today in the world far more people who have realized in this life the first bhumi who are Vajrayāna practitioners than in common Mahāyāna. This is because the path is easier, there are more methods, and so on. For example, in common Mahāyāna there exist no means of realizing anything in the bardo, since there is no instructions for awakening in the bardo in common Mahāyāna. But many practitioners of Vajrayāna attain full buddhahood in the bardo, even today, as the many signs of practice we witness among great Vajrayāna practitioners after they pass away.

ford_truckin said:
What practices can you recommend that would lead to a realization of the first bhumi? Something simple would be nice.

Malcolm wrote:
Ngondro practice, refuge, bodhicitta, Vajrasattva, Mandala offerings, and Guru Yoga. One does not really need any other practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
TrimePema said:
Thank you! What is the difference in activity of non-arya and arya bodhisattvas?

Malcolm wrote:
Range.

TrimePema said:
Forgive my obtuseness.

Are you saying a non-arya being benefits countless beings in inconceivable ways just by having taken the bodhisattva vow and subsequently engaging in common activities like giving money to homeless people and meditating 20 minutes a day? In other words, that a non-arya bodhisattva benefits only some beings and arya bodhisattvas benefit increasingly large numbers according to the bhumis, but the benefit is the same caliber?

Are you saying that a non-arya bodhisattva will automatically benefit beings in inconceivable ways in each and every lifetime simply by having the vow on their mindstream, even if they have not revived the vow in their current lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
The range of the activity of common bodhisattvas is limited. They have not developed four basis of miraculous power, the five higher knowledges, and so forth.

Ārya bodhisattvas have more range, since, from the first bhumi onward a bodhisattva has emanations that increase by the power of ten. This, first stage bodhisattvas have 100 emanations and so forth. Also, due to their realization of emptiness, bodhisattvas on the stages are not mired down by the connate fetter of grasping a self, and thus can engage in tremendous deeds.

Nevertheless, the simple aspiration to attain full awakening has sufficient force to make certain that person will someday attain full awakening.

With respect to the bodhisattva vow, this is, in actuality, only ever taken once. Each subsequent time one goes to receive the bodhisattva vow in another lifetime, it is signal that one has in fact received in in a previous lifetime. The bodhisattva vow is taken upon the mindstream because it is principally a vow taken as a motivation, unlike pratimokṣa and secret mantra vows, which are principally taken upon the body of this life as precepts for conduct. Thus, at death, one does not lose the bodhisattva vow, unlike pratimokṣa vows and secret mantra vows, which are lost at the breakup of the five aggregates at the time of death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Is it OK to say that I find references to the 'common Mahayana' a bit daunting? In the context of modern culture, as distinct maybe from the context of Tibetan religious culture, Mahayana is anything but 'common'. It seems to indicate a tone of condescension.

Malcolm wrote:
"Common" *(sādhāraṇa) refers to the set of beliefs and practices shared between the causal Pāramitāyāna and resultant Vajrayāna. "Uncommon" (asādhāraṇa) refers to Secret Mantra, the practice of which is not shared with the Pāramitāyāna, and is exclusive to Vajrayāna in general.

*According to Monier Williams, sAdhAraNa means: having or resting on the same support or basis "' , belonging or applicable to many or all , general , common to all , universal , common to (gen. dat. instr. with and without;

asAdhAraNa means: not common , special , specifical Tarkas. ; quite uncommon , extraordinary Das3. Katha1s. &c. ; (%{am}) n. special property L.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


ford_truckin said:
How do you know you've accumulated anything by doing the practices? What if one remains stubborn, angry, and non compassionate?

Malcolm wrote:
There are teachings concerning what signs arise at every stage of the practice. If one remains stubborn, angry, and without compassion, this is also a sign. This is a sign that your practice is not grounded in bodhicitta.

ford_truckin said:
Signs at every stage of practice meaning lesser afflictions and supernatural phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
There are specific yogic markers outlined in Vajrayāna by which practitioners may judge their progress. There are specific yogic markers outlined in common Mahāyāna by which practitioners may judge their progress. The signs and practices differ, however, the markers measure the same level of progress. Vajrayāna markers are more swiftly achieved than common Mahāyāna ones. For example, there are today in the world far more people who have realized in this life the first bhumi who are Vajrayāna practitioners than in common Mahāyāna. This is because the path is easier, there are more methods, and so on. For example, in common Mahāyāna there exist no means of realizing anything in the bardo, since there is no instructions for awakening in the bardo in common Mahāyāna. But many practitioners of Vajrayāna attain full buddhahood in the bardo, even today, as the many signs of practice we witness among great Vajrayāna practitioners after they pass away.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Best location for naga puja
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
What exactly is the relationship between nagas and snakes? Are all snakes considered a kind of naga, or are they just similar enough that nagas would feel offended like, "if you'd harm that being that's kinda like me, you'd harm me, too"?

Malcolm wrote:
Snakes (sarpa) are not nāgas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: sang and serkyem practice
Content:



Pema Rigdzin said:
(1) Does one literally just separately make oneself a cup of tea, put it on one's puja table, and then consume it at the end?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Pema Rigdzin said:
(2) I live in a crowded two-story apartment building. There is a grassy area behind my building where people and domesticated animals can't access, so I could toss the serkyem offering over a short chain-link fence there, but not in the 4 directions. There's also the possibility I may be seen doing this when it's still light out, though a good chance I may not. If I do the practice in the morning when I have the opportunity, is it permissible to leave the serkyem on the altar all day and then offer it outside at night when it's dark and I'm less likely to be seen?

Malcolm wrote:
Serkhyem does not need to be tossed in four directions, unless doing in a very formal way. It just needs to be poured out in a clean place, and yes, you can leave it to pour out later.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
TrimePema said:
Thank you! What is the difference in activity of non-arya and arya bodhisattvas?

Malcolm wrote:
Range.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


ford_truckin said:
How do you know you've accumulated anything by doing the practices? What if one remains stubborn, angry, and non compassionate?

Malcolm wrote:
There are teachings concerning what signs arise at every stage of the practice. If one remains stubborn, angry, and without compassion, this is also a sign. This is a sign that your practice is not grounded in bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
Grigoris said:
Hey Clyde, I am posting the information I sent you earlier here to the thread.  Truth is I struggled with this idea of the the Buddha being enlightened before being enlightened for a while too.:

There are a number of ways around this:

1. Due to Tathagatagarbha none of us is an ordinary being, it is just that our true qualities are obscured by ignorance.

2. Human beings arise due to certain causes and conditions, these are eradicated by enlightenment. Once (partially or fully) enlightened you are no longer a (samsaric) human being, you are a Buddha, or Arhat, or Bodhisattva.

3. Even if the Buddha was already enlightened in Tusita and merely manifested in human form to teach us, this still does not nullify his journey towards enlightenment as outlined in (for example) the Jataka.

clyde said:
Grigoris; Thank you for posting this.

As I noted to Wayfarer, if “we also are not excluded” from the Dharmakaya, then we are similarly not “an ordinary being.”

Malcolm wrote:
"Ordinary" simply denotes "unrealized."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
ford_truckin said:
I don't buy it that they progress faster than Mahayanikas but good for them if they do.

Malcolm wrote:
A Vajrayāna practitioner, by virtue of their practice, can gather the two accumulations necessary for full buddhahood in a very short period of time.

This is impossible in the cause vehicle.

Of course there are some fools who think that gathering the two accumulations are unnecessary for buddhahood. They are objects of pity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
TrimePema said:
I took "come back lifetime after lifetime" to mean emanation.

Malcolm wrote:
It simply means rebirth in samsara.

TrimePema said:
Is emanation possible before the bhumis? How else would one be in control of rebirths?

Malcolm wrote:
One only gains control over rebirth at the eighth bhumi.

TrimePema said:
If self-liberation has nothing to do with maintaining samaya why do samaya breakers not liberate themselves from the unrelenting hell?

Malcolm wrote:
If you have realized self-liberation, you don't need samaya anymore.

TrimePema said:
You appear to be saying that a bodhisattva who has not reached the path of seeing is capable of liberating beings. Is that true? What else is considered actual bodhisattva activity other than that?

Malcolm wrote:
A bodhisattva is simple someone who aspires to full buddhahood out of compassion and love for others. There are two kinds of bodhisattvas: non-ārya and ārya bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 18th, 2018 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



Queequeg said:
From the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -

"In Sanskrit, "dharma-realm," viz., "realm of reality," or "dharma element"; a term that has two primary denotations... [Abhidharma definition omitted] In the MAHAYANA, dharmadhatu is used primarily to mean "sphere of dharma," which denotes the infinite domain in which the activity of all dharmas takes place - i.e., the universe..."

ie.  "all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu)".

Malcolm wrote:
The inference you have made, based on the definition as you understand it, is incorrect. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. Since your definition is incorrect, your argument is flawed.

The basic statement you first made was, "a given particular compounded dharma is the dharmadhātu (an uncompounded dharma)." This is incoherent.

You then changed your tune to "because a given particular compounded dharma exists, all compounded dharmas exist." This is just the Sarvastivādin generative cause, kāraṇahetu, that is, all phenomena are generative causes of all other phenomena with the exception of themselves. This is classical Abhidharma.  See page 254, Abdhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ, Pruden. But this is not even at the level of dependent origination yet. The six causes and the four conditions are explained prior to dependent origination; which only has to do with afflictive causes that generate samsaric existence, not causes and conditions in general. The gatha you quoted by the Buddha was actually spoken by him in response to the question of who this or that monk had been in a past life. His intention, in that statement, was to point out from affliction and action arise suffering, and with the absence of affliction and action, suffering ceases.

Also, your error in the latter statement is equating all dharmas with the dharmadhātu.

As I said above, the dharmadhātu is uncompounded. For example, Vasubandhu explains in his commentary on the Mahāyānasūtra-alaṃkāra, "The dharmadhātu is uncompounded because it does not arise and it does not perish." Maitreyanātha explains in the Distinguishing the the Middle from Extremes, "When emptiness is summarized, it is called suchness, absence of characteristics, the limit of the real (bhūtakoṭi), and the dharmadhātu." Etc., there are many other places where this is explained in sūtras and saśtras.

Queequeg said:
You're trying to limit this discussion to Abhidharma. This subject is not limited by that sub-category of Buddhist teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, I am pointing out that in the Mahāyāna, dharmadhātu is a synonym of emptiness, suchness, the reality-limit (bhūta-koṭi), etc. As such, it cannot be construed the way the way you are trying to construe it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:


dude said:
No, the Buddha was not omniscient.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Buddha is clearly omniscient. The Lotus Sūtra clearly expounds his omniscience.

dude said:
But another passage notes things that are beyond even the reach of the Buddha's wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
Where do you think you find such a limit placed on the Buddha's omniscience?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Anders said:
Any indulgence without sacrificing the main point is appreciated. I suppose in an ideal world, such polemics would be framed in similar style to the how the Mulamadhyamakarikas are framed to Shravakas - Setting forth the Mahayana view of emptiness but doing so whilst only relying on Shravaka pitakas.

Malcolm wrote:
In order to become a buddha, the Sūtra of Ten Stages, the Lanka, etc., all specify one must receive empowerment. However, that empowerment only comes at the end of the tenth bhumi. In Vajrayāna, that empowerment is found at the beginning of the path. Therefore, common Mahāyāna is a vehicle of the cause, whereas Vajrayāna is a vehicle of the result. As Ācarya Tripitikamāla stated:


Although the goal is the same, since it is unconfused,
with many methods, not difficult,
and mastered by those of sharp faculties,
Mantrayāna is superior.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Anders said:
Hi,

My name is Anders and I am a mahayanika for a goodly number of years now. I read much of the sutras quite literally, take the avatamsaka cosmology at face value, am an ekayanin who takes a fuzzy view on how long the path to buddhahood has to take, and either way think the whole "get there as fast as possible / choose the ultimatest vehicle of them all" mentality is a somewhat flawed way of looking at a path that involves vowing to come back for innumerable lifetimes under inconceivably variable circumstances according to the particulars of one's aspirations and vows anyhow.

TrimePema said:
Hi, I think you may benefit from the distinction of view here...

YOU cannot "come back for innumerable lifetimes under inconceivably variable circumstances according to the particulars of one's aspirations and vows" UNLESS you have achieved the first bhumi, since without achieving the first bhumi, one will be flung back and forth up and down the 6 realms uncontrollably.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is a mistake. When one reaches patience on the path of preparation, one cuts off birth in the three lower realms.

Someone who generates bodhicitta on the path of accumulation is already vastly superior to an Arhat who is free of all afflictions.

TrimePema said:
Until that happens, your lifetimes are not ACTUAL bodhisattva lifetimes; your activity is not ACTUALLY liberating or helping per se anybody in any meaningful way. Until one reaches the first bhumi and becomes an actual bodhisattva, one is a bodhisattva aspirant. Aspirants work to develop bodhichitta and when ultimate bodhichitta is first glimpsed, the first bhumi is attained. When the first bhumi is attained, one will be able to lead beings to a meaningful stage of the path. Therefore, there is only the aspiration to become a bodhisattva and engage in such activity, until one actually becomes a bodhisattva.

Malcolm wrote:
No, from the moment one generates the aspiration to full buddhahood one bears the name "jinapūtra" and IS a bodhisattva, training in the pāramitā and observing bodhisattva vows.

TrimePema said:
In Vajrayana, one's life is centered around the realization of the nature of mind, which is what allows one to engage in paramita activity 24/7 through what is known as self-liberation, which is only possible through keeping the commitments (abstaining from certain things and committing to do certain other things) which allow that nature of mind to become manifest.

Malcolm wrote:
All Buddhist teachings are centered around realizing the nature of the mind. Self-liberation has nothing whatsoever to do with maintaining samaya.

The principle difference between common Mahāyāna and uncommon Mahayāna Secret Mantras is skillful means, otherwise, otherwise the goal is the same, the bodhicitta is the same, and so forth.

TrimePema said:
I hope this is helpful and I apologize if it doesn't make sense because I have no wisdom at all etc etc etc

Malcolm wrote:
You need to study more, before proffering advice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: New Ltus Sutra translation
Content:


SonamTashi said:
I'm more interested in the Tibetan version anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many corrections made upon the Tibetan translation in this rendition by PAR. He is one of the world's top translators, and also, couldn't be a nicer person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: New Lotus Sutra translation
Content:
narhwal90 said:
That is possibly the clumsiest and slowest document format I've ever seen- couldn't see a link to download the file- is it available in pdf etc?

Malcolm wrote:
http://read.84000.co/data/toh113_84000-the-white-lotus-of-the-good-dharma.pdf

This translation is definitely the gold standard of all English translations to date.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It's useful to understand that in terms of the Buddhas omniscience, there is no claim that he "knew everything",

Thomas Amundsen said:
Yes there is. Malcolm is just glossing over that because he agrees with those whose claim is weaker.

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


Anders said:
A bit of a basic question but: How does deity yoga differ from a practitioner with siddhis to communicate directly with a mahasattva or Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
Deity yoga is a path. If someone has siddhis already, why would they need Vajrayāna?

Anders said:
Also: Visualization of oneself as a deity at a glance strikes me as a rather coarse practise compared to, say, the formless practice of prajnaparamita. What is the basis in vajrayana for this being a more productive practise than common kṛtsna shamatha?

Malcolm wrote:
Unless someone has realized the first bhumi, this person can do the actual practice of prajñapāramitā.

Further, there is no method in Pāramitāyāna of experientially introducing the nature of the mind. This exists only in Vajrayāna. It is upon this basis that deity yoga proceeds.

Vajrayāna yoga creates a direct dependent origination with the result (the two kāyas), which is why they are swift; whereas Pāramitā yogas are only connected with the cause (the two accumulations), which is why they take such a long time.

Anders said:
In order to foster nonconceptual samadhi, there are any number of methods connected with body and its channels, winds, and drops to generate this. In common Mahāyāna, one's physical body literally limits the kind of samadhi one can have; hence as one progresses on the path, one takes rebirth in ever more refined bodies. In Vajrayāna, one can access these kinds of samadhi in this lifetime with special methods.
So basically supercharged breath meditation of a sort? Is this connected then to the aforementioned visualisation of oneself as deity? What makes it uncommon?

