﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
TreeHuggingOctopus said:
Where does your definition of nihilism come from?

Wayfarer said:
The dictionary. But, accusations of nihilism were often made about Buddhism, generally, and Nāgārjuna, in particular, from time immemorial. Nāgārjuna goes to lengths to rebut those accusations, but I don't often see much mention of those rebuttals. Nihilism - the idea that nothing is real - is a very pervasive attitude in today's world - just a Nietszche predicted it would be. It is insidious and often hard to notice - it might be as simple as a shrug and a 'whatever'.

Malcolm wrote:
Ucchedavāda, very often mistranslated as nihilism, was originally the assertion that a self which exists now perishes at death.

It was later applied to the general idea of asserting that a thing which exists now perishes and becomes nonexistent.

In common perception, if something exists, it can be destroyed. For example, a pot or a tree. When we cut down a tree, we commonly say, "There used to be a tree there, now it no longer exists."

"There used to be a coral reef there, now it no longer exists."

This is the way common people speak, and it is not accurate.

When read carefully, one comes to understand that Nāgārjuna shows that nothing in conventional truth, that which is perceived by common people, has any basis in reality whatsoever.

Things are false entities we abstract from appearances. When examining these things we find that they do not exist apart from our definition of them. Their boundaries are arbitrarily drawn and defined.

The point of Madhyamaka is not to claim there are no appearances. The point of Madhyamaka is to understand these appearances are not real. For example, a liquid entity appears in six different ways to the beings of the six different realms, an appearance conventionally valid for one is invalid for the rest. Water is real for a human but not a hell being. We cannot therefor say that appearances are real.

What cloudburst means when he says things "merely exist" is that these appearances function within our scope of perception.

But the point of Madhyamaka is to find the real nature of these appearances, whatever it is, because these appearances are not real entities.  The point is Madhyamaka is not make a perfect relative truth for human beings, because no relative truth is perfect. They are all flawed perceptions. The objects of flawed perceptions are deceptive. The way they appear and the way they exist are not integrated. For a Buddha, the way things exist and the way things appear are integrated. Madhyamaka is trying to uncover the meeting point between the way things exist and the way things appear. Since conventional truth is not the way things exist but merely the way things appear to ordinary people, we say that conventional truth is unreal since it does not conform with how things exist. The Gelugpas would have one believe that merely by understand that the things that appear are devoid of inherent existence is itself the reconciliation point between the way things exist and the way the appear. They assert that the way things exist is free of inherent existence, and that solely by negating inherent existence one comes to harmony between the way things exist and the way they appear.

I personally have found yet no convincing argument that the negation of inherent existence is all there is to Mahāyāna emptiness. In this I follow a 600 year old tradition of objection to the Gelugpa point of view.

I also think Madhyamaka is a very limited tool.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I was just pointing out that it was a common translation of the term.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not. It is someone's new age idiotic idea.

dzogchungpa said:
Well, can't it be both?

I don't want to argue about what "common" means in this context, but have a look:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22feeling+tone%22+vedana&num=100&tbm=bks

Malcolm wrote:
Uhuh, so it is common to Insight Meditation society people and FWBO.

This makes it not common, but uncommon.

Just face it, there is no justification for the tone in feeling tone in vedana.

And it is not in the OED. Off with its head.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
]I was just pointing out that it was a common translation of the term.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not. It is someone's new age idiotic idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It has a lot to say about thoughts and concepts. Nothing at all about feeling tones. The concept does not exist in Buddhism.

dzogchungpa said:
A fair number of people, mostly Theravadin types it seems, translate "vedana" as "feeling-tone". Just sayin'.

Malcolm wrote:
They are definitely wrong if they do so. Vedana has only five modes: pleasure, pain, happiness, unhappiness, and indifference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
rachmiel said:
Thanks. So you're saying that anything I find that purports to address thought-feelings (or whatever name is used) from a Buddhist pov is in fact NOT Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
It is the opinion of a buddhist. Whether it actually conforms to the Dharma is another matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2017 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
Vasana said:
Just sounds like the 'genesis' or transfiguration of a thought from a simple feeling-tone to a full concept.

rachmiel said:
I'd like to find out more about what Buddhism says about feeling-tones, thoughts, concepts, etc. Got a source to recommend?


Malcolm wrote:
It has a lot to say about thoughts and concepts. Nothing at all about feeling tones. The concept does not exist in Buddhism.

Feelings, perceptions, and thoughts are mental factors. Covered in the mental aggregates. Content is not that important when one understands that all afflicted phenomena are suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
This does not make sense. If you refuse to understand the terminology in the way it is being used by Lama Tsongkhapa, how can you understand his meaning correctly?

Malcolm wrote:
I understand it perfectly well. For example, when Tsongkhapa claims in Lam rim Chen mo that freedom from extremes means "not existing in the ultimate and not not existing in the relative," this terminology is incorrect. This means that the ultimate is only a negation of existence and the relative is only an affirmation of existence. This is not the intent of Nāgārjuna nor the Buddha.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, for some reason, you are unwilling to clarify your own statements.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have endless time to write long posts.

Read Napper. She really does an excellent job of clarifying Tsongkhapa's point of view on this as well as various objections to Tsongkhapa's "not existent in the ultimate, not nonexistent in the relative."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Why?

Malcolm wrote:
Because you have some homework to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Where exactly did this quote "not existing in the ultimate and not not existing in the relative" come from?

Malcolm wrote:
Lam Rim Chen mo. See Elizabeth Napper's book, Dependent-Arising and Emptiness, A Tibetan Buddhist Interpretation of Madhyamika Philosophy. She delves into this in detail.


Kenneth Chan said:
Also, what exactly do you mean by “affirmation of existence”? Can you elaborate?

Malcolm wrote:
Just read Napper's book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: What is the Pure Land Traditions assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?
Content:
rory said:
The Tibetan school since it is esoteric, Vajrayana does have the quick 'horizontal' path to buddhahood for the elite who practice high level Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Everybody practices high level Vajrayāna in Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen shrines?
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
i think there is no such standard in dzogchen, but we can look at a Gar's shrine as model, i believe that can help.


Malcolm wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche has instructed us, since I first began taking teachings from him in 1992, that we do not need to have any kind of formal shrine. But that nevertheless it is good to have a picture of the white A and thigle. He also has said many times, that if you want a shrine in your house that you can just use the picture of the white A and thigle and that this is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
[

I can't give scriptural authority because it's part of the Ganden Oral Lineage which is not accepted on this site.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. The only that not accepted here is gyalpo practice.

The Lotus Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra whereas the view I'm explaining comes from Highest Yoga Tantra.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The place that they abide in until this happens is the five pure abodes where they remain in a state of solitary peace for a very long time.

Malcolm wrote:
They do not need to have a body to remain in this equipoise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
That's not the consequence at all. There are a couple of instances where one would still have the seeds of delusion but not be in samsara.

The first example is Hinayana Foe Destroyers as I have said. These Superiors take rebirth in the fourth form realm which has eight levels. The last five are Hinayana Pure Lands called Not Great, Without Pain, Excellent Appearance, Great Seeing, and None Higher. When Hinayana Foe Destroyers die they often choose to be born in one of these Lands, where they can remain at peace for as long as they wish. These Pure Lands are beyond samsara, but they are not Buddha Lands, but even though practically they are beyond samsara they would still have self-grasping at subtle and very subtle levels of mind.

Another example would be where someone takes rebirth in a Buddha's Pure Land either through their own power or through the powa prayers done by others. They would have the seeds of delusion in their minds so they would not have attained liberation strictly speaking, but they would be liberated from a practical point of view because they would be in a world where there are no true sufferings and no possibility of falling into samsara again.

In both of these cases, the beings still have work to do to attain actual liberation, and of course Buddhahood.

Bakmoon said:
Anagamins (non-returners) are reborn in the pure abodes, not Arhats. By definition, Arhats aren't reborn anywhere upon their deaths.

Tsongkhapafan said:
According to their vehicle, yes, but as we know Buddha gave provisional teachings. From the point of view of Buddha's final intention, which is Highest Yoga Tantra, they are not actually liberated but practically they are because they have passed beyond throwing karma.

Malcolm wrote:
They are liberated because they have eliminated all afflictions. They have not eliminated nonafflictive ignorance however, thus they have barriers to omniscience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen shrines?
Content:
climb-up said:
I was going to post this in another thread about shrine crystals, but I thought it was different enough that I should maybe start a separate thread.

Is there a standard and/or ideal shrine for Dzogchen practice (DC specifically)?
I have an area set up essentially as a shrine, but it's just been set up to look nice and be useful to sit in front of for my more formal practices like thun or kumbhaka.

Is there anything essential? Any set up or procedure that should ideally be done?
Basically I have a nice cloth, some candles
Large picture of ChNN and smaller pictures of Shakyamuni, Guru Rinpoche and Avilokiteshvara
Crystal ball and crystal point
bell and mala (I've never learned how to use a dorje so I don't have one)
some Ganesha statues
incense and water that I offer to local spirits (not a DC practice, but the essence is similar)

What do you think?

Malcolm wrote:
All you need is this image or something like it:



When you are practicing, light a candle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: What is the Pure Land Traditions assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?
Content:
rory said:
for example if you had a pet dog the best you could do for them is pray for it's human rebirth whilst East Asian Buddhists have no problems praying and conducting funeral services for their pets' birth directly to the Pure Land.

Malcolm wrote:
People do all kinds of crazy and useless things in the name of religion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2017 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Difference in guru yogas
Content:
Aspiring.Monk said:
Can someone please explain the differences in Lama Tsongkhapa Guru Yoga and Lama Chopa Guru Yoga?

I have been doing Lama Tsongkhapa Guru Yoga and have recently joined the FPMT where I noticed that Lama Chopa Guru Yoga is done.

I am just wanting to know the difference in these two practices.


Malcolm wrote:
Were to begin? In general the former does not require empowerment, but the latter does. That is only the beginning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Praying to a saviour?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Can Buddhists pray to a deity, Buddha, the Noble Sangha etc. etc. for help with dealing with spiritual and psychological problems?

Sometimes I feel so weak and at the mercy of my conditioning that I despair of myself and feel I need someone to save me... is this possible?

Thanks in advance


Malcolm wrote:
This is what Tāra is for.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Consciousness turns back upon itself; it does not extend beyond name-and-form
Content:
Queequeg said:
Sorry, fellas, no satisfactory answers so far.

Its vague, but this seems to be an account the Buddha gave of his enlightenment.

As Malcolm suggests, this does seem to be limited to an analysis of this life. But I've never understood why there are these two versions of the arising of the mass of suffering. At what point did the Buddha realize this 10 linked chain, and at what point did he realize the 12 linked chain? Or maybe the correct question is, when did he decide to to teach the 12 links, tracing suffering to ignorance?

The implications of this 10 link teaching is very different than the 12 linked chain. This suggests that consciousness and name and form are a twofold basis from which suffering arises. This seems to teach the cure to suffering is annihilation of the the conciousness/name and form complex.

I wonder if this difference is the basis on which Mahayana divides the Hinayana into the Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana? In Mahayana, they say the Sravaka seeks annihilation, while the pratyekabuddha's awakening is based on the 12 linked chain.

Notwithstanding, I would like to understand why the Buddha taught this 10 linked chain.

Malcolm wrote:
The answer to your question lies in the analysis of dependent origination in in the Abhidharmakośabhayaṃ, chapter three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
cloudburst said:
it is not correct to state that dependent phenomena exist since they have never arisen, just as illusory elephants and so on have never arisen and yet appear.
Here we can see you trying to say that it is not correct to say that dependent phenomena exist inherently or by way of a nature or essence, and your reason is that they have never arisen, but we can see that you means things are not produced, or arisen, ultimately.

Malcolm wrote:
Things do not arise. Why? Because their causes and conditions cannot be established when investigated. This is why Buddhapalita states:
Here, with respect to your claim for an ascertained cause for the production of a result, wheat, etc., and a non-productive condition and non-condition, ‘the arising of a result is not accepted’ was previously explained. 

If that result does not exist, where will ‘these are not conditions, these are conditions’ be accepted? If both of those come to be from depending on a result, also that result is does not exist. Because the result does not exist, where will there be a non-condition or a condition? If that is so, still results are not accepted, and even conditions and a non-conditions are non-existent. Because results, conditions, and non-conditions do not exist, descriptions for arising are merely conventional.

cloudburst said:
You end up using internally contradictory speech because you insist on avoid qualifying, or indicating the scope, of your statements.

Malcolm wrote:
This shows the limits of speech. In your quest for perfect sentences, you inevitably affirm a realist position where entities are not merely conventions which fall apart at a touch.




cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti and the madhyamikas lay it out so clearly, but you are forced to ignore the quotations that clearly illustrate my point.

Chandrakiriti said in his Reason 60 commentary
We do not propound that an apprehension of a reflection—
dependently produced and seen strictly as false—is not produced
in any way.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as apprehensions of reflections are not investigated, we do not need to say they are not produced in anyway. But the point of Madhyamaka is not to leave things just as ordinary people find them prior to analysis.


cloudburst said:
We contend that dependently produced things are, like reflections,
not produced intrinsically. As this is the case, how can your objection
stand a chance?



Malcolm wrote:
Page. !99 verifies what I am saying above.

You just refuse to take the next step and understand that apparent phenomena which conventionally arise from causes and conditions are completely equivalent with illusions in every respect
I refuse to take that step because it is not supported by either scripture or reason. If you can't tell the difference between dependently-arisen food, which is like an illusion, and an illusion of food, you will die in short order. So either you don't know how to clearly differentiate the conventional from the ultimate, or you suffer from confusion about the meaning of the term "completely equivalent."
Dependently-originated food does not sustain us. Our addiction to things, however, does.


The simile of illusion is one of many similes Buddha used to illustrate dependent relationship, do you think he also meant that phenomena are "completely equivalent to an echo? To a city of ghosts? Would it be correct to say my car is an echo? my wife a city of smell eaters?
If you say yes, it is clear you are simply trying to avoid admitting fault, if no, then perhaps you can give a coherent account as to why the illusion simile should be separated out from the rest for special (unindicated) meaning?

Your car is an echo, your wife is a city of ghandarvas. How so? When you analyze your car, it cannot be found, just as when one searches for the source of an echo heard in a valley it cannot be found. Your wife is a city of ghandaravas whose evanescent appearance vanishes just out of reach when sought. Illusions, echos, and cities of gandharvas refer to phenomena that clearly appear but when examined are not found to exist. All dependently originated phenomena are just like that— clearly apparent yet nonexistent. It is not necessary to add the qualifier "inherently" or "ultimately." Why?

As Śantideva says, when neither an entity or nonentity remain before the mind, the mind is pacified. Clearly apparent nonexistents are neither entities nor nonentities.



Chandrakirti said:
Therefore, since in this Madhyamaka system to be a dependent arising is to lack autonomy, lacking autonomy is what emptiness means; emptiness does not mean that nothing exists.

Malcolm wrote:
And since nothing can be be found which can act as a cause or a condition for any other thing, nothing ever arose; and so to say of the nonarising that it does not exist is incorrect since there is no existence by which its nonexistence could be known.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
I understand the Gelug position. I do not agree with it.
This does not make sense. If you refuse to understand the terminology in the way it is being used by Lama Tsongkhapa, how can you understand his meaning correctly?


Malcolm wrote:
I understand it perfectly well. For example, when Tsongkhapa claims in Lam rim Chen mo that freedom from extremes means "not existing in the ultimate and not not existing in the relative," this terminology is incorrect. This means that the ultimate is only a negation of existence and the relative is only an affirmation of existence. This is not the intent of Nāgārjuna nor the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 12:47 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
So it all comes back to the same question: Do you acknowledge that the terminology used by Lama Tsongkhapa is as described here?:

Malcolm wrote:
I do not accept that this terminology accurately depicts Madhyamaka.

Kenneth Chan said:
That is not the question. The question is: Do you acknowledge that the terminology used by Lama Tsongkhapa is as described here?: For us, followers of Je Tsongkhapa, 'appear and function' is what is denoted by the english word 'exists,' and that which you denote with the term 'exists' is called 'inherent existence.'
If you refuse to understand the terminology in the way it is being used by Lama Tsongkhapa, it is clear that you do not understand his meaning correctly, and therefore you are merely criticising what is clearly a misrepresentation of the Gelug position.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand the Gelug position. I do not agree with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
So it all comes back to the same question: Do you acknowledge that the terminology used by Lama Tsongkhapa is as described here?:

Malcolm wrote:
I do not accept that this terminology accurately depicts Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is a distinction between the nonafflictive ignorance which is part of the knowledge obscuration, and the ignorance that is part of the afflictive obscuration. Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas possess the former and not the latter; therefore they are not omniscient but they are liberated.

Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm not talking about the obstructions to omniscience - according to Tantra, a direct realisation of emptiness with a gross mind is not an actual direct realisation and so these Hearers and Solitary Realizers are not actual Superior beings and they still have delusions at subtle and very subtle levels of mind and thus, strictly speaking, they are not liberated. Practically speaking though they have reduced their ignorance to the extent that it can never ripen throwing karma - thus they are not reborn in samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, you are not properly distinguishing afflictive and knowledge obscurations.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Hinayana Foe Destroyers also take rebirth in the five pure abodes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they don't. Nonreturners do and attain arhatship there.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Liberation, strictly speaking is the eradication of the causes of taking further rebirth in any of the three realms.
Actual liberation is the permanent eradication of the seeds of delusion. Because Hinayana Foe Destroyers have not removed delusions from all levels of mind they are not actually liberated but practically they do not take rebirth in samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
No, liberation is just freedom from afflictions that cause birth in the three realms. Arhats, etc., do not possess those.

You still have no cited anything. Your assertions, unless grounded in some sūtra or tantra are meaningless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 8:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Wayfarer said:
The second mode of being and non-being is seen in the ‘orders and differences of created natures’ (I.444a), whereby, if one level of nature is said to exist, those orders above or below it are said not to exist:
For an affirmation concerning the lower (order) is a negation concerning the higher, and so too a negation concerning the lower (order) is an affirmation concerning the higher.

According to this mode, the affirmation of man is the negation of angel [or 'higher being'] and vice versa.
This mode illustrates Eriugena's original way of dissolving the traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation: to assert one level is to deny the others. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.

Malcolm wrote:
Clearly, that is not a Buddhist account, and I'm not presenting it as such. But it is much closer to the style of Buddhist arguments, than anything from modern analytical or empirical philosophy. It's also interesting because of the dialectical nature of the analysis, i.e. things that are real on one level, are unreal on another. I think that aspect is quite close in meaning to the original import of the two truths teaching.[/quote]

It is a little different. As Śantideva points out, the ultimate of the lower is the relative of the higher. When we come to Madhyāmika, the negation of the lower is not an affirmation of its own tenets because Madhyamaka has no tenets to proclaim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Thanks for those explanations.

I think in Buddhism (as in other wisdom traditions) there is an understanding of the hierarchy of being, with the Buddha signifying the utmost or highest reality, and beings in lower realms being subject to delusion. That is why the same thing can appear differently to different levels of beings, such as is often discussed in relation to the hypothetical glass of water. That is also signified in symbolic form by the Bhavachakra, with the Buddha appearing outside the Wheel.

Malcolm wrote:
No. The Buddha has the same state as us. The only difference is whether we recognize that or not. As Nāgārjuna states in the MMK:
"Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world; 
as the Tathāgata has no nature, the world too has no nature."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
From a provisional point of view and from the point of view of their own vehicles, yes, but from the point of view of Buddha’s Tantric teachings and in actuality, no.

Malcolm wrote:
Proof text please. And you are quite incorrect. The consequence of your erroneous statement is that arhats and pratyekabuddhas will take afflictive rebirth in samsara.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's not the consequence at all. There are a couple of instances where one would still have the seeds of delusion but not be in samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a distinction between the nonafflictive ignorance which is part of the knowledge obscuration, and the ignorance that is part of the afflictive obscuration. Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas possess the former and not the latter; therefore they are not omniscient but they are liberated.


Tsongkhapafan said:
The first example is Hinayana Foe Destroyers as I have said. These Superiors take rebirth in the fourth form realm which has eight levels. The last five are Hinayana Pure Lands called Not Great, Without Pain, Excellent Appearance, Great Seeing, and None Higher. When Hinayana Foe Destroyers die they often choose to be born in one of these Lands, where they can remain at peace for as long as they wish. These Pure Lands are beyond samsara, but they are not Buddha Lands, but even though practically they are beyond samsara they would still have self-grasping at subtle and very subtle levels of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
You are conflating the afflictive obscuration (kleśa -avarana) with the knowledge obscuration (jñeya-avarana). The five pure abodes are where a certain kind of never returner takes rebirth. But once they attain arhatship there, they cease taking rebirth in any of the three realms, including the five pure abodes.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Another example would be where someone takes rebirth in a Buddha's Pure Land either through their own power or through the powa prayers done by others. They would have the seeds of delusion in their minds so they would not have attained liberation strictly speaking, but they would be liberated from a practical point of view because they would be in a world where there are no true sufferings and no possibility of falling into samsara again.

In both of these cases, the beings still have work to do to attain actual liberation, and of course Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Liberation, strictly speaking is the eradication of the causes of taking further rebirth in any of the three realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I can't get my head around the idea that 'saying something has never existed is not the same as saying it has ceased to exist'.

Malcolm wrote:
It has to do with how abhāva is being defined in the MMK. In Madhyamaka, nonexistence is the nonexistence of something which has arisen. When something has not arisen, it cannot be said that there is something for which there can be a nonexistence.  In other words, there can be nonexistence only for that which has come into existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Perplexity
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
Yogis don't work on figuring stuff out and needing to know everything all the time.

dzogchungpa said:
What??!!


BTW, there's a similar passage on p.95 of Dharma Publishing's "The Life And Liberation Of Padmasambhava Part 1": My father is the Knowing of Knowledge.
My mother is Samantabhadri, holy joy and transcendence of the Void.
My country: I have none, having been born on the Essence Plane with its unique caste.
I nourish myself with both clarity and perplexity.
I am here devoting myself to the destruction of suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not translated from Tibetan directly. It is translated from French a long time ago and is completely wrong in many places.

It is quite likely Evans Wentz just copied this line since he himself knew no Tibetan and was editing someone else's translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... it is not correct to state that dependent phenomena exist since they have never arisen, just as illusory elephants and so on have never arisen and yet appear.
Example, an illusory elephant arises on the basis of causes and conditions
Arising from cause and conditions is relative, not ultimate.

cloudburst said:
you are just contradicting yourself from one post to the next.

Malcolm wrote:
An illusory elephant arise from causes and conditions, but there is no elephant in that illusion.

You just refuse to take the next step and understand that apparent phenomena which conventionally arise from causes and conditions are completely equivalent with illusions in every respect Therefore, without understanding this one will never overcome one's deluded attachment to things of relative truth. The latter, after all, is the purpose of Madhyamaka. Making arguments which support ordinary people's mundane clinging to things goes against the very purpose of Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is improper to say of something which has never arisen that it does not exist.

cloudburst said:
that is completely wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is completely correct. "Nonexistence" is what common people say about something which once existed and no longer does.

But to say that something which never arisen is nonexistent is completely wrong.

This is why in general we reject your claim that we advocate nonexistence since we never claim that anything exists to begin with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
To say that a dependent arising is a nonexistent is not correct.
Of course it is. Example, an illusory elephant arises on the basis of causes and conditions: it appears, seems to perform all the functions of an elephant and yet does not exist and performs none of those functions at all. All conditioned phenomena are the same

cloudburst said:
it is clearly not correct for you to keep insisting that dependent arisings are nonexistents, do not exist and perform no functions.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not nonexistents from the point of ordinary people. From the point of view of ordinary people, things which arise in dependence exist. When one discusses with ordinary people how things are, the only acceptable way to talk about the things which they believe to exist is from the point of view of dependent origination, where this exists that exists, and so on. But this manner of speaking about phenomena is not definitive nor is it final. But if you prefer that I treat you as an ordinary person who has no training in tenets systems, etc., then for you I will say that this and that exists.

From the point of view of some like ourselves who have examined phenomena, it is not correct to state that dependent phenomena exist since they have never arisen, just as illusory elephants and so on have never arisen and yet appear. It is also not correct to state they do not exist since it is improper to say of something which has never arisen that it does not exist.

So we craft this term, "clearly apparent nonexistent." It is a standard term in Sakya and Nyingma Madhyamaka. You may not like it but we don't care.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
rachmiel said:
Anyone have an idea what these wordless/imageless thoughts that present as inklings might be?

Malcolm wrote:
Concepts.



Marc said:
Hi Malcolm

Could you please develop.

I guess the confusion here rises from the fact that verbal fabrications / labeling are conflated with concepts...

However, there is some background for such confusion since Vitarka is translated both as conceptions or verbal fabrications / labeling.

Thx in advance for your explanations

Malcolm wrote:
Concepts and labeling exist together, and never separately.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
but we cannot say that inherently exists, because whatever inherently exists cannot appear and function at all.

cloudburst said:
completely correct. And so we do not say this.  Kenneth did in fact say "from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth, every perceptual mind arises in dependence upon causes and conditions" and in this he was in error. Malcolm's response is perfectly correct, there are no minds in ultimate truth, so there is no sense in speaking of their arising etc.

Kenneth Chan said:
Please note the context in the original post where I made the statement. When I said "from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth," I meant "when we analyse things with regards to what the ultimate truth is."

Malcolm wrote:
"When we analyse things with regards to what the ultimate truth is" there is no arising through cause and condition because arising through cause and condition is strictly relative, whether it is a mind or an atom.

You goofed. Just own it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
cloudburst said:
Kenneth did in fact say "from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth, every perceptual mind arises in dependence upon causes and conditions" and in this he was in error. Malcolm's response is perfectly correct, there are no minds in ultimate truth, so there is no sense in speaking of their arising etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that was the point. His question about your statement was irrelevant.
We prefer to say that what appears and functions are "clearly apparent nonexistents" since they cannot be found on analysis.
To say that a dependent arising is a nonexistent is not correct.
Of course it is. Example, an illusory elephant arises on the basis of causes and conditions: it appears, seems to perform all the functions of an elephant and yet does not exist and performs none of those functions at all. All conditioned phenomena are the same.

Your proplem, identified by Rongzom centuries before Tsongkhapa lived, is that Mādhyamikas in his day were excessively attached to relative truth and did not comprehend fully the meaning of illusion. While the introduction of Candrakīrti abolished this problem for a time, it was reintroduced with Tsongkhapa.

This is the reason why Gelugpas have a more difficult time understanding Dzogchen, than say Kagyus or Nyingmas. Sakyas also have their own hangups with respect to attachment to the two stags that get in their way as well. If there is an obstacle for Kagyus with respect to this, it is that they are too attached to meditating. And of course, Nyingmas are too attached to sex and drinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
So it appears you cannot answer the question. Why?

Malcolm wrote:
I do not agree with cloudburst's assessment.

We can say that what appears and functions "exists" in terms of mundane convention, with the caveat that conventions are based on erroneous perceptions. but we cannot say that inherently exists, because whatever inherently exists cannot appear and function at all.

We prefer to say that what appears and functions are "clearly apparent nonexistents" since they cannot be found on analysis.

Kenneth Chan said:
Yes, I know what you prefer, in terms of semantics. The question, however, is this: Do you acknowledge that the terminology used by Lama Tsongkhapa is as described by Cloudburst?:

Malcolm wrote:
No. Also Tsongkhapa makes a distinction between conventional existence, which functional, and inherent existence, which is not.