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. But if you really are interested, you should go find a master to receive empowerment, and then study with them in a systematic fashion.

Anders said:
Vajrayāna is a path of nonrenunciation, that is, rather than avoid sense objects, they are transformed and taken into the path. As Naropa said, "The problem is not sense objects, the problem is clinging." In Vajrayāna one is taught certain methods to transform eating, drinking, sex, bathing, wearing clothes, and so on, into the path of awakening. Vajrayāna yoga is a 24/7/365 kind of thing. This is why it is so much more powerful, and dangerous, than common Mahāyāna.
I don't think there is any Buddhist path that is not ultimately intended to be 24/7. Is this meant in a difference sense than the common one then?

Practise without renunciation in the midst of sensory objects or even the kleshas is not hard to find in common Mahayana either, but there it is most commonly connected with already having had some measure of realisation of emptiness. What is the basis in vajrayana for this being appropriate even for noobs? And how does this not end being a significant risk of up burning your karmic fingernails off?

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to 24/7/365 practice of yoga, in Mahāyāna there are no actual methods for integrating all of one's activities into the path. Washing is not a practice. Eating food is not a practice. Taking desire into the path is not a practice. Taking sleep into the path is not a practice. Taking waking into the path is not a practice, and so on. There is no practice connected with developing divine pride. There are no practices connected with utilizing sense objects for one's own benefit, There are no practices which use the body as a basis. There are no practices for taking birth, life, and death onto the path. Mahāyāna lacks the manifold methods found in Vajrayāna.

With respect to using sense objects in the path, in common Mahāyāna one is not permitted to use sense objects in the path unless one is trying to benefit others. So examples of bodhisattvas sporting with 60,000 maidens and so forth are in the context of benefitting others. By contrast, in Vajrayāna, one is permitted from the beginning to use sense objects in the path for ones own purposes. This is a fundamental difference. With respect to kleshas, different kinds of practices are suited for people with different mixes of affliction. In general, the dominant affliction of this age however is hatred, and so the majority of practices are related the Vajra family.

The basis for it being appropriate for beginners to enter Vajrayāna is personal karma. People who are fortunate in this degenerate era will easily enter Vajrayāna teachings and make rapid progress, attaining full buddhahood either in this life or the bardo, or at worst, with three, seven, or sixteen lifetimes. In common Mahāyāna there are no practitioners who attain full buddhahood in less than three asaṃkhyakalpas, despite specious claims to the contrary in various schools, principally Sino-Japanese Mahāyāna, which directly contradict the Buddha's teachings on the subject in sȗtra.

With respect to burning one's fingers, as the Hevajra Tantra states "That which binds fools frees the wise."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



Queequeg said:
My comments are rhetorical. My answer to your question is this basic teaching on dependent origination. Each particular dharma is, because all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu) are.

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmadhātu is not a collection of all dharmas. The dharmadhātu is the nature of all dharmas.

Queequeg said:
LOL, yes, that's all that term means.

Come on.


Malcolm wrote:
In one place you claim a given particular dharma is the dharmadhātu (x=y); in the next place you claim that any given dharma exists because all dharmas exist (because x—> y), which you define collectively as the "dharmadhātu, which definition is incorrect; and finally, you assent to the point that "dharmadhātu" describes the nature of all dharmas (as emptiness, suchness, the limit of reality, and so on). This is incoherent.

Moreover, your reasoning that dependent origination covers your identity proposition is also incorrect. Dependent origination only covers conditioned phenomena. Any given dependently produced dharma is compounded. The dharmadhātu is uncompounded. It is completely incoherent to claim that any compounded entity is identical with an uncompounded entity. There is no analysis that one can conduct to demonstrate this point. It would be like saying that upon analysis, earth is space.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 17th, 2018 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



Queequeg said:
Basic. Critical. Profound?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you using this as a proof, or are you asking me a question?

Queequeg said:
My comments are rhetorical. My answer to your question is this basic teaching on dependent origination. Each particular dharma is, because all other dharmas (collectively, dharmadhatu) are.

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmadhātu is not a collection of all dharmas. The dharmadhātu is the nature of all dharmas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Basic. Critical. Profound?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you using this as a proof, or are you asking me a question?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 3:35 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:



Empty Desire said:
As regards Pure Land this is incorrect. It is a teaching, especially for the degenerate era.

Malcolm wrote:
Pure land teachings are not a quick path.

Aryjna said:
Is there some explanation why certain Dzogchen/Mahamudra masters like Karma Chagme aspire for Sukhavati (he says the Sukhavati aspiration is his root practice), while describing the interval to buddhahood there as infinite?

We were talking about it in this thread https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29657

Malcolm wrote:
Karma Chagme was a Dzogchen practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 3:22 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Pratitya samutpada.

Malcolm wrote:
??? Is this an analysis in support of your thesis? How?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 3:16 PM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Finally, we live in a degenerate era. No one can achieve awakening through any common Mahāyāna practice such as the six perfections, Chan, Zen, Pure Land practice, etc., in these times. Why? We are too afflicted. But in this degenerate era, we are also more intelligent, so Vajrayāna is also more suited to intelligent, technologically oriented people than lower yānas.

Empty Desire said:
As regards Pure Land this is incorrect. It is a teaching, especially for the degenerate era.

Malcolm wrote:
Pure land teachings are not a quick path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:


Anders said:
How do you get around the whole "we eat meat, drink alcohol, have sex and engage in the kleshas still call this wisdom" practice thing without just discarding the classical Buddhist view of these matters altogether?

Malcolm wrote:
I realize I didn't answer this explicitly: explicitly, the Buddha has taught that no one in this degenerate era can attain buddhahood by any means apart from Vajrayāna. So, rather than discarding anything, we are merely following the Buddha's teachings on the subject of what kind of Buddhist practice is suitable for these times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: A request to explain Vajrayana to a common Mahayanika
Content:
Anders said:
What's the main talking points of vajrayana that distinguishes it from common Mahayana?

Malcolm wrote:
Skillful means.

Anders said:
What's the deal with deity yoga?

Malcolm wrote:
This is a very big question. The long and short of it however is that identifying oneself as a buddha one becomes a buddha. This only refers the creation stage. In order to foster nonconceptual samadhi, there are any number of methods connected with body and its channels, winds, and drops to generate this. In common Mahāyāna, one's physical body literally limits the kind of samadhi one can have; hence as one progresses on the path, one takes rebirth in ever more refined bodies. In Vajrayāna, one can access these kinds of samadhi in this lifetime with special methods.

Anders said:
How do you get around the whole "we eat meat, drink alcohol, have sex and engage in the kleshas still call this wisdom" practice thing without just discarding the classical Buddhist view of these matters altogether?

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna is a path of nonrenunciation, that is, rather than avoid sense objects, they are transformed and taken into the path. As Naropa said, "The problem is not sense objects, the problem is clinging." In Vajrayāna one is taught certain methods to transform eating, drinking, sex, bathing, wearing clothes, and so on, into the path of awakening. Vajrayāna yoga is a 24/7/365 kind of thing. This is why it is so much more powerful, and dangerous, than common Mahāyāna.

Finally, we live in a degenerate era. No one can achieve awakening through any common Mahāyāna practice such as the six perfections, Chan, Zen, Pure Land practice, etc., in these times. Why? We are too afflicted. But in this degenerate era, we are also more intelligent, so Vajrayāna is also more suited to intelligent, technologically oriented people than lower yānas.

Anders said:
So, setting the whole polemical "our shortcut is X number of kalpas faster than your shortcut /our view is more supreme than your view" to one side for the sake of this topic,

Malcolm wrote:
This is not really possible. These polemics are built into Vajrayāna just as Mahāyāna has built in polemics with regards to Hinayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
Anders said:
Probably
What does infallible even mean?

I can believe he would not make mistakes out of general shortcomings. But would every action he took by definition be the theoretically best possible?

Malcolm wrote:
It means he never errs in physical actions. speech, or thought.

Anders said:
What does "err" mean though? That he makes no unfortunate actions, speech or thoughts or that they are always the most theoretically optimal ones possible?

You recall perhaps the story of the group of bikkhus who committed mass suicide after receiving a teaching on the dukkha (or was it anicca?) from the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
A Buddha cannot err. A Buddha is not responsible for the misunderstandings of others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
Anders said:
Probably
What does infallible even mean?

I can believe he would not make mistakes out of general shortcomings. But would every action he took by definition be the theoretically best possible?

Malcolm wrote:
It means he never errs in physical actions. speech, or thought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The particular Dharma is, upon analysis, the Dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a thesis in the form of an identity proposition, y = x. Let's see the analysis which proves your thesis: a given particular dharma is the dharmadhātu because...?

Coëmgenu said:
Because, in the highly paraphrased words of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, "Śāriputra, none of these dharmas can hit for shit."

Malcolm wrote:
But as we know, this is just Tang dynasty fake news.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The omniscience of the Buddha does not mean he knew everything about the world, such as the number of maggots it contains.

Losal Samten said:
Could he if he turned his mind to it?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The particular Dharma is, upon analysis, the Dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a thesis in the form of an identity proposition, y = x. Let's see the analysis which proves your thesis: a given particular dharma is the dharmadhātu because...?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
clyde said:
Do you believe the Buddha was omniscient?
Do you believe the Buddha was infallible?

If you believe either or both, do you think it’s important for Buddhists to believe those things?

Malcolm wrote:
The omniscience of the Buddha does not mean he knew everything about the world, such as the number of maggots it contains. It means he understood everything relative to the paths of awakening of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas.

The infallibility of the Buddha simply means he was incapable of error.

There are different presentations of the Buddha for those with different levels of faith: for those who have faith in arhats, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal arhat. To those with faith in pratyekabuddhas, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal pratyekabuddha. To those with faith in bodhisattvas, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal bodhisattva. To those with faith in the Mahāyāna, the Buddha to them seems to be archetypal supreme nirmanakāya. To those with faith in the Vajrayāna, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal vidyādhara.

pael said:
What is vidyādhara?

Malcolm wrote:
A realized vajrayāna adept, a bodhisattva sorcerer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: omniscient? infallible?
Content:
clyde said:
Do you believe the Buddha was omniscient?
Do you believe the Buddha was infallible?

If you believe either or both, do you think it’s important for Buddhists to believe those things?

Malcolm wrote:
The omniscience of the Buddha does not mean he knew everything about the world, such as the number of maggots it contains. It means he understood everything relative to the paths of awakening of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas.

The infallibility of the Buddha simply means he was incapable of error.

There are different presentations of the Buddha for those with different levels of faith: for those who have faith in arhats, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal arhat. To those with faith in pratyekabuddhas, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal pratyekabuddha. To those with faith in bodhisattvas, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal bodhisattva. To those with faith in the Mahāyāna, the Buddha to them seems to be archetypal supreme nirmanakāya. To those with faith in the Vajrayāna, the Buddha to them seems to be the archetypal vidyādhara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Zhiyi never makes a claim that anything he taught would withstand "ultimate analysis." He's very clear throughout his teachings that what he teaches is a way to understand. The conscious notion of upaya permeates throughout his works. In fact, this line of Zhiyi's that has gotten so much attention in this thread is prefaced with this, which I quoted above (in italics):

...

If these teachings don't benefit you, well,

If they do, well,

If you'd like to discuss Zhiyi, Tientai, great. Blurting out the first thing that pops into your head in a declaratory way, especially when its painfully obvious you don't understand what you are critiquing, when you're putting up strawmen to preen on, is not conducive to a discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
I merely pointed out to you that your idea that Zhiyi presents some uber profound teaching about the dharmadhātu was just a standard Mahāyāna presentation about the dharmadhātu since we both agree there are no phenomena not included within the dharmadhātu.

Your contention that all phenomena are included within one phenomena cannot withstand analysis, taken literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



DGA said:
TienTai isn't authoritative here, or as authoritative as the Indic texts.  Unless you can make a case for it, TienTai is basically irrelevant to the question of a layperson trying to read three basic Mahayana sutras, in the Mahayana forum.

Malcolm wrote:
Not to mention that fact that neither the Lotus Sūtra nor the Prajñāpāramita Sūtras present any sort of cosmology whatsoever. Śākyamuni Buddha remaining through the conflagration at the end of this Mahākālpa is a metaphor.  Not a historical or cosmological reality.

Only the Avatamska Sūtra presents a cosmology that is an alternative to the standard Abhidharma model.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I am pointing out that the way people understand Zhiyi is wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
And I am merely pointing out why the epistemological claims you keep making for Zhiyi are unable to withstand ultimate analysis. Either the fault is your's or his. It doesn't matter to me either way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
It's not about emptiness in the way Malcolm keeps trying to jam it into. Actually, what Malcolm keeps asserting is Provisional Mahayana in Zhiyi's view. If he could stop with his pedantic schtick we might be able to explore this. As long as he keeps jumping up and asserting his opinions, we're stuck with the Malcolm show.

Malcolm wrote:
So far, you have been unable to show that what you take to be Zhiyi's definitive Mahāyāna is definitive in any way whatsoever.

Bear in mind, I have no hostility towards Zhiyi. His books are enjoyable to read. But frankly, when it comes to making the epistemological claims you continue to assert, if they are easy to refute (they are), then I will continue to refute them as long as you make them in common fora like this. If you need a safe space, confine it to the Tientai and Nichiren fora.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 16th, 2018 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:


Admin_PC said:
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I was wondering if the Tiantai point you're talking about is related to teachings on Ichinensanzen, rather than standard teachings on emptiness? Ie, the idea of interpenetration, that Buddhahood is inherent in the hells, etc?

Malcolm wrote:
"Three thousand worlds in one moment of mind" is just a conventional formulation: it is incapable of withstanding analysis. Not even buddhahood can withstand analysis. So how could "three thousand worlds in one moment of mind" withstand ultimate analysis?

What is even slightly profound about talking about how one relative entity (buddhahood), which cannot withstand ultimate analysis, interpenetrates another relative entity (hell), which also cannot withstand ultimate analysis? All of these things, buddhas, bodhisattvas, hells, the triple realm, etc., are relative truths. None of them withstand ultimate analysis. In other words, if any part of the whole cannot withstand ultimate analysis, the whole itself cannot withstand ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: The Dangers of Diluted Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have to say, having looked at the previews of the book available on Amazon with the surprise me button, the text has rose-tinted glasses with respect to Traditional Buddhism. He calls the internet the "repository of debris from civilization." I can see Edmund Burke smiling from his grave. I wonder if the guy is a Tory. Well, no matter. The fact is that those with a vested place in religious hierarchies are always conservatives. Of course there are many sentiments within his book with which I agree, however the tone is pretty sarcastic and belittling. I mean, after all, why pick on Oprah? I am sure she would make a far better PM than May. This book, as far as I can tell, is a sale pitch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: The Dangers of Diluted Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is that Lama Jampa is citing Sakya Pandita. He must know that as a dual Kagyu/Sakyapa, that many of the traditions he practices were highly criticized by Sapan as invalid. Well, as Emerson said:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Mipham Rinpoche's termas
Content:


Sennin said:
Any idea why he held this opinion?

Arnoud said:
He probably saw the pitfalls of ever new termas.

Josef said:
I dont think it was about pitfalls. More likely Mipham was giving reverence and homage to the earlier revelations that clearly have enough to keep sincere practitioners satisfied and lead to liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
I think Mipham was going off on people's taste for novelty. His root guru, Khyentse Wangpo, revealed several volumes of new treasures, as we all know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:



jnanasutra said:
Is this Tantra a Dzogchen Tantra or a Maha or Anu Yoga Tantra? Does it exist in any Tibetan collections? Any idea of its content? The text says it describes the rays and so on...
Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
It is a man  ngag sde tantra belonging to the unsurpassed, secret cycle. It is a very interesting little text.

jnanasutra said:
I can find it in the Vima Nyingtik (in all TRBC collections)? Do you happen to know the title? Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not there, it is in the mtshams brag snying ma rgyud 'bum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is trivial, and already explicitly mentioned by Nagarjun, to paraphrase, the  the nature of the Tathagata is the nature of everything, as the Tathagata has no nature, nothing has a nature. And, for those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

As for every moment of mind being ripe with awakening, I don’t know what you mean by awakening.

Queequeg said:
Very well, Malcolm. Let's not bother you with triviality. No matter that you still miss the point. Once again, thanks for your opinion. Noted.

Malcolm wrote:
I understood the point you were trying to make. But it is not a deep point. Realizing the emptiness of one thing is the realization of the emptiness of all things.

As for your second point, what Buddhanature? Is it something that truly exists? Or is it a conventional truth, a way of talking about sentient beings' potential to awaken? If it is the former, how is this not just the same as the tirthīka view of a self?


Queequeg said:
When you can reduce everything to something you already know, it can rightly be said you know everything, right? Talk about trivial.

Malcolm wrote:
When one makes statements that do not withstand analysis, the fault is on the person making the statement, not on the person who points out the statement's deficit. In general, I am not the one making claims and assertions here, you are. If your claims can't withstand rebuttal, whose fault is that?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
jnanasutra said:
Hmmmm chapter 68, “Index,” talks about a tantra called Marici Tantra. Maybe this Tantra is related to Özer Chenma?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes

jnanasutra said:
Is this Tantra a Dzogchen Tantra or a Maha or Anu Yoga Tantra? Does it exist in any Tibetan collections? Any idea of its content? The text says it describes the rays and so on...
Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
It is a man  ngag sde tantra belonging to the unsurpassed, secret cycle. It is a very interesting little text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 1:28 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
jnanasutra said:
Hmmmm chapter 68, “Index,” talks about a tantra called Marici Tantra. Maybe this Tantra is related to Özer Chenma?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 1:26 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
What needs to be taken into account in the Tiantai context particularly is that any particular dharma is understood to be the dharmadhatu, organized, so to speak around the particular. I think this is a uniquely Tiantai point - from the ordinary Mahayana perspective this meaning will not be apparent. As such, it is the dharmadhatu encountering a sense object, which is by the same analysis the totality of the dharmadhatu. The encounter gives rise to a consciousness of the totality of the dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
It is well understood in Mahāyāna in general that there are no phenomena not included in the dharmadhātu.

The question here is not the general Mahāyāna understanding. Of course, if one is making this kind of argument that you proposed, if everything is the dharmadhātu, all cognitive processes and their parts are included within the dharmadhātu. This is trivial. The point you alluded to is covered explicitly on pp. 762-767 in vol. 2 of CSQI.

As Aryadeva points out, by realizing the emptiness of one thing (dharmatā), one realizes the emptiness of all things (dharmdhātu). So I don't think this point is unique to Chih-I. But it is not controversial point, it's middle-period, standard Mahāyāna— empty sense consciousnesses arise from the meeting of empty sense organs with empty sense objects. Everything arises from emptiness, and everything disappears into emptiness. And even emptiness itself is not established as anything real. It is all illusory all the way down.
Om
BTW Swanson rightly abandons "realm of reality" as a gloss for dharmadhātu in CSQI.

Queequeg said:
It's not a trivial statement to point out that a particular dharma is the dharmadhatu. And it's not the implication you assume. This is a soteriologically critical teaching which explains the universality of Buddha nature, the reason we are even able to interact with Buddha's, and why each thought moment is ripe with awakening.

Malcolm wrote:
It is trivial, and already explicitly mentioned by Nagarjun, to paraphrase, the  the nature of the Tathagata is the nature of everything, as the Tathagata has no nature, nothing has a nature. And, for those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

As for every moment of mind being ripe with awakening, I don’t know what you mean by awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?

Admin_PC said:
Just me, but I would probably stick with something simple like "the realm of experience" (or what Malcolm suggested) rather than fabricating the concept of The Absolute. I mean Buddhism has ultimate truth in the 2 truths doctrine (which is sometimes referred to as "absolute truth"), but "The Absolute" reads a lot more like "the One" of Neoplatonism or "the Tao" of Taoism than what's found in Buddhism.

That Swanson translation is infinitely better and covers the whole sentence.

Coëmgenu said:
Or one could just say "the set of all dharmas".

Malcolm wrote:
No, dhātu means either source or element. Not set.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Queequeg said:
What needs to be taken into account in the Tiantai context particularly is that any particular dharma is understood to be the dharmadhatu, organized, so to speak around the particular. I think this is a uniquely Tiantai point - from the ordinary Mahayana perspective this meaning will not be apparent. As such, it is the dharmadhatu encountering a sense object, which is by the same analysis the totality of the dharmadhatu. The encounter gives rise to a consciousness of the totality of the dharmadhatu.

Malcolm wrote:
It is well understood in Mahāyāna in general that there are no phenomena not included in the dharmadhātu.

The question here is not the general Mahāyāna understanding. Of course, if one is making this kind of argument that you proposed, if everything is the dharmadhātu, all cognitive processes and their parts are included within the dharmadhātu. This is trivial. The point you alluded to is covered explicitly on pp. 762-767 in vol. 2 of CSQI.

As Aryadeva points out, by realizing the emptiness of one thing (dharmatā), one realizes the emptiness of all things (dharmdhātu). So I don't think this point is unique to Chih-I. But it is not controversial point, it's middle-period, standard Mahāyāna— empty sense consciousnesses arise from the meeting of empty sense organs with empty sense objects. Everything arises from emptiness, and everything disappears into emptiness. And even emptiness itself is not established as anything real. It is all illusory all the way down.

BTW Swanson rightly abandons "realm of reality" as a gloss for dharmadhātu in CSQI.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The more one digs down into Ziporyn's writing, the more incoherent one finds the basic foundation of his thinking to be. Of course he is not a stupid person, in fact, his main fault is likely being too smart.

DGA said:
His book Being and Ambiguity is highly entertaining if you have the right sensibility for philosophy jokes.  I liked it.

Malcolm wrote:
Too busy reading Dharma books to waste time on philosophy jokes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Note where that passage is quoted from. Its a Western oriented philosophy reference. What significance would dharmadhatu have to a Western philosopher?

I can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?

Malcolm wrote:
Literally the term means "source of phenomena."

Queequeg said:
How would you explain that to a non-specialist, though? If you said that, I think that's misleading.


Malcolm wrote:
In usage given in the citation, the term seems to be more consistent with the eighteen dhatus of Abhidharma, taken as a trio: the six dhātus of sense organs; the six dhātus of sense consciousnesses; and the six dhātus of sense objects. In other words, the sense organ element; the sense object element; and sense consciousness element for a given sense perception. The usage you note from Swanson has nothing at all do with the dharmadhātu as defined in Mahāyāna as a generic term for emptiness. It has to do with describing the process of cognition. You do not find the term dharmadhātu used in Mahāyāna texts in this way unless it is explicitly denoted as part of the eighteen dhātus. Calling any three of these dhātus "the absolute" is just wrong. It shows that BZ has no understanding of basic Buddhism. The usage of "dharma" here seems generic, in the sense that the eighteen dhatus are all dharmas, and the use of the term dharmadhātu here is generic because the sense organ, object, and consciousness are not being determined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese
Content:


Norwegian said:
Hi Malcolm,

I was wondering if you could recommend some good translations/books available of the Heart Sutra, translated from the Tibetan, preferably including Sri Simha's commentary, and Vimalamitra's commentary - along with other Indian commentaries, but also Tibetan commentaries (preferably by Dzogchen masters), if possible.

So far I've only come across Lopez's " The Heart Sutra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries " from 1987, which seems to fit what I want. Not sure if this is a good book or not though.

Malcolm wrote:
Lopez is a very good translator. One of the best, actually.

Norwegian said:
Excellent! Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
However, I did not see the early commentaries listed as being translated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Admin_PC said:
I'm no Chinese translator, but i'm not even sure how they get that translation from 法界對法界起法界
If I were to take a stab at it: the Dharma realm facing the Dharma realm awakens to the Dharma realm.

PeterC said:
Agree, it's selective quotation + poetic license = nonsense. But what really annoys me is that he doesn't provide a reference so that I can read the original in context. You would expect better from a Stanford professor.

Queequeg said:
U. Chicago.

It is a quote from on online Philosophy resource. Often those articles are limited by guidelines from the editors. In the spirit of readability and wide appeal, the editors likely proscribed extensive citations. We'd need to see the guidelines to determine who's at fault for not providing a citation.

Malcolm wrote:
The more one digs down into Ziporyn's writing, the more incoherent one finds the basic foundation of his thinking to be. Of course he is not a stupid person, in fact, his main fault is likely being too smart.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



Queequeg said:
Yeah, those guys don't get it.

What I get from that is, Ziporyn should probably try and work with another word besides "identify". He goes and coins a few odd terms - local coherence, global incoherence, for instance.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he should eliminate this statement: "The Absolute, the whole of reality, is one and eternal, always the same and omnipresent."

This is a completely nonbuddhist POV. There is no "absolute," "no whole of reality," no "one," and there is nothing that is eternal.

"...each of these three—sense organ, object, this moment of consciousness—is itself the Absolute."

This statement is also faulty, for obvious reasons that I should not have to explain.

The "Buddhism" of this Ziporyn fellow is totally wrong view, 100%.

Queequeg said:
That statement is qualified immediately after the sentence you selectively quoted.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, his qualification does not hold. His thinking is absolutely sloppy and incoherent. He should really lay off the Taoism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Note where that passage is quoted from. Its a Western oriented philosophy reference. What significance would dharmadhatu have to a Western philosopher?

I can see the shortcomings in "absolute". What would be a simple way to translate dharmadhatu for non-Buddhist specialist?

Malcolm wrote:
Literally the term means "source of phenomena."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is all very clear in every Tibetan translation, and has been since Vairocana translated Ṣ́̄ṛī Siṃha's commentary, the earliest Indian commentary we possess on the Heart Sūtra, on behalf of Trisong De'utsan. One thing you should be aware of is that Indian exegesis of this Sūtra begins with Indian exponents of the Great Perfection tradition.

Norwegian said:
Hi Malcolm,

I was wondering if you could recommend some good translations/books available of the Heart Sutra, translated from the Tibetan, preferably including Sri Simha's commentary, and Vimalamitra's commentary - along with other Indian commentaries, but also Tibetan commentaries (preferably by Dzogchen masters), if possible.

So far I've only come across Lopez's " The Heart Sutra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries " from 1987, which seems to fit what I want. Not sure if this is a good book or not though.

Malcolm wrote:
Lopez is a very good translator. One of the best, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Tigle Gyachen and Yeshe Lama
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.
One needs at least the lung. Originally, Thigle Gyachen had no empowerment, but one was composed for it by Khyentse Wangpo.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Thanks, Malcolm. So if Tigle Gyachen originally had no empowerment, does that mean they originally relied on the rigpai tsal wang in Yeshe Lama for the empowerment?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Tigle Gyachen and Yeshe Lama
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Thanks, Magnus, but here I’m wondering if one got the opportunity to receive Yeshe Lama before. Tigle Gyachen, does Tigle Gyachen in fact have its own empowerment separate from the rigpai teal wang in Yeshe Lama? In other words, if one receives Yeshe Lama and then wants to practice Tigle Gyachen as one’s guru yoga, does one further have to receive the Tigle Gyachen empowerment to do so?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.
One needs at least the lung. Originally, Thigle Gyachen had no empowerment, but one was composed for it by Khyentse Wangpo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
DGA said:
Back to the OP for a moment.

1) The Lotus Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Prajnaparamita Sutras share the same worldview:  Mahayana Buddhism.  They may cover different sub-topics, like different chapters in a very large textbook, but they do not present fundamentally different perspectives.

2) The references made Ziporyn's view of TienTai and one of the early pages of Stone's book on "original enlightenment" are basically irrelevant when coming to grips with those sutras.  There's not much use in getting this far out in the weeds here:  sutras => philosophical systems => contemporary academic discussion on those philosophical systems.

Prove me wrong.
Related:

Suppose you are a lay practitioner, and your objective is to understand the Lotus Sutra.

Are you well served by reading the sutra in a high-quality translation, including the footnotes and introduction?

Would your time be better spent if, instead of reading the sutra, you dove headlong into TienTai philosophy?

Would your time be even better spent if, instead of diving headlong into TienTai philosophy before reading the sutra in a high-quality translation, you fart around with the academic casseroles of J. Stone and B. Ziporyn for a while?

I think the answers are yes, no, and oh hell no.

If your objective is to understand TienTai philosophy, then read that.

If your objective is to understand Jacqueline Stone, then read Jacqueline Stone.  But don't expect others to accept the premise that reading the first sixty pages or so of Stone's book on Original Enlightenment is the same as reading the sutra or the TienTai treatises.

(Similarly for the Avatamsaka and Prajnaparamita)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 15th, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese
Content:
Jayarava said:
So now instead of an unparsable mess, I had Avalokiteśvara examining the five skandhas and seeing that they lacked svabhāva.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all very clear in every Tibetan translation, and has been since Vairocana translated Ṣ́̄ṛī Siṃha's commentary, the earliest Indian commentary we possess on the Heart Sūtra, on behalf of Trisong De'utsan. One thing you should be aware of is that Indian exegesis of this Sūtra begins with Indian exponents of the Great Perfection tradition. In any case, within the Tibetan translation, it is very clear how this passage that confused you is to be understood:

ཡང་དེའི་ཚེ་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་སེམས་དཔའ་ཆེན་པོ་འཕགས་བ་སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་དབང་ཕྱུག་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཟབ་མོ་སྤྱོད་པ་ཉིད་ལ་རྣམ་པར་ལྟ་ཞིང༌། ཕུང་པོ་ལྔ་པོ་དེ་དག་ལ་ཡང་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་སྟོང་པར་རྣམ་པར་བལྟའོ་ཞེས་པ

"Also, at that time, the bodhisattva mahāsattva Āryāvalokiteśvara was practicing the profound Perfection of Wisdom, he looked ( rnam par lta, vyavalokayata ) and saw ( rnam par bltas pa, vyavalokita ) those five aggregates were also empty by nature."

Śṝi Siṃha's commentary interprets the lines you found vexing as follows: དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་དོན་རང་གི་ཁོང་དུ་ཆུད་དེ་སྤྱོད་པའོ། །དེས་ན་དེ་ཉིད་ལ་ཡང་དང་ཡང་དུ་དམིགས་པ་མེད་པར་ལྟ་བ་སྟེ། ལྟ་བའི་དོན་རང་ནི་ཕུང་པོ་དེ་ཉིད་དེ: "The meaning of that is that after he understood, he practiced. Then, he looked again and again without perceiving [anything]. The object he looked at was his own five aggregates themselves."


Jayarava said:
So when you ask, "how could those ancient experts not see that something was amiss?" I can only shrug and say I don't know. I only know that it happens all the time and no one notices. And frankly, the implications of this are absolutely staggering.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think, as in all text critical speculation, the only thing you can rightly claim is the following:

1) Sanskrit editions edited by Conze were marred with his own misunderstanding.

2) We have no Indian commentary in our possession that is earlier than 750, nor is there any mention of the text prior to 750 in the Indian sources that we have.

3) By the beginning of the 8th century, the text was considered valid by Indian Panditas.

4) Wonchuk claims to have seen an earlier, flawed Chinese translation, no longer extant, based on his possession or access to a no-longer exant Sanskrit manuscript.

5) Tradition claims that Xuantsang received the text in China and chanted it on is way to India (this is the real basis for Nattier's skepticism of the text.)

6) There are some grammatical oddities in the text which you and others suspect point to a Chinese origin.

7) From a text critical perspective, this is late Indian text. If I were to venture a guess, I would disagree the Chinese origin theory and point out that it is a Vajrayāna period text that originated within a Vajrayāna milieu. Vajrayāna tantras are filled with bad Sanskrit.


Jayarava said:
At a minimum there are currently no trustworthy English translations of the Heart Sutra in existence. Translations from Chinese are slightly more reliable, but are still problematic (because of Matthew's work). The whole enterprise of commentary on the text is called into question and this goes right back to Kuījī and Woncheuk (something Lusthaus fails to notice).

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there are. The ones from Tibetan are just fine.