You've also failed to address my objection to your terming "cause and condition" part of ultimate truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
MiphamFan said:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-10/4chan-claims-have-fabricated-anti-trump-report-hoax




Malcolm wrote:
Pretty funny, if true. We are so screwed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, why can't you answer the question? It is very relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not relevant to my objection.

Kenneth Chan said:
So it appears you cannot answer the question. Why?



Malcolm wrote:
I do not agree with cloudburst's assessment.

We can say that what appears and functions "exists" in terms of mundane convention, with the caveat that conventions are based on erroneous perceptions. but we cannot say that inherently exists, because whatever inherently exists cannot appear and function at all.

We prefer to say that what appears and functions are "clearly apparent nonexistents" since they cannot be found on analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, before we go into another round of arguing over semantics, I need to pose this question to you again. This is the question I posed in the other thread "What Tsongkhapa Said" but, so far, you have not answered it. Below, I have reproduced the actual post with the question for you and Conebeckham. Can you now give a response please?

Malcolm wrote:
This question is besides the point. You stated "from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth, every perceptual mind arises in dependence upon causes and conditions."

Arising from cause and conditions is relative, not ultimate.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, why can't you answer the question? It is very relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not relevant to my objection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
On the other hand, if you are looking at it from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth, every perceptual mind arises in dependence upon causes and conditions, and upon the object that it perceives, and this is already discussed in my paper ( http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/direct-experiential-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics ). For your benefit, I will reproduce that section of my paper here below:

Malcolm wrote:
No, from the standpoint of ultimate truth, minds do not arise at all since they cannot be established.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, before we go into another round of arguing over semantics, I need to pose this question to you again. This is the question I posed in the other thread "What Tsongkhapa Said" but, so far, you have not answered it. Below, I have reproduced the actual post with the question for you and Conebeckham. Can you now give a response please?
We seem to be arguing merely over semantics again. Before we continue with this semantics argument, it would be helpful if both Malcolm and Conebeckham state clearly whether or not they accept this statement by Cloudburst (which was made in response to Malcolm):

cloudburst said:
For us, followers of Je Tsongkhapa, 'appear and function' is what is denoted by the english word 'exists,' and that which you denote with the term 'exists' is called 'inherent existence.'

Kenneth Chan said:
For me, following the texts of Lama Tsongkhapa, what Cloudburst says here is evidently correct. But do you, Malcolm and Conebeckham, agree with it or not? I am asking this for the purpose of clarification.

Malcolm wrote:
This question is besides the point. You stated "from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth, every perceptual mind arises in dependence upon causes and conditions."

Arising from cause and conditions is relative, not ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2017 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Perplexity
Content:
madhusudan said:
“My father is wisdom and my mother is voidness.
My country is the country of Dharma.
I am of no caste and no creed.
I am sustained by perplexity;
and I am here to destroy lust, anger and sloth.”
~Padmasambhava

I would appreciate any comments or explanation on the line, "I am sustained by perplexity."

Is that in reference to the state of being in the Middle Way free from extremes? Or something else...

Thanks


Malcolm wrote:
It is a bad translation. Look at page 34 of the Lotus Born were you will see the same passage as translated by Eric Pema Kunsang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
The small and middling enlightenments that are described in Buddha's sutra teachings are not actual states of liberation...

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are. What they are not are stages of omniscience.

Arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not possess afflictive obscurations at all.

Tsongkhapafan said:
From a provisional point of view and from the point of view of their own vehicles, yes, but from the point of view of Buddha’s Tantric teachings and in actuality, no.

Malcolm wrote:
Proof text please. And you are quite incorrect. The consequence of your erroneous statement is that arhats and pratyekabuddhas will take afflictive rebirth in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Refuge vows
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Abandoning intoxicants is just alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs, don't worry about caffeine.

Malcolm wrote:
Not even tobacco is included since it is not intoxicating, since nicotine is a stimulant, like caffeine.

However, because many treasure texts were revealed that condemned its use, it has come to be considered something negative in Tibetan Buddhism.

Fully ordained monks in Theravada countries however smoke quite a lot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
On the other hand, if you are looking at it from the viewpoint of the ultimate truth, every perceptual mind arises in dependence upon causes and conditions, and upon the object that it perceives, and this is already discussed in my paper ( http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/direct-experiential-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics ). For your benefit, I will reproduce that section of my paper here below:

Malcolm wrote:
No, from the standpoint of ultimate truth, minds do not arise at all since they cannot be established.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
The small and middling enlightenments that are described in Buddha's sutra teachings are not actual states of liberation...

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are. What they are not are stages of omniscience.

Arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not possess afflictive obscurations at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: Shrine Crystal
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Hi all,

What kind of crystals are acceptable for a shrine? Or does it not really matter? I'm thinking about the clear prism kind, but don't know what type of crystal they are.

Thanks,
Thomas

Malcolm wrote:
A natural one is best, but a crystal ball is also fine.

tomamundsen said:
So, at the crystal shop that I visited before, there are several different kinds of quartz crystals. Basically any type of quartz will work?

Malcolm wrote:
Natural is better than cut...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-sex-tape-penthouse-might-have-proof-russian-golden-shower-gate-2474730


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: Shrine Crystal
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Hi all,

What kind of crystals are acceptable for a shrine? Or does it not really matter? I'm thinking about the clear prism kind, but don't know what type of crystal they are.

Thanks,
Thomas

Malcolm wrote:
A natural one is best, but a crystal ball is also fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Queequeg said:
but once the fundamental agreement on reality and rules of civil engagement are lost, further intercourse becomes incredibly difficult.

.

Malcolm wrote:
That is gone. Time for New England to secede from the Union.

Virgo said:
But how wil New England protect itself?  For example, the USAF will want to take back Westover, and the Navy will take Groton, and so on.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
I was being rhetorical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Queequeg said:
I thought you were originally from New York?

Malcolm wrote:
I was born in New York, I was raised in Massachusetts. And one of my ancestors, Elbridge Gerry, signed the Declaration of Independence, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Queequeg said:
GW's Farewell Address

Malcolm wrote:
Easy for him to say. 85 percent of the soldiers who fought the British came from New England. If anyone has a right to be called Americans, we do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Queequeg said:
but once the fundamental agreement on reality and rules of civil engagement are lost, further intercourse becomes incredibly difficult.

.

Malcolm wrote:
That is gone. Time for New England to secede from the Union.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Non-conceptual thoughts ... ?
Content:
rachmiel said:
A few years ago, I started to notice what might be called non-conceptual thoughts arise in my mind. Could be I just didn't see them earlier, or it could be they're new for me.

It goes something like this: I become aware (during meditation) that a coherent thought has just occurred (or is occurring) but that there are no words or images associated with it. It presents as more of a diffuse feeling -- an inkling -- than a thought, but when I examine it, it reveals itself to "contain" a coherent thought.

These wordless/imageless thoughts come and go alongside word/image-ful thoughts. The two types of thoughts sometimes flow by in "single file" and sometimes overlap, like parallel layers of a stream of consciousness.

Anyone have an idea what these wordless/imageless thoughts that present as inklings might be?

Malcolm wrote:
Concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Minobu said:
well i know nothing of this practice , but keeping in spirit of my post;
Can we look at this Mahayana practice as a Poison Drum?

Malcolm wrote:
It is an incorrect practice condemned rather harshly by HH Dalai Lama.

Minobu said:
That being said, Even Devadatta who tried to kill The Buddha was promised Buddhahood in the Lotus Sutra in the future as direct cause from this negative relationship with The Buddha.
this is the meaning of the Poison Drum .

so ya i get you claim this to be a bad practice but still it has a relationship with Buddha so eventually all will attain Buddhahood.
Also i'm still trying to lay cliam to the original spirit of my http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=24507&p=372769#p372769


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you really understand the gravity of the situation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Minobu said:
there are no bad teachings being bandied about here...

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from gyalpo practice, I quite agree.

Minobu said:
well i know nothing of this practice , but keeping in spirit of my post;
Can we look at this Mahayana practice as a Poison Drum?

Malcolm wrote:
It is an incorrect practice condemned rather harshly by HH Dalai Lama.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Consciousness turns back upon itself; it does not extend beyond name-and-form
Content:
Queequeg said:
From the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html, SN 12:65
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'Aging & death exist when what exists? From what as a requisite condition is there aging & death?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Aging & death exist when birth exists. From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Birth exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition comes birth?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Birth exists when becoming exists. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth... [clinging], [craving], [feeling], [contact], [six senses], [Name-and-Form]... 'Name-&-form exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition is there name-&-form?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Name-&-form exists when consciousness exists. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Consciousness exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition comes consciousness?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Consciousness exists when name-&-form exists. From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.'

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This consciousness turns back at name-&-form, and goes no farther. It is to this extent that there is birth, aging, death, falling away, & re-arising, i.e., from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media... Thus is the origination of this entire mass of stress. Origination, origination.' Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.
This formulation of the arising of suffering has puzzled me for a long time. It differs from the more common teaching on the 12 Linked Chain in that consciousness does not have its base in "constructing activities" which in turn has its base in ignorance. Rather, consciousness and name-and-form are proposed as mutually dependent and arising. Name-and-form is a function of consciousness and consciousness is a function of name-and-form. This is not quite a materialist view, but seems closer to it than the picture given by the 12 Linked Chain.

Can someone please explain what is going on here?

Malcolm wrote:
It is only taking about the process of this life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Panaesthesia said:
“The stages of training with the three kāyas emphasize the qualities of the elements. By training with the sound of the supreme aspect of earth, fire, water, and wind, supreme attainment will be certain. The sound of water is roaring and carries the melodious sound of the ḍākinīs. To always engage and become familiar with this, it is certain that the nirmāṇakāya will be attained. The characteristic of earth is cool and heavy, possessing the sound of great Brahmā. To always engage and maintain balance with this will bring the certain attainment of the nirmāṇakāya. To accomplish the sambhogakāya,  by listening to the sound of fire, this reveals the sound of the great Viṣhṇu. Whoever listens to this will certainly attain the qualities of the dharmakāya: the characteristics of wind are cool and fierce and carry the sound of uniting with the king[1] of birds. If one knows how to constantly practice this, then that is training with the common aspect of the three kāyas.” ( Reverberation of Sound Tantra)

￼My emphasis on the word "supreme" in the quote. Notice that each stage given above notes the common sound aspect and the supreme sound characterization of each element: "sound of water" - "sound (language) of the dākinīs," etc., except for earth, which doesn't commonly have a sound unless it's moving, so only the supreme aspect is pointed to (but look for low rumbles like kettle drums). The common sound aspect is given to characterize the inner resonances that one uses. Don't confuse the "four elements" with physical manifestations like waterfalls, fires, rocks pounded together, and wind. The supreme sound characterization is specified to make sure you don't make that error.

Place awareness on the related chakra associated with each element, gather the inner sound (which will be very subtle at first, thus "gather" it), and once gathered, draw it up to the next element by moving awareness. Do this in the order specified: Earth, Water, Fire, Wind (Air). Start with Fire though and bring it down to Earth, to ground yourself, since fire is associated with ego, and this isn't about you. Then continue, repeating fire in the correct location. The visions of the four lamps will naturally arise when you're ready, so no need to put your eyeballs at risk with a mudra as when the practice of Thögel is introduced.

This "preliminary" attains the "common aspects" of three kayas, and the common siddhis, and is a natural pathway into Thögel.

[1] The Garuḍa

Malcolm wrote:
First, Reverberation of Sound is a completely incorrect (but common) translation, and it comes from a late attempt to normalize the titles of the 17 tantras by back translating them into Sanskrit in the Derge Nyingma Gyudbum. This mistake is absent from the Tshamdrag and Tingkye editions where the original, non-Sanskrit title is preserved.

The thal gyur in the title has to be translated separately. Thal ba, as explained in the tantra itself and the commentary, refers to buddhafields which are strewn with precious powder ( thal ba ). Gyur ba refers to the transformation of the elements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2017 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Minobu said:
there are no bad teachings being bandied about here...

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from gyalpo practice, I quite agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Panaesthesia said:
“Those who emanate to bring benefit to others must first practice this for, if not, then they will not have the ability to plant the seeds that bring forth such emanations. Hence, train in the sound of the elements.” ( Seed of Secret Conduct Tantra)

Malcolm wrote:
Right, but that means you have to find out which phase of the elements you are, and then practice the appropriate sound for many months.

It is all detailed in the commentary to the Realms and Transformations of Sound Tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Refuge vows
Content:
crazy-man said:
Caffeine can have both positive and negative health effects. It can treat and prevent the premature infant breathing disorders bronchopulmonary dysplasia of prematurity and apnea of prematurity. Caffeine citrate is on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines.[12] It may confer a modest protective effect against some diseases,[13] including Parkinson's disease[14] and certain types of cancer. One meta-analysis concluded that cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease and stroke is less likely with 3–5 cups of non-decaffeinated coffee per day but more likely with over 5 cups per day.[15] Some people experience insomnia or sleep disruption if they consume caffeine, especially during the evening hours, but others show little disturbance. Evidence of a risk during pregnancy is equivocal; some authorities recommend that pregnant women limit consumption to the equivalent of two cups of coffee per day or less.[16][17] Caffeine can produce a mild form of drug dependence – associated with withdrawal symptoms such as sleepiness, headache, and irritability – when an individual stops using caffeine after repeated daily intake.[1][3][5] Tolerance to the autonomic effects of increased blood pressure and heart rate, and increased urine output, develops with chronic use (i.e., these symptoms become less pronounced or do not occur following consistent use)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine


Malcolm wrote:
If you do not want to drink coffee, fine. But it is not an intoxicant, a madana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Matt J said:
HHDL likes Dzogchen--- doesn't his opinion count at least a little given his relationship with LTKR?

Malcolm wrote:
Not with TKF, he is a gyalpo practitioner.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Another example of why it is necessary to check sources carefully and only trust reliable ones.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is why we trust HHDL instead of those who follow the gyalpo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:


Justmeagain said:
I thought Emptiness was the nature of the mind and everything else and Mahamudra was a method to experience this?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness has no appearance. Mahāmudra does.

Justmeagain said:
And what is the nature of this appearance? I'd say Emptiness has the appearance of a lack of inherent existence. But maybe thats pushing it somewhat!

How about I put my OP this way....are Mahamudra and Shikantaza synonymous?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness and luminosity ('od gsal) are synonyms. When one is in the experience of emptiness or luminosity there are no appearances. In Mahāmudra there are appearances. Which appearances? The appearances of the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:
srivijaya said:
Very much so.


Malcolm wrote:
The classical notion of the two truths hinges on vidyā and āvidyā being different, the former veridical and the latter false. But in fact vidyā and avidyā are just opposite sides of one coin, or even avidyā has vidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
I suspect this thread needs to be moved to another home!

Or are we still trying to establish what  Mahamudra is before comparing it to the more easily defined Shikantaza?

Malcolm wrote:
Mahamudra is the nature of your mind and everything else.

Justmeagain said:
I thought Emptiness was the nature of the mind and everything else and Mahamudra was a method to experience this?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness has no appearance. Mahāmudra does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:
srivijaya said:
historical Buddha

Mkoll said:
Them's fightin' words on this DW, friend. Tread carefully.


srivijaya said:
Hey! Okay, I get the message - don't beat me up guys!

On the OP though, the Two Truths Doctrine differs from *ahem* other Buddhism on a fundamental point (can't speak for Dzogchen though).

Briefly, Two Truths postulates a mistaken grasp of phenomena (ie. inherently existing). It sees the solution to this problem as breaking this illusion and seeing the underlying "nature" of self and other, as being emptiness. Furthermore emptiness gets called the ultimate state, which is a bit odd when you consider it carefully. Emptiness being the absence of inherent existence, rather than a "state" itself. Even the formulation 'form is empty, emptiness is form', equates the two. Equivalents cannot have one ultimate and the other not - it's like saying one half is larger than the other half. Quite how much of the Two Truths overlaps with Dzogchen, I have no idea, so if anyone can chip in, that would be great.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no two truths since even delusion is an expression of reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Mod-QQ said:
We're trying for a PG-13 standard going forward. Edited to conform to the applicable standards. Thank you for your understanding.
Mod-QQ

dzogchungpa said:
Can you do something about https://www.dharmawheel.net/search.php?keywords=shit too?

Malcolm wrote:
And https://www.dharmawheel.net/search.php?keywords=asshole:

BTW most nine year olds I know swear worse than truck drivers. I mean, have any of you listened to rap music lately?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Refuge vows
Content:


crazy-man said:
if you have health problems and you use Caffeine as a medicine, it is okay. but if you use Caffeine to change and manipulate your mind and consciousness, it is against the rules.


Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense. Caffeine is a merely a stimulant. Sheesh.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Matt J said:
HHDL likes Dzogchen--- doesn't his opinion count at least a little given his relationship with LTKR?

Malcolm wrote:
Not with TKF, he is a gyalpo practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure how much time you have spent with teachers and communities outside the DC, but trust me, they generally think we are very strange.

climb-up said:
What do they find strange about the DC?
Is it the view of dzogchen that is taught, or is the group's structure or interactional style unusual?
\

Malcolm wrote:
All of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
No, there is no record of Tsongkhapa accepting the Dzogchen teachings as valid...

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, get a clue. This text is in the first volume of Tsongkhapa's collected works, Zhol edition, ppg. 295-314, directly before Tsongkhapa's commentary on the Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion. It is in the same place in all the other collected works as well.

But go ahead, keep your head in the sand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Queequeg said:
I had not thought it through that far. You're probably right. At some point they figured out they had the perfect patsy. The only card Trump has is his supporters. In order for them to function as his shield, he has to have them riled up and foaming at the mouth, and that is hard to do, especially when they realize the government he is putting together is not going bring jobs to Columbus and Flynt, and is going to in fact strip out their medicare and medicaid, social security, etc. To keep that crowd whipped up, he would have continue his campaign around the country and sooner or later, that show is going to get boring. He's then going to find out he has no real clout at the midterms when he tries to remove congressmen and senators who aren't on his side. He's about to find out how little support you get from rank and file congressmen when you don't help them with fundraising and local campaigns.

Johnny Dangerous said:
It's gonna be a lot easier for him to rile up his supporters with people bandying about these random, unvetted accusations likely originating with the intelligence community. In fact it's one nightmare scenario that could come from people's sudden embrace of this "fake news", a likely one IMO since so much of this unverifiable, this will only galvanize his supporters. It  lends credence to Trump in the eyes of his followers, and takes people's eyes off what they should be focused on - building some kind of legitimate resistance to Trump and his plans. So, great job American Deep State.

Malcolm wrote:
Bury him in the excrement, all of it, so he spends all his time whining like the little whiner he is. Could you believe the press conference today? Marching bands? hahahaha, what a tremendous fool those tushy holes elected.

We're trying for a PG-13 standard going forward. Edited to conform to the applicable standards. Thank you for your understanding.
Mod-QQ
Umm, no, this is G rating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
So you believe, and you're free to do so.


Malcolm wrote:
My reply to you is the same as Nāgārjuna's reply to those who bore doubt about Mahāyāna in the Ratnavali. Higher vehicles always seems questionable to those who follower lower vehicles.

Tsongkhapafan said:
There is also a history of false teachings being touted as higher too, so one must be careful and investigate thoroughly as Buddha said.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing false about the teachings brought to Tibet by Ācārya Padmasambhava, Paṇḍita Vimalamitra and Lotsawa Vairocana. Even Tsongkhapa accepted Dzogchen teachings as valid. I advise you to read the ཞུ་ལན་སྨན་མཆོག་བདུད་རྩིའི་ཕྲེང་བ by Tsongkhapa where he records a dialogue between himself and his Nyingma Guru Laykyi Dorje who acted as a intermediary between Tsongkhapa and Vajrapani. It is in Tsongkhapa's collected works.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The teaching of Vajradhara also is the result that does not arise from cause, the intimate instruction that does not arise from scripture, and the buddhahood that does not come from mind. Merely because you have not received this teaching does not make it false. Your incredulity also makes it no less the teaching of Buddha Vajradhara. Garab Dorje is a predicted emanation of Vajradhara. Again, just because you do not read these tantras does not make them invalid.

Tsongkhapafan said:
So you believe, and you're free to do so.


Malcolm wrote:
My reply to you is the same as Nāgārjuna's reply to those who bore doubt about Mahāyāna in the Ratnavali. Higher vehicles always seems questionable to those who follower lower vehicles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm happy to be in the minority - it's normally a good thing. Again, this is rather surprising to me as there is no enlightenment without causes and a graduated path.

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, in this lifetime you will never understand the result that does not arise from cause, will never hear the intimate instruction that does not arise from scripture, nor realize the buddhahood that does not come from mind.

However, every time you see those six little syllables in my sig, it is planting a cause for your eventual liberation through Dzogchen teachings.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That sounds a bit arrogant Malcolm, but I appreciate your sentiment.

Malcolm wrote:
I was responding in kind to your biased statement.

The teaching of Vajradhara also is the result that does not arise from cause, the intimate instruction that does not arise from scripture, and the buddhahood that does not come from mind. Merely because you have not received this teaching does not make it false. Your incredulity also makes it no less the teaching of Buddha Vajradhara. Garab Dorje is a predicted emanation of Vajradhara. Again, just because you do not read these tantras does not make them invalid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Dorje and Bell
Content:
Aspiring.Monk said:
I am wondering if someone that has no tantric initiations can use the dorje and bell.

Thank you in advance for the help


Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
I suspect this thread needs to be moved to another home!

Or are we still trying to establish what  Mahamudra is before comparing it to the more easily defined Shikantaza?

Malcolm wrote:
Mahamudra is the nature of your mind and everything else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:


BuddhistPariah said:
And because this thread created by an advanced and respected teacher and Boddhisatva is about division and hatred...


Malcolm wrote:
I don't hate Trump. I just think he is an tushy hole.

Edited for language.
Mod QQ


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Queequeg said:
I had not thought it through that far. You're probably right. At some point they figured out they had the perfect patsy. The only card Trump has is his supporters. In order for them to function as his shield, he has to have them riled up and foaming at the mouth, and that is hard to do, especially when they realize the government he is putting together is not going bring jobs to Columbus and Flynt, and is going to in fact strip out their medicare and medicaid, social security, etc. To keep that crowd whipped up, he would have continue his campaign around the country and sooner or later, that show is going to get boring. He's then going to find out he has no real clout at the midterms when he tries to remove congressmen and senators who aren't on his side. He's about to find out how little support you get from rank and file congressmen when you don't help them with fundraising and local campaigns.

Johnny Dangerous said:
It's gonna be a lot easier for him to rile up his supporters with people bandying about these random, unvetted accusations likely originating with the intelligence community. In fact it's one nightmare scenario that could come from people's sudden embrace of this "fake news", a likely one IMO since so much of this unverifiable, this will only galvanize his supporters. It  lends credence to Trump in the eyes of his followers, and takes people's eyes off what they should be focused on - building some kind of legitimate resistance to Trump and his plans. So, great job American Deep State.

Malcolm wrote:
Bury him in the excrement, all of it, so he spends all his time whining like the little whiner he is. Could you believe the press conference today? Marching bands? hahahaha, what a tremendous fool those tushy holes elected.

We're trying for a PG-13 standard going forward. Edited to conform to the applicable standards. Thank you for your understanding.
Mod-QQ


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2017 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Felix said:
I joined this Forum in good faith in order to share views on Dzogchen. I have encountered one thread where new age teachings are being marketed as Dzogchen, and those who object to this are being labelled as ' nit pickers'.
Now I find myself in a debate which seems to conflate Dzogchen with Sutrayana.

I think I need to spend time away from Dharma Wheel to examine and review my reasons for joining.



Malcolm wrote:
Felix, don't worry. This is all a dream.

I am not sure how much time you have spent with teachers and communities outside the DC, but trust me, they generally think we are very strange.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
heart said:
Probably Rinpoche find the Sarma tradition style of first training in relative Bodhicitta and the later ultimate Bodhicitta a little superficial.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what we have been saying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


heart said:
Seems like I only know about authentic Bodhicitta then.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
He is contrasting this with the gradual process of developing bodhicitta in Mahāyāna where you first take the bodhisattva vow, and then you spend time cultivating love and compassion, practicing tons of tonglen, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


heart said:
You misunderstood obviously, it is a good idea to read Rinpoches book. Developing the bodhicitta of intention and application is an integral part of the path as Rinpoche teach it.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Magnus:

What Rinpoche has said consistently since I started following him is that contrived bodhicitta is well, contrived. Bodhicitta that arises from seeing that the reason sentient beings suffer from not having recognized their own state on the basis of having recognized one's own is much better. The former can become maudlin sentimentality. The latter is genuine.

The reason he has standard teachings on bodhicitta in the Precious Vase and so on is that one needs to understand the differences between various kinds of bodhicitta if one is going to be a teacher. Remember, the Precious Vase is in fact a teachers manual. I am quite certain of this since the first retreat I ever attended was the first US SMS Base level retreat in 1992. He addressed this question at length, responding to criticisms that he never taught bodhicitta.

heart said:
"Maudlin sentimentality" isn't Bodhicitta on any level of teaching Malcolm. Rinpoche makes pretty clear how Bodhicitta is integrated in the path in "The foundations of the path".

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Magnus,

Rinpoche states again and again it is better to have bodhicitta based on recognition of one's real state then the contrived bodhicitta of common Mahāyāna. He is not saying bodhicitta is unnecessary, he is distinguishing contrived bodhicitta from authentic bodhicitta and the need to give rise to the latter rather than the former since the former is not stable and can disappear in a second.

For this reason, he uses the generation of bodhicitta that comes from the Anuyoga tantras:
I and all sentient beings
have always been buddhas;
recognizing this to be so, 
I generate supreme bodhicitta.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?
Content:
Matt J said:
How is it that phenomenon are illusory dreams, yet not mind? How do they not exist from their own side yet are not projections of mind, either?

Tenzintharpa said:
According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, does conventional phenomena:

Malcolm wrote:
According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, conventional phenomena are apparent yet nonexistent, thus they are illusory, etc.
Mind is also a clearly apparent nonexistent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm happy to be in the minority - it's normally a good thing. Again, this is rather surprising to me as there is no enlightenment without causes and a graduated path.

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, in this lifetime you will never understand the result that does not arise from cause, will never hear the intimate instruction that does not arise from scripture, nor realize the buddhahood that does not come from mind.

However, every time you see those six little syllables in my sig, it is planting a cause for your eventual liberation through Dzogchen teachings.

Coëmgenu said:
Those symbols actually appear as boxes with X's in them on my computer. I guess I don't get the subliminal benefits.


Malcolm wrote:
Nope, you need to install a Tibetan web font.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not that we care, it is that combined with Trump's alleged rape of teenagers in sex parties of convicted pedophile Epstein, the Hollywood Access comments, comments made on the Howard Stern's show, and so on, it is just more of the same. Perv Elect Trump.

Grigoris said:
Rape is an illegal act of violence and has nothing to do with sex.  Water sports, between consenting adults (albeit paid) is not illegal (especially not in Russia).

A rapist should not be put into the same category as somebody that has Queer sexual preferences, they should be put in the same category as a murderer or some other type of violent criminal.