Jayarava said:
The good news is that when you correct all the mistakes the text makes a great deal more sense and provides a fascinating way into a style of practice that was once very important though it has long since disappeared, i.e. anupalambghayoga, "the yoga of nonapprehension".

Malcolm wrote:
Not so, this kind of yoga still exists in Tibetan Buddhism. As you can see, it is mentioned in the commentarial passage I provided above.

Jayarava said:
A complex of grammatical simple but vitally important errors have been present in the Sanskrit Heart Sutra since Conze edited it 1948. Note that these are errors introduced by Conze. He revised his text in 1967 and did not notice that it did not make sense. In between 1948 and 2015 some of the greatest scholars of Sanskrit and/or Mahāyana Buddhism examined, studied, and importantly translated the text without noticing that it did not make sense (including Jan Nattier!). It would not surprise me in the least if people continued to pretend to translate Conze's text without noticing or fixing the error.

Malcolm wrote:
The only flaw here is that even you agree the Sanskrit text the Indians had before them was not Conze's critical edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Which means your assertion above is unequivocally speculative.

Jayarava said:
Deleted ad hom remark

Malcolm wrote:
The main thing you fail to explain, in fact, is how all these highly skilled Indian Panditas were unable to detect that the text before them was spurious, great paṇḍitas such as Śṛī Siṃhaprabha, his disciple, Vimalamitra, and so on. If one is to take your contention seriously, one has to assume that between whatever date you assign in the mid-7th century for the composition of this text in China, it needed to make its way back to India, where it was enthusiastically received as authentic by the Vajrayāna community in India no later than the mid 8th century, and from there transmitted to Tibet. One must assume their Sanskrit and expertise in their own literature was superior to yours.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese
Content:


Jayarava said:
Also it is now unequivocally true that the Sanskrit Heart Sutra is a translation from the Chinese.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not unequivocally true at all.



Jayarava said:
And I would personally welcome any of all of these. I'm not wedded to any particular outcome. I am simply trying to piece together all the evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
Which means your assertion above is unequivocally speculative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
DGA said:
Back to the OP for a moment.

1) The Lotus Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Prajnaparamita Sutras share the same worldview:  Mahayana Buddhism.  They may cover different sub-topics, like different chapters in a very large textbook, but they do not present fundamentally different perspectives.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, as the Lankāvatara Sūtra states:
The entire Mahāyāna is included in
five characteristics, natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two kinds of absence of identity.
The "five characteristics" refers to the the way one analyzes the three natures. So, the five characteristics are name, sign, concept, correct knowledge, and suchness. Name in turn refers to the imputed nature; sign and concept refer to the dependent nature; and correct knowledge and suchness refer to the perfected nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 11:06 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Admin_PC said:
I'm no Chinese translator, but i'm not even sure how they get that translation from 法界對法界起法界
If I were to take a stab at it: the Dharma realm facing the Dharma realm awakens to the Dharma realm.

PeterC said:
Agree, it's selective quotation + poetic license = nonsense. But what really annoys me is that he doesn't provide a reference so that I can read the original in context. You would expect better from a Stanford professor.

You can only translate things like that within the context of the text, referring also to the contemporary commentaries and the common usage of the terms at the time. Which perhaps brings us back to the question of why/how to study ancient texts: slowly, from multiple angles, and with an understanding of the technical terms used and the choices made in interpreting them. Otherwise you risk thinking something expresses 'truth' because it sounds nice, when in fact all it expresses is confusion.

Malcolm wrote:
Having read the paper to which Garfield, et al, are responding, all I can say is that BZ”s apparent knowledge of Indian Buddhism is at best, superficial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Another day in America
Content:


shaunc said:
About 6 months later, if memory serves me correctly, hurricane Katrina hit new Orleans and the people turned their guns on each other.


Malcolm wrote:
No, not exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
https://jaygarfield.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/garfield_reply_to_ziporyn.pdf

Queequeg said:
Yeah, those guys don't get it.

What I get from that is, Ziporyn should probably try and work with another word besides "identify". He goes and coins a few odd terms - local coherence, global incoherence, for instance.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he should eliminate this statement: "The Absolute, the whole of reality, is one and eternal, always the same and omnipresent."

This is a completely nonbuddhist POV. There is no "absolute," "no whole of reality," no "one," and there is nothing that is eternal.

"...each of these three—sense organ, object, this moment of consciousness—is itself the Absolute."

This statement is also faulty, for obvious reasons that I should not have to explain.

The "Buddhism" of this Ziporyn fellow is totally wrong view, 100%.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
rory said:
Here is a scholarly article on Tiantai for the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Brook Ziporyn, Professor of Chinese Religion at University of Chicago Divinity School,
Traditional Buddhism gives a rather commonsensical account of sentient experience: every moment of sentient experience is a sensory apparatus encountering an object, giving rise thereby to a particular moment of contentful awareness. But in the Tiantai view, each of these three—sense organ, object, this moment of consciousness—is itself the Absolute, the entirety of reality, expressed without remainder in the peculiar temporary form of sense organ, of object, of this consciousness. Hence each moment of every being’s experience is redescribed, to paraphrase a canonical early Tiantai work, as follows:

The absolute totality encounters the absolute totality, and the result is the arising of the absolute totality. (法界對法界起法界)

The Absolute, the whole of reality, is one and eternal, always the same and omnipresent, but it is also the kind of whole that divides from itself, encounters itself, arises anew each moment, engenders itself as the transient flux of each unique and individual moment of experience of every sentient being.

How this view is established, and what its consequences are, is what is to be explained in this article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-tiantai/
Read his two books: Being and Ambiguity: Philosophical Experiments With Tiantai Buddhism (Open Court, 2004
Evil And/Or/As the Good: Omnicentric Holism, Intersubjectivity and Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought (Harvard, 2000)
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
This view expressed is not even slightly different than Advaita Vedanta. If this really represents Tientai view, it is completly outside Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:


nichiren-123 said:
How am I supposed to understand a 2000 year old text, written in an ancient language, full of Buddhist cosmology I don't understand?
Commentaries have been written on these sutra's that get to the heart of the matter in a much easier format to digest...

DGA said:
Then read some reliable commentaries.  Abhidharma is good stuff.

Having a teacher guide you through this material is really indispensable.  At a minimum, you save time and effort.

nichiren-123 said:
I thought abhidharma was practically demolished by nagarjuna?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Some wrongs views held by śrāvaka schools about Abhidharma were demolished by Nāgārjuna; but not Abhidharma itself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2018 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:



nichiren-123 said:
I've read the diamond sutra and synopses of the other two. I don't have time to read them. The LS is 500 odd pages and the FG is over 1000


Malcolm wrote:
If you don’t read them, how can you even begin to understand them. BTW, you will not find the doctrine of interpenetration in the actual words of the Avatamska

nichiren-123 said:
How am I supposed to understand a 2000 year old text, written in an ancient language, full of Buddhist cosmology I don't understand?

Malcolm wrote:
You will have to take it slowly, and read the Lotus, for example, in multiple English translations if you do not read Sanskrit, Chinese, or Tibetan. You will have to build your knowledge base carefully, over time, so you have a full understanding of the texts you study.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 13th, 2018 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Lotus Vs wisdom Vs flower garland sutra worldview?
Content:
nichiren-123 said:
Ok, I'm confused about the different worldviews in the three sutra's of lotus, diamond (i.e. wisdom) and flower garland sutra's?
My understanding is that:

So the lotus sutra teaches the Buddha is eternal

DGA said:
No, the Lotus Sutra teaches that Shakyamuni Buddha has a really, really, really long (but finite) lifespan.  There are some traditions that interpret this long but finite lifespan as eternal.  Interpretations are debatable.
The wisdom sutra teaches emptiness and non-duality

Flower garland sutra teaches interpenetration.
What's the difference between emptiness and interpenetration?
How do these three teachings link together in a coherent way?
Depends who you ask.

Have you read these sutras you are asking about?

nichiren-123 said:
I've read the diamond sutra and synopses of the other two. I don't have time to read them. The LS is 500 odd pages and the FG is over 1000


Malcolm wrote:
If you don’t read them, how can you even begin to understand them. BTW, you will not find the doctrine of interpenetration in the actual words of the Avatamska


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:


Coëmgenu said:
I think I can.

Malcolm wrote:
The MMK 24:17-19 could not be more clear:

Whatever arises in dependence, 
that is explained as emptiness;
that [emptiness] is dependently designated, 
that is the middle way. 

Why? There exist no phenomena
that are not dependently originated,
Therefore, there are no phenomena
that are not empty. 

If all of this is not empty,
there could not no arising and perishing, 
and consequently, for you 
the four noble truths would not exist.

This whole discussion of what is the middle way comes directly after the discussion of how the Buddha only teaches two truths. The two truths are themselves the middle way, the latter is not a third truth. The whole purpose of this discussion in MMK 24 is to explain how the four noble truths are possible only if dependently originated phenomena are understood to be emptiness.

There is no fault in studying Chih-I, but there is a fault if one reads Chih-I into Nāgārjuna. It's best to leave Chih-I out of Madhyamaka altogether. Chih-I  generated his own school, and is how he should be understood.

Coëmgenu said:
The ultimate truth, in Tiantai, appears to be adhyatma sunyata, the conventional, bahirdha sunyata, and the middle seems to be sunyata sunyata. After the above quotation (Mohezhiguan, not MMK). IMO

I am preparing a more substantial reply but it is taking a while. This short post will have to suffice for now.

Malcolm wrote:
You should not use untranslated terms. In any case, śūnyatā is an ultimate truth, always, since it represents the culmination of a given analysis of a given thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:


Coëmgenu said:
The 'third' truth is simply the first two truths.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think you can make such a reductionist statement.

Coëmgenu said:
I think I can.

Malcolm wrote:
The MMK 24:17-19 could not be more clear:

Whatever arises in dependence, 
that is explained as emptiness;
that [emptiness] is dependently designated, 
that is the middle way. 

Why? There exist no phenomena
that are not dependently originated,
Therefore, there are no phenomena
that are not empty. 

If all of this is not empty,
there could not no arising and perishing, 
and consequently, for you 
the four noble truths would not exist.

This whole discussion of what is the middle way comes directly after the discussion of how the Buddha only teaches two truths. The two truths are themselves the middle way, the latter is not a third truth. The whole purpose of this discussion in MMK 24 is to explain how the four noble truths are possible only if dependently originated phenomena are understood to be emptiness.

There is no fault in studying Chih-I, but there is a fault if one reads Chih-I into Nāgārjuna. It's best to leave Chih-I out of Madhyamaka altogether. Chih-I  generated his own school, and is how he should be understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:


Coëmgenu said:
The 'third' truth is simply the first two truths.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think you can make such a reductionist statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
smcj said:
I think Lopön Tenzin Namdak and Kongtrul have differing opinions on this matter. That's ok as far as I'm concerned. To each his own.

Malcolm wrote:
They don have differing opinions actually, but in your strange misconception of the Dzogchen, you imagine they do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 12th, 2018 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:
DGA said:
Separate topic, perhaps:

what is in TienTai that is not in Nagarjuna?

Anders said:
The third truth stands out.

Coëmgenu said:
Perhaps there is a tendency to confuse the two truths of Madhyamaka and the threefold contemplation of the dharmadhātu in Tiāntāi.

The threefold contemplation seems to be intended to realize this, in practice:

涅槃與世間　　　　　　　　　　　　無有少分別 
[between] nirvāna and this world 　　[there is] not [even] a slight disparity

世間與涅槃　　　　　　　　　　　　亦無少分別
this world and nirvāṇa 　　also no[t even a] slight disparity

涅槃之實際　　　　　　　　　　　　及與世間際 
[from] nirvāṇa's true apex 　　towards this world's apex

如是二際者　　　　　　　　　　　　無毫釐差別
like this there are two apices 　　[like this there is] not the smallest sliver of disparity
(Madhyamakaśāstra T1564.35c27)

The "third" truth is just this relation between the two truths. It was already in the Kārikā.

Malcolm wrote:
The MMK 24:8-9 is pretty clear:

The doctrine taught by the Buddha
is correctly predicated upon two truths:
the relative truth of the world, 
and the truth of the sublime meaning.

Thos who do not know the difference
between those two truths,
do not know the the profound reality
of the doctrine of the Buddha.

Samsara and nirvana are both relative truths, and that is why there is not even a subtle distinction that can be made between them.

The doctrine of the two truths is supported on the basis of the Meeting of the Father and Son Sūtra, the locus classicus for restricting the number of truths the Buddha taught in Mahāyāna to the two truths. The Buddha himself never taught a third truth. There was never any need. Why? Because as the sūtra mentioned above states, the doctrine of the two truths arose out of the Buddha's direct perception and personal experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:


Coëmgenu said:
IMO such a person would just believe that karma, DO, and so on, are processes that, in the end, govern the behaviour of what arises out of material processes. That is to say, they would believe in karma, DO, etc., as 'meta'-processes that govern material processes to produce emergent non-material phenomena.

Perhaps there is a reason Ven Dharmakīrti is Ven Dharmakīrti and I am un-Ven Nobody.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of karma, dependent origination, and so on, is that the general theory of dependent origination was first taught by the Buddha so that people would stop asking him who they were in past lives. This is made very clear in Abhidharma, in chapter 3.

M

Coëmgenu said:
Samuccaya or kośa?

Malcolm wrote:
Kosha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
jnanasutra said:
If Gzhon nu Dpa’ bo stobs ldan is teaching a retinue (which includes Vajrapani) that is merely an emanation of his own pristine consciousness, then when this buddha sees the appearances of six realms of samsara it must be the case that the beings in each realm must also be emanations of his pristine consciousness. I understand the idea of the Yogācāra container universe model, however, this model works from the perspective of a deluded mind. So how does this buddha view sentient beings? Are sentient beings similar to the retinue in that they are his own emanations? I know the general phrases, “buddhas don’t see sentient beings” and “sentient beings do not exist.” That is not what I am getting at. I am trying to understand this from a Man ngag sde perspective. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
From the commentary on the Blazing Lamp:

Though everything (such as living beings, the inanimate and the animate) appears to each person individually as the unceasing pristine consciousness of vidyā, this is not seen by people of the common vehicles who grasp intellectual analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
clyde said:
Here’s what I do know: I know that if one sees that there is no self, no “I”, and if one sees that all things and the world, in all directions and times, are empty and without self-nature, then one knows it’s foolish to speak of rebirth.

Malcolm wrote:
It would be foolish to speak of rebirth as an ultimate principle, but since like rebirth, all things and the world are also conventional, if it is foolish to speak of rebirth, it is also foolish to speak of all things and the world. Rebirth, all things, and the world are conventional truths, empty, and without self-nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Non-duality in dzogchen
Content:
PSM said:
I am trying to fully understand the principle of "non-duality" in dzogchen. Specifically understanding hownthe following are not contradictory: the division between subject and object is an illusion, the dharmakaya of all buddhas is one, but mindstreams of sentient beings are separate. Seems there is a fine line to walk between dualism and monism.

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmakāya of the buddhas is one because they all realize the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 11th, 2018 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
... the mind is a product of material processes...

pael said:
Can logic refute this?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Khorwa Dongtruk in the Nyingma Kahma
Content:
dzoki said:
This could mean many things. One thing is Khorwa Tongtrug as a specific form of red Avalokiteshvara, another thing is Khorwa Tongtrug as a term used in inner tantras. There is no practice of Khorwa Tongtrug in Nyingma Kama (Kama gyepa collection) - at least not in the one put together by Dudjom Rinpoche.

Kama transmissions just means oral lineage, so it could very well be just "regular" white four armed Avalokiteshvara as found in Karma Chagme's collected works - which contains one such sadhana called  Recitation and meditation of Avalokiteshvara - Shaking the samsara from the depths, (Tibetan title is: thugs rje chen po'i sgom bzlas 'khor ba dong sprugs). Patrul Rinpoche was dedicated practitioner of Avalokiteshvara and wrote a famous text called Advice virtuous at the beginning, in the middle and at the end (thog mtha' bar gsum du dge ba'i gtam) which has very similar content to Karma Chagme's Union of Dzogchen and Mahamudra.  Both of these texts are focused on 4 armed white Avalokitshvara, so my speculation here is that this is what was meant by Khorwa Tongtrug derived from kama transmissions.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a Na rag dong sprugs, this can be found in volume P of Dudjom Rinpoche's collection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Mipham Rinpoche's termas
Content:
dzoki said:
Mipham Rinpoche was not a terton, he was supposed to reveal termas but he refused to.

Malcolm wrote:
This is debatable. Some of his Gesar texts are written under the name, "Bse ru 'Od ldan dkar po," the White Luminous Rhinoceros, and bear gter shad.  I am not referring the earlier Gesar terma that is included in Mipham's Gesar cycle, the rDo rje Tshe rgyal cycle.

Many lamas consider all of his writings to be terma, similar to Longchenpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakīrti offers the best arguments in support of rebirth, but he does so in a series of questions, a decision tree, to ascertain if it is even worth discussing the issue with an opponent of the Buddhist view in general. For example, if someone believes that the mind is a product of material processes, then there is no point to discuss the issue any further. Such a person is incapable of accepting karma, dependent origination, and so on.

Coëmgenu said:
IMO such a person would just believe that karma, DO, and so on, are processes that, in the end, govern the behaviour of what arises out of material processes. That is to say, they would believe in karma, DO, etc., as 'meta'-processes that govern material processes to produce emergent non-material phenomena.

Perhaps there is a reason Ven Dharmakīrti is Ven Dharmakīrti and I am un-Ven Nobody.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of karma, dependent origination, and so on, is that the general theory of dependent origination was first taught by the Buddha so that people would stop asking him who they were in past lives. This is made very clear in Abhidharma, in chapter 3.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Another day in America
Content:
shaunc said:
I find it hard to believe that the leaders of these countries rank a human life somewhere below a chicken and a dog's life.

justsit said:
Believe it, sadly.

The US Constitution has been interpreted to protect an individual's right to bear arms. There is big money involved in making sure that doesn't change, regardless of what "leaders" might or might not think.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not only guns, it's culture, especially in the South and the West. Here in Massachusetts, we have extremely strict gun laws, and the lowest level of gun violence in the US. But just across the border, in Vermont, there is more gun violence in a state with 1/10th our population because they have much looser gun laws.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Another day in America
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
people keep saying "do something"...I wish we would...

Malcolm wrote:
We know what do to: thoughts and prayers, people, thoughts and prayers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:



Lukeinaz said:
a timely post.  i was just going to post a question about attachment and clinging.

your command of the subject is impressive.  could have listened to you rap for another hour.  seemed like it was cut short

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it was a 4 hour conversation, actually.

Lukeinaz said:
does the entire recording exist somewhere?

Malcolm wrote:
Wisdom has it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Snowbear said:
I should have the time machine finished by Monday. It will take a few days to observe and jot down interviews of relevant parties involved in the origins and formation of Buddhism, and will have the final draft finished and handed in by the end of the week.

Grigoris said:
Now you are just being a jerk, so I will end the conversation here.

Snowbear said:
I really don't have an answer for you. The important assertion in this thread is that there is nothing in personal experience that definitively proves rebirth takes place, so we as Buddhists accept it on faith. I think that is an accurate observation.

Malcolm wrote:
The truth or falsity of the doctrine of rebirth is dependent on yogic pratyakṣa, yogic direct perception, a result of samadhi that allows one to develop the concentration necessary develop the abhijñā of recalling past lives, as Buddha did during the night he demonstrated the deed of awakening on the Bodhimaṇḍa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Offer skepticism, reap the wrath! And condescension.

I understand people have their beliefs. Those beliefs may even be founded on evidence one finds personally satisfactory. There is no incontrovertible evidence that settles the issue, though.

Malcolm wrote:
There is, it simply requires specialized skills to be able to access that evidence.

Queequeg said:
As such, faith will be part of the equation for most people, acknowledged or not.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for those people without the requisite set of skills to access that evidence, faith is required. The Buddha never denied this.

Queequeg said:
I raise questions, because these are questions that vex me. I'm looking for the insight that will put my doubt to rest.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakīrti offers the best arguments in support of rebirth, but he does so in a series of questions, a decision tree, to ascertain if it is even worth discussing the issue with an opponent of the Buddhist view in general. For example, if someone believes that the mind is a product of material processes, then there is no point to discuss the issue any further. Such a person is incapable of accepting karma, dependent origination, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
ratna said:
New interview with Malcolm is up on https://learn.wisdompubs.org/podcast, excellent as usual.

Lukeinaz said:
a timely post.  i was just going to post a question about attachment and clinging.

your command of the subject is impressive.  could have listened to you rap for another hour.  seemed like it was cut short

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it was a 4 hour conversation, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
ratna said:
New interview with Malcolm is up on https://learn.wisdompubs.org/podcast, excellent as usual.

Aryjna said:
Does anyone know if the text with the story of Tharpa Nagpo is available in translation?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is part of the longer bio of Padmasambhava revealed by Orgyen Lingpa. But is also available shorter forms here and there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
According to you, Śakyamuni Buddha is still there at Vulture's Peak. I think you can go ask him.

Queequeg said:
In the plans. In the meantime, don't you have immediate ready access? Come on, don't bogart the teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
The two teachers I know personally who had abhijñā have passed away: one just recently, the other in 2006.

There are others, but you will have to research this on your own. In the meantime, I suggest you read this remarkable book:

https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/rebirth-early-buddhism-and-current-research


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



Queequeg said:
Are there examples who have achieved this insight and available for public inquiry?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha, for one.

Queequeg said:
Didn't have the karma to make that assembly.

Malcolm wrote:
According to you, Śakyamuni Buddha is still there at Vulture's Peak. I think you can go ask him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Do you mean, a proof accessible to those who have not developed the five abhijñās, no. One can develop that capacity and ascertain it for oneself. Like the sciences, it requires training and education.

Queequeg said:
Are there examples who have achieved this insight and available for public inquiry?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha, for one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Another day in America
Content:
Grigoris said:
You keep saying that and yet every time I turn on my computer I learn of a new massacre.  Every day.  It seems that your statistical anomalies are becoming averages...

Malcolm wrote:
Compared to car accidents, definitely. 101 people die every day in car collisions in the US.

Grigoris said:
Compared to deaths by heart disease they are statistically insignificant.  But what I am saying is that their increasing frequency is making them less rare.

Malcolm wrote:
Everywhere used to be much more violent. We live in  a comparatively peaceful epoch, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Joke aside... how do Buddhists explain blood flow and electrical patterns in the brain that seem to coincide with sensory stimulation? What relation do these things have to consciousness?

Malcolm wrote:
Ancient Buddhists don't explain such things at all, apart from observing that the function of the physical organs are governed by the brain.


Queequeg said:
If consciousness, aka, the mana-indriya, aka the vijñāna skandha, is not immaterial, it is material.
It is or it is not material?

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness defined as a nonmaterial substance in Buddhadharma.

Queequeg said:
It is also a basic tenet of Buddhadharma, from Abhidharma on up, that mind generates matter, not the other way around.
Is there a proof for this, or is it a matter of faith?

Malcolm wrote:
Do you mean, a proof accessible to those who have not developed the five abhijñās, no. One can develop that capacity and ascertain it for oneself. Like the sciences, it requires training and education.

Queequeg said:
Please elaborate.

Malcolm wrote:
Theses are very basic issues that one would normally learn in a class on Abhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:
DGA said:
what book does Nyingma or Gelug uphold?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally, the Prajñāpāramita Sūtras are the dominant sūtras in Tibet, as they were in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The mental organ, not being material, sounds like a secondary effect of the material sense organs.

Grigoris said:
There are six sense organs.  Mind is one of them.  Mind can act independently of the other five sense organs.  It is it's own sense consciousness.

Mental Objects (dharma-āyatana) -> Mental Faculty (mano-indriya-āyatana) -> Mental Consciousness (mano-vijñāna)

Queequeg said:
Right - I'm asking about this immaterial nature of the mental faculty. This would seem to be a denial that its a function of the brain.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, in Buddhadharma, it is denied that the mind is a function of the brain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ok, a sense organ, in Sanskrit, is referred to as an indriya (but this term indriya covers more than that, faith, for example, is also an indriya). The six āyatanas you are referring to is another name for the six sense organs in the scheme of the twelve āyatanas.

Of the six indriyas (there are twenty-two, in fact), a number are physical, including the sense organs. These five physical sense organs consist of patches of atoms on the sense structure where they are located. For example, the eye sense organ is a patch of atoms shaped like a flower located at the rear of the eyeball. The mental organ is not material.

When the mental organ operates through the physical senses, it takes the name of the sense organ through which it operates. If that operation is disrupted, that sense organ is not active, and there will be no corresponding sense consciousness. So from a Buddhist point of view, anesthesia, literally "without sensation," shuts down the ability of the mind to function through the sense organs, placing one is an an unconscious state.

Queequeg said:
When you say the mental organ operates through the physical senses, how is this different than the sense base giving rise to consciousness on contact with the sense object (in the ayatana sense)?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the sense organ does not give rise to consciousness per se, is the base upon which consciousness receives the sense impression of an object. Consciousness cannot act through more than one sense organ at a time, because it is momentary, serial, and single.

Queequeg said:
The mental organ, not being material, sounds like a secondary effect of the material sense organs.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is primary. The mana-indriya is vijñānaskandha.

Queequeg said:
To suggest the mental organ is immaterial, sounds like the proposition of someone who's inquiry is limited.

Malcolm wrote:
If consciousness, aka, the mana-indriya, aka the vijñāna skandha, is not immaterial, it is material. In Buddhadharma, there are uncompounded and compounded phenomena, and with respect to the latter, either physical or mental phenomena. There is no third kind of phenomena. It is also a basic tenet of Buddhadharma, from Abhidharma on up, that mind generates matter, not the other way around.

Queequeg said:
Am I missing something?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Aryjna said:
it would be much better to subscribe to nihilism, which would ensure a kind of Hinayana nirvana for everyone, either immediately through suicide or in due time.

Queequeg said:
I don't think that nihilism leads to Hinayana nirvana. Nihilism asserts that the sum of everything is nothing. Its a type of idealism, in that it asserts an ultimate lack of meaning. It seems to me, that is an a priori assumption imposed on experience, rather than what is yielded by seeing phenomena without any notions - ie. to perceive purely. My understanding is that in seeing purely, it would not occur to draw a conclusion as to meaning or lack of meaning; either is a heavy handed projection. Taking account of the Hinayana path which is focused on disrupting the chain of causation at the point of tanha, we're talking about a release, not a heavy handed assumption of nothing (which must stand in contrast to something).

Malcolm wrote:
In general, the Hinayāna view is annihilationist (something becomes nothing) because of the assertion that the continuum of an arhat utterly perishes at the breakup of the aggregates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 10th, 2018 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



DGA said:
I'm tempted to reframe the question of awareness in this conversation in terms of Buddhahood and Buddha-nature, but I don't think I have the energy for that particular can of worms today.


I have good reason to suspect they are related.  We're discussing what makes a sentient being a sentient being, as distinct from a Buddha.  For this reason, the conversation involves some tacit assumptions around that term "Buddha."


Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty clear that what people mean by awareness in general is covered by the term samprajāna, and other related terms. The term originally means "to guard one's goods"

Queequeg said:
I'll take a stab at this, but I need those better versed in the taxonomy of the facets of being to help out here. I'll describe what I'm talking about, and ask you to help identify it.
Its the awareness that something is happening. It does not move beyond that - the impulse to explore "something" is not arisen yet; there is yet no discrimination.

Malcolm wrote:
If there is awareness of something happening, it is an object-related awareness. if we were talking about this in Buddhist terms, this would be called a pratyakṣa, a cognition which is nonconceptual and does not discriminate its object. However, there cannot be direct perception in absence of an external sense object. Therefore, all valid cognitions which do not depend on external sense objects are called "inferences."These are discriminating cognitions.

In Abhidharma, the vijñānaskandha is considered to be nonconceptual, just this present moment of consciousness. There are no layers of consciousness or cognition below it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Grigoris said:
But mind is a sense organ too and it can operate in the absence of the activity of other sense organs (during sleep, for example).

Malcolm wrote:
From a Vajrayāna point of view, when one is in a state of deep sleep, one is completely unconscious because the mind (manas), which rides upon vāyu in the body, has withdrawn into the center of the heart cakra. When one begins to wake, the mind (citta) moves out through the channels of the heart cakra, activating the eight consciousnesses channels which including the six sense consciousness. This is what is responsible for dreaming. When one is fully awake, the mind (vijñāna) not only functions through the eight channels of the heart cakra, but moves through the five physical sense organs as well.

Grigoris said:
Sorry, i should have been clearer:  I meant during dreaming.  The mind functions independently of the other sense organs during dreaming.

Malcolm wrote:
As above, when dreaming, the mind moves through the channels of the heart activating the sense consciousnesses in absence of actual contact with sense objects. Since it also moves through the ālayavijñāna's channel, bijas are activated giving rise to dream appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Another day in America
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...these are statistically rare events...

Grigoris said:
You keep saying that and yet every time I turn on my computer I learn of a new massacre.  Every day.  It seems that your statistical anomalies are becoming averages...

Malcolm wrote:
Compared to car accidents, definitely. 101 people die every day in car collisions in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
clyde said:
Please explain. I asked.

And you answered, “Literally.”

Now you say, I’ve taken your answer “too literally” and that it is “physical matter that is in a very motile state”. So, what is it composed of?

And since it’s physical matter, how is it not subject to the physical laws of our world?

Malcolm wrote:
Clyde, I have only agreed to explain to you what the traditional teachings say on the subject, not to engage with you in a debate.

Ancient Buddhist conceived of all matter being as being composed of four states or qualities: earth (solidity), water (liquidity), fire (heat), and air (motility). A rock for example, will be understood to be predominately composed of the earth element, etc.

If you ask me what a gandharva's body is made up of beyond the subtle matter of the air element, I cannot give you that answer, because no such answer is supplied in the ancient literature. If this does not satisfy your wish to understand what ancient Buddhists understood about gandharvas, I am afraid our conversation is now at an end.

M

Crazywisdom said:
I think there’s some tantric teaching about all elements being present in any prana. All the elements are prana. Só wind prana, earth prana, etc. wind prana has the earthiness of the prana also, something like that.

Malcolm wrote:
Anything material has all four elements in some mixture, and yes, the there are also elemental vāyus in the body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
DGA said:
By the way, did we ever resolve what the word "awareness" means for the purpose of this discussion?  Is it the same as consciousness, or different?  Is it the same as mind, or different?

Malcolm wrote:
I still think that Q is dealing with the contradiction in terms his definition of awareness entails: an awareness that is not aware.

DGA said:
I'm tempted to reframe the question of awareness in this conversation in terms of Buddhahood and Buddha-nature, but I don't think I have the energy for that particular can of worms today.


I have good reason to suspect they are related.  We're discussing what makes a sentient being a sentient being, as distinct from a Buddha.  For this reason, the conversation involves some tacit assumptions around that term "Buddha."


Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty clear that what people mean by awareness in general is covered by the term samprajāna, and other related terms. The term originally means "to guard one's goods"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
DGA said:
By the way, did we ever resolve what the word "awareness" means for the purpose of this discussion?  Is it the same as consciousness, or different?  Is it the same as mind, or different?

Malcolm wrote:
I still think that Q is dealing with the contradiction in terms his definition of awareness entails: an awareness that is not aware.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When the mental organ operates through the physical senses, it takes the name of the sense organ through which it operates. If that operation is disrupted, that sense organ is not active, and there will be no corresponding sense consciousness. So from a Buddhist point of view, anesthesia, literally "without sensation," shuts down the ability of the mind to function through the sense organs, placing one is an an unconscious state.

Grigoris said:
But mind is a sense organ too and it can operate in the absence of the activity of other sense organs (during sleep, for example).