Malcolm wrote:
Rapists can be queer. But that is not the point. The point is a pattern of behavior of sexual exploitation and power.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Felix said:
I at no point said that ChNN downplays or negates Bodhicitta.What I said was that he has said (in my hearing) that he cautioned us against striving to feel empathy or striving to feel compassion because it is counter productive. I am paraphrasing his words.
As he says one way we generate Bodhicitta is by acts of compassion. This is not dependant on our subjective mindset.

heart said:
You misunderstood obviously, it is a good idea to read Rinpoches book. Developing the bodhicitta of intention and application is an integral part of the path as Rinpoche teach it.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Magnus:

What Rinpoche has said consistently since I started following him is that contrived bodhicitta is well, contrived. Bodhicitta that arises from seeing that the reason sentient beings suffer from not having recognized their own state on the basis of having recognized one's own is much better. The former can become maudlin sentimentality. The latter is genuine.

The reason he has standard teachings on bodhicitta in the Precious Vase and so on is that one needs to understand the differences between various kinds of bodhicitta if one is going to be a teacher. Remember, the Precious Vase is in fact a teachers manual. I am quite certain of this since the first retreat I ever attended was the first US SMS Base level retreat in 1992. He addressed this question at length, responding to criticisms that he never taught bodhicitta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Grigoris said:
Yeah, I also don't get this American obsession with their Presidents sexual behaviour.  One of Greece's longest serving and popular Prime Ministers dumped his wife and kids for an airline stewardess and nobody batted an eyelid.

There are MUCH more important things to critique Trump about.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not that we care, it is that combined with Trump's alleged rape of teenagers in sex parties of convicted pedophile Epstein, the Hollywood Access comments, comments made on the Howard Stern's show, and so on, it is just more of the same. Perv Elect Trump.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
DGA said:
For the record, who cares if he's into watersports?  That's the least offensive thing about Trump.

Malcolm wrote:
It is just so typical...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm happy to be in the minority - it's normally a good thing. Again, this is rather surprising to me as there is no enlightenment without causes and a graduated path.

Malcolm wrote:
Sadly, in this lifetime you will never understand the result that does not arise from cause, will never hear the intimate instruction that does not arise from scripture, nor realize the buddhahood that does not come from mind.

However, every time you see those six little syllables in my sig, it is planting a cause for your eventual liberation through Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 6:32 PM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-was-bailed-out-bankruptcy-russia-crime-bosses


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:39 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
It has plenty of sources. The context is that Trump is a puppet.


Johnny Dangerous said:
None of it has been corroborated by anyone, and if mainstream sources are to be believed again it's of somewhat iffy provenance.

Malcolm wrote:
It's opo research originally payed for by Republicans against Trump and later Dems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:34 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
It has plenty of sources. The context is that Trump is a puppet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:24 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Seems like the Left's version of Fake News frankly. All this nonsense and media coverage, and I have yet to see any proof.

Not that I would be surprised if I had, but this is all still just allegation, and from a questionable source - that report.

I really hope if this is indeed true that they make public something more than what they have.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh ye of little faith. The IC has felt that enough of the repot was substantiable to summarize it in a two page briefing for POTUS, Trump and so on.


Johnny Dangerous said:
I'm not sure that means much to me, frankly. This story is also being spun so differently in mainstream sources that it is almost impossible to tell exactly what is being presented to Trump, POTUS. I have no idea what to make of any it.

Malcolm wrote:
just read it and weep.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Astus said:
The Shurangama Sutra existed in China by around 730, if not earlier. Trisong Detsen, who invited Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra to Tibet, began his rule in 755. According to Sam van Schaik Dzogchen did not exist on its own until the 10th century, and Menngagde works date back only to the 11th century. In other words, not only sky gazing and leap over practices were nowhere around when the sutra appeared, but even Dzogchen has not yet formed.

Tsongkhapafan said:
In other words, Buddha did not teach Dzogchen. How then can it be a Buddhist practice? Buddha Shakyamuni predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna and Je Tsongkhapa but not Garab Dorje.

Coëmgenu said:
Do the words need to come out of the Buddha's mouth in exactly so-and-so order, in exactly such-and-such linguistic terminology and phrasing, to be, nonetheless, Buddha's teaching?

Take for instance the Heart Sutra. It is very unlikely that the Buddha himself said exactly those words in exactly that order, but Avalokiteśvara delivers Buddhavacana nonetheless, from a wide variety of sources, and condenses them into a succinct composite statement built from long but textually disparate Prajñāpāramitā Buddhavacana that was spoken by the Buddha (Buddha willing ), in so-and-so order and such-and-such terminology/phrasing, it is simply put in a new order for the purposes of expounding the heart of the wisdom-perfection teachings.

Is the Heart Sutra not Buddhavacana? I would say it is, despite not being said by the Buddha in exactly that phrasing originally.

The same could be true of Dzogchen teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Poor TKF does not understand the principle of the direct teachings, teaching through permission (like the Heart Sutra), teaching through blessings, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Seems like the Left's version of Fake News frankly. All this nonsense and media coverage, and I have yet to see any proof.

Not that I would be surprised if I had, but this is all still just allegation, and from a questionable source - that report.

I really hope if this is indeed true that they make public something more than what they have.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh ye of little faith. The IC has felt that enough of the repot was substantiable to summarize it in a two page briefing for POTUS, Trump and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 9:58 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
dreambow said:
I don't think Trump is a Russian puppet. Like attracts like and in this case both leaders are oligarchs and seem to have their
own lucrative projects, advancements and interests at heart.


Malcolm wrote:
Total puppet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Read about it https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.mcbW4E5ea#.aj0Z0J1KG.

Coëmgenu said:
I agree with what is written, but BuzzFeed is a terrible source. Luckily they have links to better material embedded in their article.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the Russians apparently have videos of Trump with prostitutes he has engaged for the purpose of pissing on each other in the bed the Obamas slept in, and much more sordid material, corruption, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 9:08 AM
Title: Trump is a Russian Puppet hahahahaha
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Read about it https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.mcbW4E5ea#.aj0Z0J1KG.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:


Astus said:
It is non-gradual if you limit Mahamudra to the realisation of and familiarisation with the nature of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
That's all Mahāmudra is.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Seems like a tricky way of seeing it, realization of the nature of mind would always be non-gradual wouldn't it? Sustaining that realization on the other hand would have to be gradual for the vast majority of folks.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Once you have seen the nature of the mind, that is all there is to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, why do you think that just because a word is in Sanskrit, its literal meaning is therefore rigidly cast in stone? Any word, used under different contexts, can mean different things, whether it is in English, Sanskrit, or any other language. Context is always important. Also, remember that language evolves.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a question of rigid definitions, it is, as Cone notes, a question of terminology as it was used at that time in India in a very specific technical context. But since you are not a translator, and have no expertise in either Tibetan or Sanskrit technical literature of any kind , your naive attitude towards language is forgivable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: As ye sow so shall ye Streep
Content:
boda said:
I’ve adored Meryl Streep since The French Lieutenant's Woman, so it pains me a bit to find myself agreeing, in a way, with the backlash brought by her comments at the Golden Globe Awards. On the surface I completely agree with her, but looking more deeply I question what’s really behind it.

George Clooney, a fellow actor, supported Streep by commenting that it’s not the presidents job to belittle his critics. By the same token, couldn’t we say that Streep is an actor and it’s her job to act, and it’s not her job to critique political figures?

Malcolm wrote:
Since when is being an actor a limit on one's speech?

A president has to maintain the dignity of his office, something Trump is entirely unequipped to do. He should take a page from the queen's book. Come to think of it, maybe New England should repatriate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:


tomamundsen said:
While I have the utmost respect for Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, and have no doubt that he is a Vidyadhara, this is just silly. He is not the only one alive today.


Malcolm wrote:
Pretty much. Who else is there? Seriously. Note I said "Vidyādhara of Dzogchen teachings." I did not say he was the only person from whom one could receive Dzogchen teachings. Unless you have directly studied with him, it is impossible to comprehend just how vast and deep his knowledge and realization of Dzogchen teachings are and how completely different his presentation of Dzogchen is from everyone else.

heart said:
Different isn't necessary bad, in fact it can be a good thing.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
You have taken many teachings with ChNN. So you know what I am talking about. People who have not met him cannot really comprehend what they are missing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
dreambow said:
Would not releasing the Clinton files also be seen as influencing the election? You can't win in this situation as too many
have vested interests, many in America are dyed in the wool democrats or republicans. Often their political allegiance set
in concrete. Without the release I would not have known Bernie was scuttled and  given the old heave-ho by the Clinton camp.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that Assange is a dangerous asshole who only cares about his anti-privacy agenda. That includes your privacy and mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:


Jeff H said:
I'm not saying it's the only system or a universal "best" system. But it has been the best system for me. And I agree with cloudburst that it would be interesting to hear how Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti mean something different in the passages where they use "inherent existence" as opposed to where they use "existence".

Malcolm wrote:
It quite depends on whether they are using the word prakriti or svabhāva. Unfortuntately Patshab Nyima Dragpa changed all instances of ngo bo nyid (svabhāva) in the MMK to rang bzhin without carefully distinguishing prakriti and svabhāva in the original. To Tsongkhapa's credit actually, his realization is supposed to have dawned as a result of reading the Buddhapalitavṛtti, which was translated in the early period by Cogro and carefully preserves this distinction, though there are other faults with it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Minobu's Muse: Lord Nagarjuna, The Lotus Sutra, The Gakki
Content:


Minobu said:
but if you know , if you really know then this post holds clues and keys to the accomplishment.


Malcolm wrote:
Guess you're not above flattering yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
While there are many good teachers alive today, there is only only one living Vidyādhara of Dzogchen teachings.

tomamundsen said:
While I have the utmost respect for Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, and have no doubt that he is a Vidyadhara, this is just silly. He is not the only one alive today.


Malcolm wrote:
Pretty much. Who else is there? Seriously. Note I said "Vidyādhara of Dzogchen teachings." I did not say he was the only person from whom one could receive Dzogchen teachings. Unless you have directly studied with him, it is impossible to comprehend just how vast and deep his knowledge and realization of Dzogchen teachings are and how completely different his presentation of Dzogchen is from everyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As Thinley Norbu says in "Echoes":

Malcolm wrote:
As Javier says, we need to meet a Vidyādhara. While there are many good teachers alive today, there is only only one living Vidyādhara of Dzogchen teachings. Everyone better meet him while they still have the chance if they are truly interested in Dzogchen teachings. Everyone one else can stick with their sadhanas, mālas, vajras, and bells.

heart said:
I think you limit yourself in an unnecessary way there Malcolm, in fact I know you do.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
You are missing the point, my friend. What I am saying is that people chase after this sadhana and that sadhana and miss the chance to meet a great master. There was once this guy who went to Nepal, and because he did not know who Tulku Orgyen was, missed a chance to go see him because he was more interested in Lamdre. I think you know who I am talking about.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
As Thinley Norbu says in "Echoes": If we follow a Lama who has wisdom mind, he will be able to introduce the fundamental nature without using any concepts, and without our having to think about it or become involved in any idea of it as anything at all. We will experience it directly. Without any concept at all, we will understand the Dzogchen view.

Malcolm wrote:
As Javier says, we need to meet a Vidyādhara. While there are many good teachers alive today, there is only only one living Vidyādhara of Dzogchen teachings. Everyone better meet him while they still have the chance if they are truly interested in Dzogchen teachings. Everyone one else can stick with their sadhanas, mālas, vajras, and bells.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti comments on Aryadeva's 400 delusion acts to superimpose upon things an essence of true existence

Malcolm wrote:
He also says:
The term "permanence" is descriptor for a nature ( rang bzhin ), truth ( bden pa ), essence ( snying po ), existence ( dngos po ), and substance ( rdzas ). Since those do not exist, the conditioned is natureless, untrue, essenceless, nonexistent, insubstantial, possesses a deceptive identity, and is a mundane delusion of the immature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Minobu's Muse: Lord Nagarjuna, The Lotus Sutra, The Gakki
Content:


Minobu said:
So you get to tell us what is a legend and give no other plausible reason on how the Sutras got here.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many plausible reasons.

Minobu said:
thats your rebuttal and reason for calling something sacred to me clap trap.

Malcolm wrote:
You are a Nicherin Buddhist, supposedly. There is neither Kundalini yoga nor Caṇḍalī yoga in Nicherin Buddhism.

Minobu said:
Ahhh but there is Padwan, one just needs a nudge.

Look at the Gohonzon and The Way the Characters  Are Placed .

He inscribed His Life in Sumi Ink.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever floats your boat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Queequeg said:
That's too far, isn't it?
From a modern scholarly perspective, ie. the Social Sciences, the legends are more raw material for study.
For the modern scholar, all of it is just more stuff to catalog and analyze.

Astus said:
If one wants to establish a historical sequence, then it does not matter how old a tradition believes itself to be. What one should look for are datable and verifiable evidences. At the same time, it also means that one cannot say anything more than what the evidence can corroborate. So, for instance the Shurangama Sutra can be believed to be 2500 years old, but historically it is datable only to 8th century China. Similarly, Dzogchen may proclaim itself to go back to India, but the earliest texts are 9th century Tibet. To put it another way, who would believe today a person who claims to be the sole representative of an ancient Buddhist lineage nobody has yet heard of and nothing can back up its existence?

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, we have independent confirmation of the presence of the Dzogchen tradition in India in the work of Mañjuśrīkīrti who notes an old debate with Śri Simha concerning whether creation stage is actually necessary. We know from ancient Tibetan sources that Vairocana met this teacher.

You might be satisfied with the crippled approach of text criticism, but that is your problem. For you, everything depends on a book which appears at some time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But it really doesn't work that way. No matter what books you might have read. Mahāmudra is nongradual.

Astus said:
It is non-gradual if you limit Mahamudra to the realisation of and familiarisation with the nature of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
That's all Mahāmudra is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2017 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Scorpion Symbolism
Content:
philji said:
How are these pictures used? Above a door or anywhere in particular?


Malcolm wrote:
They are to keep the Gyalpo out of one's home.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:


TaTa said:
So if one practices dzogchen semde the only difference between dzogchen and mahamudra approach is thogal? Or is there another difference.

Also, HYT empowerment would count for this approach to mahamudra, in the sense of the difference between sutra samatha and vipasyana and mahamudra samatha and vipasyana as you described? Or it has to bee direct introduction in the same fashion as for example Namkhai Norbu teaches?

Malcolm wrote:
As for your first question. There are of course other differences, but the they are mainly technical, not practical. Dzogchen has a more extensive explanation of the basis, and differentiates between the basis (gzhi), and the mind that apprehends the basis (kun gzhi). In Mahāmudra this distinction is not made. However, the essential difference between Dzogchen and other systems is thögal. Otherwise, Mahāmudra, Lamdre, Trekchö and so on all have the same main point, equipoise in a moment of unfabricated consciousness aka tha mal gyi shes pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:


cloudburst said:
Since this is a core position of Je tsongkhapa, you would need to understand it to understand his position.

DGA said:
You are avoiding the question.  How do you prove that inherent existence appears to all sentient beings, at all times, except for aryas in equipoise?
It's one thing to understand whether or not Je Tsongkhapa makes such a claim.  it's another thing to demonstrate that it is so.  How would you do it?

cloudburst said:
Inherent existence is another way of saying the extreme of existence. It is axiomatic that sentient beings perceive it, for if they did not, they would not be sentient beings, they would be aryas

Malcolm wrote:
Thus you admit that existence and inherent existence are synonyms and there is no fault in negating existence rather than inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha Shakyamuni predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna and Je Tsongkhapa but not Garab Dorje.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha predicted Garab Dorje also, as well as Padmasambhava. Your sectarian bias is showing here, TKF.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is that uncommon śamatha and vipāśyāna is based on knowledge you have. Common śamatha and vipāśyāna is no different than sutrayāna practice. The former is based on direct introduction, and it is basically the same as the four samadhis of Dzogchen Sems sde: calmness ( gnas pa ), immovability ( mi g.yo ba ), nonduality ( gnyis med ) and natural perfection ( lhun grub ).

Astus said:
And what I described was that one practises the common calming and insight followed by the uncommon, and this order can be set into the four yogas where the first two are common calming and insight, and the last two are the uncommon.

Malcolm wrote:
But it really doesn't work that way. No matter what books you might have read. Mahāmudra is nongradual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana origins and provenance of Mayahana sutras
Content:
pael said:
Have all Mahayana Sutras been brought from Naga Realm?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really. According to the traditional account, the Mahāyāna sūtras were collected by Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra on a mountain in S. India.

The PP Sūtras were supposedly recovered by Nāgārjuna from the Nāgās, but the details of this story are hopelessly confused with the tantric Nāgārjuna, so much so, that Buton winds up claiming that Nāgārjuna debates the hindu Shankara, who lived in the 8th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Oh Jeff

Jeff H said:
??

Malcolm wrote:
My bad


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: tetralemma
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"self"
"no self"
"both"
"neither"

are rejected as accurate depictions of reality, because reality transcends the four extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
Even reality does not exist according to the four extremes.

Nothing is beyond the four extremes.

gad rgyangs said:
if you dont like the word "exists" then you can say reality is "thus".

Malcolm wrote:
Since the relative does not exist by way of the four extremes, also ultimate does not exist by way of the four extremes. If there is something beyond the four extremes, it is an extreme.

In other words, there is nothing in the middle, either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: tetralemma
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"self"
"no self"
"both"
"neither"

are rejected as accurate depictions of reality, because reality transcends the four extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
Even reality does not exist according to the four extremes.

Nothing is beyond the four extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Scorpion Symbolism
Content:
mint said:
What does the scorpion symbolize in Tibetan Buddhism?  Is it an auspicious symbol?

Is there any connection between the scorpion symbolism and those person born in the zodiac symbol of Scorpio?

Malcolm wrote:
The scorpion is a messenger of Guru Dragpo. It is based on the taming of the gyalpo spirit Pehar at Samye Monastery.

Once, when Padmasambhava was teaching there, there Pehar manifested as a young monk and asked Padmasambhava what he feared most. Padmasambhava replied, in Tibetan, that he most feared sdig pa, misdeeds. Pehar, misunderstanding, thought Padmsambhava was referring to scorpions (also spelled sdig pa ). The next day a huge scorpion terrified Samye, and Padmsambhava manifesting as the wrathful guru, seized the scorpion by its tail and threatened it with a vajra.



There is no connection with the Zodiac.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Minobu's Muse: Lord Nagarjuna, The Lotus Sutra, The Gakki
Content:


Minobu said:
So you get to tell us what is a legend and give no other plausible reason on how the Sutras got here.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many plausible reasons.

Minobu said:
thats your rebuttal and reason for calling something sacred to me clap trap.

Malcolm wrote:
You are a Nicherin Buddhist, supposedly. There is neither Kundalini yoga nor Caṇḍalī yoga in Nicherin Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So you apparently agree with my statement, "...in mahāmudra, śamatha and vipaśayāna unified from the beginning since it is simply a means of stabilizing one's knowledge of the nature of the mind pointed out by the guru."

Astus said:
No. There are two interpretations of the four yogas I know of, and the more popular one among Kagyupas seems to be the view that one-pointedness is interpreted as the common practice of calming and concentration, while it is during simplicity / non-elaboration that one gains insight into the nature of mind. Accordingly, calming and insight are practised in order to gain knowledge, and only following that can one cultivate their unified form (the third yoga of one taste) based on the realisation.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that uncommon śamatha and vipāśyāna is based on knowledge you have. Common śamatha and vipāśyāna is no different than sutrayāna practice. The former is based on direct introduction, and it is basically the same as the four samadhis of Dzogchen Sems sde: calmness ( gnas pa ), immovability ( mi g.yo ba ), nonduality ( gnyis med ) and natural perfection ( lhun grub ).

The first is called "śamatha," because one cultivates an experience of a state of calmness. The second is called "vipaśyāna," because one recognizes that movement and calmness are identical in nature. These leads to the experience of their nonduality, and finally, the experience of natural perfection.

But all four of these samadhis are based on having had an experience of the nature of the mind based on direction introduction. In reality, these samadhis are not practiced gradually but are four qualities of equipoise on the nature of the mind.

It is a very common belief among Dzogchen teachers that Gampopa borrowed the four samadhis and changed their names, since he had started out as a Dzogchen practitioner. Further, Dzogchen teachers very often teach the four yogas of Mahāmudra when they teach sems sde, for example, Adzom Drugpa, Tulku Orgyen and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Common śamatha and vipaśayāna are engaged in by those who have no experience of the nature of the mind. But in mahāmudra, śamatha and vipaśayāna unified from the beginning since it is simply a means of stabilizing one's knowledge of the nature of the mind pointed out by the guru, as in Dzogchen sems sde or trekchö, or the Lamdre's "inseparability of samsara and nirvana" and so on.

Astus said:
The reason calming and insight is practised is to experience the nature of mind. The difference between sudden and gradual according to Tashi Namgyal is that those with supreme intellect do not need to practise calming but can directly gain insight following their familiarity with the teachings. Then, according to Thrangu rinpoche, the difference between common and special practice of calming and insight is that in Mahamudra one begins with insight into the nature of mind instead of insight into the nature of appearances. Finally, systematic instruction in calming and insight is more reliable and efficient according to him then pointing out instructions.

Malcolm wrote:
So you apparently agree with my statement, "...in mahāmudra, śamatha and vipaśayāna unified from the beginning since it is simply a means of stabilizing one's knowledge of the nature of the mind pointed out by the guru."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: Minobu's Muse: Lord Nagarjuna, The Lotus Sutra, The Gakki
Content:
Minobu said:
Malcolm you called something I hold sacred claptrap.
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=24375&p=371953#p371953
This is why I implore you to clarify.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a pity when people hold misguided opinions to be sacred,

I assert that you actually don't know what the guy's post in question is about and that you just don't want to answer in order for it to go away.
You may assert whatever you like.


Minobu said:
so your take on Lord Buddha Nagarjuna's journey to the bottom of an Ocean to retrieve Sacred Sutra Scrolls you take "Literally" ?


Malcolm wrote:
Like all the origin legends of Mahāyan̄a, it is a legend.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
Agreed except on the Assange part, IMO he has been so lopsided his motives are in question.

Malcolm wrote:
Precisely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: President elect Donald Trump
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Screw Trump, he is an asshole, and so is every one who voted for him.

_R_ said:
I deeply care for him. Don't insult my grandmother from the past life.

Malcolm wrote:
Some of our grandmothers from past lives are complete assholes in this one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: President elect Donald Trump
Content:
_R_ said:
Please, pray, offer, meditate, for the benefit of Donald Trump.

Thank you.


Malcolm wrote:
Screw Trump, he is an asshole, and so is every one who voted for him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
conebeckham said:
I agree that, once Nature of Mind has been intuited, stabilizing one's knowledge is the practice, but I think it's fair to say that, at least in Kagyu Mahamudra traditions, we can see both gradual and non-gradual methods.   One only need look at Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Moonbeams or the well-known "Ocean of Certainty."

Malcolm wrote:
Even in these books, a clear distinction is made between the practice of those who have recognized the nature of the mind based on "pointing out" or direct introduction, and those who have not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Matt J said:
Isn't stabilizing, clearing the ground, removing afflictions and obscurations etc. just another name for gradual? No one advocates a one and done approach for most practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
No. "Gradual" means accumulating merit and wisdom. This is not the principle in either Dzogchen or Mahāmudra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
With respect to Mahāmudra, it is simply wrong.

Astus said:
If that is wrong, then what do you consider all the methods transmitted under the label of Mahamudra, particularly the techniques of calming and insight?

Malcolm wrote:
Common śamatha and vipaśayāna are engaged in by those who have no experience of the nature of the mind. But in mahāmudra, śamatha and vipaśayāna unified from the beginning since it is simply a means of stabilizing one's knowledge of the nature of the mind pointed out by the guru, as in Dzogchen sems sde or trekchö, or the Lamdre's "inseparability of samsara and nirvana" and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Minobu's Muse: Lord Nagarjuna, The Lotus Sutra, The Gakki
Content:
Minobu said:
Now Kundalini is a very real aspect of the six yogas of Naropa. I can't and should not even being saying that. But it is pretty much in the public domain.
where do you think Tummo energy is derived from.

Malcolm wrote:
Common misunderstanding. Kundalini is one thing. Caṇḍalī (gtum mo) is another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?
Content:
Tenzintharpa said:
According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, does conventional phenomena:

Malcolm wrote:
According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, conventional phenomena are apparent yet nonexistent, thus they are illusory, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The four yogas in reality are not a means to achieve anything. They are a means to familiarize oneself with the nature of the mind one has already recognized.

Astus said:
I think I did not describe the yogas as methods either.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what you said:
Zen practice begins and ends at non-abiding. Mahamudra provides a gradual path to non-abiding.
With respect to Mahāmudra, it is simply wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The principle of both mahāmudra and the great perfection is to distinguish the mind from the nature of the mind. That is accomplished on the basis of the intimate instructions of a qualified guru. But in both cases there is no gradual path.

Astus said:
"See nature, become buddha" could be called a shared idea of Zen and Mahamudra. But while you don't find much on the topic of gradual instructions in Zen, it seems to me that people like Dagpo Tashi Namgyal and Wangchuk Dorje worked hard on spelling out the details of the preliminary practices, the main practices of calming and insight, and the stages of the four yogas, just as modern teachers of the tradition, like Thrangu Rinpoche, follow in their footsteps. I'm not debating what you say about Mahamudra, but it seems to me that is a somewhat selective presentation. Furthermore, I consider those detailed instructions in the Mahamudra tradition of Gampopa an asset, and I'm not saying that it makes it anything inferior.

Malcolm wrote:
The four yogas in reality are not a means to achieve anything. They are a means to familiarize oneself with the nature of the mind one has already recognized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Grigoris said:
And then there is Ganges Mahamudra...

Malcolm wrote:
This is not different than other mahāmudra instructions.

Grigoris said:
The praxis is different.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, I see, you mean between the four so called yogas of mahāmudra. Yes, Ganges Mahāmudra is nominally related to completion stage practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Grigoris said:
And then there is Ganges Mahamudra...

Malcolm wrote:
This is not different than other mahāmudra instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2017 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are both paths of self-liberation. There is no gradual training for either.

Astus said:
Do you then call the rest what? Preliminaries? Still, they are preliminaries somewhat specific in each tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
The principle of both mahāmudra and the great perfection is to distinguish the mind from the nature of the mind. That is accomplished on the basis of the intimate instructions of a qualified guru. But in both cases there is no gradual path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Did Mahayana influence Theravada Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All Mahāyānis follow the same path. The Mahāyāna path begins with bodhicitta, the practice of the six or ten perfections is in the middle, and it concludes with perfect buddhahood.

There are merely differences concerning view. But not conduct, not the path, and not the result.

Grigoris said:
I think you may have missed the wide divergence of paths which starts to take place after the practice of the Paramita and their convergence back again at perfect Budhhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Mere details.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
But I think the process of practice is a given.
One is utterly without form, the other its antithesis.
Do both practices lead to the same end?

Astus said:
All Mahayana traditions have buddhahood as their goal.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no. Some have buddhahood as their basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is non-gradual, actually.

Astus said:
Although one can say that " http://www.unfetteredmind.org/pith-instructions-on-mahamudra/ " and " http://keithdowman.net/guestpage/maitripas-essential-mahamudra-verses.html ", there is still a gradual path employed to train in it.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are both paths of self-liberation. There is no gradual training for either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
I keep reading that the Soto Zen practice of Shikantaza, 'Just Sitting' with no focus or any sort of analytical investigation into the mind.....can be equated to Sutra Mahamudra practices....can someone clarify how or if this is even correct?

Thanks...

DGA said:
to make a meaningful comparison, you would need to get instruction in both practices from capable masters, and to practice them.  Otherwise, you just have an intellectual exercise.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and that will take many years. So better to pick one and practice it. Choose well!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra same as Shikantaza
Content:
Justmeagain said:
Whilst I appreciate they're different traditions I can't help but feel they're so far apart so as to be almost contradictory.
...
The two practices couldn't be further apart in my opinion.

Astus said:
Zen practice begins and ends at non-abiding. Mahamudra provides a gradual path to non-abiding. There is no contradiction in that, they are simply different approaches.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is non-gradual, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Did Mahayana influence Theravada Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna is a school, in just the same way Theravada is a school. Why?  Theravada is also not monolithic, and has many subtraditions, scholastic disputes, and so on.

Grigoris said:
ie Neither of them are a school. Mahāyāna is a school because all Mahāyānists follow the same path.
If you had said:  "...because all mahayanis ULTIMATELY aspire to the same end." then I may have agreed with you, but I think it is pretty obvious that not all Mahayana schools follow the same path.

Malcolm wrote:
All Mahāyānis follow the same path. The Mahāyāna path begins with bodhicitta, the practice of the six or ten perfections is in the middle, and it concludes with perfect buddhahood.

There are merely differences concerning view. But not conduct, not the path, and not the result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Dharmata teachings.
Content:
Felix said:
Wow..I followed the link.

It's undeniably not Dzogchen..but I doubt if it's Buddhism at all any recognisiable form.

Malcolm wrote:
Neo-mindfulness, complete with Rumi quotes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Did Mahayana influence Theravada Buddhism?
Content:
Grigoris said:
In closing:  Comparing Mahayana to Theravada is also misleading.  Theravada is a school, the Mahayana is a collection of widely varying schools and traditions.

People are presenting the Mahayana as if it is some sort of unitary monolith, when, in fact, there is just as much (if not more) disagreement between Mahayana schools and traditions as there is agreement.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna is a school, in just the same way Theravada is a school. Why?  Theravada is also not monolithic, and has many subtraditions, scholastic disputes, and so on.

Mahāyāna is a school because all Mahāyānists follow the same path. Theravada is a school because all Theravadins follow the same path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Dharmata teachings.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


This is connected to this program: http://www.winterfeastforthesoul.com/

Felix said:
I can see no connection between this and Dzogchen.


Winter what for the WHAT?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, http://www.winterfeastforthesoul.com/index2.php?dest=about

Felix said:
Consider Moses, Elijah, Buddha, Jesus and Mohamed. They all left their ordinary lives for 40 days to connect with the Indwelling Spirit.

Malcolm wrote:
Its a bunch of new twaddle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2017 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
cloudburst said:
they refute the use of autonomous syllogisms. Therefore prasangikas existed in india

Malcolm wrote:
Oh nonsense. Candra uses syllogisms in the Madhyamakāvatāra.
Further, Tsongkhapa himself uses syllogisms all of the time.

cloudburst said:
yes, madhymikas use syllogisms

Malcolm wrote:
The absurdity of this is that the term "prasangika" etc, is a wholly Tibetan invention, invented by someone who Tsongkhapa himself refutes (Patshab).

cloudburst said:
Where the term was invented has no bearing on whether Chandrakirti, for example,was a Prasangika

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it has a bearing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
So far, I have not encountered any argument that has actually hurt my position in any way.

Malcolm wrote:
You do not acknowledge arguments which reject your position. So, it is no wonder that you have never "encountered" any such arguments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Question
Content:
aparajita said:
What deities or sadhanas would be most effective in countering a curse where someone called upon Santa Muerte? I'm asking for future reference. For background, Santa Muerte is a Central American death goddess who is very popular in Mexico and among those who are from Mexico.


Malcolm wrote:
Simhamukha is the most effective deity for this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


Minobu said:
Ok..what would you call wiki leaks if not whistle blowing?

Malcolm wrote:
A toxic waste dump of mostly useless information.

Minobu said:
lol...
I'm actually starting to like you...

but it's our only glimpse into the goings on of the government...we need to drink from this , it's the only game in town....

Malcolm wrote:
It really isn't. EFF is much better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Konchog1 said:
What did Rendawa attack, besides Kalachakra?


Malcolm wrote:
gzhan stong, he called it "outside Buddhadharma."

Konchog1 said:
Was this something that he himself thought or did he learn it from another? I'm wondering how far it goes.


Malcolm wrote:
AFAIK, it was Rendawa's extremist position alone, but one that influenced his disciple, Tsongkhapa, tremendously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
cloudburst said:
they refute the use of autonomous syllogisms. Therefore prasangikas existed in india

Malcolm wrote:
Oh nonsense. Candra uses syllogisms in the Madhyamakāvatāra.

The absurdity of this is that the term "prasangika" etc, is a wholly Tibetan invention, invented by someone who Tsongkhapa himself refutes (Patshab).

Further, Tsongkhapa himself uses syllogisms all of the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Konchog1 said:
The Lord Buddha repeatedly criticized fire worship, holy war, and animal sacrifice as worthless and sinful.

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa on the other hand attacked fellow Buddhists for having what he decided were wrong views. But he was somewhat polite about it, and kind. His disciple, Kaydrup, on the other hand as neither polite, nor kind. The polemical climate in Tibet was not Tsongkhapa's fault of course. He was following the example of his teacher, the Sakya master Rendawa.

As I have observed before, there is virtually no benefit to studying Tibetan Madhyamaka scholars.

Konchog1 said:
What did Rendawa attack, besides Kalachakra?


Malcolm wrote:
gzhan stong, he called it "outside Buddhadharma."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


Minobu said:
Ok..what would you call wiki leaks if not whistle blowing?

Malcolm wrote:
A toxic waste dump of mostly useless information.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:


cloudburst said:
This is not a very mature position. I agree that the tone of attacks on the Gelug position here is often off-putting, and the fact that Gelugs supressed the views of others is also off putting, one does not justify the other.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, Tsongkhapa started it by attacking the views of others. Thus, it is normal that others will respond.

Konchog1 said:
The Lord Buddha repeatedly criticized fire worship, holy war, and animal sacrifice as worthless and sinful.

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa on the other hand attacked fellow Buddhists for having what he decided were wrong views. But he was somewhat polite about it, and kind. His disciple, Kaydrup, on the other hand as neither polite, nor kind. The polemical climate in Tibet was not Tsongkhapa's fault of course. He was following the example of his teacher, the Sakya master Rendawa.

As I have observed before, there is virtually no benefit to studying Tibetan Madhyamaka scholars.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have no problem with whistleblowers. Assange is not a whistleblower. He is at best a middleman.

Minobu said:
i agree sort of...He takes the heat and he set up the means for the info to be uploaded to the internet...so yeah he is a whistle blower.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree, obviously. Snowden did not release through Wikileaks. He has also criticized Assange, much to the annoyance of the latter's vanity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Our Pristine Mind - Orgyen Chowang's new book
Content:


DGA said:
No, "clarity" in this context does not refer to the conventional nature of mind.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's what the meditation was on.
Are you referring to conventional or ultimate bodhicitta?  the answer to your question about clarity and the point I was making about lhundrub in some respects depends on your answer to this question
Both are wonderfully profound.

Also, you cannot realise the ultimate nature of the mind by meditating on its conventional nature. You can meditate on clarity for a thousand years but you will never realise emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever happened to your union of two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Jeff H said:
But I still consider it a good base and I have found the attacks on the Gelug position here very disconcerting.


Malcolm wrote:
It is normal. The Gelugpas engaged in the suppression of other religion traditions for centuries.

cloudburst said:
This is not a very mature position. I agree that the tone of attacks on the Gelug position here is often off-putting, and the fact that Gelugs supressed the views of others is also off putting, one does not justify the other.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, Tsongkhapa started it by attacking the views of others. Thus, it is normal that others will respond.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


HePo said:
ps: Daniel Ellsberg (of the Pentagon papers) wrote:

[Snowden] is the quintessential American whistleblower, and a personal hero of mine, Leaks are the lifeblood of the republic and, for the first time, the American public has been given the chance to debate democratically the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Accountability journalism can’t be done without the courageous acts exemplified by Snowden, and we need more like him. . . .

The secrecy system in this country is broken. No one is punished for using secrecy to conceal dangerous policies, lies, or crimes, yet concerned employees who wish to inform the American public about what the government is doing under their name are treated as spies. Our ‘accountability’ mechanisms are a one-sided secret court, which acts as a rubber stamp, and a Congressional ‘oversight’ committee, which has turned into the NSA’s public relations firm. Edward Snowden had no choice but to go to the press with information. Far from a crime, Snowden’s disclosures are a true constitutional moment, where the press has held the government to account using the First Amendment, when the other branches refused.

Malcolm wrote:
I have no problem with whistleblowers. Assange is not a whistleblower. He is at best a middleman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


Minobu said:
what do you mean he hated Obama????

Malcolm wrote:
Snowden hated http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/birth_of_a_whistle_blower_how_edward_snowden_became_edward_snowden/.

Minobu said:
was it Obama who initiated this world wide identify theft

Malcolm wrote:
No. It was the https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works:
The NSA’s domestic spying program, known in official government documents as the “President’s Surveillance Program,” ("The Program") was implemented by President George W. Bush shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001. The US Government still considers the Program officially classified, but a tremendous amount of information has been exposed by various whistleblowers, admitted to by government officials during Congressional hearings and with public statements, and reported on in investigations by major newspaper across the country.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Minobu's Muse: Lord Nagarjuna, The Lotus Sutra, The Gakki
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sheer new age fantasy. It is amazing that anyone falls for this inane claptrap.


DharmaChakra said:
Namaste,

Firstly what is naga, naga is not a race of people, its an abode of knowledge~vidya, usually its mystic and always above ordinary understanding, the nagas were known as mystics, who reside in subterranean worlds as one description. Nagarjuna same as the Buddha has two dimensions, one in the human form and other as an abode of consciousness, Buddha is not just confined to Siddhartha and the knowledge that Nagarjuna had is not uniquely his, the sage Nagarjuna discovered that abode of knowledge .

Buddha Dharma is a discovery, an awakened discovery of things that are already are there. Naga is if we put in modern language a junction within the subtle body, when a nadi opens then certain forms of knowledge is revealed, this knowledge is universal and applies to all and all can have access to it via sadhana or skillful means., many lokas many abodes, all with varying degrees of illuminating knowledge,  So when the Buddha said that he keeps teachings with Naga's then he is meaning that they are stored in nagalands or deeper abodes or lokas, which are conscious and luminous and reside in all of us on a  subtle level and are universal applicable and accessible to everyone,  the sutras came from knowledge and illumination of that naga being experienced.

Is the Buddha in hell, yes he is in all states of consciousness but it may be covered by ordinary consciousness, Buddha is not created or a product of thought/meditation. It is said if one is bit by a naga then its a blessing.

With Metta


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
Minobu said:
really good journalism

Malcolm wrote:
Assange is not a journalist.

I don't have disdain for Manning and Snowden. The former is a sad case; the latter, a libertarian activist who hated Obama.

I think Assange is a self-serving megalomaniac.

And none of them are Daniel Ellsbergs ( a real journalist).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 8th, 2017 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


Minobu said:
without these people us little people know nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
We already knew the US Army was accidentally killing civilians in Iraq before Manning (at least, I did). We already knew that the NSA was scooping up all data before Snowden (at least, I did). All Manning and Snowden did was confirm what everyone already knew (at least, what I already knew).


Minobu said:
Governments should be totally transparent.

Malcolm wrote:
This is naive.

Frankly, spilling the voter registration data of all those women in Turkey places them at risk. Assange is a careless, self-promoting idiot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Jeff H said:
But I still consider it a good base and I have found the attacks on the Gelug position here very disconcerting.


Malcolm wrote:
It is normal. The Gelugpas engaged in the suppression of other religion traditions for centuries.

There is nothing wrong with using Tsongkhapa as a base. But like all presentations, it is just a point of view, and not the essence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Jeff H said:
,,,That is, Bhavaviveka must think that the only difference between Madhyamikas and non-Madhyamikas is that we have analyzed more deeply and worked out the correct implications of the common body of empirical evidence upon which all agree. In this way, Tsong-kha-pa argues, Bhavaviveka implies that intrinsic nature, just as it appears to our ordinary senses, does in fact exist conventionally.

Malcolm wrote:
You should realize that Newland's statements are obviously speculative and cannot be born out by examining what Bhavaviveka himself actually states in his criticism of Samkhya and Buddhapalita's argument against it. This is why, among non-Gelug Mādhyamikas, it is generally held that Bhavaviveka's arguments are more effective at refuting non-Buddhists, while Candrakīrtī's arguments are more persuasive against Buddhists. Further, since inherent existence appears to no-one, ever, anywhere, at anytime, and is a learned object of negation, Bhavaviveka confines the objet of refutation to the coarse object of refutation, existence.

By treating Bhavaviveka the way you do, you are effectively saying that everything is a nail, and so you will only use a hammer, when sometimes, in some cases, a saw is needed.

Jeff H said:
Point taken. Thank you.

I don't have the resources to bear out your position for myself, nor the inclination since my interest is in the point about subtle clinging to true existence rather than who said what. I have to mention that I consider Newland a reliable source for several reasons. I've read three of his books, listened to him lecture, my teachers hold him in high esteem, and he was the senior translating editor (under Joshua Cutler) for the Great Treastise project. The book I quoted from is his attempt to explicate some of Tsongkhapa's more difficult passages (in this case, he was talking about chapters 17-20).

In any case, I also consider you a reliable source and I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two issues at stake here: one, your primary goal, which is to understand Tsongkhapa's perspective. In general, LRC is an excellent book. It is very detailed and interesting. The second issue, which should be of concern to everyone who cares about Madhyamaka in general, is the extent to which Tsongkhapa's use of the terms Prasanga and Svatantra actually reflect real positions in Indian Madhyamaka. If they do reflect substantive differences between Indian Madhyamakas, then the distinction becomes substantive. But if it is merely pedagogical, than the distinction is not substantive, apart from various Indian Madhyamakas who level against one another the charge of being making poor arguments, a trend begun by Bhavaviveka, rejected by Candra, who in turn was castigated for poor arguments by Jñānagarbha (in the Satdvayavibhanga ).

Frankly, apart from the religious dimension of Tsongkhapa's impact on Tibetan Buddhism, most of the research done on his thought has been by adherents with a vested interest in trying to defend his view rather than a critical appraisal to verify his claims. So it becomes an issue when this or that person boldly proclaims this or that to be the position of Prasangikas (who never existed in India), when in fact it is really just the postion of post 11th century Madhyamakas in Tibet who were trying to understand differences between the new fangled Madhyamaka introduced by Patshab Nyima Dragpa and the older Madhyamaka schools introduced during the Imperial period. This older, Tibetan Madhyamaka (Kadampas, 11and 12th century) indeed made many of the claims about intrinsic characteristics and so on Tsongkhapa rails against, but they did so in error, because they did not understand Madhyamaka perfectly. This is the reason why, for example, that Dzogchen authors like Rongzom castigate Kadampas in the 12th century for being too attached to characteristics in debate.

Thus, if your goal is understand Madhyamaka, this is one thing; if your goal is to understand Tsongkhapa, that is another. But don't mix these two goals up please.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
You are talking about ultimate analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
In Madhyamaka, that is the only kind there is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Our Pristine Mind - Orgyen Chowang's new book
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I watched the webcast and did the meditation.

So pristine mind is nothing more than stopping thinking?  Surely, at best, it's only a meditation on the conventional nature of the mind ('clarity'). It seems directionless and not very profound! (sorry!).

DGA said:
No, "clarity" in this context does not refer to the conventional nature of mind.  Here is a discussion in which one party promotes a meditation on a conventional object of mind, a so-called "generic image."

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=24334&start=60#p368782

I can't speak for Orgyen Chowang, but generally "clarity" is used to translate the Tibetan term lhundrub, which denotes something that is not limited to the conventional mind.  It would be worth your time to investigate the Tibetan concepts kadag and lhundrub.

If you are accustomed to the highly structured programs characteristic of a cult, then yes, this material will likely seem directionless and open-ended to you.
I can see that it's relaxing but Bodhichitta is far more splendorous and beneficial.
Are you referring to conventional or ultimate bodhicitta?  the answer to your question about clarity and the point I was making about lhundrub in some respects depends on your answer to this question

florin said:
i knew lhundrup to mean something quite different

Malcolm wrote:
I think DGA is referring to the clarity which belongs to the nature, lhun grub. This clarity [ gsal ba ] is not the same as the various kinds of clarity that belong to the three realms, and can also be referred to as 'od gsal, luminosity; or zang thal, pellucidity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
_R_ said:
Then what?

Malcolm wrote:
The history of Clinton and Wikileaks which goes back a decade+. Assange has had a grudge against Clinton for a long while.

You seem to trust https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/. My point is that Assange is not neutral. He is not above using information for his own political reasons. He is not a journalist. He is not to be trusted. He is careless. From the article above:
To make matters worse, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed also shared a link to another cache of hacked Turkish documents that included home addresses or phone numbers for every female voter in 79 of Turkey’s 81 provinces.
This is unconscionable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism comes in many political stripes
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
You post was probably moved because it has nothing to do with activism, i.e. 'engaged Buddhism', but is a pretty random, generalized complaint that everyone has heard many times. Basically, if you want to be taken seriously, post something that warrants it instead of a casual bitch session about DW politics...otherwise that's all it's going to be.

Dharma Flower said:
It explains in the article the Asian-American Buddhists who have been active in the Republican Party because they were anti-abortion and anti-communist. Can someone please explain how anti-communism and anti-abortion are not legitimate Buddhist forms of activism?

Millions of innocent lives have been lost due to communism and abortion, so why is it more important for Buddhists to hug trees? I am not even trying to be glib. Buddhists who engage in conservative causes are engaged Buddhists too. They have rights and feelings too.

Malcolm wrote:
When one lives in a liberal, democratic society, one should understand the importance of the separation of church and state. It is based in the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution. The US Government may not interfere in matters of religion, but coterminous with this, the US Government may not establish any religion or religious opinions in law.

I certainly support Buddhist women who prefer not to have abortions. However, your notion that "lives have been lost" due to abortion is a religious opinion, not a universally agreed upon fact. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience seek to legislate laws that limit a women's right to choose what do to with her own body and the tissues that reside in it since not all women are Buddhists. But we live in a society where free speech is cherished, and so people who are against abortion for this and that reason have a right to speak out against the practice as long as they do so legally.

Engaged Buddhism, like liberation theology, is essentially a class-based interpretation of Buddhist social action, which seeks to bring fairness to all living beings (sentient and otherwise), not only human beings. As such, Buddhism also cannot support the ecological and economic irrationality of Capitalism and its oppressive practices anymore than it can support Communism. In practice therefore, engaged Buddhists tend to follow Deep Ecology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:


Astus said:
What is the earliest example of sky gazing in a Dzogchen text?

Malcolm wrote:
That depends on when you date Garab Dorje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Of course, it is understood that the interplay itself is also empty of inherent existence. I have already stated this explicitly in a previous post.

Malcolm wrote:
If you carefully study Nāgārjuna, you will note that there is no interplay nor processes at all. Conventionally speaking, causes cannot exist before their effects (because they will then be noncauses), they cannot exist at the same time either (because they will then be noncauses). Causes and effects therefore can neither be the same nor different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: The essessence of the teachings is not different...
Content:
DharmaChakra said:
[

Nagarjuna's teaching was Incorporated by Gaudapada into his theories on Upanishads, mainly

Malcolm wrote:
He also incorporated Yogacāra arguments in order to refute satkaryavadins and asatkaryavadins. This does not mean that he was a Buddhist, but that he was ecumenical and pragmatic and found Buddhist arguments effective in constructing Hindu nondualism.

Of course, Shankara, in his commentary on the Agamasaśtra, vigorously rejects the charge of other Hindus that Gauda took a page from the Buddhists and heaps derision on Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
You are still missing the point. In an interplay, we usually think of two or more separate entities coming together and interacting. Here, we have a situation where there is interaction but there are no separate entities to begin with! If you find that hard to imagine, that is exactly what makes this way of thinking revolutionary.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Mādhyamaka shows that since there are no entities which can withstand analysis, there are no interactions which can withstand analysis.

Claiming that there are no entities but that there are processes or interactions is a misunderstand of dependent origination in toto.  Dependent origination = non-origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 7:42 PM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Jeff H said:
,,,That is, Bhavaviveka must think that the only difference between Madhyamikas and non-Madhyamikas is that we have analyzed more deeply and worked out the correct implications of the common body of empirical evidence upon which all agree. In this way, Tsong-kha-pa argues, Bhavaviveka implies that intrinsic nature, just as it appears to our ordinary senses, does in fact exist conventionally.

Malcolm wrote:
You should realize that Newland's statements are obviously speculative and cannot be born out by examining what Bhavaviveka himself actually states in his criticism of Samkhya and Buddhapalita's argument against it. This is why, among non-Gelug Mādhyamikas, it is generally held that Bhavaviveka's arguments are more effective at refuting non-Buddhists, while Candrakīrtī's arguments are more persuasive against Buddhists. Further, since inherent existence appears to no-one, ever, anywhere, at anytime, and is a learned object of negation, Bhavaviveka confines the objet of refutation to the coarse object of refutation, existence.

By treating Bhavaviveka the way you do, you are effectively saying that everything is a nail, and so you will only use a hammer, when sometimes, in some cases, a saw is needed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
He carried out a personal vendetta against Clinton. He proved that his "journalism" was just a front for his grudges.

_R_ said:
Seems more like Clinton supporting media is having a personal vendetta against Assange because of the leaks. I think, what you're referring to, is the version of the truth media.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
Minobu said:
i have a grudge against the invasion of my privacy...

Malcolm wrote:
Assange could care less about your privacy. This is what the release of the Erdogan hack shows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Surangama Sutra as an anti-Dzogchen intervention
Content:
Astus said:
The Shurangama Sutra existed in China by around 730, if not earlier. Trisong Detsen, who invited Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra to Tibet, began his rule in 755. According to Sam van Schaik Dzogchen did not exist on its own until the 10th century, and Menngagde works date back only to the 11th century. In other words, not only sky gazing and leap over practices were nowhere around when the sutra appeared, but even Dzogchen has not yet formed.

Malcolm wrote:
Sky gazing can be found in the PP sutras.

Your statements assumes that yogic practices come from texts, rather than the other way around. Bad assumption.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2017 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Jeff H said:
What’s more, LTK’s critique of Bhavaviveka is used to claim that even a great master of the Madhyamaka tradition could be found to have subtly implied intrinsic existence without intending to posit true existence.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is that Bhavaviveka never, ever, implies anything of the sort. I have seen many centuries of claims that he did, but not one citation which proves it to be so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2017 at 4:28 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the Two Truths Doctrine
Content:
manjusri said:
A follow-up question: given that the two truths don't exist in Dzogchen, can one even say that there is a path to realizing rigpa or beings who attain it? How does one hold onto the Middle Way here without falling into nihilism?

Malcolm wrote:
When existence is not established nonexistence is not established and thus there is no nihilism into which one could fall.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2017 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Facination with Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Next time just rudely interupt....


rainbow_light said:
OK, so do you think I should just email him with a description of my practice history and ask for advice?

By the way, I'm reading Buddhahood in This Life at the moment. It is good! I am learning a lot from it.

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is better if you go and meet him.

Vasana said:
X2 for all of the above. I saw you at this last retreat by the way, Malcolm. You were speaking with some friends both times but i'm often too socially inept to know how to 'politely' interupt people who are in the middle of conversation I'll say hi next time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2017 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: What Tsongkhapa said
Content:
Konchog1 said:
I know nothing except that Adzom Drukpa slandered LTK's view...

Malcolm wrote:
Where did you read such a fantasy?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2017 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Unknown said:
Svatantrika's assert that in order to correctly label a phenomenon there must be some characteristic from the side of the phenomenon that makes it suitable for a particular label.

Malcolm wrote:
No one in Indian Madhyamaka makes any such claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2017 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Facination with Dzogchen
Content:
rainbow_light said:
Find a Dzogchen teacher who speaks English (or spend several years learning the teacher's language).

Malcolm wrote:
Meet Chogyal Namkhai  Norbu

rainbow_light said:
Build mutual understanding with the Dzogchen teacher. This seems to require a huge amount of time (probably many years) and money to go on retreats with the teacher, or alternatively giving up the householder life temporarily and somehow following or living close to the teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really necessary in the case of ChNN. Go to retreats, study, etc. You do not need to have some kind of close relationship. He will teach you everything you need for full realization in one retreat. Guaranteed.

rainbow_light said:
Assess whether the Dzogchen teacher is actually qualified to teach togal or yangtig. (If not, go back to step 1. )

Malcolm wrote:
Just go see ChNN.

rainbow_light said:
Meet any requirements set by the teacher in order to receive togal or yangtig instructions (may require spending 2+ years completing the ngondro).

Malcolm wrote:
Just go see ChNN.

rainbow_light said:
Somehow gather the funds necessary to stay in retreat indefinitely (I have no idea how much this would realistically be) in order to practice the togal or yangtig instructions.

Malcolm wrote:
Just go see ChNN.

rainbow_light said:
Actually put the instructions into practice, while maintaining contact with the teacher to receive further advice.[/list]

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN answers all emails, even very stupid ones.

M

rainbow_light said:
OK, so do you think I should just email him with a description of my practice history and ask for advice?

By the way, I'm reading Buddhahood in This Life at the moment. It is good! I am learning a lot from it.

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is better if you go and meet him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2017 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not according to Dzogchen teachings. Making prayers to be reborn in this or that pure realm is not a guarantee that you will in fact take rebirth in this or that pure land in your next life. The twenty-one capacities that are discussed in your passage refer to the twenty-one types of people who have directly perceived dharmatā. The worst sort of person has this experience but is lazy about developing it.

Astus said:
That requirement sounds like a unique one in dzogchen, since according to the sutras buddha-remembrance is enough. But, as you have mentioned, "it is all really a question of whether you trust what the Buddha has said".

Malcolm wrote:
There is no shortcut in the sūtrayāna path, as much as some people would like to imagine there is. For example, one day in Sukhavati is one mahākalpa here.

However, one remains in the natural nirmanakāya buddhafields for only five hundred human years before attaining buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:


Dharma Flower said:
We might not like that Assange released information detrimental to a particular candidate, but it was in keeping with his anti-establishment and anti-war reputation.


Malcolm wrote:
He carried out a personal vendetta against Clinton. He proved that his "journalism" was just a front for his grudges.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Facination with Dzogchen
Content:
rainbow_light said:
Find a Dzogchen teacher who speaks English (or spend several years learning the teacher's language).

Malcolm wrote:
Meet Chogyal Namkhai  Norbu

rainbow_light said:
Build mutual understanding with the Dzogchen teacher. This seems to require a huge amount of time (probably many years) and money to go on retreats with the teacher, or alternatively giving up the householder life temporarily and somehow following or living close to the teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really necessary in the case of ChNN. Go to retreats, study, etc. You do not need to have some kind of close relationship. He will teach you everything you need for full realization in one retreat. Guaranteed.

rainbow_light said:
Assess whether the Dzogchen teacher is actually qualified to teach togal or yangtig. (If not, go back to step 1. )

Malcolm wrote:
Just go see ChNN.

rainbow_light said:
Meet any requirements set by the teacher in order to receive togal or yangtig instructions (may require spending 2+ years completing the ngondro).