Malcolm wrote:
From a Vajrayāna point of view, when one is in a state of deep sleep, one is completely unconscious because the mind (manas), which rides upon vāyu in the body, has withdrawn into the center of the heart cakra. When one begins to wake, the mind (citta) moves out through the channels of the heart cakra, activating the eight consciousnesses channels which including the six sense consciousness. This is what is responsible for dreaming. When one is fully awake, the mind (vijñāna) not only functions through the eight channels of the heart cakra, but moves through the five physical sense organs as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:


clyde said:
If I may ask a personal question: How do you, a modern person, understand the nature of the gandharva?

Malcolm wrote:
Precisely the way it is taught in the Abhidharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



Queequeg said:
I think so.

Malcolm wrote:
Please then explain, because I am not sure you do.

Queequeg said:
The six ayatana - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind. They roughly correspond to the physical organs, but the physical organs are not coextensive with the scope of these organs as ayatana. The organs in the ayatana sense transcend the physical organs.


Malcolm wrote:
Ok, a sense organ, in Sanskrit, is referred to as an indriya (but this term indriya covers more than that, faith, for example, is also an indriya). The six āyatanas you are referring to is another name for the six sense organs in the scheme of the twelve āyatanas.

Of the six indriyas (there are twenty-two, in fact), a number are physical, including the sense organs. These five physical sense organs consist of patches of atoms on the sense structure where they are located. For example, the eye sense organ is a patch of atoms shaped like a flower located at the rear of the eyeball. The mental organ is not material.

When the mental organ operates through the physical senses, it takes the name of the sense organ through which it operates. If that operation is disrupted, that sense organ is not active, and there will be no corresponding sense consciousness. So from a Buddhist point of view, anesthesia, literally "without sensation," shuts down the ability of the mind to function through the sense organs, placing one is an an unconscious state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Do you understand what a sense organ is in Buddhist terms?

Queequeg said:
I think so.

Malcolm wrote:
Please then explain, because I am not sure you do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



Queequeg said:
We ought to be precise in our terminology. What I described does not correspond to "shut down"... but no bother.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does. What is a sense organ that does not sense? If you sever the processor from the camera, the camera may still be on, but it is shutdown in the sense that no image reaches the processor.

Queequeg said:
No. The senses are working just fine. Shut down would mean that the sense are off.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you understand what a sense organ is in Buddhist terms?

Queequeg said:
Well, no, you are just a Mahāyāni who does not understand the formation of the body in Buddhist terms.
I don't know what that means. Mahayanists don't understand (because the knowlege is beyond the scope of Mahayana), or I don't understand, happening to be a Mahayanist? If its the former, then that understanding is not on Buddhist terms, but rather some specialized terms. If its the latter, then whats the point in delineating those distinctions?


Malcolm wrote:
The former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



Queequeg said:
That's actually not what it does, as I understand. It is said to disrupt communication in the brain. The senses are working perfectly fine. They're not communicating effectively with parts of the brain that register and interpret the stimuli into experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is what it means "to shut down the senses."

Queequeg said:
We ought to be precise in our terminology. What I described does not correspond to "shut down"... but no bother.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does. What is a sense organ that does not sense? If you sever the processor from the camera, the camera may still be on, but it is shutdown in the sense that no image reaches the processor.


Queequeg said:
In ancient Buddhist anatomy, the brain is understood as the organ which organizes the five senses. Where as consciousness is primarily located (but not restricted to) in the region of the body right below the heart.
Yes, so I've heard. I'm one of those sloppy Buddhists who can't discern my head from my heart. I'll take it on faith.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, you are just a Mahāyāni who does not understand the formation of the body in Buddhist terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All anesthesia does is shut down your physical senses. If it disrupted your consciousness, you would die.

Queequeg said:
That's actually not what it does, as I understand. It is said to disrupt communication in the brain. The senses are working perfectly fine. They're not communicating effectively with parts of the brain that register and interpret the stimuli into experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is what it means "to shut down the senses." In ancient Buddhist anatomy, the brain is understood as the organ which organizes the five senses. Where as consciousness is primarily located (but not restricted to) in the region of the body right below the heart.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
clyde said:
Please explain. I asked. When you say that the gandharva’s “physical body is principally the air element,” do you mean that literally or that it’s a gaseous body composed of what?
And you answered, “Literally.”

Now you say, I’ve taken your answer “too literally” and that it is “physical matter that is in a very motile state”. So, what is it composed of?

And since it’s physical matter, how is it not subject to the physical laws of our world?

Malcolm wrote:
Clyde, I have only agreed to explain to you what the traditional teachings say on the subject, not to engage with you in a debate.

Ancient Buddhist conceived of all matter being as being composed of four states or qualities: earth (solidity), water (liquidity), fire (heat), and air (motility). A rock for example, will be understood to be predominately composed of the earth element, etc.

If you ask me what a gandharva's body is made up of beyond the subtle matter of the air element, I cannot give you that answer, because no such answer is supplied in the ancient literature. If this does not satisfy your wish to understand what ancient Buddhists understood about gandharvas, I am afraid our conversation is now at an end.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The veil of birth and death is difficult to get past.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what samadhi is for.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



Queequeg said:
I find that I honestly can't go beyond what I can observe, and that involves a correspondence between my brain and being conscious. How do I come to that? A lot of it is information I accept on faith in scientific literature. Some of it is direct experience of being knocked out for surgery. From what I hear, the way anesthesia works to disrupt consciousness is compelling.

Malcolm wrote:
All anesthesia does is shut down your physical senses. If it disrupted your consciousness, you would die.


Queequeg said:
Also, observing the effect of food and drugs. It suggests consciousness is tied in with this body of mine, whether its the brain or maybe my fingernail... Does consciousness transcend this body? So I am told; so I accept on faith.

Malcolm wrote:
Many, if not most, people have trouble distinguishing the experience of their senses from the experience of consciousness itself.


Queequeg said:
Is what I observe something other than "samprajana" or is it "samprajana". I haven't taken the time to consider it.


Malcolm wrote:
This is what Hinayāna style vipaśyāna is for.

On this board, we tend to engage in very informal, imprecise rumination which expresses the fact that perhaps we have not taken to the time to consider the subjects of our discussions well. That is all well and good when it comes to some things, but it is pretty lame when it comes to discussing hard questions of rebirth and consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:



Queequeg said:
So says you.

Not to step into your living room uninvited, but what do you know of consciousness not entirely produced by a physical brain?

Malcolm wrote:
It has never been demonstrated that consciousness is at all produced by the brain, entirely or otherwise.

DGA said:
fMRI scans suggest a few interesting points.

*there's a lot more about the brain that scientists do not understand than what they do understand.  Often new findings indicate areas of new ignorance ( things we now know that we didn't know we didn't know ), rather than new knowledge per se.


*Mind (as we know it in the human realm) and brain coincide.  Impact the brain and the mind is impacted too (ask Phineas Gage).  Impact the mind and the brain is impacted too (learning new things changes the brain).  Can't say one is reducible to the other.

*Most claims on the mind-brain speculation in pop culture and pop discourse are reductive, speculative, and overblown.

Malcolm wrote:
fMRI merely measures blood flow in the brain, nothing else, from which neurological activity is inferred. All it can tell us is what the brain is doing with sense organs. It tells us nothing about consciousness per se.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Queequeg said:
See above what I mean by "awareness." May not correspond to the meaning you attribute to the word, but I'm confident that I know what I mean when I use that word.

DGA said:
I went hunting for it, and while I found some discussion on the irreducibility of awareness, I couldn't find where you defined what you mean by that word "awareness."  Would you please help me understand your position on this?

Maybe I'm missing something, but there is nothing about the nature of my mind that I've observed that would necessitate rebirth is part of the equation. This observation actually seems to find confirmation in the assertion as to the non-arising of phenomena - whatever I think is me I've observed is not any basis of my self. Long story short... the only thing I have not been able to reduce is not a thing at all, but simply, awareness. Something is happening, but it defies all definition. As best I can tell, awareness has no memory, no cognition, no linearly constructed anything


Malcolm wrote:
He did not define it, but here merely stated that in his opinion, awareness was irreducible, defies all definition, which is why I told him it appears he does not know what he means by awareness because he cannot communicate it clearly. An awareness devoid of cognition and memory, incidentally, would be unaware, literally a contradiction in terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:


Queequeg said:
It has never been demonstrated that consciousness is at all produced by the brain, entirely or otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it has. But your criteria for understanding this necessarily involves you understanding what yogis say, not what physicalists cannot understand due to the limitations of their methodology.



Queequeg said:
See above what I mean by "awareness." May not correspond to the meaning you attribute to the word, but I'm confident that I know what I mean when I use that word.

Malcolm wrote:
When discussing Buddhist things, it is good to stick with the Buddha's language. The Buddha defined the composition of the universe with six dhātus: earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness (vijñāna). He nowhere described some phenomena termed "awareness" as one of the fundamental constituents of the universe. Since awareness is a cognitive term, it must be included within consciousness, and since there is no such a thing as an objectless awareness by definition, it would be best described as a mental factor that accompanies consciousness, for example, as saṃprajāna, a mental factor that accompanies all mindful states: as in mindful and aware.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Rebirth loses meaning in relation to awareness as far as I can understand.

Malcolm wrote:
It seems to me that you do not know what you mean by the term "awareness," which in any case is a property of consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
Aryjna said:
There does not need to be a time when what one thinks of as ordinary consciousness or mind is separated from awareness, or whatever names one wants to give these things. As long as it is not entirely produced by a physical brain.

Queequeg said:
So says you.

Not to step into your living room uninvited, but what do you know of consciousness not entirely produced by a physical brain?

Malcolm wrote:
It has never been demonstrated that consciousness is at all produced by the brain, entirely or otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 9th, 2018 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
clyde said:
I have some understanding of how our senses work, but how does a body composed of air have eyes that see, ears that hear, etc?

So, upon death, one’s mind separates from one’s physical body and instantly reappears in the gandharva. And then, upon conception, one’s mind leaves the gandharva and enter the embryo. Since the gandharva exists in our world (as it must be present at conception), is it subject to the physical laws of our world?


Aside: When is death; i.e., when does the mind leave the body? At the last breath? At the last heart beat? When all neurological activity ceases?


Malcolm wrote:
I will answer the last question first. Death, from a traditional Buddhist point of view, is reckoned from the moment the mind and body of this life separate. That takes place generally within 72 hours of the last breath.

Your problem with the first question is that you are taking the word "air" too literally. You can understand here that "air refers to physical matter that is in a very motile state, what you earlier described as gaseous, but that really does not grasp the concept here.

As for your second question, when your mind separates from the body in this life, it immediately appropriates a subtle body, and this being, which you have now become, is called a gandharva. The Gandharva, according to the ancient Buddhist conception of it, can pass through more coarse matter, is clairvoyant, etc., so not entirely confined by what we call "physical laws."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Who can read Dzogchen books?
Content:
pael said:
Who can read Dzogchen books?
From Wisdom Publications?
Who is allowed to read them?

Norwegian said:
"books", and "them" is very vague. Not all Dzogchen books are similar. It depends on content.

But in general, if you want to read about Dzogchen if it isn't a basic introduction, but something from a tantra or a terma cycle, then you need at least direct introduction from a qualified Dzogchen master. Or in the case of material like thogal etc. then you should have received that first from a qualified Dzogchen master. So direct introduction and transmission of the relevant text would be normal procedure.

Lukeinaz said:
is lung generally suficient to read and practice thogal etc.  without specufic guidance from a master?

Malcolm wrote:
Bad idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
nichiren-123 said:
So I've come across the work of J.G. Jennings and his book 'the vendantic Buddhism of the Buddha' who argues that the idea of rebirth is incompatible with Anatta (non-self) and that rebirth is an idea which was accomodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the opposite actually, rebirth, or rebecoming, punarbhāva, is incompatible with the idea of self.

nichiren-123 said:
How so???

Malcolm wrote:
An atman, conceived as an uncompounded entity, cannot under go rebirth or reincarnation because rebirth is a conditioned process. Therefore, rebirth is incompatible with the idea of a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Who can read Dzogchen books?
Content:
pael said:
Who can read Dzogchen books?
From Wisdom Publications?
Who is allowed to read them?

Malcolm wrote:
Anyone with cash.

The question is, should you read them? It very much depends on the book in question.

In general, if you do not have Dzogchen transmission, then it is best not to read them, even if they have been published by someone who has a reputation as a qualified guru a.k.a, Dzogchen master (interestingly, this term, "Dzogchen master," does not exist in Tibetan).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:


clyde said:
When you say that the gandharva’s “physical body is principally the air element,” do you mean that literally or that it’s a gaseous body composed of what?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is meant literally. The air element is the most subtle kind of matter in Buddhist cosmology.

clyde said:
When you say that “[o]ne’s mind immediately appropriates this "subtle" body” (the gandharva), what does that mean and how does that occur?


Malcolm wrote:
Since a gandharva is a kind of apparitional birth, after one mind has separated from the physical body in this life, one reappears instantly in a subtle body which resembles the coarse physical body one possessed during life, but this lasts only for three weeks, after the third week, one begins to adopt the form of the coarse physical body one will possess in the next life. One undergoes this process of rebirth in the bardo seven times, once a week. Each week one's connection with and memory of one's past life becomes more and more weakened.

clyde said:
When you say that the gandharva has sense organs, does that mean the gandharva has eyes? Ears? Nose? And if not, what?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the gandharva bardo being possesses all five senses, eyes, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: empowerment for Dudjom Tersar Ngondro
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Is one needed, or just a lung?

Malcolm wrote:
Just a lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: Blue "ripple"
Content:
pemachophel said:
How 'bout changing the constitution so that sparsely populated rural states don't hold the rest of the country captive? Wyoming only has 500,000+ people, while California has 37 million (I think that's the number). In other words, the population of California is 16+ times that of Wyoming. Yet both only get two Senators. That means every vote in Wyoming is 16 times more powerful than a single vote in California.

This may have made sense at the time of the framing of the Constitution when the original 13 states had pretty similar populations, but it makes no sense now. This kind of systemic inequity is one of the reasons people (and especially younger people) don't vote. The Dems in this election cast 12 million more votes than the Republicans.

Kim O'Hara said:
I wasn't aware of this gerrymander but it doesn't surprise me in retrospect because we have a similar arrangement - a federal system in which each state gets equal representation in the upper house. I suspect that the origins are the same: that states, independent when the federation was formed, wouldn't agree to join it without equal representation.

Good luck with changing the constitution to make it fairer.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
The Senate, in the US is the US version of the House of Lords.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Is Anatta incompatible with rebirth?
Content:
nichiren-123 said:
So I've come across the work of J.G. Jennings and his book 'the vendantic Buddhism of the Buddha' who argues that the idea of rebirth is incompatible with Anatta (non-self) and that rebirth is an idea which was accomodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the opposite actually, rebirth, or rebecoming, punarbhāva, is incompatible with the idea of self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
clyde said:
Malcolm; Thank you again. However, while I understand your explanation, it doesn’t answer my questions.

The Buddha is reported to have spoken of the three conditions necessary for the birth of a human being which includes the presence of a gandharva, but what are the conditions for the arising of a gandharva or does it simply arise at the death of a being? And is it only the death of a human being or any sentient being? And what are the conditions for the passing away of a gandharva; i.e., does the gandharva cease a conception?

It seems that the gandharva is a bodiless being (“spirit”), yes? And the gandharva is composed of the five skandhas, yes? How is that possible without a body and the sense organs?


p.s: Given a succession of states from gandharva to human to gandharva to human . . ., one could just as easily call the human state the intermediate state!


Malcolm wrote:
This has been explained, but I will explain it again. [Begin by placing your mind in the cosmological world view of the four elements] The body of a bardo being is made up principally of the element air, so bardo beings have a body, but it's physical body is principally the air element. The other four aggregates are mental, being mind and its mental factors.

The gandharva arises after the dis-integration or breaking up, of the five aggregates of this life at death. One's mind immediately appropriates this "subtle" body, which in the first three weeks after death, resembles the body of the deceased in features and proportion. However, being subtle, it is not visible to ordinary people. It has all senses organs because it has a subtle body. The kind of birth they have— out of the four types of birth, apparitional, warmth and moisture birth, egg birth, and womb birth— is apparitional birth, like devas, pretas, and hell beings. Gandharvas persist in the bardo for a maximum of 49 days. This time period is deceptive, because time does not function in the bardo the same way we perceive it. These forty nine "days" can elapse in moments, in any case, the classical time period is 49 human days.