Malcolm wrote:
Just go see ChNN.

rainbow_light said:
Somehow gather the funds necessary to stay in retreat indefinitely (I have no idea how much this would realistically be) in order to practice the togal or yangtig instructions.

Malcolm wrote:
Just go see ChNN.

rainbow_light said:
Actually put the instructions into practice, while maintaining contact with the teacher to receive further advice.[/list]

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN answers all emails, even very stupid ones.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Astus said:
It is said that by making prayers to take birth in a Buddha realm, you will be reborn there."[/i]
(Spacious Path to Freedom, p 198-199)

Malcolm wrote:
Not according to Dzogchen teachings. Making prayers to be reborn in this or that pure realm is not a guarantee that you will in fact take rebirth in this or that pure land in your next life. The twenty-one capacities that are discussed in your passage refer to the twenty-one types of people who have directly perceived dharmatā. The worst sort of person has this experience but is lazy about developing it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Bakmoon said:
The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.

Malcolm wrote:
The question also is whether or not asserting that the ultimate is only the negation of inherent existence leaves the consequence of asserting that the ultimate is a nonexistence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2016 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
All I am saying, here, is that we cannot just interpret passages based on the literal meaning of individual words taken out of context. That's all.

Bakmoon said:
And no one has been blindly giving quotes out of context like that. You have been leveling the charge of literalism to try to slip away from being unable to justify your interpretations of Nagarjuna without giving an actual argument in support of your positions. For all your talk of the importance of commentaries, you haven't cited any, whereas Malcolm and I have several times cited Chandrakirti's commentary on MMK.

Kenneth Chan said:
If Malcolm is travelling now, so am I. I do not have access to the texts because I have not been home for three weeks now.

In any case, Malcolm has been using literal meanings of individual words, while not taking into account the context, to interpret the meaning of passages. Go back to the beginning of this thread and anyone can see that this is exactly the case. Malcolm even argued that there is no such thing as "Madhyamika philosophy" based on linguistics, and he even argued that he had refuted the fact that the findings of quantum mechanics provide strong scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa’s view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated is correct, although he apparently changed his mind later. Please recall this earlier post:

Malcolm wrote:
That has never been under question.

Kenneth Chan said:
This is truly strange. Now you admit that Lama Tsongkhapa's view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated is correct. As I have informed you, quantum mechanics is essentially a scientific finding that has been experimentally verified for over a century, which means that it is also correct.

Then why were you so adamant on trying to refute what I have repeatedly stated? And that is the fact that the findings of quantum mechanics provide scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa's view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated is, in fact, correct.

Why did you repeatedly challenge this, and even go to the extent of claiming that you had refuted it (when you actually had not)? Even if you were unable to follow the reasoning behind how quantum mechanics provides evidence for Lama Tsongkhapa's view, surely you must have realized that it is just a matter of finding the correct way to connect the two, since both quantum mechanics and Lama Tsongkhapa's view are correct.
As Cloudburst correctly points out, there are some here who refuse to understand the Gelug point of view correctly by interpreting the words they use in the appropriate sense, i.e., according to what the Gelug texts actually mean by those words. This, unfortunately, calls into question the motivation behind such an attitude. I agree with Cloudburst's comments here below:

Matt J said:
But isn't the Gelug position summarized as:
The vase is not empty of the vase, it is empty of the inherent existence of the vase?

cloudburst said:
As always, the meaning of the words is what is important.
If you read my previous response to you, you will understand what "empty of inherent existence of the vase" means.

It's ludicrous to think that the view of Je Tsongkhapa is that phenomena are lacking something extraneous to themselves, but themselves are actually existent. This is the point of view of those not familiar with the Gelug point of view, and those insecure partisans who wish to aggrandize themselves and a particular school. I take you to be the former, others here as the latter.

It sounds to me like you have been reading the Center of the Sunlit Sky or similar, and relying on polemics to adequately express the views of the opponents of those polemics. These disputations are perhaps helpful in some respects to those who rely upon them, but really you cannot take the views posited therein as accurate. In many cases, they are simply representing an incorrect point of view and ascribing it to the opponent for the purposes of refutation. To really understand the Gelug pov on this you should consult Je Tsongkhapa's works.

Matt J said:
If the Gelugs are simply calling inherent existence what others call existence, and conventional existence what others call appearances, then there isn't an issue

cloudburst said:
I think that is actually the crux of it.
The main issue is no issue, although differences in this main issue create many subsidiary differences, but I dont believe these differences would obstruct either side from attaining liberation.

Kenneth Chan said:
This last point that Cloudburst makes is very important. Please remember that the purpose of the teaching on emptiness is to help us progress along the spiritual path. Since surely no one would dispute this, the onus is on us to try to understand the meaning being conveyed by the different traditions by accepting the terminology they use in the correct sense. Otherwise, we would be unnecessarily causing confusion which would work against the purpose of the teachings on emptiness, which is to help us progress along the spiritual path.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that the Gelug school pretends they have the definitive take on the intention of Madhyamaka. It is this claim, among others, that is under dispute and always will be. The bearing that this has on your OP is your uncritical acceptence and dogmatic promulgation of a somewhat nihilistic understanding of Madhyamaka as a panacea for errors in physics that Madhyamaka was never intended to resolve since physics has nothing to do with liberation from suffering in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 at 6:12 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
I believe it was Lama Yeshe who said it's ok to get a little nihilistic.  I wonder about this point because if you hold cause and effect within emptiness what danger could there ever be of not positing a conventional self?

cloudburst said:
If there were no conventional self, upon whom who karma ripen? Who would be empty?

Malcolm wrote:
Why should there be someone upon whom karma ripens? To paraphrase the Visuddhimagga, there is no agent of karma, nor is there a person to experience its ripening, there is merely a flow of dharmas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 at 6:03 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Candra disputes that any of the aggregates can form a proper basis of designation for the self....

cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti disputes that any of the aggregates are the self, he clearly indicates that the the proper basis of designation for the merely imputed self is the aggregates.

Candrakırti’s Prasannapada says:

The self is imputed dependently; it is what those who have the error of ignorance cling to fiercely; it is regarded as the appropriator of the five aggregates. Those who seek liberation analyze whether this self has the character of the aggregates. When those who seek liberation have analyzed it in every way, they do not observe a self, and thus [Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise] says: 

If the self does not exist
How could that which belongs to the self exist?

Because they do not observe the self, they also do not at all observe the aggregates which belong to the self—the basis on which the self is designated.

Malcolm wrote:
I cannot properly address this because I am traveling, but I will. In the mean time, Candra very clearly rejects that the aggregates can form that basis for the object of grasping to a self even conventionally in various places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Regarding using mantras
Content:
Nyedrag Yeshe said:
I respect you. But some practitioners go too far with this kind of stuff. I remember one saying that only people that have completed a retreat may consacrete an image. So... what abbout traditions that dont have retreats? Their images are not validly consacreted?

Malcolm wrote:
Thervadins for example, do not consecrate their images in the the same way. The consecration of images is mainly a tantric thing. To do this, one must be a vajra master, and that means one has done serious retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Jeff H said:
I guess I'm just not getting it. Conventionally the basis of designation for the I is the aggregates.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and Candrakīrti rejects this. So when someone claims that the aggregates are the basis of designating a self, they do not understand Candra's view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2016 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... Nevertheless, Candra says this imputation of the nonexistent I is fully functional and can generate karma as well as experience its ripening.

Jeff H said:
Isn't "this imputation of the nonexistent I" exactly what is meant by "mere self"? It seems like the distinction is that from an ultimate perspective there is no valid basis of designation, but from a conventional perspective it functions and we can use this fictitious agent to direct our karmic path.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the distinction is not from the ultimate, it is from the relative. This is what it means when Candra rejects all basis of designation for the self. The self is a designation which lacks a basis of designation. This is what makes it a false imputation. This is the unique point of view of Candra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Bakmoon said:
The aggregates are indeed designated as the aggregates, but this isn't actually a valid designation because the innate concept of self people have is that of a unitary unchanging core observer, and this concept doesn't correspond to anything in the aggregates.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, but the view of the transitory collection depends upon the aggregates. There is no valid or invalid view of self without them.

Jeff H said:
This explanation by Tsongkhapafan is exactly how I was taught, where the permanent "core observer" is the utterly non-existent inherent self. But this discussion seems to get hung up on conflicting perspectives: ultimate versus conventional.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha said it is fine to say ‘self’ as long as one understood nothing real was indicated. It is the same with the term existence.

Jeff H said:
and Some people get confused about this point because it is certain that the thought of a self arises in dependence on appearances which are mistakenly designated a self, but in fact there is no valid basis of designation a self. Those who do not understand this point do not understand the profound point of Prasanga.
I understand Tsongkhapa to say that ultimately nothing real is indicated by the designation “mere self”, but that conventionally there is a meaningful distinction between valid (i.e. functional) designations of appearances and invalid ones.

Georges Dreyfus calls the Prasangika's "realists", not because they advocate a material reality but because they ascribe validity to the workings of conventional reality. That is the context in which everyone other than buddhas do our work and pursue the path.

Malcolm wrote:
Please tell us upon what appearance a self is designated, and I will show the appearance that Candra rejects as a basis for designation a self. If Candra ever rejects designating a self on the basis of a consciousness, what else could there be left over? Nevertheless, Candra says this imputation of the nonexistent I is fully functional and can generate karma as well as experience its ripening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
That's completely incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
Since self and inherent existent are synonyms, if there is a valid basis for designating a self there should be a valid designation for designating inherent existence since a self and internet existence are one and the same thing.

Instead Candra rejects all bases of designation of a self, asserting in its place that the imputation of self needs to no basis of designation because it is wholly unreal.

Some people get confused about this point because it is certain that the thought of a self arises in dependence on appearances which are mistakenly designated a self, but in fact there is no valid basis of designation a self. Those who do not understand this point do not understand the profound point of Prasanga.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, how did you come to the conclusion that "self and inherent existent are synonyms"? Please explain.

Also, what exactly do you mean by " valid basis" and " valid designation"? In terms of the ultimate truth, of course, we can say that there is no valid basis, no valid designation, no basis of designation, etc, etc. Because all things are empty of inherent existence, we can always say no this and no that, and no one can dispute it. But what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Malcolm wrote:
The self proposed by ātmanāvadins is permanent, unchanging, and unconditioned, just the way inherent existence is defined.

As someone mentioned before, Bhavaviveka asserts that consciousness is a suitable conventional basis for designation a self, but Candra rejects this and asserts out there is no suitable basis for designating a self, even conventionally. Instead Candra says that I-making is a habit which imputes a nonexistent. He also claims this habit is capable of generating karma and experiencing its ripening. The habit of course is a dependently originated phenomena, but the I which it imputes does not exist at all. Likewise, the imputation of inherent existence arises in dependence, but that imputation is a false one, like the imputation of self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Since self and inherent existent are synonyms, if there is a valid basis for designating a self there should be a valid designation for designating inherent existence since a self and internet existence are one and the same thing.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Self and inherent existence are not synonyms. Inherent existence does not exist but the self clearly does as it can perform actions. The self of Buddha benefits all each and every living being every day.

It's a big mistake to conflate the merely imputed self with an inherently existent self. Those who are unable to tell the difference will definitely fall into the extremes of inherent existence and non-existence, as you have done.

Malcolm wrote:
The imputation of a self exists I.e., the conception exists, but it is a false imputation since it has no valid basis of designation. The proposition of a self is exactly the same as proposing inherent existence. The refutation of one is the refutation of the other.

In other words, the negation of the self does not confirm a merely existing self. It merely points to its absence in the aggregates, and so on.

This is also why existence is included in inherent existence sui generis. The Buddha said it is fine to use say "self" as long as one understood nothing real was indicated. It is the same with the term existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Clearly people do not understand that there is a valid basis of designation for the self. The self that exists is the mere 'I' that is imputed upon the basis of the body and mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Candra rejects this idea. There is no valid basis at all for designating a self.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's completely incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
Since self and inherent existent are synonyms, if there is a valid basis for designating a self there should be a valid designation for designating inherent existence since a self and internet existence are one and the same thing.

Instead Candra rejects all bases of designation of a self, asserting in its place that the imputation of self needs to no basis of designation because it is wholly unreal.

Some people get confused about this point because it is certain that the thought of a self arises in dependence on appearances which are mistakenly designated a self, but in fact there is no valid basis of designation a self. Those who do not understand this point do not understand the profound point of Prasanga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Longchenpa fathered a son as a monk
Content:


heart said:
Of course he didn't give other monks license to do this, the Nyingma have a good lineage renunciate monks to this day. Longchenpa was a very special person and I see no reason to believe he ever turned his back on Dharma in favour of worldly life. If he had children it was a part of his vast and profound Dharma practice.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Or, he just didn't care much about being a monk.

heart said:
Who knows, his writing covers just about every level of Dharma imaginable.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Noticeably absent however is a vinaya manual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Clearly people do not understand that there is a valid basis of designation for the self. The self that exists is the mere 'I' that is imputed upon the basis of the body and mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Candra rejects this idea. There is no valid basis at all for designating a self, just as there is no valid basis for designating inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Yes, the "I" exists in mere name only, and is merely imputed by the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The "I" does not dependently arise, since it does not even exist conventionally, being a mere designation which has no valid basis for being designated, according to Candra, unlike, for example, a car.


Lukeinaz said:
Malcom, this is surprising to me as I have never heard you refer to the "I" as a mere designation for the aggregates.

And in your very next post you say it has no valid base for being designated.  What happened to the aggregates you were referring to in the first post?


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha claims this aggregates are what is designated as the I. Candra disputes that any of the aggregates can form a proper basis of designation for the self, which is of course why he rejects Bhava's designation consciousness as the self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 27th, 2016 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Saying the self is dependently originated is precisely the same thing as as saying inherent existence is dependently originated. In other words it is a total contradiction in terms.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
And so karma also contains this contradiction.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really. Karma is just a word for volition. I think you might mean vipaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2016 at 4:22 PM
Title: Re: Longchenpa fathered a son as a monk
Content:
yan kong said:
I was reading over a biography of Longchenpa today and learned that he fathered a son while holding a monks precepts.

I realize this is probably not the first or last instance in which this happened, but I'm wondering what the lineage reasoning is behind this? Did he break his vows, if not why? Does this give license to other monks to do this, and if not why?

heart said:
Of course he didn't give other monks license to do this, the Nyingma have a good lineage renunciate monks to this day. Longchenpa was a very special person and I see no reason to believe he ever turned his back on Dharma in favour of worldly life. If he had children it was a part of his vast and profound Dharma practice.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Or, he just didn't care much about being a monk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2016 at 4:18 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one claims the "l" dependently arises. For example a seed arises from a sprout based a on causes and conditions. But this is not the case with respect to the self. The self exists only as a designation without a basis of designation, unlike a seed and a sprout.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
How is a basis of designation different from an existence which, conventionally speaking, is "inherent"?

You were getting at this before but I didn't understand.

Also - if a basis of designation is merely an aggregate, is it not posssible for a "sense of self" to conventionally exist, like a thought? I'm not sure what the difference would be between that kind of "sense of self" and "awareness" or "self-awareness" in its ordinary sense.

It seems difficult to me to embrace all that under Nagarjuna's second lemma. What is the proper understanding of it?

PS: Rather, what is the purpose of emphasizing only that lemma, in particular in the light of the katak side of things?

Malcolm wrote:
Saying the self is dependently originated is precisely the same thing as as saying inherent existence is dependently originated. In other words it is a total contradiction in terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 26th, 2016 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Yes, the "I" exists in mere name only, and is merely imputed by the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The "I" does not dependently arise, since it does not even exist conventionally, being a mere designation which has no valid basis for being designated, according to Candra, unlike, for example, a car.

Kenneth Chan said:
This is again merely semantics. The "I" is a label, and exists in mere name only. It is said to be dependently arisen because the "I" arises only in dependence upon the imputation by the mind. The process of dependent arising is itself also empty of inherent existence. So, in terms of the ultimate truth, there is no dependent arising.

(I am not sure what you mean by "unlike, for example, a car.")

Malcolm wrote:
No one claims the "l" dependently arises. For example a seed arises from a sprout based a on causes and conditions. But this is not the case with respect to the self. The self exists only as a designation without a basis of designation, unlike a seed and a sprout.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2016 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
This is a teaching on emptiness. The passage is exactly trying to explain that this is the case. Note that it emphasizes this: “If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, ‘I am enlightened’ he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality …” It is stressing the fact that the “I” is empty of inherent existence because there is no individual person that is a separate self and personality. The “I” is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen, and does not exist independently and separately from its own side.

Malcolm wrote:
The "I" does not exist at all, apart from being a mere designation for the aggregates.

Kenneth Chan said:
Yes, the "I" exists in mere name only, and is merely imputed by the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The "I" does not dependently arise, since it does not even exist conventionally, being a mere designation which has no valid basis for being designated, according to Candra, unlike, for example, a car.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2016 at 9:36 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
This is a teaching on emptiness. The passage is exactly trying to explain that this is the case. Note that it emphasizes this: “If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, ‘I am enlightened’ he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality …” It is stressing the fact that the “I” is empty of inherent existence because there is no individual person that is a separate self and personality. The “I” is empty of inherent existence because it is dependently arisen, and does not exist independently and separately from its own side.

Malcolm wrote:
The "I" does not exist at all, apart from being a mere designation for the aggregates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I am not saying the  white Huns had no effect. I am saying they were far from the death knell of Buddhism the way you seem to put it. Verardi's whole thesis is that Vajrayana was the final anti-nomian Buddhist weapon against the nomos of Brahmanical society, and it was effective until Islam came into the scene.

Malcolm wrote:
On the whole, I think Verardi's thesis is reductionist, wrong-headed and naive. He shows no understanding of Tantric Buddhism at all. If anything, Indian Buddhism responded by becoming more normative with respect to the by then Brahmin dominated society of India, with for example, Anandagarbha making passionate arguments for why Buddhist homavidhis were more valid that the Vedic version and so on.

MiphamFan said:
Anyway I agree, Islam doesn't usually outright slaughter/force-convert a population historically (besides in Central Asia). It works more slowly and insidiously most of the time, by what Nassim Taleb calls the https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.i9kctxhen:
...For Islam itself is ending up being taken over (in the Sunni branch) by the purists simply because these were more intolerant than the rest: the Wahhabis, founders of Saudi Arabia, were the ones who destroyed the shrines, and to impose the maximally intolerant rule, in a manner that was later imitated by “ISIS” (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/the Levant). Every single accretion of Sunni Islam seems to be there to accommodate the most intolerant of its branches.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, much like American politics on the right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
The White Huns did that at the end of the 5th century, rendering a blow to Indian Buddhism from which it would never fully recover.
I find this rather hard to believe. Buddhism certainly was on a decline cycle from the 5th century (collapse of WRE destroying trade with Europe etc) but Buddhism was respected enough to be adopted by the mandala surrounding India up throuh the tantric period. Indonesia, the Maldives, Cambodia, Tibet all adopted Buddhism long after the 5th century.

Malcolm wrote:
Most historians agree that Indian Buddhism suffered greatly at the hands of the white Huns, who looted the whole of the Gangetic plain and toppled the Guptas, throwing Indian Buddhism into the crisis that precipitated the rise of Vajrayāna. Davidson's book is instructive in this respect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Yangti
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is awesome that you are coming...

DGA said:
I look forward to seeing you all there.


Malcolm wrote:
see you there dude.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Before people continue to broadcast the political myth that Islam delivered the coup de gras on Buddhism in India, they should really read this book.

BuddhaFollower said:
And if you keep reading he says:

"Indeed, contrary to the standard idea promoted by the above story that Nalanda’s destruction signaled the death of Buddhism, the fact is that the Dharma survived in India at least until the seventeenth century."

and:

As noted above, the destruction of Nalanda offers us a clear-cut narrative with good guys and bad. It avoids entirely the complex shades of gray that most often color the messy fabric of history.

So he fully admits Nalanda was destroyed.

Malcolm wrote:
One out of two Buddhist temples:
Muhammad Ghuri was in fact the first Central Asian ruler who projected Muslim power beyond the Punjab. And by 1206 his forces had marched all the way across north India and even attempted an invasion of Tibet by following the Brahmaputra River up through the Himalayas. 31 While this particular expedition failed spectacularly, by the early thirteenth century India from the Khyber Pass to Bengal was under the control of the Ghurids. And in order to secure their hold on power they followed the age-old Muslim custom of temple destruction. Although it is now known that the claims of such destruction are vastly inflated in Muslim conquest literature as well as in Hindu and Buddhist histories, we do know that at least eighty temples were destroyed during this period. 32 Two of these destroyed temples were Buddhist. 33
Elverskog, Johan (2011-06-06). Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road (Encounters with Asia) (Kindle Locations 2248-2256). University of Pennsylvania Press. Kindle Edition.

The point is that this narrative of Muslims sweeping into India and murdering all the Buddhists is not true. The White Huns did that at the end of the 5th century, rendering a blow to Indian Buddhism from which it would never fully recover.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 8:53 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Nyedrag Yeshe said:
Harvey also points out in this book, that Theravada survived in in South Indian Tamil Nadu until the 12th century. Far from the islamic invasions. This also makes evidence of the disputes between Buddhism and tamilian Shaivism. May shaivite tales tell of how shaivite saints defeated buddhist monks with miracles etc. That's why I don't bite in the hindutva proposal of Indian religions being all one same thing.

But besides Buddhism in the case of Tamil Nadu, why also Janism also survived only under the protection of mostly hindu rulers in the deccan plateau? Like Buddhism, it almost vanished from north/central India, Kashmir, Bengal, Bihar (its birthplace like Buddhism) etc ?Another question to think about!

What about classical indian/hindu culture, like classical dance, sculpture, architecture, in many ways it has disappeared from North India? Things like chola bronzes, city temples like madurai and hampi? Classical dance like bharatanatyam, odissi or charya nritya, only survived in places much less affected by muslim rulership. Instead the monuments of the north are the Taj Mahal, Agra, Delhi Mosque etc.
At its peak Nalanda had an extensive faculty teaching a diverse student body of about three thousand on a beautiful campus composed of numerous cloisters with lofty spires that “resembled the snowy peaks of Mount Sumeru.” 3 Then suddenly the serenity of this Buddhist institution was shattered. In the fall of 1202, Muslim soldiers on horses rode in and hacked down teachers and students where they stood. The once majestic buildings were left in ruins. 4 The savagery was so great it signaled the end of the Dharma in India. This powerful story has been told countless times. Today it is ubiquitous, being found in everything from scholarly monographs to travel brochures. Indeed, by its sheer pervasiveness, this one episode has in many ways come to encapsulate and symbolize the entire thirteen-hundred-year history of Buddhist-Muslim interaction. And on account of this, whenever the topic of Buddhism and Islam is ever mentioned it almost invariably revolves around the Muslim destruction of the Dharma. 5 This is problematic for many reasons, not the least being that the story of Nalanda is not true. For example, not only did local Buddhist rulers make deals with the new Muslim overlords and thus stay in power, 6 but but Nalanda also continued as a functioning institution of Buddhist education well into the thirteenth century. 7


Malcolm wrote:
Elverskog, Johan (2011-06-06). Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road (Encounters with Asia) (Kindle Locations 55-66). University of Pennsylvania Press. Kindle Edition.

Before people continue to broadcast the political myth that Islam delivered the coup de gras on Buddhism in India, they should really read this book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am quite familiar with Hindutva nationalism, I don't find it really convincing, like most nationalist "history."

BuddhaFollower said:
So you prefer Sheldon Pollock's amateurish scholarship which says Ravana was a proxy for Islam?

Both Hindu and Buddhist texts clearly say Ravana was a foremost Dharma practitioner.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as Lankāvatara goes, that's a bit of stretch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Upcoming teachings with Zazep Tulku Rinpoche
Content:
Punya said:
Extensive teachings and initiations in January-March 2017.

Zazep Tulku Rinpoche


Malcolm wrote:
Major gyalpo guy, caveat emptor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Nyedrag Yeshe said:
But we cannot underestimate the blow Islamic invasions had on Indian Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
it is massively overstated. Buddhism was already in severe decline in India when Nalanda was sacked. It is also very clear that invading Muslims really could not discern the differences between this school and that school. The idea that Muslims singled out Buddhists for special treatment in India is mistaken.

Nyedrag Yeshe said:
I agree that Buddhism was already suffering before the invasions. Unlike Buddhism, Jainism always liked to keep a distinct identity, and maybe this helped its survival in India, also relying in patronage. Arguing like this I agree with most of your opinions. But again, the question whether shudras converted to Islam or not en masse is very much disputed by Indian scholars. The institution of caste is something very complex and seems to have changed with history and the development of Hinduism, or even without hinduism. Your thinking lends to a typical western understanding derived from the first indologists views on it since the 19th century! http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_karan_caste.htm

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite familiar with Hindutva nationalism, I don't find it really convincing, like most nationalist "history."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:


rachmiel said:
I am cultivating a love and respect for *all* spiritual traditions, each with its own way to realizing ___________ .

Johnny Dangerous said:
That's a good thing to do, but as the quote says, it can be akin to wanting to travel, but denying the need for a vehicle.

And lets be honest here, you've talked many times about your uncomfortable feelings regarding "tradition", is that not true anymore?
It's the Middle Way message, in'nt: Grasp not, avert not. For grasping/averting (which give rise to one another) cause suffering.
Of course it's that yes, but it also talks about the habits that create mindsets about tradition, which is the part I found interesting.

Malcolm wrote:
This thread has become a waste of time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Nyedrag Yeshe said:
But we cannot underestimate the blow Islamic invasions had on Indian Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
it is massively overstated. Buddhism was already in severe decline in India when Nalanda was sacked. It is also very clear that invading Muslims really could not discern the differences between this school and that school. The idea that Muslims singled out Buddhists for special treatment in India is mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Jeff H said:
We see and experience suffering and we want it to stop. In order to overcome the delusions and negativities that cause suffering we aim to attain arhathood or buddhahood. We do it because liberated and enlightened beings are perfected beings (with the caveat that all beings are empty, of course). Therefore, we seek perfection..

Malcolm wrote:
Not sure how "perfect" they all are. For example, first stage bodhisattvas still experience ripening karma and are subject to afflictive pride, etc. This is why the six impure bhumis are called "impure," since bodhisattvas has not eradicated all afflictive traces.

We hold out the Buddha as an example of a "perfect" being. But what does this really even mean? Have we ever met such a being? Of course not.

Thus, we then are instructed to do the next best thing, which is to regard our gurus (if we are practicing Vajrayāna) to be buddhas in person, actual buddhas despite their obvious human flaws and failings, which we are instructed to ignore since they are inevitable.

Maybe it is better to view all these things from the Prajñāpātamitā Sūtras standpoint of original purity since in reality our state and the state of buddhahood are not two different states.

Jeff H said:
Granted, perfection is a direction not a destination. But isn’t it the case that movement toward the ideal of overcoming suffering necessarily involves progressive effort that can be conventionally expressed as a balance between virtue and non-virtue? Are you saying there is no distinction between that which is to be abandoned and that which is to be adopted, even from a conventional perspective?

Thanks to you, I am beginning to investigate “the Prajñāpātamitā Sūtras standpoint of original purity since in reality our state and the state of buddhahood are not two different states”. But even that realization requires a process; it isn’t either/or, like leaping from Earth to Proxima Centauri. There are degrees of ability to recognize “original purity”.

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying that is the elimination of afflictions is in general sufficient for most people, without this imperative for "perfection." One, it sets up false expectations. Two, it is unattainable in this lifetime for 99.999% of humans beings. What I am saying is that the overcoming suffering of afflictions and perfection are not coterminous. Even in terms of bodhicitta, there is aspirational bodhicitta where one recognizes that the goals one wishes for oneself and others are likely not within ones power. Engaged bodhicitta also have limits, since it is aspiration.

I guess I am also reacting to this idea of human perfection. I prefer my humans flawed, they are more interesting.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Berlin Christmas Market Attack
Content:


Queequeg said:
Point is, having been a teenage boy often driving around in old cars, I know cops have every reason to profile and pull them over because they are most definitely up to something.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not profiling, that's called "memory"— that is every cop remembering what he or she did when he or she was a teenager.

Queequeg said:
I have friends who became cops, and some of them... well, you'd never imagine them cops if you met them at 17.

I know you're joking, or at least I think there's a little humor in there somewhere, but calling what cops do in those instances, memory, can be problematic. There's tons of evidence of cops' hardened attitudes toward blacks based on "memories", leading to what ought to be treated as civil rights offenses, but often not.



Looks like the authorities killed the man they were looking for in a shootout near Milan.
having been a teenage boy

Malcolm wrote:
I was referring to this...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Jeff H said:
We see and experience suffering and we want it to stop. In order to overcome the delusions and negativities that cause suffering we aim to attain arhathood or buddhahood. We do it because liberated and enlightened beings are perfected beings (with the caveat that all beings are empty, of course). Therefore, we seek perfection..

Malcolm wrote:
Not sure how "perfect" they all are. For example, first stage bodhisattvas still experience ripening karma and are subject to afflictive pride, etc. This is why the six impure bhumis are called "impure," since bodhisattvas has not eradicated all afflictive traces.

We hold out the Buddha as an example of a "perfect" being. But what does this really even mean? Have we ever met such a being? Of course not.

Thus, we then are instructed to do the next best thing, which is to regard our gurus (if we are practicing Vajrayāna) to be buddhas in person, actual buddhas despite their obvious human flaws and failings, which we are instructed to ignore since they are inevitable.

Maybe it is better to view all these things from the Prajñāpātamitā Sūtras standpoint of original purity since in reality our state and the state of buddhahood are not two different states.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Berlin Christmas Market Attack
Content:


Queequeg said:
Point is, having been a teenage boy often driving around in old cars, I know cops have every reason to profile and pull them over because they are most definitely up to something.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not profiling, that's called "memory"— that is every cop remembering what he or she did when he or she was a teenager.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Yangti
Content:
bhava said:
Hi, thanks for your answer. What D. Germano is saying in that link is based on his research of various materials, but still it is much of his hypothesis and assumptions. Yet he seems to be saying that the "ati, chiti, yangti" appeared at first in termas of Nyang Ral Nyima Ozer and also of Guru Chowang.

Malcolm wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche regards these termas of Nyang and Chowang as the root of Yangti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Nyedrag Yeshe said:
But its worth noting that Buddhism survived in South Asia In regions that were quite far from muslim invasions and subsequent muslim rule. This is the case of Sri Lanka and Nepal. Much like the classical hindu culture, high culture, is also much more better kept in these places, as Nepal and Tamil Nadu. Not that I don't agree with you and Namdrol in most point, specially when you considere the survival of Jainism and its ties to royal patrons. But Islamic invasions were probably a very fatal blow to Buddhadharma in India, and also made much of classical hindu culture to decline.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the varna system was the Achilles heel of India, and it caused millions of sudras to turn to what they believed to be the more socially egalitarian faith of Islam.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Śankara began the concerted anti-Buddhist campaigns against in India. Read some history. Shaivaite Hindu kings were largely responsible for the systematic decline of Buddhism, as typified by the encounter of Virupa with the rāja of Varanasi, etc.

BuddhaFollower said:
Starting on page 70, Sanderson goes kingdom-by-kingdom to show Saiva kings sponsored Buddhism:

.

Malcolm wrote:
He does not really show anything of the sort. What he shows is the presence of Buddhist kings in nominally Shaiva dynasties in disparate time periods beginning with the late Gupta period all these up the early middle ages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I know!  Cone is incorrigible, isn't he?

conebeckham said:
If you go back and re-read my posts, you will find I am much more kind to Tsongkhapa's presentation than you have been to any critic.

Tsongkhapafan said:
I wasn't aware of being unkind. It's certainly not my intention. I was just joking about you in response to Malcolm's comment about sectarianism. I was trying to lighten the passive aggressive atmosphere so apologies if you have felt offended.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not passive-aggressive, we just are not allowed to really out and out say this person is x.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 1:07 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:


RikudouSennin said:
Pages 286-293

Malcolm wrote:
the hagiography is much much longer.

Fa Dao said:
you mean the one you're writing?  Although I am of course chomping at the bit to be able to read that, it unfortunately wont be for a while as you said...would it speed things up if I threatened to throw a childish temper tantrum and hold my breath till my face turned blue?

Malcolm wrote:
The one I am translating...yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 1:02 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:


BuddhaFollower said:
Adi Shankara died early in life and lived in the early 700s.

Malcolm wrote:
Śankara began the concerted anti-Buddhist campaigns against in India. Read some history. Shaivaite Hindu kings were largely responsible for the systematic decline of Buddhism, as typified by the encounter of Virupa with the rāja of Varanasi, etc.

MiphamFan said:
Verardi says that Buddhism and Brahmanism had a back-and-forth dialectic for centuries, in periods where international trade flourished, Buddhism gained power, when it declined, Brahmanism was on the ascendant. Islam disrupted this balance as it was also a mercantile-based religion which displaced Buddhism.

So yes, Brahmans obviously were opposed to Buddhism, but to say Islam had no effect on the demise of Buddhism in India is absurd. The Kalachakra writers clearly recognised what was a greater threat to them early on, and it wasn't the Brahmans per se.

The Turkic Muslims who invaded Central and Asia at the time very consciously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_al-Kashgari their persecution of Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
This is very late, when Buddhism in India was already in very serious decline. Mahmud may have been superficially driven by Islam, but he was much more driven by his distaste for urbanism. In any event, Khotan is very far from India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 12:58 PM
Title: Re: Root Tantra
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
How does a tantra's status as either "root" or "explanatory" effect its status as either esoteric or exoteric? Is there any correlation?


Malcolm wrote:
All tantras are esoteric in so far as all of their practices are rooted in empowerments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:


Fa Dao said:
I just looked in there bro and cant find it...page #?

RikudouSennin said:
Pages 286-293

Malcolm wrote:
the hagiography is much much longer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:57 AM
Title: Re: Yangti
Content:
Norwegian said:
Were you going? I forget.

heart said:
No, I am going to Austria to see my guru.

/magnus

Norwegian said:
Okay, we'll have to meet another time then. Enjoy Austria

Malcolm wrote:
It is awesome that you are coming...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It was the brahmins lead by Śankara, etc., that destroyed Buddhism. Not Islam.

BuddhaFollower said:
Adi Shankara died early in life and lived in the early 700s.

Malcolm wrote:
Śankara began the concerted anti-Buddhist campaigns against in India. Read some history. Shaivaite Hindu kings were largely responsible for the systematic decline of Buddhism, as typified by the encounter of Virupa with the rāja of Varanasi, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
If you look at Lamrim Chenmo, Je Tsongkhapa is pretty insistent that Chandrakirti distinguished between inherent existence and existence:

Malcolm wrote:
And everyone agrees that indeed Candra makes this formal distinction. The question is, how important is this distinction, given Nāgārjuna's crystal clear statement about existence being included in inherent existence in MMK 15. People also deeply question the assumptions in Tsongkhapa's reasoning on this point. Gorampa, among others, specifically addresses this issue.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's not what Nagarjuna is saying. He's saying that ultimately there is no intrinsic or extrinsic existence, which is correct. In emptiness, nothing exists and the extreme of non-existence is dispelled by emptiness.

It doesn't preclude things being mere existents, mere appearances to mind, conventionally.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh? You apparently have not actually studied MMK. And you also get a gold star for out and out irrationally contradicting yourself in the same sentence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 9:40 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm sure you would agree that you can't just believe anything written in a book. In the case of my Guru, I've studied with him for many years so I know him well and his Teachings are completely trustworthy and in accordance with tradition; that is not necessarily the case with other authors.

As Je Tsongkhapa said, when it comes to Dharma, we should not be like a dog, eating everything.

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, narrow minded sectarianism in Western Buddhists of any school never ceases to amaze me.

Tsongkhapafan said:
I know!  Cone is incorrigible, isn't he?

Malcolm wrote:
I had a different person in mind, but you knew that...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
But again, they are just words without commentary or context. If I'm going to buy a horse, I'm going to need to know his pedigree. You can't just believe everything you read in books.

conebeckham said:
Unless they're written (or Ghost-written) by your teacher, eh?

Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm sure you would agree that you can't just believe anything written in a book. In the case of my Guru, I've studied with him for many years so I know him well and his Teachings are completely trustworthy and in accordance with tradition; that is not necessarily the case with other authors.

As Je Tsongkhapa said, when it comes to Dharma, we should not be like a dog, eating everything.

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, narrow minded sectarianism in Western Buddhists of any school never ceases to amaze me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:


DharmaChakra said:
Ksatriyas are rulers, but mostly through out Indian culture Brahmins were above the Ksatriyas for advice on many things, it was just a system of etiquette, like their council advisers, for ceremonies, rituals and most other social/spiritual functions, mostly Ksatriyas would not make any decision without consulting Brahmins for one reason or another, it was a holistic dynamic in its healthiest state.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no. For example, the Upanishads represented the meaning of the Vedas the brahmins did not know.


DharmaChakra said:
As far as I understand the Pali suttas Siddharta spoke out against the unhealthy state within society. Buddhism and Brahmins and Ksatriya rule lived harmoniously and supported each other mostly in India, until the invasions came.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to study Indian History more carefully. It was the brahmins lead by Śankara, etc., that destroyed Buddhism. Not Islam.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2016 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Je Tsongkhapa's masterful union of Madhyamaka and Pramana

BuddhaFollower said:
Atisha denies Tsongkhapa's approach to emptiness:

"Perceptual and inferential cognition—
These two are accepted by Buddhists.
Only narrow-minded fools say
That emptiness is realized by these two."

and

"Perceptual and inferential cognition are useless.
It is just for the sake of refuting non-Buddhist opponents
That the learned ones have promoted them.
The learned master Bhavya said
That the scriptures are clear about
[The ultimate] being realized neither through
Conceptual nor nonconceptual consciousnesses."
------translated in Center of the Sunlit Sky

Tsongkhapafan said:
Can you give a source from Atisha's works for these quotations?

Malcolm wrote:
Just read Khenpo Karl's books. Everything he writes is meticulously sourced.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
Why is he sometimes depicted as naked with eyes all over?

Edit: If it's not okay to discuss I understand.

Fa Dao said:
wow..ok..thats definitely one I havent seen before.....really wish somebody would write a book in English on Dorje Drollo, there is so little out there and he is said to be very relevant to our times...


Malcolm wrote:
There is a hagiography of drollo I have been slowly working on over the years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
Why is he sometimes depicted as naked with eyes all over?

Edit: If it's not okay to discuss I understand.


Malcolm wrote:
That is just a specific tradition, some master's vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Your interpretation of Chandrakirti's words, yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Not just mine, most people's.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Majority views generally aren't correct. That's why we're in samsara.

As I said, we must agree to disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
In this case, it is not a samsaric majority view, but rather a majority of realized masters in Tibet and India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
It is, however, Gorampa's view (and yours?) that all conventional truths are wholly deluded perceptions.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is Candrakīrti's view, among others.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Your interpretation of Chandrakirti's words, yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Not just mine, most people's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
[T]he Kalama Sutta...

Malcolm wrote:
...is for non-Buddhists. But this is a more interesting http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.044.than.html:
"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
The spiritual path in Buddhism does not depend on belief.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it most certainly does. Faith is the first of the five indriyas of the path. First, you have to believe that awakening is possible, etc. Along with that goes faith in karma, rebirth, etc.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, why do you persist in doing this? Why did you delete my next two lines to ensure that my sentence is taken out of context, and then attack it? Why? The whole paragraph reads:
The spiritual path in Buddhism does not depend on belief. The clearest illustration of this is the fact that even if we genuinely and strongly believe everything that the Buddha taught, we are still not enlightened. Mere belief achieves very little other than serve as an incentive to actually embark on the spiritual path.
You deliberately left out the next two lines, so that my first sentence will appear out of context. Why? It is a waste of time debating with someone who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

Malcolm wrote:
Your next two lines contradict your premise, "The spiritual path in Buddhism does not depend on belief."

I am too kind to show you how your own conclusion contradicts your own premise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
It is, however, Gorampa's view (and yours?) that all conventional truths are wholly deluded perceptions.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is Candrakīrti's view, among others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Appreciate the clarification!  So why then did he choose to look like that? He was Padmasambhava...didnt really need to look like anyone but his badass self (not meaning this in the flippant way it might sound, just trying to understand is all)

Malcolm wrote:
Dollo's appearance is disheveled and crazy. Thus he is just much more bad ass than the eight classes. One bad ass human.

Fa Dao said:
other than the fact that most humans dont have 3 eyes and fangs...ok cool...thanks

Malcolm wrote:
Drollo is not always wrathful in appearance, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
The spiritual path in Buddhism does not depend on belief.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it most certainly does. Faith is the first of the five indriyas of the path. First, you have to believe that awakening is possible, etc. Along with that goes faith in karma, rebirth, etc.


Kenneth Chan said:
This process of verification on the spiritual path—by direct personal experience brought about by a progressive transformation of our being—is, of course, very different from the experimental verification of science. Nonetheless it is a process of verification. Thus, it means that both Buddhism and science are investigations of reality based on the principle of verification.

Malcolm wrote:
So is Hinduism, so is Jainism. Your argument is incredibly weak. You sound no different than Christian physicists who conclude from their studies that creation is proven since our cosmos cannot be a result of chance.


Kenneth Chan said:
It is, in fact, this very difference in the nature of the verification process between Buddhism and science that makes them ideally suited to complement each other in the quest for truth and understanding. There is no reason why we should not make use of both methods of verification at our disposal in the quest for understanding our reality and the nature of the ultimate truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Wayfarer pointed out that your quest is quixotic. He is right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Re Lo-ma Gyon-ma Invocation
Content:
pemachophel said:
Loppon-la,

Thanks. Just what I was hoping for. Had the words but not the grammar.

Malcolm wrote:
Cho 'phrul (prātihārya) has the connotation of a conjuration, magic or jugglery, but I thought magic display was a little heavy here, but I have used that elsewhere


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Re Lo-ma Gyon-ma Invocation
Content:
pemachophel said:
Can anyone help me with the SECOND line of this invocation of Parnashawai/Lo-ma Gyon-ma? Got the rest but can't quite find the English for the second line.

rgyal ba kun gyi ye shes sgyu ma yi
cho 'phrul rnam par dag pa las thon pa'i
lha mo gang gi sprul pas nad gdon bgegs
kun tu zhi mdzad ma la phyag ;tshal lo

Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
Homage to the goddess who
issues forth from the pure display
of the illusory pristine consciousness of all the victors,
who emanates to completely pacify illness, spirits, and obstructors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:


DharmaChakra said:
Varna is something that is inherent in humans....

Malcolm wrote:
If by inherent you mean as primates we also have primate dominance behaviors, that is one thing. But the idea that one is born a brahmin is negated by the Buddha in many places.

In Buddhadharma a "brahmin" is someone of exceptional conduct, not a birth right.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The path to awakening is a delusion. But we are deluded and so we follow it until we are no longer deluded. Then we see there was never a point to it to begin with, since we realize then that delusion is not possible at all.

Tsongkhapafan said:
So the path to awakening is a delusion, so we follow it and....we get more deluded. Sorry bro, following delusions makes you more deluded, not less. Geshe Chekhawa says "do not follow delusions" but for you the path is deluded. Your logic doesn't make any sense and it proves that actually the path to awakening is not a delusion. If I'm cold and want to get warm, I don't walk into the freezer! Walking deeper into the freezer doesn't solve your coldness problem.

If what you say is true, why don't we just follow our attachment and anger then? Since there is no difference between them and the path to awakening (because a delusion is a delusion) that would work just as well by your logic.

Furthermore, delusion is not possible at all? That's nonsense. Wrong awarenesses clearly exist and function.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read Haribhadra on this point. What he says, in essence, is that the path and everything in it, up to Buddhahood is an illusion, a false appearance, and when we attain buddhahood, we look back and realize we were never deluded to begin with. In other words, we are illusory sentient beings following an illusory path to attain an illusory buddhahood which in the end we realize we never needed to follow. Why? Just as when one understands that an illusory elephant is just a trick of the eyes created by the magician, likewise, one understands that all of samsara and nirvana are just tricks created by afflictions. When one sees through the trick, one recognizes that the elephant never existed; likewise, when one attains buddhahood, one recognizes one was never deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Appreciate the clarification!  So why then did he choose to look like that? He was Padmasambhava...didnt really need to look like anyone but his badass self (not meaning this in the flippant way it might sound, just trying to understand is all)

Malcolm wrote:
Dollo's appearance is disheveled and crazy. Thus he is just much more bad ass than the eight classes. One bad ass human.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Both science and Buddhism are investigations of reality and are based on the principle of verification.

Malcolm wrote:
Science is based on empirical verification. Buddhadharma is based on subjective verification. This is a major and overlooked difference. Buddhadharma has not in the past, does not now, and will never depend on empirical verification.

Kenneth Chan said:
Since both Buddhism and science are, nonetheless, investigations of reality based on verification, they are thus perfectly suited to complement one another. Even His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, feels that this is beneficial.

Malcolm wrote:
Hindus have their version of "Hinduism and Physics," there are the intelligent design folks, and "socialist" science of the old USSR.

Science is a discipline that necessarily should be free from religious and political ideology even if politicians and religious people do not like the results of imperfect empirical observation. Buddhadharma is not scientific, is not a science, and it is a mistake to regard it as such.

For example, we have such Advaita sentiments as:
This then is the final meaning of Advaita Vedanta. The same Absolute Substance, called the Brahman, is the origin of both our material universe and our consciousness, and this Brahman can be experienced within our consciousness, and this is the spiritual goal of our life.
http://www.advaitayoga.org/advaitayogaarticles/advaitaquantumphysics.html

You can find much discussion of such things out there. We can find out that Schrödinger wrote in his book My View of the World: “In all the world, there is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction….The only solution to this conflict in so far as  any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.”

So again, you find confirmation of QP in the doctrine of the Perfection of Wisdom, Schrödinger and Heisenberg in the Upanishads, and then we have the very well funded ID community, lead by the Templeton Foundation. It is normal that people wish to find confirmation of their religious beliefs in science, and indeed, that is HHDL's main intent. I personally think is better to let religions be religions, politics be politics, and science be science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
That's not my problem at all - in fact, it's your problem. You don't understand that there are false cognitions and valid cognitions, but for you if it's conventional, it's all false cognition.

BuddhaFollower said:
Yes, because this is straight from Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara:

"The object of perfect seeing is true reality,
And false seeing is the seeming reality"

Candrakirti says the relative is a result of ignorance:

"Since ignorance obscures its true nature, this is the seeming.
The Sage has declared that seeming reality
Is that which is fabricated and appears as real through this [ignorance].
Thus, fabricated entities are the seeming."

Atisa denies the two truths saying:

"The nature of phenomena is not established as anything whatsoever,
So how could it be two or three and such?"

P.S. All quotes from Center of the Sunlit Sky.

Malcolm wrote:
Right but our friend TKfan has never read even a remotely well translated version of Candra, so it is natural his understanding is skewed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 12:17 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:


Manju said:
And this applies for each moment, not only for the time after death.
If we only weren`t so distracted.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to realize rainbow body in this lifetime, go for it. I was talking about the instructions for extremely lazy people.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 12:15 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo question
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Many wrathful deities are in the form of one of the 8 classes in order to subdue them...except badder of course. So, when Padmasambhava transformed into Dorje Drolo which one does Dorje Drolo look like?

Malcolm wrote:
Protectors take the form of the eight classes, but not yidams in general. Exceptions might be Yamantaka and Simhamukha.

Drollo does not look like any of them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You're suffering from 'one big fat wing' syndrome. If all conventional truth was a delusion, ultimate truth would also be a delusion because it depends upon conventional truth. The path to enlightenment would also be a delusion, which is clearly nonsense!


Malcolm wrote:
The path to awakening is a delusion. But we are deluded and so we follow it until we are no longer deluded. Then we see there was never a point to it to begin with, since we realize then that delusion is not possible at all.

Your problem is that you keep trying to unify a false cognition and true cognition into one. This will never work.Your second problem is that you think that ultimate truth is true from its own side. That is the worst delusion of all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Yet another Dzogchen pseudo-guru?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you think you are being all Saidian, think again...

dzogchungpa said:
You mean, like this?

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




In all seriousness, I think he is being more Sadean than Saidian.

Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_%28book%29


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Both science and Buddhism are investigations of reality and are based on the principle of verification.

Malcolm wrote:
Science is based on empirical verification. Buddhadharma is based on subjective verification. This is a major and overlooked difference. Buddhadharma has not in the past, does not now, and will never depend on empirical verification.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: "Terror" attack in Berlin
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
If i did not explain my story and opinion to the point, sure everybody would say, look he is a fu..... neo nazi.
This because you Americans realy do not know exactly what is going on here.
So even you as a very intelligent person did not know that i never can be pro Wilders, because you do not know the in between combinations here in Holland. Ok you cannot know everything that is normal.

Malcolm wrote:
I used him as an example. Donald Trump is another. They are both fools, not least because of their anti-mulsim bias.


kalden yungdrung said:
Well the tolerance from the people here about Moroccans and Turkish people is nearly finished. Many Moroccan youth joins and support the IS, i have heard from a trustful Moroccan i know for years. He told me many more than is published are inside IS in Holland and i was astonished to hear that. So Dutchmen are very careful if they meet Moroccans and Turkish people, that is reality .

Malcolm wrote:
It is a pity when people give into bigotry.

kalden yungdrung said:
I leave the ship, i am sick and tired of the situation, no future possible.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is not Muslims. The problem is right wing people in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Yet another Dzogchen pseudo-guru?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I don't get it. Why the shade?


Malcolm wrote:
Racism, pure and simple.


BuddhaFollower said:
If its about my comment, I think you mean colonialsm and cultural appropriation.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, BF, Buddhadharma is an international religion. Always has been, right from the beginning. If you think you are being all Saidian, think again...Tibetans want their religion to spread, they always have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: "Terror" attack in Berlin
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
But do not tell me now i am a pro sieg heil neo frak nazi !

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say you were. But there were a lot of antisemites before WWII who did not understand the consequences of their views until after.

I am suggesting that singling out muslims is a bad policy. Treat criminals as criminals when they do criminal things, but leave people's ethnicity out of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Yet another Dzogchen pseudo-guru?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I don't get it. Why the shade?


Malcolm wrote:
Racism, pure and simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Namaste and Hi
Content:
DharmaChakra said:
Namaste

I will say one thing, as I dont usually do the challenges on etymology, as English for one isn't  the best language to convey all these concepts, plus the modern education system of learning isn't the best platform to copy how dharma is learned or expressed. Seems one of my post was not approved due to double clicking

All Dharma Shastra includes experience, or the experiencer, its not an objective study. Sama is the neutral, the equanimity that keeps calm and poise, this is conscious and as you say a neutral mental factor, samatha is calm abiding, but that is nothing unless vipassana happens, just feeling calm and equi[osed is not enough, one wouldnt know how to discriminate or operate even in this world with the faculty of intelligence, but when dhi is combined with sama to make samadhi then the supra mental faculty, or the higher faculty that understand dharma is united with t hat ground of equanimity to break down the defilement, so sama and dhi are in union at all times of its a real experience of samadhi, and all of this can only be known via experience, via sila, good character and culture to bring balance to the mind. I think people nowadays are well aware that unskillful habits leads to suffering for oneself and others and should be given up to experience higher states of mind, that dont really need to be analysed literally. But why would dhi be considered as part of the supra mental faculty, why not ordinary intelligence ? can dharma be approached by the normal faculty of intelligence, scholars and academics who dont practice dont seem to be getting the right understanding, would you agree ?

With Metta

Nice to meet you by the way Maclom.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmacakra:

Nice to meet you too.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa. That is the standard here, in this Mahāyāna forum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Namaste and Hi
Content:
DharmaChakra said:
Namaste

I'd say experience to be the best one, if your stuck in etymology then doesnt that side step and retract from the Buddhas teachings. I could post many things especially Abhidharma of Ledi Sayadaw and The Burmese Vipassana tradition, but what would be the point, as I stated my path is not  to get lost in the words and technical side, practical is much better. Changing and not challenging people is my Buddha Dharma. You dont even have common courtesy and yet you say you know Buddha Dharma, how can one know dhi without right speech, right motivation etc, as there  isnt any equanimity.

With Metta

Malcolm wrote:
Samādhi is a neutral mental factor that everyone possesses all of the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Namaste and Hi
Content:


DharmaChakra said:
This is Buddha Dharma as per Vipassana tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
Citation please supporting your etymology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Vajrasattva questions
Content:


pueraeternus said:
In East Asia, this tantra is titled the Vajrasekhara Sutra. You can find it translated in BDK's Two Esoteric Sutras: http://www.bdkamerica.org/book/two-esoteric-sutras


Malcolm wrote:
No. the Vajrasekhara Tantra (Sūtra) is a different text.

pueraeternus said:
From the BDK link, the Sanskrit name matches though: Skt. Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha-mahāyānābhisamaya-mahākalparāja. Translated into the Chinese by Amoghavajra as Jinggangding yiqie rulai zhenshi she dasheng xianzheng dajiao wang jing (金剛頂一切如來眞實攝大乘現證大教王經). 3 fascicles.


Malcolm wrote:
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra (D 479). Translator(s):Śraddhākaravarman, Rin-chen-bzang-po

Vajra-śikhara-mahā-guhya-yoga-tantra (D 480). Translator(s):Karmavajra, Gzhon-nu Tshul-khrims

It appears that in Shingon, the former is known by the name of the latter. According to http://vajrayana.faithweb.com/Yoga-Tantra.pdf:
During the first quarter of the eighth century the Compendium of Principles and texts associated with it were transmitted to China. These south Indian traditions organized the texs into an eighteen-part tantric corpus called the Vajraśekhara Yoga system.
and:
In 723 CE the Indian master Vajrabodhi (641-741) produced the Recitation Sūtra Extracted from the Vajraśekhara Yoga.10 This text, in four fascicles, is not a translation proper; rather, it is Vajrabodhi’s introduction to the Compendium of Principles and a larger system of eighteen tantras, of which the Compendium of Principles was the most prominent member.
Vajraśekhara then refers to a system which includes both the Vajra-śikhara and the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: "Terror" attack in Berlin
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
There would be 4000 Jihad warriors among the refugees who entered Europe

Malcolm wrote:
Really, you sure about this? I think you ought to stop listening to people like Gert Wilders. And you might want to stop listening to ISIS propaganda.

kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek M,

Well it is sure, maybe we can quarrel about 4000, 2000, 1000 , 100 but they came in, they are not stupid and this is for them THE opportunity to enter in secret.