When a gandharva enters the womb at conception it loses consciousness, and is not longer a bardo being, so it "passes away."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Blue "ripple"
Content:
DNS said:
but overall the political landscape in the U.S. is still heavily controlled by Republicans.

Malcolm wrote:
Gerrymandering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2018 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The Third Truth.

Malcolm wrote:
No need for a third truth, as The Meeting of the Father and Son Sūtra ( Āryapitāputrasamāgamana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra ) states:

The truths of the knower of the world are two;
not heard by you from another, but seen for yourself.
Those [two] are the relative and ultimate.
There isn't any third truth at all


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: How is enlightenment achieved in madhamaka and tiantai?
Content:
nichiren-123 said:
did nagarjuna ever categorically offer a positive means or ANYTHING at all about what enlightenment is or how to get there?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the means of attaining awakening he proposes is gathering the two accumulations, those of merit and wisdom, by traversing the ten bodhisattva bhumis over three incalculable eons.

For Nāgārjuna, buddhahood is a state free from the obscurations of affliction and knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Blue "ripple"
Content:
Mantrik said:
Seems Trump may see out his term, but perhaps with a limp and a quack.
You never know, they may actually get enough on him to lock him up as soon as his term ends, as it look unlikely he will ever be impeached successfully. They can embarrass the hell out him though.
Maybe now they can finally get on with exposing all the corruption and criminality and perhaps force him to face having to issue pardons to his own family or see them jailed.
Well, that's my fantasy.....
Maybe people can start playing Pink Floyd every time he and his cronies appear:
'All in all you're just another prick with NO WALL.'

Malcolm wrote:
Impeaching Trump would be an error, it would turn him into a political martyr. Anyway, the Senate will not impeach him. Any impeachment proceedings will absolutely killed in the Senate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, this is practical. Legalize it, control dosage, tax it, create treatment centers. People want to take drugs. They like drugs. The social cost of drug prohibition is much higher than would be the social cost of legalization across the board. This is not idealism, this is practicality.

Queequeg said:
It would seem to me that there is still a social cost to this. I'd need to see how this works when human beings are introduced into the equation. Just because people like to get high, doesn't mean they should have access to everything on demand.

Malcolm wrote:
The cost of prohibition is the continuation of the drug black market, billions of dollars leaving the US, sky-high law enforcement which has never successfully put an end to the drug trade (it has in fact only gotten worse since Nixon first declared a war on drugs), the continued destabilization of governments in Mexico, and so on by cartels, etc. A rational examination of the drug problem in the US would absolutely conclude that across the board legalization, regulation, and taxation is the only reasonable solution.



Queequeg said:
We need a comprehensive approach that takes into account the realities of the US labor market. Open borders is not one of the acceptable options.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes it is. The overall benefits of trade and border liberalization in the NA bloc far outweigh the negative impacts on small segments of American businesses. The fact is that people are going to come and go across our southern border at will anyway. And Mexicans, etc., also work much harder than Americans do. Compared to Mexicans, Americans are lazy slobs.

Why make it more difficult and more dangerous for people to cross the border? All we are doing is creating a market for human traffickers. The only way to prevent this is to MILITARIZE the border, which is illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. I would not want this. I don't think any reasonable person wants to militarize our southern border.

Queequeg said:
If business had its way with H1B, they would vastly increase the numbers. This is not OK.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is ok. People from India, etc., place a high value on educating their children. They make excellent additions to the US. They will tend to vote for Democrats, which is of course what all this hullabaloo is really about.

Queequeg said:
I would prefer to see the business community put pressure on governments to improve education - which would be a necessity if H1B and other special skill visas were reduced. We'd have to take human resources development seriously in this country.

Malcolm wrote:
Dream on, it is exactly the business community that put pressure on the Gvt. to eviscerate education in the US to begin with in order to lower taxes. Why do you think we have all this crazy bullshit with charter schools, public schools that are failing, etc.? It is because the conservatives in the US Gvt. have systematically eviscerated education funding across the board.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Just an aside:



Queequeg said:
One thing about you, Malcolm, your idealism guides your approach to all subjects. I'm happy that you are a fringe character.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Other than the buying fentanyl in stores part, that is not a "fringe" view in any way. Decriminalization has been a success (inasmuch as it's possible to define one with addiction and drug related crime) in virtually any developed country which has tried (Portugal is a recent example), and some level of decriminalization is supported across a broad swathe of professions, organizations etc.


http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/united-nations-and-world-health-organization-call-drug-decriminalization

Queequeg said:
Oh, for the most part, I'm with you, and I do think decriminalization is where we should be going... complete deregulation, which Malcolm seems to be on board with, I'm not there. I don't think its a good idea to make stuff like fentanyl and other "hard" drugs available with cigarettes and alcohol. If that makes me fringe, then I'm fine with that.

Malcolm wrote:
In Portugal, they completely decriminalized all drugs—in other words, you can shoot heroin in front of the police and they won't arrest you—reallocating law enforcement dollars to treatment programs.  As a result, drug addiction rates have been significantly reduced in that country. Simultaneously, the prison population was reduced, and law enforcement can spend their time on real crimes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And the idea that US jobs were being lost to Mexico is, as you know, complete horseshit.

Coëmgenu said:
I'd like you challenge you on this point. How has America not lost manufacturing jobs to Mexico?

I am thinking particularly about General Motors plants & associated workforces.
Such upsides of trade often escape notice, because while the costs are highly concentrated in specific industries like auto manufacturing, the benefits of a deal like NAFTA are distributed widely across society. Supporters of NAFTA estimate that some fourteen million jobs rely on trade with Canada and Mexico, while the nearly two hundred thousand export-related jobs created annually by the pact pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than the jobs that were lost.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

In fact, NAFTA initially had a terrible impact on Mexico, and was the major driver of migration to the US between 1994-2007. In other words, the US caused the immigration crisis, and the Republicans, rather than taking responsibility for their own radical free-trade posture, are now retreating into a form of racist isolationism to "solve" problems they themselves had a large hand in creating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:
Queequeg said:
What do you mean by "legalizing all drugs"? Should I be able to buy fentanyl at the vape store?

Malcolm wrote:
All drugs. And yes.

Queequeg said:
One thing about you, Malcolm, your idealism guides your approach to all subjects. I'm happy that you are a fringe character.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is practical. Legalize it, control dosage, tax it, create treatment centers. People want to take drugs. They like drugs. The social cost of drug prohibition is much higher than would be the social cost of legalization across the board. This is not idealism, this is practicality.




Queequeg said:
Illegal aliens working in various fields do depress wages in the US and displaces workers who would require employer contributions to various collective worker protections and benefits.

Malcolm wrote:
Not a complete picture:
Vegetable prices may be going up soon, as a shortage of migrant workers is resulting in lost crops in California.

Farmers say they’re having trouble hiring enough people to work during harvest season, causing some crops to rot before they can be picked. Already, the situation has triggered losses of more than $13 million in two California counties alone, according to NBC News.

The ongoing battle about U.S. immigration policies is blamed for the shortage. The vast majority of California’s farm workers are foreign born, with many coming from Mexico. However, the PEW Research Center reports more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than coming here.
http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/immigration-worker-shortage-rotting-crops/

We have the same problem this year. Americans do not want to work in the fields. 1) they can't take the heat. 2) they don't want those jobs in any case. So the idea that migrant workers are displacing American labor is completely false. Migrant workers are also not, in general, depressing wages for Americans.

There is a minor problem in the tech industry, where H1-B visas put downward pressure on wages in Silicon Valley, while simultaneously making technology more affordable for the American consumer. Even with the wage suppression effect, however, the average tech worker makes 105K (boo hoo). See this article: http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/h1-b-silicon-valley-wages/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:



Queequeg said:
What do you mean by "legalizing all drugs"? Should I be able to buy fentanyl at the vape store?

Malcolm wrote:
All drugs. And yes.


Queequeg said:
As for migrant farmers - that's immigration reform.

Malcolm wrote:
Trade liberalization messed with Mexico's economy, but people began staying home once NAFTA began to work for Mexico. And the idea that US jobs were being lost to Mexico is, as you know, complete horseshit.


Queequeg said:
For some people I am sure border security is informed by racist views. For others its not.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a racist issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:


Queequeg said:
One of those is, better security at the border by qualified, trained officers will eliminate the excuse for these irregular militia to "guard" the border.

Malcolm wrote:
It hasn't worked so far.

Queequeg said:
Since all I can do is talk policy, here's another suggestion that people are not going to like:

US should increase its presence and involvement in Central America where we have several states on the brink of failure forcing people to migrate. The accounts are that it is desperate - making this trip with small children is proof of how bad the situations are. There have been effective US funded programs that have made impacts - we need to increase these.

Malcolm wrote:
These states that are failing are failing precisely because of US interference in their affairs, for example, Honduras. We didn't like the guy who was warming up to Chavez, so we allowed a coup to happen there. In the meantime, because of our failed drug war, we have been putting young Central American teenagers in what are effectively colleges for gang members, i.e., US prisons, which are run by gvt. contractors.

Queequeg said:
This is something to build consensus on toward comprehensive border security

Malcolm wrote:
It's a bullshit issue. Adding another 60,000 border control cops won't solve anything.

The real issue is that once again Native American people (most of people coming here overland are indigenous peoples) are being screwed because of the systematic racism built into the economy of North America as a whole, including Canada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:



Queequeg said:
Again, order at the border is the best way to protect vulnerable individuals.

All signs point to border security being a higher priority.

Malcolm wrote:
For whom? I personally don't care about it.

I don't see any point in spending billions of dollars on it.

If we legalized all drugs this would take care of the drug trafficking problem.

Americans cannot do the work migrant farmers do. And they don't want to do it.

"Border security" is a bunch of racist bullshit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Gandharva" is simply name for a being born in the antarabhāva, the intermediate state, or bardo, just like "human being" is a name for someone born in the human realm, "animal" is the name for a being born in the animal realm, "preta" is the name for a being born in the preta realm and so on. The term was derived from gandharvas, which are somewhat equivalent to fairies, and often depicted with horses heads in Indian mythology, they are associated with music. In this case however, the term was chose because beings in the antarabhava persist on smells— gandharva literally means, "odor eater."

clyde said:
Thank you. I wonder if I could ask you about the nature of gandharvas.

In the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta which I quoted above, it speaks of the three conditions necessary for a human birth which includes the existence of a gandharva. What are the conditions necessary for the birth of a gandharva? Would it be correct to say that what is born after the death of a human being is a gandharva? (And perhaps, what is born after the death of the gandharva is a human being?) And how are the skandhas of a gandharva different (“subtle types”?) than the skandhas of a human being?

Malcolm wrote:
Think of it this way:

When you reside in New York, you are known as a New Yorker. But if you get on a train to  to move to LA, now you are known as a "passenger," and will remain so until you reach your destination.

You can think of the bardo as Penn Station. You can think of the six realms as six cities to which you might move, such as Washington DC and so on.

All beings who pass away spend 49 days in the intermediate state before they take rebirth as a being in one of the six realms. Any being in the bardo is known as a gandharva, just as any one on a train in known as a passenger (apart from engineer, conductors, and transit cops).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Self Defense and Non Violence
Content:


Queequeg said:
This is one reason border security is necessary - to bring order. This needs to be taken care of by the Border Patrol.

Malcolm wrote:
The border patrol is not concerned with the militia. Actually, the border patrol is one of the least qualified branches of law enforcement in this country.

Queequeg said:
James Tomsheck, the former head of an internal affairs department that oversaw Border Patrol, recently said that it is “conservative to estimate that 5 percent of the [Border Patrol] force” is corrupt. This corruption and misconduct ranges from the brutal to the commonplace. Border Patrol agent Esteban Manzanares assaulted, kidnapped and raped three illegal immigrants he apprehended while on the job and later committed suicide when the police surrounded his apartment. The youngest of his victims was still bound in his home at the time. Oscar Ortiz was convicted of conspiring to bring at least 100 illegal immigrants into the United States and, oddly enough, being an illegal immigrant himself with a false claim to U.S. citizenship.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-border-patrol-performance-problems-20171122-story.html

Now, the border patrol has 20,000+ officers. This a minimum 1,000+ corrupt law enforcement officers.


Queequeg said:
Just please - look at the dates of these incidents, consider the scale of human movement through these areas - a couple incidents over the course of 18 years. I'm sure there are more. But these things are the exception, not the rule. The way you write about it you'd think their were death squads shooting anything that moves.

Malcolm wrote:
Non-weather deaths in AZ for example, are usually considered the result of drug smugglers, etc. In reality, we don't know how many people crossing the border have been executed by militias or corrupt border patrol officers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Jayarava's New Thesis on Heart Sutra: Sanskrit Version Deliberate Forgery by Tang Chinese
Content:



Jayarava said:
BTW I don't argue that Woncheuk didn't think of the Xinjing as authentic. Clearly he did think it was authentic. However, I do argue that if he thought the Sanskrit was authentic then it is strange that he did not comment at all on the major differences. Since he is 1300 years dead we can only speculate on why. And of course this is only one small point in a much larger argument.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the fact that there was an earlier witness to a Sanskrit original, that is, an earlier translation, puts into question Nattier's idea that the Heart Sūtra was a Chinese psuedographia.

Whatever syntax issues there are with the grammar can be understood differently. For example, it could have been written down in Central Asia in an ungrammatical Sanskrit, by someone who had formal knowledge of Sanskrit, but who was not a native Indian, there are many possibilities which have not been examined.

But on the other hand, we know that Indians accepted the text as canonical by 800 with the arrival of Vimalamitra to Tibet. So, they apparently were comfortable with whatever grammatical novelties the text presented and made no mention of them in any commentary of which I aware.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: America”s Next Civil War
Content:
DGA said:
Samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
The Swiss army knife of Buddhist responses.

DGA said:
The Zen forum called to say "Dried shit on a stick."

Malcolm wrote:
This is more like the Leatherman of Buddhist responses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: America”s Next Civil War
Content:
Queequeg said:
Seems like some of you are cheering for civil war, egging it on, welcoming it.

I don't even

Malcolm wrote:
I think point is that the far right has been gearing up for it since the 90's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: America”s Next Civil War
Content:
DGA said:
Samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
The Swiss army knife of Buddhist responses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:


clyde said:
I didn’t introduce the term. It was part of the quote I questioned.

Malcolm wrote:
Seems pointless, you already understand, as do most of us, there is no self in the aggregates collectively, individually, or separate from the aggregates.

clyde said:
It seems you’ve introduced a new term, “self” into the discussion. I was questioning a quote about “a being is said to exist [between death and rebirth] as a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates),” and the basis for the quote.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the nature of gandharvas.

Malcolm wrote:
I explained the basis of the quote, it is a poor translation choice.

"Gandharva" is simply name for a being born in the antarabhāva, the intermediate state, or bardo, just like "human being" is a name for someone born in the human realm, "animal" is the name for a being born in the animal realm, "preta" is the name for a being born in the preta realm and so on. The term was derived from gandharvas, which are somewhat equivalent to fairies, and often depicted with horses heads in Indian mythology, they are associated with music. In this case however, the term was chose because beings in the antarabhava persist on smells— gandharva literally means, "odor eater."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: America”s Next Civil War
Content:
Queequeg said:
At this time, I don't see any reason to treat the violence as anything other than a criminal matter.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as this is the case, right wing terrorists will continue to be treated with kid gloves. Part of the problem is that we have no domestic terrorism statutes.

Queequeg said:
I'm not sure what you mean by kid glove treatment.