Who is Gert Wilders and what has he to do with me? There are a lot of Dutchmen like me who do not follow Gerd Wilders but have a certain opinion about Muslims and Muslims. Oh that is for Americans hard to believe i guess so.
Come here and live for two years in certain parts of Holland, then we talk again.

There are in Holland also people from Christian parties who do not like these extreme Muslims here.

Ok i will follow your advice and will walk blindfolded and with fingers in my ears through Holland.

Thank you very much for your helpful to the point advice .
i will recommend this to other Dutchmen, very sure, no doubt about it

KY.

Malcolm wrote:
Your attitude makes the problem worse, not better. You know, no one mentions the white guy that killed three muslims in Zurich the same day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Vajrasattva questions
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Vajrasattva comes from the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, the root tantra of Yoga tantra. It is also found in the Vajrapañjara Tantra and other HYT tantras.

Vasana said:
Thanks, Malcolm.

pueraeternus said:
In East Asia, this tantra is titled the Vajrasekhara Sutra. You can find it translated in BDK's Two Esoteric Sutras: http://www.bdkamerica.org/book/two-esoteric-sutras


Malcolm wrote:
No. the Vajrasekhara Tantra (Sūtra) is a different text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Namaste and Hi
Content:
DharmaChakra said:
Namaste,

I do not really see much of a difference from you said to me, in texts usually the context is kept pure, so without going into to many variations of the translation of the word samadhi as there are many levels expressed in different traditions, as  the experience can only be one. If we stick for the time being as sama as equanimity or balance and dhi as you mention to hold still holds the same context, what would be holding that sama or equanimity it would then again be that supra mental faculty, or intellect that holds the mind by superior knowledge in the state of sama, so even though sama and dhi make up the compound they are always in union.

With Metta


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, this explanation just has nothing to do with Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: "Terror" attack in Berlin
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
There would be 4000 Jihad warriors among the refugees who entered Europe

Malcolm wrote:
Really, you sure about this? I think you ought to stop listening to people like Gert Wilders. And you might want to stop listening to ISIS propaganda.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
Wikipedia is full of long debunked Chinese propaganda.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: If Vajrayana is superior to Hinayana, how come no stories of Dipa Ma-like siddhis?
Content:
AlexanderS said:
The buddhists won hands down.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, the victors write the history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
steveb1 said:
He is so Now. The world's crumbling freedoms and its populace, kept constantly in the dark, need people like J.A.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, he gave up the torch when he started manipulating the media, contributing to the dark, rather than lifting it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


conebeckham said:
However, it is said that, in certain contexts, compassion can be one's enemy.  Karmapa Rangjung Dorje addresses this in his "Connate Mahamudra."  If one has undertaken practice in retreat, for instance, compassion can arise in one's experience, and if one leaves retreat to perform acts benefitting others--like tending to the bleeding person--this can be an obstacle.   Context and circumstances are important, of course.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Compassion is never one's enemy...

Malcolm wrote:
Its a manner of speaking, it is not to be understood literally, unlike Madhyamaka texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: New Longchenpa translations from Eric Fry-Miller
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Which part? snying thig is not snying gyi thig le?  Or bindu shouldn't be defined as "essential drop"?

Malcolm wrote:
Both, in this context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: Aparamitāyus
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Recently, while perusing Sam van Schaik's blog, https://earlytibet.com/2010/12/13/secrets-of-the-cave-i/, I discovered that apparently there is a longer form of Buddha Amitāyus' name: Aparamitāyus.

As far as I can tell, the initial element means "Unrivaled," according to http://www.sanskrita.org/wiki/index.php?title=apara#.E0.A4.85.E0.A4.AA.E0.A4.B0.C2.A0a-para_.5B_apara_.5D: अपर a-para [ apara ]
1 mfn. having nothing beyond or after, having no rival or superior
Can anyone confirm or deny this?  My knowledge of Sanskrit is certainly much more limited than some on here.

Obvioulsy the name should not be parsed a-paramita-ayus, since this would mean something like "not-transcending-life," though the syllables 'paramita' in this longer form is what first jumped out at me.

Malcolm wrote:
Aparamita means beyond estimate. Thus Aparamitāyus means life span beyond measure or estimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
Wayfarer said:
To make awakening seem like something boring, routine and quotidian is surely to mischaracterise it.

Malcolm wrote:
I gather you are speaking from personal experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 11:13 AM
Title: Re: New Longchenpa translations from Eric Fry-Miller
Content:


Lewis Decottes said:
What would be a more accurate translation?

Malcolm wrote:
Literally speaking, snying thig means "the core [thig] of the center [snying]," like the heartwood of a tree. The term "bindu" is not justified in the Sanskrit title, neither is "drop" ([ thigs pa ])

The standard conventions, "heart essence" or "innermost heart" are perfectly fine since here citta simply means heart. The thig in this case is an intensifier.

M

Karma Jinpa said:
So snying thig is not to be understood as snying gyi thig le, as indicated by http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/thig_le?

Personally, I prefer the translation "Heart Essence" or "Vital Essence" to "Heart Bindu," but isn't a bindu/thigle usually glossed as "essential drop"?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: Julian Assange
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Assange is a self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal, narcissistic has been. He is so 2006.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist awakening is very specific and precise. Other ideas of enlightenment are extraneous and not necessary for those who practice Buddhadharma. For us, they are irrelevant, if not invalid.

rachmiel said:
Interesting ...

So Buddhism does not say:

"Follow our teachings and you will know Truth (with a capital T)." This is what I associate with awakening.

rather:

"Follow our teachings and your suffering will end." Period. End of contract. No "Truth" promised, just surcease of suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
The truth is that there is no self, all phenomena are empty. There really isn't any truth beyond that to realize. Buddhadharma is a crashing bore when it comes to the wow factor. This is why Hindus do much better, they attract the bliss bunnies, the yoga dudes, and all the other hipsters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:



Minobu said:
Buddhism , I thought was not really a religion. It's more about a philosophical system of thought and examination.


.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is a religion which insists on various unfalsifiable beliefs such karma, rebirth, etc. I personally accept these beliefs, but I am under no illusion that they are anything other than religious beliefs.

Minobu said:
You have a construct of spirituality that is unique to Malcom.
it borrows and cherry picks from Buddhism and yet your construct is not Buddhist for it denies certain edicts in Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess we should hold a convocation and elect you the Buddhist Pope, Pope Minobu the First!

Minobu said:
Your analysis of Madhyamika  suits your construct and denies the credibility of many Mahayana edicts.

Malcolm wrote:
Or, it merely contradicts your personal interpretation of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Root Tantra
Content:
Caoimghín said:
Greetings,

This is a very basic question, I fear, but what exactly is the difference between a "root tantra" versus a tantra that is not called a "root tantra"?

I encounter the term "root tantra" very frequently and haven't had an easy time figure out what "root" means in that context. Are root tantras exoteric and regular tantras esoteric? Is that the difference?

-Caoimghín

Malcolm wrote:
A "root" tantra is generally the tantra that explains the basics of a given mandala and so on. An explanatory tantra elaborates on the root, and gives details of mandala construction and so on. However, both root and explanatory tantras are not confined to these subjects.

Usually root tantras appear first and are followed later by explanatory tantras.


conebeckham said:
Explanatory Tantras are also sometimes referred to as "Shared" Tantras....for example, you have the Hevajra Tantras, and the Cakrasamvara Tantras, and these are known as Root Tantras.  The Samputa Tantra is a "shared" Tantra that can apply to both Hevajra Tantras and Samvara Tantras, and others, I think.

Malcolm wrote:
yes, some are shared.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, how did you come to the conclusion that "one must inevitably be the master of the other"? Please explain with reasoning based on logic and evidence. I really am amazed at how you can possibly reach such a conclusion.

Malcolm wrote:
Mādhyamikas accept any number of propositions that find no basis in science whatsoever such as rebirth, karma, buddhahood and so on.

For example, the logic of dependent origination precludes such ideas that some physicists have that the universe is a one-off, a one shot deal.

Kenneth Chan said:
If both the Prasangika Madhyamaka view—that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated—and  the formulation of quantum mechanics are correct, why do you insist that there cannot be a connection between the two?

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out again and again, the function of Madhyamaka is to remove incorrect views about the Buddha's teachings, that is all. It has no role is solving disputes among physicists.

Incidentally, the Buddha taught pretty clearly that dependent origination was meant to describe the life cycle of sentient beings and not external phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
That is why, in Madhyamika philosophy, we say that this object is empty of inherent existence—its very existence depends on causes and conditions (represented by the quantum wave function ) and depends upon the mind that apprehends it (which is the experiential event that occurs in the act of observation). There is no such object without this dependent origination via these factors.]

Malcolm wrote:
But this assertion is in itself not correct. Designations are dependent on appearances. But appearances are not dependent on designations. Designations do not bootstrap appearances into existence.

Further, you are making an assertion of parabhāva, other or dependent existence. We have already discussed this before.

But my point is that wave-particle duality is not something about which there is common consensus in physics, unlike for example, the fact that we all agree there is one moon in the sky.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
rachmiel said:
So, going along with your metaphor, what do the paths of all awakened beings have in common?

Malcolm wrote:
Freedom from the afflictions that cause inform karma which causes in turn birth in the three realms.

rachmiel said:
And this meets Buddha's goal = to end suffering (dukkha) ... yes? Any other definition of awakening is not really recognized in Buddhadharma.
That makes sense, since -- again, going along with Buddha's very clear goal of ending suffering as a doctor might cure a disease -- recognizing other forms of awakening runs the risk of undermining the prescribed Buddhist path to ending suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
The ending of suffering depends on recognizing that all phenomena are without self. This is what destroys affliction and its traces.

Buddhist awakening is very specific and precise. Other ideas of enlightenment are extraneous and not necessary for those who practice Buddhadharma. For us, they are irrelevant, if not invalid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Minobu said:
Religion is religion. Science is science. They should be kept separate.
Buddhism , I thought was not really a religion. It's more about a philosophical system of thought and examination.


.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is a religion which insists on various unfalsifiable beliefs such karma, rebirth, etc. I personally accept these beliefs, but I am under no illusion that they are anything other than religious beliefs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
but I think Yogacara may be too close to solipsism

Malcolm wrote:
OED: Solipsism:
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
Yogacāra is not solipsism, it is not even remotely close to solipsism. Yogacāra argues for the existence of separate mind streams. It negates external phenomena (in various ways, not all Yogacārins absolutely reject external phenomena), but not separate mind streams.


Kenneth Chan said:
Yes, I know Yogacara is not solipsism. That's why I only said that it "may be too close to solipsism." The problem is that, like solipsism, it negates external reality (although perhaps not absolutely).

Malcolm wrote:
It is not close at all. Yogacāra is called "cittamatra" following the method they use to discover ultimate truth. However, the ordinary things of everyday existence which are included in the imagined nature still function, like cars, etc. "Cittamatra" is a method of ultimate analysis they use.

The way in which external reality functions in the Yogacāra analysis is very complex and subtle, and beyond any discussion here. But because it is complex and subtle, and because the basic concepts to which they refer are found in the Buddhas sūtras, Madhyamakas were compelled to comment on them to remove misconceptions Madhyamakas felt Yogacārins had introduced in the latter's explanations.

So for example, if the Buddha had taught a sūtra on quantum physics, then Madhyamakas might have some business commenting on the same. But since he didn't, I still maintain that QP is properly outside the domain of proper Buddhist discourse because it can only be speculative, a thicket of views.

Kenneth Chan said:
Another problem with solipsism is the fact that all the different minds seem to agree with what is happening in the external world. They all perceive the same blue sky, the same green grass, and the same events happening in the external world. How is this agreement possible if everything is only happening in each of their minds? Why would these events be correlated at all?

Malcolm wrote:
In the Yogacāra model all external perceptions of the three realms is accounted for by traces (vasanas) which exist in the mind streams of sentient beings. These vasanas are traces of actions and act as seeds which when meeting special conditions ripen into karmic appearances. Because these traces are so deep, sentient beings in general never question appearance of their common container universe. It is more detailed than this, but this is a brief overview of how it works.

This means that all collective appearances arise from common karmic traces, while individual appearances arise from specific traces. Thus all hell beings share common traces to experience a hell realm, but the individual suffering of each one is based on traces unique to that individual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
In this way, you are doing more harm than good. So kindly and seriously consider this.

Malcolm wrote:
In your opinion. I think that pretending that Madhyamaka offers solutions to questions in in physics is harmful and misleading. Religion is religion. Science is science. They should be kept separate. Why? Because one must inevitably be the master of the other if they intrude too much on each other's proper domain.

The domain of Buddhadharma is bring suffering to an end. The domain of physics is to offer a description of matter and its modes.

While it is tempting to allow Buddhadharma to intrude on science and vice versa, the outcome is that both suffer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Vajrasattva questions
Content:
Vasana said:
Bumping this thread as i didn't want to start another topic.

I'm looking for information about the root Tantra of Vajrasattva and the origin of the 100 syllable mantra and i'm strugling to find any original texts or detailed accounts other than the root tantra's name, Dorje Gyan, or  Vajra Ornament.

Anyone have any leads?


Malcolm wrote:
Vajrasattva comes from the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, the root tantra of Yoga tantra. It is also found in the Vajrapañjara Tantra and other HYT tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Vajrasattva questions
Content:
smcj said:
In the NgonDro the different schools have different details about the visualization.

Sakya ...= solo figure in full lotus. (99% sure about that)

kirtu said:
In ngondro, yes.  However I was surprised after several years of doing a different Vajrasattva when my Sakya Khenpo got us together and we did single figure Vajrasattva practice.  At that point I had never done single deity Vajrasattva in my Sakya practices ever.  You can actually enter Sakya practice and do Sakya sadhanas for years and not encounter the single deity Vajrasattva form.  I'm not saying that everyone will have this expereince though.  If you are introduced to Sakya ngondro right away then you definitely get the single form.  But it is very common to get the typical tantric introductory initiations (Hevajra or Chakrasamvara and Vajrayogini), practice that and really just do Atisha's refuge prayer with extensive sutra lineage study for a long time.  And then later begin ngondro.

Kirt

supermaxv said:
Weird. The Sakya Ngondro that I was introduced to and engaged with is definitely not the single deity form.

Malcolm wrote:
No, because this is Vajaheruka, not Vajrasattva. It comes from the mother tantras; whereas Vajrasattva comes from the yoga and father tantras, in general (but not exclusively).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
rachmiel said:
So, going along with your metaphor, what do the paths of all awakened beings have in common?

Malcolm wrote:
Freedom from the afflictions that cause inform karma which causes in turn birth in the three realms.

Any other definition of awakening is not really recognized in Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 10:35 PM
Title: Root Tantra
Content:
Caoimghín said:
Greetings,

This is a very basic question, I fear, but what exactly is the difference between a "root tantra" versus a tantra that is not called a "root tantra"?

I encounter the term "root tantra" very frequently and haven't had an easy time figure out what "root" means in that context. Are root tantras exoteric and regular tantras esoteric? Is that the difference?

-Caoimghín

Malcolm wrote:
A "root" tantra is generally the tantra that explains the basics of a given mandala and so on. An explanatory tantra elaborates on the root, and gives details of mandala construction and so on. However, both root and explanatory tantras are not confined to these subjects.

Usually root tantras appear first and are followed later by explanatory tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Actually what my paper demonstrates is that interpreting the formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of the Prasangika Madhyamaka principle—that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated—would solve the mystery of quantum physics.

Tsongkhapafan said:
There is great compatibility. I have a degree in physics and I find it interesting that particles can sometimes act as particles and sometimes as waves, for example. This shows that nothing is fixed and existing from its own side, but what it is depends upon causes and conditions, which is exactly what Nagarjuna demonstrates.

Malcolm wrote:
They do not act as particles or waves, they are best described sometimes as particles or sometimes as waves. Albert Einstein wrote: "It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."

And of course, there is still no absolute consensus on the issue, with some contemporary 21st century physicists arguing that in reality all we are observing is particles, and others arguing that all we are observing is pure waves of matter. Thus, I really do not see how any version of Madhyamaka is going to help this situation along.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
but I think Yogacara may be too close to solipsism

Malcolm wrote:
OED:
Solipsism:
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
Yogacāra is not solipsism, it is not even remotely close to solipsism. Yogacāra argues for the existence of separate mind streams. It negates external phenomena (in various ways, not all Yogacārins absolutely reject external phenomena), but not separate mind streams.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
...all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated...

Malcolm wrote:
is not a Prasangika principle. It is the principle of the Prajñāpārāmita sūtras.

The prasangika principle is reductio ad absurdum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 11:27 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You are, in fact, invalidating facts.

The hilarious thing is that your gurus are relying histories as well. Just older, more inaccurate ones with far less accurate facts.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Except, they may be Buddhas (I believe so) in which case they know everything without error in which case they don't need to rely upon history books.

conebeckham said:
For ordinary beings such as ourselves, it is said, that even Bodhisattvas on the first stages may appear to be Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Māra can also appear as a Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
No, because things do exist as mere appearance, existence is not refuted per se.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean like mirages, illusions, and so on of course. All things which do not exist but merely appear.

Tsongkhapafan said:
They do exist - as mere appearances. If we think there is a car in car, then we are deluded but the mere appearance of car exists (I can drive it, but not a hallucination of car) so we have to say that the car 'exists' to distinguish it from deluded perceptions of cars that cannot function at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, this does not work. You are claiming that appearances in correct relative truth have more ontological substance that appearances in false relative truth. In other words, you are claiming that the appearances in correct relative truth are less "mere" than illusions that truly are "mere appearances" as that is all they are. When you say that both correct and false relative truths are mere appearances you are claiming they have equal status. But you qualify the latter as "functional." Thus you are making the claim that these appearances are more real than the others.

It would be better for you to say that correct relative truth is mere existence, while false relative truth is mere appearance, as opposed to true nonexistents like the sons of barren women and hairy turtles which have no causes for arising.

This is the point of my saying your understanding of delusion is not subtle enough. Candra is quite clear: all relative truths are objects of false cognitions. This means that even conventional truths are actually delusions, subtle delusions, as opposed to coarse delusions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, that's a good description of inherent existence; primarily feeling that things exist independently with their own characteristics outside the mind.

conebeckham said:
That sounds like a good definition of existence to me.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, because things do exist as mere appearance, existence is not refuted per se.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean like mirages, illusions, and so on of course. All things which do not exist but merely appear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Except, they may be Buddhas (I believe so) in which case they know everything without error in which case they don't need to rely upon history books.


Malcolm wrote:
Your belief that they are buddhas does not make them buddhas anymore than a child's belief in Santa makes him come down the chimney.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Geshe Potowa said if you see your Spiritual Guide as a Buddha, you will receive the blessings of a Buddha. If you see your Spiritual Guide as a bodhisattva, you will receive the blessings of a bodhisattva. If you see your Spiritual Guide as an ordinary being, you will receive the blessings of an ordinary being (no blessings).

He also says that it doesn't matter if our Spiritual Guide is a living Buddha, if we don't see him or her as such, we will receive no blessings but on the other hand, if we see our Spiritual Guide as a Buddha and he is she is ordinary, all the Buddhas will enter into his or her body and we will receive their blessings. View, therefore is very important; imputations function. (reliably, I might add )

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is all very fine and wonderful, but it sure does not mean that your teacher is a buddha just because you believe it to be so. This is called "leaving your brain at the temple door with your shoes." All too common these days, and creates potential for massive abuse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Well, according to Gendun Chopel, it's pointless trying to use your analytical powers to discover anything conventionally valid.

Malcolm wrote:
He is merely pointing out that rhetoric like yours is fruitless. But it is useless to ask you to pull your head out of the sand.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Oh, it's my rhetoric that's fruitless?  Oh good, I thought he was referring to you too - It's good to have your company in the sand. There's no point saying anything about the ultimate because it's couched in the oh-so-unreliable conventional, so you might as well not say anything

Malcolm wrote:
In fact there is little use in saying anything about the ultimate since it is inexpressible and all descriptions of it are false. Why, well, as Śantideva points out the ultimate is outside the range of the mind since the mind is relative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
No, my inverted commas were meant to demonstrate that what you take as 'fact' may not in fact be so. I'm not invalidating facts, I'm just saying that your 'facts' may not be so. Thanks for attempting to misrepresent me though.

I trust the Gurus, you trust historians - I can tell you who is more reliable.

Malcolm wrote:
You are, in fact, invalidating facts.

The hilarious thing is that your gurus are relying histories as well. Just older, more inaccurate ones with far less accurate facts.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Except, they may be Buddhas (I believe so) in which case they know everything without error in which case they don't need to rely upon history books.


Malcolm wrote:
Your belief that they are buddhas does not make them buddhas anymore than a child's belief in Santa makes him come down the chimney.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Can't "facts" about gurus be deceptive? That was what Malcolm was talking about.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Well, according to Gendun Chopel, it's pointless trying to use your analytical powers to discover anything conventionally valid.

Malcolm wrote:
He is merely pointing out that rhetoric like yours is fruitless. But it is useless to ask you to pull your head out of the sand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You have basically invalidated everything you have to say from here on out.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, my inverted commas were meant to demonstrate that what you take as 'fact' may not in fact be so. I'm not invalidating facts, I'm just saying that your 'facts' may not be so. Thanks for attempting to misrepresent me though.

I trust the Gurus, you trust historians - I can tell you who is more reliable.

Malcolm wrote:
You are, in fact, invalidating facts.

The hilarious thing is that your gurus are relying on histories as well. Just older, more inaccurate ones with far less accurate facts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Vasana said:
If any of you would like a brief poetic interlude from Gendün Chöphel, please feel free. Seems relevant to the content and direction of this discussion on multiple levels.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Is this the same Gendun Chopel who appeared not to understand Je Tsongkhapa's masterful union of Madhyamaka and Pramana (Pramana tells you what you can reliably accept about convention) and who decided to follow Gorampa instead?

No thanks. I'll stick with Je Tsongkhapa and Dharmakirti.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same Ganden Chophel who realized that most of Gorampa and Mipham's refutations of the position of the Riwo Gandenpa's were true. He also criticized Gorampa where warranted. He was not partial


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Vasana said:
If any of you would like a brief poetic interlude from Gendün Chöphel, please feel free. Seems relevant to the content and direction of this discussion on multiple levels.

"Objects of knowledge posited by the mind as existent and nonexistent;
Valid forms of knowledge dependent on objects true and false.
Having seen that the source of falsity in one is entrusted to the other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

The presentation of the unexamined, unanalyzed world;
The systems of tenets that examine and analyze.
Having seen that the foundation of one rests on the other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Illusions that are mere appearances to the mind;
The mode of being determined to be real.
Having seen that if one is true, the other is false,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

The first speaker hides the mountain of his own faults;
His opponent searches for the other’s faults with a needle.
Having seen them take turns defeating each other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

The nonobservation of what is suitable to appear negates the extreme of existence;
The nonobservation of what does not appear abandons the extreme of nonexistence.
Having seen that the presentation of one is destroyed by the other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Because there is no difference in the attachment produced
By the conception of true existence that holds a friend to be real and
By the valid knowledge which understands that friends are helpful,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Having seen no difference in the hatred produced
By the conception of real existence that holds an enemy to be true and
By the valid knowledge which determines that enemies are harmful,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Inferential valid knowledge is produced from direct perception;
Inference analyzes whether direct perception is true or false.
Because the child is serving as the father’s witness,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Analysis by reasoning depends on the founders’ systems;
The founders are established by the power of reasoning.
If I can decide on my own, whom should I follow?
If I cannot decide, on whom can I rely?

Correct reasoning is found in definitive scriptures;
The provisional and definitive are distinguished by stainless reasoning.
If one understands with reasoning, why search for definitive meaning?
If one does not understand with reasoning,
how does one find definitive meaning?

Because of this way in which Maitreyanātha was seen as a female dog,
I do not believe in the unanalyzed, innate mind.
Because of this way in which the views of Madhyamaka and Cittamātra
abbots contradict each other,
I do not believe in the minds of analytical scholars.

Vulgar people, having repeatedly followed what is right,
Find the innate conception of true existence; it is the root of all downfall.
Scholars, having repeatedly followed what is right,
Find the artificial conception of true existence; it is worse than that.

In this world where there resounds the noise of debate
About existence and nonexistence, is and is not, true and false,
Whatever is constantly seen appears as an object of knowledge.
Whatever one has always known appears to be valid.

Whatever most people like appears as the truth;
Whatever most mouths agree on appears as dogma.
Inside each person is a different valid form of knowledge,
With an adamantine scripture to support it.

Beyond each mountain pass is a different religious sect
With thousands of scholars and fools who follow, saying,
“Just this is true; this will not deceive you.”

This self-authorization of one’s own truth
Delights a group of like-minded beings.
When told to a group that does not agree, they are scornful.

Here in the capital of six types of beings who cannot agree,
What is asserted by ten is not asserted by a hundred;
What is seen by humans is not seen by gods.
Who makes the laws that validate truth and falsity?”

Malcolm wrote:
What Ganden Chophel said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
'Facts' can be deceptive.

Malcolm wrote:
Just let this sink in folks...it explains so much about certain people and why they make the crazy decisions they do...


You are never going to live this one down, TKF, I predict that from now on you are going to met with a lot of "But facts can be deceptive, according to you." Especially when you try to use a fact.

You have basically invalidated everything you have to say from here on out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Minobu said:
But would not there be some sort of protection against this from ...like...'HEAVEN" and all the Dharma Protectors...I mean we really are talking about
" Buddha Nagarjuna" here.

And as these teachings are going to have fallen in our lap from time when they were taught...can we not have some sort of faith in them...
i mean we are not talking about Moses and his exodus here or the risen Christ.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna I, according to the general tradition, only achieved the first bhumi. It is true he is called the "Second Buddha," but this is poetic praise. We need not take it literally.

I have not problem with the teachings themselves. However, I do have issues with their attributions.

Coëmgenu said:
These attributions = upāya.

Malcolm wrote:
Upāyas are provisional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's logical and a direct consequence of emptiness, but if you don't accept logic, fine.


Malcolm wrote:
In reality, apart from some stories in some books there is no evidence Nāgārjuna lived for 600 years. I think it is a legend which resulted from Tibetans becoming confused over several Indian authors using the name "Nāgārjuna" who lived in different epochs.

Minobu said:
But would not there be some sort of protection against this from ...like...'HEAVEN" and all the Dharma Protectors...I mean we really are talking about
" Buddha Nagarjuna" here.

And as these teachings are going to have fallen in our lap from time when they were taught...can we not have some sort of faith in them...
i mean we are not talking about Moses and his exodus here or the risen Christ.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna I, according to the general tradition, only achieved the first bhumi. It is true he is called the "Second Buddha," but this is poetic praise. We need not take it literally.

I have not problem with the teachings themselves. However, I do have issues with their attributions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Anders said:
They may not perceive its existence as being "inherent", but I think it is not wrong to say that in perceiving something to exist, we unwittingly bring hidden assumptions of inherency (/permanence) to that which exists.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely not. Everyone knows their car is going to break down, that they are going to sicken and die, etc.,

Anders said:
If that were really the case, the Buddha wouldn't have bothered teaching reflecting on impermanence as a method of practice.