Malcolm wrote:
read it and weep:
In March 2018, a 20-year-old white evangelical Christian named Mark Anthony Conditt laid a series of homemade I.E.D.s around Austin, Tex., in largely minority communities. The bombs killed two African-Americans and injured at least four others over the course of several weeks, terrorizing the city, yet the local authorities preferred to describe Conditt, who committed suicide, as a “very challenged young man.” Also last spring, another white man, 28-year-old Benjamin Morrow, blew himself up in his apartment in Beaver Dam, Wis., while apparently constructing a bomb. Federal investigators said Morrow’s apartment doubled as a “homemade explosives laboratory.” There was a trove of white-supremacist literature in Morrow’s home, according to the F.B.I. But local cops, citing Morrow’s clean-cut demeanor and standout record as a quality-control manager at a local food-processing plant, made sure to note that just because he had this material didn’t mean he was a white supremacist. “He could have been an individual that was doing research,” the local police chief said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI-charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html

Queequeg said:
As for domestic terrorism statutes - what do you have in mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Not sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: America”s Next Civil War
Content:


Queequeg said:
Civil war? Not there. We might have spasms of unrest. Civil war is not out of the question but presently more distant that some people seem to think. Of course, if enough of us have this death wish, it will be hard to stop it.


Malcolm wrote:
From the article:
The technical definition of a civil war is 1,000 battle deaths a year. Armed conflict starts at twenty-five battle deaths a year. What if America is already in an armed conflict and we just haven’t noticed? What if we just haven’t noticed because we’re not used to uprisings happening in places where there’s Bed Bath & Beyond?

Queequeg said:
At this time, I don't see any reason to treat the violence as anything other than a criminal matter.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as this is the case, right wing terrorists will continue to be treated with kid gloves. Part of the problem is that we have no domestic terrorism statutes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: America”s Next Civil War
Content:


Queequeg said:
Civil war? Not there. We might have spasms of unrest. Civil war is not out of the question but presently more distant that some people seem to think. Of course, if enough of us have this death wish, it will be hard to stop it.


Malcolm wrote:
From the article:
The technical definition of a civil war is 1,000 battle deaths a year. Armed conflict starts at twenty-five battle deaths a year. What if America is already in an armed conflict and we just haven’t noticed? What if we just haven’t noticed because we’re not used to uprisings happening in places where there’s Bed Bath & Beyond?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:


clyde said:
Is it on these texts that we are to understand that there is “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)” existing between death and rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
Why are you stuck on this term "spirit." There is no "spirit."

The five aggregates are a serial continuum, conventionally designated a sentient being, which have no beginning point in time. Getting caught up on how some English translator decided to translate some Japanese person's terminology seems a bit beside the point.

clyde said:
I didn’t introduce the term. It was part of the quote I questioned.

Malcolm wrote:
Seems pointless, you already understand, as do most of us, there is no self in the aggregates collectively, individually, or separate from the aggregates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:


clyde said:
Is it on these texts that we are to understand that there is “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)” existing between death and rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
Why are you stuck on this term "spirit." There is no "spirit."

The five aggregates are a serial continuum, conventionally designated a sentient being, which have no beginning point in time. Getting caught up on how some English translator decided to translate some Japanese person's terminology seems a bit beside the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 5th, 2018 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: You. Yeah, you.
Content:


Queequeg said:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-scariest-thing-in-the-universe/
Yes, you are the scariest thing in the universe. You are the ultimate golem, a creature made from inanimate stuff, rising from the cosmic swamp.

Malcolm wrote:
Surely, you do not believe this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 5th, 2018 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

Virgo said:
What about "merging with" for attaining enlightenment?

Kevin...

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing with which to merge.

According to the teachings of Man ngag sde (but not sems sde or klong sde), at the time of death, the elements dissolve: earth into water, water into fire, fire into air, air into space, space into consciousness, consciousness into luminosity, and finally, luminosity dissolves into pristine consciousness. This happens to all beings at the time of death. The question is: will one recognize the sounds, lights and rays of one's own pristine consciousness in the bardo of dharmatā or not? If one does, liberation. If one does not, well, at worst one will be required to take rebirth in a nirmanakāya buddhafield, or at the very worst, one will be reborn a human being with a definite chance to meet and practice Dzogchen again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 4th, 2018 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A couple of observations:

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

Even in the Uttaratantra, where we find the Tibetan term, dam pa'i bdag in the discussion of ātmapāramitā, the Sanskrit text simply gives the term as ātma. The " dam pa " was added by Ngog Lotsawa to distinguish this "self," free from the proliferation of the self [i.e. existence] imputed by the hindus and nonself [i.e. nonexistence] imputed by śrāvakas, as  a quality of the dharmakāya, — in other words, it is another way of saying the dharmakāya is free from extremes.  This usage in the Uttaratantra comes from contrasting the impurity, nonidentity, suffering, and impermanence of compounded phenomena, with the purity, identity, bliss, and permanence of dharmakāya. But if someone should think this contextual usage of "self" with respect to dharmakāya means dharmakāya is an existent self, they have not understood anything of Mahāyāna at all, let alone Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma for that matter.

With respect to the term bdag nyid chen po, it is a somewhat rare Dzogchen technical term, also found in the Guhyagarbha literature. Even so, its usage is very restricted. In his commentary on the Kun byed rgyal po, Khenpo Zhenphen Ozer glosses it as rang byung ye shes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Tata1 said:
What should i do if i do t have acces to meat or alcohol?

Malcolm wrote:
Use your imagination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:



tatpurusa said:
Calling opponents a "conspiracy theorist" is a standard instrument of "plausible deniability".
In our case this is your way of trying to cheaply discredit what I write.
Educate yourself a bit (but it seems this is not what you really want)

tp

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you really do believe the CIA and Israel are running ISIS. etc, since you won't deny it.

Well, good luck with that conspiracy theory.

tatpurusa said:
What do you know about the origins of Afghan anti-soviet jihadists, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and DAESH?

Malcolm wrote:
What do you know about them?

You are the one claiming the CIA and Israel are running the whole show. But you have not shown one drop of evidence that this is the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:



tatpurusa said:
Calling opponents a "conspiracy theorist" is a standard instrument of "plausible deniability".
In our case this is your way of trying to cheaply discredit what I write.
Educate yourself a bit (but it seems this is not what you really want)

tp

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you really do believe the CIA and Israel are running ISIS. etc, since you won't deny it.

Well, good luck with that conspiracy theory.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:



tatpurusa said:
Yeah. It has been you who used the word conspiray, not me.
I talked about geopolitics, not conspiracy. A continuation of geopolitics of the British empire for that matter - but of course by other players.

tp

Malcolm wrote:
You said:
They might if CIA, Israel and the other Al-Qaeda/ISIL/Daesh puppet masters decide
The OED says a puppet master is "a person, group, or country that covertly controls another: the puppetmaster behind the current administration"

Hence, your word, implying your belief there is an active conspiracy, one being run by the CIA and others who are in fact control of international terrorist organizations [Israel? seriously, come on].

tatpurusa said:
Do you seriously think geopolitical players do not make use of covert operations? Covert operations have been a firm and standard part of geopolitics ever since it exists.

Malcolm wrote:
Covert operations exist. The CIA and Israel being in control of ISIS, etc., is the fantasy of a febrile imagination.


tatpurusa said:
I cannot sincerely believe you could be possibly naive enough not to know this.
So you are saying geopolitical players all the time publicly reveal the instruments they are using?
Have you ever heard of "plausible deniability" (a term invented by American politicians. The concept of course is much older)

Malcolm wrote:
So here, you have basically agreed that you think that ISIS, etc., are covert operations being run by the CIA and Israel, is that what we are supposed to understand from your posts?

As I said, conspiracy theory much?

Anyway,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:



tatpurusa said:
For millions of Iraquis, Libians, Syrians, Afghanis and Yemenis it would be absolutely marvellous if it was a mere theory.

tp

Malcolm wrote:
Blunders in foreign policy are not conspiracies. In any case, the CIA warned the Bush Admin NOT to invade Iraq. You do the math.

tatpurusa said:
Yeah. It has been you who used the word conspiray, not me.
I talked about geopolitics, not conspiracy. A continuation of geopolitics of the British empire for that matter - but of course by other players.

tp

Malcolm wrote:
You said:
They might if CIA, Israel and the other Al-Qaeda/ISIL/Daesh puppet masters decide
The OED says a puppet master is "a person, group, or country that covertly controls another: the puppetmaster behind the current administration"

Hence, your word, implying your belief there is an active conspiracy, one being run by the CIA and others who are in control of international terrorist organizations [Israel? seriously, come on].

I suppose you think 9/11 was an inside job too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:



tatpurusa said:
They might if CIA, Israel and the other Al-Qaeda/ISIL/Daesh puppet masters decide so.

Malcolm wrote:
Conspiracy theory much?

tatpurusa said:
For millions of Iraquis, Libians, Syrians, Afghanis and Yemenis it would be absolutely marvellous if it was a mere theory.

tp

Malcolm wrote:
Blunders in foreign policy are not conspiracies. In any case, the CIA warned the Bush Admin NOT to invade Iraq. You do the math.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
I’m surprised the Jihadists aren’t taking this on.

tatpurusa said:
They might if CIA, Israel and the other Al-Qaeda/ISIL/Daesh puppet masters decide so.

Malcolm wrote:
Conspiracy theory much?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Alternative to possibly toxic metal kapalas
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
I'm concerned that commercially available metal kapalas are not food-grade and so they may leach toxins into the amrita to be taken during the "taking the accomplishments" section of the sadhana. Has anyone else who's doing more elaborate sadhana practice had any thoughts about this and come up with a solution? I'm wondering if there's any reason I couldn't just use a small, short jar in place of a kapala. My lama is away and incommunicado for a short time, so I'll have to wait a bit to ask him. So for now, anyone have any thoughts on this?

Malcolm wrote:
Use a glass tea light insert.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: interactions between humans and other beings
Content:
???? said:
As 12 million Americans "know," the United States government is run by lizard people

how many of them know that United States government are zionists?
2?
3?

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously? US Foreign policy backs Israel, but the US GOV is hardly Zionist. This is just another hangover left from the good ol' days of British Imperialism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: What is reborn after death?
Content:
Aemilius said:
Being of the intermediate state is reborn. It is called "gandharva" or "gandhabba" in the Sravakayana sutras/suttas. It is mentioned in the sutras, but all  of the early schools did not  accept it.

Grigoris said:
What?  A gandharva is a class of beings.  Not all sentient beings arise as gandharva.  Do you mean as an embryo (Amagarbha)?

Malcolm wrote:
A being in the bardo is also called a gandharva, not the same thing as the nonhuman beings called gandharvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: The Wanderer
Content:


Jampel said:
Please explain your arising without using Causes and Conditions?


Malcolm wrote:
One can't explain arising with causes and conditions. As Nāgārjuna points out in the MMK:

An entity does not arise from an entity. 
An entity does not arise from a nonentity. 
A nonentity does not arise from an entity.
A nonentity does not arise from a nonentity. 
Where then can there be arising?

"Arising from causes and conditions" is merely a convention which cannot withstand ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: interactions between humans and other beings
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Possibly of interest:


How to Spot the Reptilians Running the U.S. Government:
As 12 million Americans "know," the United States government is run by lizard people (or, to be scientifically accurate, reptilians). But they never said which members of the government are the reptilians. So we're here to help.

Piecing together the latest groundbreaking research being conducted by commenters at conspiracy websites, we've been able to isolate a number of prominent individuals who possess reptilian-compatible bloodlines. As "ufochick" writes at DavidIcke.com (Icke is a prominent reptile theorist, as evidenced by his book at right), even if a person has compatible bloodlines, "they will not become a reptilian unless a reptilian entity inhabits their physical body."

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496/

BTW, according to the little test at the end, I am either a reptilian or have a reptilian compatible bloodline.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Crackdown on religion in China
Content:


Grigoris said:
Because China is not bombing the crap out of their countries?

Uighurs have launched attacks in China, but that shit flies under western media radars.  Anyway, the Uighur issue is almost as old as the Tibetan issue, no western power gives a damn about either.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, it doesn't. As a result of Uighur unrest, the Chinese have placed a million muslims in "educational" detention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 1st, 2018 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Virupa's Mahamudra Doha
Content:
Sennin said:
Are the dohas in the link above the only dohas of Virupa to be translated? Are they apart of a larger collection?

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
There are a couple of short verses here and there, but this is the only complete large doha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Do you think of basic self defense training for groups as "acting as an armed militia"?

Malcolm wrote:
well, you know, Grigoris does tend to inflame things a bit. That is what Q is responding to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:
Queequeg said:
What we won't be able to resist is if Trump spawns an enduring movement. The whole thing needs to be put down and right now, it has to be the vote.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it needs to be put down in the ballot box. If the Dems do something as stupid as impeach Trump, there will be a hot civil war. We are already in a cold civil war as it stands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:
Queequeg said:
...that necessarily requires a person to have an "us" and "them" dichotomy, and with each thought and action carried out in furtherance of that intent, it becomes more deeply ingrained.

Grigoris said:
In case you hadn't noticed it has already arrived at "us and them".  "Them" being the one's doing the killing of unarmed civilians.  "Us" being the one's that need to protect themselves because the government is not doing it's job.

If you think that Semites and neo-Nazis belong together in a realistic inclusive category of "us", then I would have to say that maybe you are seeing something that I am not.  I hope what you are seeing is not just a figment of your imagination, as it would mean that some sort of reconciliation is possible.  I am failing to see it.

Malcolm wrote:
He means that in his opinion, we need to rely on lawyers and courts, not militias and vigilantes. Of course, when the courts are themselves filled with right wing extremists...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:
Grigoris said:
If you think defence is the same as offence, then yes the logic is identical.  But when was the last time you saw a bunch of black nationalists shoot up an unarmed white congregation?  You are falling prey to "politicians syllogism".

Queequeg said:
No, I don't think that. But urging minority groups to arm themselves in defense - that necessarily requires a person to have an "us" and "them" dichotomy, and with each thought and action carried out in furtherance of that intent, it becomes more deeply ingrained. More militias, more chance of fighting breaking out.

We need deescalation, not escalation.

We are at an impasse.

Malcolm wrote:
I agree with you that putting armed guards in every school and church is beyond crazy. I agree with you that we do not need more militias.

When I brought up the paradox of tolerance, I meant to imply, as did Potter, that we as a nation should not be free speech ninnies, and allow every kind of speech in the public sphere. Some of it should be made explicitly actionable, for example spreading racist ideologies and so on, where it is not being stemmed by rational discourse and reasoning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:



Queequeg said:
As for right wing groups who have been the target of federal prosecution -

Ruby Ridge.

Malcolm wrote:
Killed by the FBI when they refused to answer their summons...

Queequeg said:
The Bundy brothers.

Malcolm wrote:
Acquitted on all charges in the bird refuge takeover, case dismissed in the earlier ranch standoff. So, not sure what your point is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here we have the God Emperor Trump Action Figure:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The fact these sovereigns got themselves a president is the sort of validation that won’t go away. This will last generations. We will be wrestling with these guys for the next 50-100 years. Just wait til Trump dies and becomes a god.

Malcolm wrote:
He is already a god. People making crazy images like this:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 31st, 2018 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Pittsburgh massacre
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
I have a bro in law who says he got the Sec of State to sign his birth certificate making him a sovereign of Alaska.

We are talking about a totally foreign world view. Most of their ideas are based on some very false notions of laws.

Malcolm wrote:
From the SPLC article above:
Redeeming the 'Strawman'
While many sovereign citizens own guns, their weapon of choice is paper. A simple traffic violation or pet-licensing case can end up provoking dozens of court filings containing hundreds of pages of pseudo-legal nonsense. For example, Donna Lee Wray, Jerry Kane's "common-law wife," was recently involved in a protracted legal battle in a dog-licensing case. She filed 10 sovereign documents in court over a two-month period, then declared victory when the harried prosecutor decided to drop the case. A three-year dog license in Wray's Pinellas County, Fla., costs $20.

It isn't just the number of pages that is causing courts to sag under the weight of these filings. The documents are written in a kind of special sovereign code language that judges, lawyers and other court staff simply don't speak. Sovereigns believe that if they can find just the right combination of words, punctuation, paper, ink color and timing, they can have anything they want — freedom from taxes, unlimited wealth, and life without licenses, fees or laws, are all just a few strangely worded documents away. It's the modern-day equivalent of "abracadabra."