Clearly there is something skewered in our perception of the impermanence of things that the Buddha sought to redress.

We may be conceptually aware of impermanence but as often as not, this knowledge is not penetrative enough to save ourselves from the heartaches of permanence.

Malcolm wrote:
People have attachment to permanence, this does not mean that they do not know things are actually impermanent. Of course as Buddhists we brain wash ourselves into believing that no one is aware of this simple fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
...your view of conventional truth is too coarse...

Malcolm wrote:
Your understanding of delusion is too coarse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's really a bit lazy to accuse someone whose view you don't agree with as being a fundamentalist, just because they follow the traditional views of Buddhism. If your claim is that I'm believing something without a logical reason, you can check out my logical explanation for why Nagarjuna lived for 600 years a few posts back.

Malcolm wrote:
Your "logical" explanation will not be accepted outside a small circle of coreligionists because there is no possible way you can prove this.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's logical and a direct consequence of emptiness, but if you don't accept logic, fine.


Malcolm wrote:
In reality, apart from some stories in some books there is no evidence Nāgārjuna lived for 600 years. I think it is a legend which resulted from Tibetans becoming confused over several Indian authors using the name "Nāgārjuna" who lived in different epochs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's really a bit lazy to accuse someone whose view you don't agree with as being a fundamentalist, just because they follow the traditional views of Buddhism. If your claim is that I'm believing something without a logical reason, you can check out my logical explanation for why Nagarjuna lived for 600 years a few posts back.

Malcolm wrote:
Your "logical" explanation will not be accepted outside a small circle of coreligionists because there is no possible way you can prove this.

Minobu said:
From that point of view we cannot prove anything that was supposed to be said by Buddha.

you posted something about 6 or seven years ago i will never forget.

You said ,and this is not a direct quote, that; like the Hindu's do and put Krisna as the author of stuff to give it credibility so is a lot of Buddhist teachings....very rough quote but the jist is there...maybe you might recall it..
it unwittingly became part of my thought process ...


the thing is if the seal of approval comes from someone we revere as a Buddha Teacher , then regardless if it is impossible historically correct to assume, or more aptly  impossible conventional history   to regard as correct and accurate , then we can rely on it by  going the route of It being a Dharma  Kaya thing...yes / no ?

If it is a Dharma Kaya thing then it is slander to thwart the Teaching?..

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that there are provisional and definitive teachings of the Buddha. We are enjoined to eschew the former and follow the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Minobu said:
So you agree that Karma can effect physical Phenomena such as earth quake , or other natural disasters?
and what about the wording produce/dictate...same thing in regards to Karma and it's effect/affect ?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not really very certain of this. For example, the Theravada school holds that not all effects are karmic effects. Being blown up in a plane or murdered is not necessarily a result of a karmic cause. This strictly deterministic idea of karma is rather unique to Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Inherent existence is just a term to explain how ordinary people perceive their world. It's more than existence, it's independent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely no one perceives that world as existing inherently.

Anders said:
They may not perceive its existence as being "inherent", but I think it is not wrong to say that in perceiving something to exist, we unwittingly bring hidden assumptions of inherency (/permanence) to that which exists.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely not. Everyone knows their car is going to break down, that they are going to sicken and die, etc.,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's really a bit lazy to accuse someone whose view you don't agree with as being a fundamentalist, just because they follow the traditional views of Buddhism. If your claim is that I'm believing something without a logical reason, you can check out my logical explanation for why Nagarjuna lived for 600 years a few posts back.

Malcolm wrote:
Your "logical" explanation will not be accepted outside a small circle of coreligionists because there is no possible way you can prove this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Karma has no direct bearing on the the causes and conditions that create physical phenomena in the universe.

Minobu said:
Do you believe in the concept of collective Karma?
Can you see from the point of view that there is a collective Karma how that could effect everything from governments taking power over people, to pollution, to complete self destruction of an entire planet if it got to the point where Karma dictated/produced such an event.

does Karma dictate or produce or both?

is there another more apt word to describe how Karma has an effect on anything.

Malcolm wrote:
There is such a thing as collective karma. When sentient beings act in similar ways this causes similar results — we term this "collective karma." But this has no bearing on whether the sun circles the earth (false relative truth) or whether the earth circles the sun (correct relative truth aka conventional truth).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Karma has no direct bearing on the the causes and conditions that create physical phenomena in the universe.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Sure it does - all phenomena are mere appearances to mind. I thought you were a Chittamatrin!
It isn't anything other than karma.

Malcolm wrote:
This is extremely poorly thought out. Nāgārjuna points out that the sequence is afflictions, action, suffering. Rinse, repeat.

Tsongkhapafan said:
A flat earth and geocentricity are of a piece.
That doesn't follow at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, it is not a valid appearance for anyone. People believe such things because they had no means of verifying them conventionally. This of course is the problem with conventional truth. Many conventions arise about things which one cannot possibly verify.
Buddha explained this, so you don't believe Buddha. Fair enough.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha said many things which were provisional, not definitive.


Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm really surprised that you don't accept that emptiness means that experience is completely subjective; how can you argue against this?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness has nothing to do with subjective experience. All things are empty, where subjective or objective. Emptiness does not mean that all things are just mental experiences, unless of course you are Yogacarin.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Unless you are a Buddha, you cannot verify enlightenment but many people accept it through logic reasons and small experience so there's no problem with conventional truth.

Malcolm wrote:
There can be many problems with conventional truth, because conventional truths rely on broad consensus, rather than proof.



Tsongkhapafan said:
I practise the union of the Prasangika and Chittamatrin views.

Malcolm wrote:
This is called Yogacara Madhyamaka, the school of Śantarakṣita.

You must then accept that conventional truths are not that important for Madhyamakas since you keep switching between Sautrantika and Yogacara for your conventional truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
[

Ah, here we are: "All conventional perceptions are deluded." which is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Malcolm wrote:
All conventional perceptions are deluded. Why? Because they are part of relative truth. Thinking there is a car in car, for example, is deluded. There is no car in a car.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, sometimes it is, depending on karma.

Malcolm wrote:
So depending on karma, sometime the sun moves around the earth, and other times it moves around the sun?

That is pretty ridiculous.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, clearly not, because there is no karmic cause for that appearance. Karma doesn't mean that just anything can appear. A rainbow cannot appear if there are no causes and conditions for it to appear.

Malcolm wrote:
Karma has no direct bearing on the the causes and conditions that create physical phenomena in the universe.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Also, I didn't say that the sun moves around the earth, I said that for some, the earth is flat.

Malcolm wrote:
A flat earth and geocentricity are of a piece.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha described the world in this way with Mount Meru. This is a valid appearance for some beings

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not a valid appearance for anyone. People believe such things because they had no means of verifying them conventionally. This of course is the problem with conventional truth. Many conventions arise about things which one cannot possibly verify.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Emptiness means subjective appearance to mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Wow, even more amazing, a follower of Lama Tsongkhapa who is a Yogacarin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Malcolm wrote:
The concern for creating a perfect conventional truth is very much confined to the Gelugpa school. Of course, as we see, Gelugpas like TKfan ignore conventional truth whenever it suits them to do so, such as proclaiming with absolute certainty that Nāgārjuna lived for 600 years and expressing shock at the idea that a traditional story might a legend rather than a historical fact.
So on the one hand, Malcolm wants to assert that all conventional truths are creations of delusion. How can you trust 'historical fact' then when it's untrustworthy?

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say that. I said that relative truths were objects of false cognitions. Conventional truths are consensus truths that arise from common observations amongst ordinary people about such as things as the earth revolving around the sun and so on—— truths, in your religious fervor you seem immune to, just like fundamentalist Christians who believe against all sense and reason that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the earth is flat.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes, sometimes it is, depending on karma.

Malcolm wrote:
So depending on karma, sometime the sun moves around the earth, and other times it moves around the sun?

That is pretty ridiculous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:



Minobu said:
then the edict from Malcolm squashing any semblance of Gelug Tradition on the matter.

Malcolm wrote:
This (the idea that Nāgārjuna lived for 600 is not a Gelugpa idea. It is a very late Indian tradition adopted by Tibetans.

Minobu said:
I think Malcolm sort of abhors Madhyamika...

Malcolm wrote:
You should ask me what I think, rather than assume.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That Nāgārjuna, Siddha Nāgārjuna was at Nalanda. The  Buddhist University at Nalanda was not founded until the 4th century CE., more than a century after the passing of Nāgārjuna I. Saraha live in the 9th century. This places Siddha Nāgārjuna sometime in 9th century as well.

Moreover, Nāgārjuna I spent his entire life in Andhra Pradesh. He was South Indian. He also lived a couple of centuries before Nalanda was founded.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's the same person.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and the earth is flat. And I suppose you also believe his severed head is slowly inching back towards his body...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Jeff H said:
It seems to me the semantics here would be resolved if we distinguish between the method of madhyamaka and the Madhyamaka School, according to the tenet systems tradition.

This quote from The Presentation of Tenets by Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen (trans. Glen Svensson) indicates that Madhyamikas (proponents of the Madhyamaka tenet system) utilize madhyamaka (the method of non-affirming negation) to further the Mahayana. “Propounding Great Vehicle tenets” means following Mahayana. The non-affirming negation of true establishment is a distinguishing method for this school, but it doesn’t eliminate the assertion of the Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara and Madhyamaka represent to different approaches to Mahāyāna, so we agree on that much. The former is constructionist, in that they engage in many detailed explanations and the elaborations of positions based on the Buddha's teachings found principally in the Samdhinirocana Sūtra, Lankāvatāra Sūtra and so on. The latter is deconstructionist, principally following the prajñāpārāmita sūtras. There is of course a third school, the Tathātagarbha school which is based on the ten tathāgatagarbha sūtras, but in terms of treatises it is represented only by the Uttaratantra, its commentary, and some texts attributed to Nāgārjuna.

The point is that neither of these three schools promote a separate path. All three schools promote the same path, with different understandings of consciousness and reality, and different methodologies for ascertaining the same. Madhyamaka's approach, as you correctly note, is strictly critical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2016 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Nonetheless this means that it is not true the Madhyamaka masters are only concerned with refuting wrong views. How you classify their treatises into different sections does not change this fact.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that Madhyamaka masters were solely concerned with refuting wrong views, they had responsibilities for transmitting vinaya, teaching abhidharma and so on; I said that Madhayamaka is a critical method which is solely involved in refuting wrong views.

Kenneth Chan said:
So it appears that your concern is over semantics. Even while it is clear that the Madhyamaka masters are concerned with the spiritual path, you insist that the word “Madhyamaka” must only be used to strictly mean “a critical method which is solely involved in refuting wrong views.” If, however, your concern is not merely over semantics, can you clarify exactly what your concern is?

Malcolm wrote:
A chess master might also be an expert chef. But when they are playing chess they are not cooking. A Madhyamaka master may also be a expert in Vinaya. But when they are writing Madhyamaka treatises they are concerned principally with the elimination of incorrect views.

Kenneth Chan said:
I am afraid your reply here still does not answer the question why you have such a problem with a Madhyamika philosophy that considers the conventional truth as crucial.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka is not a philosophy. It does not set forth its own propositions. For example, the Buddha proposes that there are two truths. This is not a Madhyamaka proposition. The idea of the two truths is also addressed in Abhidharma. Madhyamaka merely corrects Abdhidharma misconceptions about the two truths. For example, Buddha taught mind-only, the three natures and the all-basis consciousness in the so called Yogacara sūtras. Candrakīrti did not invent these ideas, but he endeavors to correct Yogacara misinterpretations of these teachings.

Kenneth Chan said:
It does not explain why you are so against any suggestion that Madhyamika philosophy has anything directly to do with the spiritual path that necessarily requires bodhicitta (I say this because you repeatedly argue that Madhyamika philosophy is not concerned with the conventional truth).
I have never suggested that Madhyamaka has nothing to do with the spiritual path. The elimination of incorrect views is crucial to the path. What I stated was that the Madhyamaka focus was on the elimination of wrong views; that it, Madhyamaka, is a critical method and not a philosophy. Madhyamaka does not set forth propositions or claims about anything. As Buddhapalita so clearly states, Madhyamaka does not make the claim that this or that does not exist; it merely removes claims that this or that exists without the need for adding the qualifier "inherently."

Malcolm wrote:
Since, as you say, “the elimination of incorrect views is crucial to the path,” Madhyamika philosophy must definitely be concerned with the spiritual path.
One, there is no Madhyamaka philosophy since Madhyamaka does not make propositions about things. Madhyamaka does not set forth either an epistemological theory nor an ontological theory. It merely shows an opponent the inherent contradictions which are a consequence (prasaṅga) of their own assertions without putting forth any counter assertions.


Kenneth Chan said:
While you admit that the Madhyamaka masters are concerned with the spiritual path, you insist that the word “Madhyamaka” must, nonetheless, be restricted to mean “the elimination of wrong views,” and that the word “Madhyamaka” must be strictly and only used to mean “a critical method” and must never be used to mean "a philosophy."

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Kenneth Chan said:
So this means that your motivation is over semantics and the correct usage of words. If this is not so, can you now clarify exactly what your motivation is?

Malcolm wrote:
My personal motivation is that people understand what Madhyamaka is and what it is not. It is a critical method used to prune wrong views. It is not a spiritual philosophy nor does it make any propositions of its own. It serves strictly as a critical method for removing misconceptions about what the Buddha taught, that's all.

So for example, when you proclaim that Madhyamaka philosophy solves the mystery of quantum physics, this is wrong on two counts: 1) Madhyamaka is not a philosophy, since as explained above it make no propositions of its own. 2) Madhyamaka has no role in confirming mundane theories such as quantum physics, much less karma. If Madhyamaka is to play a role in quantum physics, it would be merely to show that propositions in quantum physics suffer from internal contradictions if and when quantum physicists make ultimate truth claims that contradict the teachings of the Buddha (i.e. claiming there is arising from self, other, both or without a cause). To the extent that they do not do this, Madhyamaka has no interest in quantum physics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Inherent existence is just a term to explain how ordinary people perceive their world. It's more than existence, it's independent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely no one perceives that world as existing inherently.

Lukeinaz said:
I feel that there is a substance to things, like they exist independently of me.  They exude some sort of existence.  Is this not getting at inherent existence?

Malcolm wrote:
This is dualism, not inherent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Emptiness
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Inherent existence does not exist at all, but it appears to mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Um no. Common peopled do not have concept "Inherent existence." It is a philosophical idea, not a common idea. The idea that common people have is "this [entity] exists." Inherent existence is not an appearance to the mind. Even Tsongkhapa admits this.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Inherent existence is just a term to explain how ordinary people perceive their world. It's more than existence, it's independent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Absolutely no one perceives that world as existing inherently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Anders said:
The upadesha is far more likely to have been authored by nagarjuna than the tantric texts. Not in the least because the former is an encyclopaedia of Mahayana from a strict madhyamika perspective whilst the latter is, well, tantra.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Nagarjuna was the student of Saraha and was a great Tantric master. He was also an alchemist and could transmute metals into gold, but more importantly he knew how to transform our very subtle body and mind into a Buddha's body and mind. Tantric alchemy is the best.

Malcolm wrote:
That Nāgārjuna, Siddha Nāgārjuna was at Nalanda. The  Buddhist University at Nalanda was not founded until the 4th century CE., more than a century after the passing of Nāgārjuna I. Saraha live in the 9th century. This places Siddha Nāgārjuna sometime in 9th century as well.

Moreover, Nāgārjuna I spent his entire life in Andhra Pradesh. He was South Indian. He also lived a couple of centuries before Nalanda was founded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Lama Tsongkhapa were all also clearly concerned with the bodhisattva path. So it is incorrect to say that Madhyamaka masters are only concerned with refuting wrong views. That is definitely not the case.

Malcolm wrote:
The activities of any given master span many activities. However, it is perfectly correct to maintain that the aim of Madhyamaka treatises are primarily to offer a critique of śrāvaka errors, and later on, errors in Yogacara exegesis.

Kenneth Chan said:
Nonetheless this means that it is not true the Madhyamaka masters are only concerned with refuting wrong views. How you classify their treatises into different sections does not change this fact.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that Madhyamaka masters were solely concerned with refuting wrong views, they had responsibilities for transmitting vinaya, teaching abhidharma and so on; I said that Madhayamaka is a critical method which is solely involved in refuting wrong views.


Kenneth Chan said:
What I am struggling to understand here, Malcolm, is this: What exactly is your motivation here in persistently arguing that Madhyamakas are “concerned only with refuting the mistaken views of others”?
Because that is what Nāgārjuna states in the Vigrahavyavartani:
If I had a thesis, I would be at fault;
since I alone have no thesis, I alone am without fault.

Malcolm wrote:
So your motivation is simply on the basis of how you choose to interpret Nagarjuna's words?
But there are many different ways of interpreting any words. Perhaps I am wrong but it appears to me that your motivation may be something else.
That is your speculation, something which I am not able to control.

Kenneth Chan said:
Otherwise, just consider this. If your interpretation happens to be incorrect (especially since many people, including Madhyamaka masters, disagree with your interpretation), and you are forcibly pushing this onto everyone else, you may end up doing more harm than good.

Malcolm wrote:
A sector of post-15th cenutury Tibetans may disagree with me. I am totally ok with that.

Kenneth Chan said:
And if this is your stance, what do you consider as the appropriate spiritual path to enlightenment?
Without entering into refuge on the Buddha's path, one is not following a correct path. Without developing the aspiration for supreme awakening, one is following a lower path. Without understanding that all phenomena are natureless, free from the four extremes, nonarising and inexpressible, one will be subject to conceptual proliferation and be long delayed in attaining buddhahood— as Mañjuśrī said Sachen, "If grasping arises, one does not have the view."

Malcolm wrote:
How is any of this a problem with a Madhyamika philosophy that considers the conventional truth as crucial?
As I pointed out, there are only four uses of the term "convention" in the MMK.

The concern for creating a perfect conventional truth is very much confined to the Gelugpa school. Of course, as we see, Gelugpas like TKfan ignore conventional truth whenever it suits them to do so, such as proclaiming with absolute certainty that Nāgārjuna lived for 600 years and expressing shock at the idea that a traditional story might a legend rather than a historical fact.

Kenneth Chan said:
It does not explain why you are so against any suggestion that Madhyamika philosophy has anything directly to do with the spiritual path that necessarily requires bodhicitta (I say this because you repeatedly argue that Madhyamika philosophy is not concerned with the conventional truth).

Malcolm wrote:
I have never suggested that Madhyamaka has nothing to do with the spiritual path. The elimination of incorrect views is crucial to the path. What I stated was that the Madhyamaka focus was on the elimination of wrong views; that it, Madhyamaka, is a critical method and not a philosophy. Madhyamaka does not set forth propositions or claims about anything. As Buddhapalita so clearly states, Madhyamaka does not make the claim that this or that does not exist; it merely removes claims that this or that exists without the need for adding the qualifier "inherently." This also does not preclude those who write about Madhyamaka from writing about other issues, such as the Bodhisattva path, Abhidharma, Vajrayāna and so on, for example, Śantideva wrote not only the Bodhicaryāvatara, but also the Compendium of Training (Śiksasammucaya). Nāgārjuna I wrote not only on Madhyamaka, but he also wrote a short text on Ayurveda called the Jivasūtra, as well as a detailed discourse on Mahāyāna training called Ratnavali. You should read it, it is really quite remarkable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 1:09 PM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Varna does not apply to Tibetans, Chinese, Greeks, etc.

BuddhaFollower said:
Exactly. You are " Avarna ", which means beyond the Four Varnas.  Which means outcaste.

Introduction to Hinduism by Flood, page 61 says:
".....'outcaste' beyond the system of the four classes (avarna)."


Also see:
https://www.google.com/#q=Avarna+outcaste&safe=off&tbm=bks

https://www.google.com/#q=Avarna+untouchable&safe=off&tbm=bks

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, it does not apply.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Also, Tibetans are outside the varna system.

BuddhaFollower said:
Right, they are outcastes.  Thats what I said.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are completely outside of it. Varna does not apply to Tibetans, Chinese, Greeks, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
It is essential to combine wisdom and compassion on the spiritual path to enlightenment, and that is why conventional truth is crucial in Madhyamika philosophy. Let me quote from the book “Relative Truth, Ultimate Truth” by Geshe Tashi Tsering:

“Understanding conventional truth enables the practitioner to develop the method side—compassion, concentration, and ethics—whereas understanding the ultimate truth leads to the wisdom side—emptiness. These realizations will, in turn, result in the two Buddha bodies, the truth body and the form body.

People who want to be free from suffering need to cultivate an understanding of reality, the wisdom of ultimate truth, while developing the method side of the practice, which entails a thorough understanding of conventional truth. There is no other way.”

Malcolm wrote:
There are virtually no Madhayamaka texts which illustrate the bodhisattva path. This is because Madhyamaka and Yogacara present the same path; while having differences over the nature of consciousness and reality. The texts by Madhyamaka authors that treat the path (the Abhisamayālaṃkara literature) are taxonomic, and do not present a path different than that of the Yogacara masters since the Abhisamayālaṃkara was written by a Yogacara master, Maitreyanatha.

The collection of reasoning and the praises of Nāgārjuna are entirely critical. One might imagine Āryadeva's 400 to be a path text. In reality, it engages in what you would like to call "conventional analysis" for the first four chapters and ultimate analysis for the final four chapters. But in general, it does not present a path. It is wholly concerned with correcting misconceptions.

It is really only Śantideva that presents a Madhyamaka path text, and to a lesser extent, Nāgārjuna's Ratnavali.

But for the most part, Nāgārjuna and other Madhyamakas are concerned only with refuting the mistaken views of others without putting forward some unique view called "Madhyamaka." They are instead attempting to critically restore the Buddha's middle way.

Kenneth Chan said:
Nagarjuna also transmitted a system of Guhyasamaja, which definitely concerns the bodhisattva path.

Malcolm wrote:
That Nāgārjuna and the Nāgārjuna of the MMK are not the same person.


Kenneth Chan said:
Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Lama Tsongkhapa were all also clearly concerned with the bodhisattva path. So it is incorrect to say that Madhyamaka masters are only concerned with refuting wrong views. That is definitely not the case.

Malcolm wrote:
The activities of any given master span many activities. Howevet, it is perfectly correct to maintain that the aim of Madhyamaka treatises are primarily to offer a critique of śrāvaka errors, and later on, errors in Yogacara exegesis.

Kenneth Chan said:
What I am struggling to understand here, Malcolm, is this: What exactly is your motivation here in persistently arguing that Madhyamakas are “concerned only with refuting the mistaken views of others”?

Malcolm wrote:
Because that is what Nāgārjuna states in the Vigrahavyavartani:
If I had a thesis, I would be at fault;
since I alone have no thesis, I alone am without fault.

Kenneth Chan said:
This is not a criticism; I am asking for clarification from you. It appears to me that you are against any suggestion that Madhyamika philosophy has anything directly to do with the spiritual path that necessarily requires bodhicitta, since you repeatedly argue that Madhyamika philosophy is not concerned with the conventional truth.  Am I right? If so, why are you so insistent on this?

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to look at Nāgārjuna's writing on the Mahāyan̄a path, they really are only to be found in three texts which we can be certain were written by Nāgārjuna I: the Mahāyānavimsika, the Ratnavali and the Suhṛllekha. Of these three, the first barely mentions the Mahāyāna path at all, but focuses mainly on a nonpolemical exposition of the view of Prajñāpārāmita. Ratnavali has an extensive presentation of Mahāyāna view and practice, and the Suhṛllekha mainly focuses on such things as the need the practice the ten virtues, the results of negative actions and so on.

Otherwise, it is quite difficult to ascertain which of over 300 texts in the bstan 'gyur were authored by Nāgārjuna I since they are never mentioned anywhere by later Madhyamaka authors or cited by them. Then of course there are Chinese translations, but they are beyond the scope of our discussion.

However the Madhyamaka texts we do have that everyone accepts are authored by Nāgārjuna leave no details on how to practice Mahāyāna, I therefore contend that Madhyamaka is strictly a critical method to eliminate wrong views.


Kenneth Chan said:
And if this is your stance, what do you consider as the appropriate spiritual path to enlightenment?

Malcolm wrote:
Without entering into refuge on the Buddha's path, one is not following a correct path. Without developing the aspiration for supreme awakening, one is following a lower path. Without understanding that all phenomena are natureless, free from the four extremes, nonarising and inexpressible, one will be subject to conceptual proliferation and be long delayed in attaining buddhahood— as Mañjuśrī said Sachen, "If grasping arises, one does not have the view."

Both Yogacara and Madhyamaka offer perspectives on the Mahāyāna path, but the latter is strictly critical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna wrote the MMK to pacify proliferation,

Coëmgenu said:
I had inherited a narrative about different motivations about why Nāgārjuna wrote his treatise, something about a svabhāva heresy amoung the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharmikāḥ and śūnyatā being a refutation of said svabhāva heresy?

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Sarvāstivādins accept emptiness, but their emptiness only goes so far. Then they engaged in lots of proliferation, making up this and that dharma to account for this and that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna wrote the MMK to pacify proliferation, not to set up a system called "The Middle Way." However, later scholars have taken it upon themselves to turn Madhyamaka into a position concerning the ultimate, rather than a systematic presentation that rejects all positions concerning the ultimate.

Minobu said:
Are you sure this is not your interpretation of things , based on your preference to Dzogchen .

because there is a lineage to this teaching and as taught to me...it included compassion as the reason for it's inception.
yes it uses certain techniques to allow for one to see the true nature of how existence and non existence exist as one.
And again it is not a metaphysics lecture, nor is it metaphysical except in the eyes of someone using that lens, which skews it.

it facilitates compassion in the view which brings a strong sense of duty to perform for all sentient beings.

it is a philosophy and not a theory ...yes /no?

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka is neither a philosophy nor a theory. It is a critical method within Mahāyāna for eliminating wrong views. Some later scholars however have decided to turn Madhyamaka into both a philosophy and a theory, and this is an error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Guide to the Middle Way by Chandrakirti.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not illustrate the path, it describes the qualities of the ten stages with no reference whatsoever to the paths of accumulation and application and focuses on the sixth bhumi, where he takes issue with various opponents over what he perceives to be their misunderstandings of the middle way, principally, Yogacarins.

Paths describe realization. Stages describe qualities.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Sure it does - it explains the perfections of giving, moral discipline, patience, effort, mental stabilisation and wisdom - that IS the path.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the paths are the path of application, preparation, seeing, cultivation, and no more training. The Madhyamakāvatāra does not explain these things in any detail, it merely mentions in passing the perfections and their results. It is not a manual for practicing them, like the Bodhicaryāvatāra, for example. For example, in his autocommentary, Candrakīrti devotes very little time to an exposition of anything other than the sixth bhumi. He devotes 12 folios to the first five bhumis, 40 folios on the sixth bhumi, and another 12 folios on the bhumis 7-10. In other words, he devotes two thirds of his entire text to one bhumi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka has serious limitations.

Minobu said:
this of course will nag me forever, seeing Lord Buddha Nagarjuna is the founding father of this teaching.

but i did see this in your tone and i see now that you are an honest person.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna wrote the MMK to pacify proliferation, not to set up a system called "The Middle Way." However, later scholars have taken it upon themselves to turn Madhyamaka into a position concerning the ultimate, rather than a systematic presentation that rejects all positions concerning the ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are virtually no Madhayamaka texts which illustrate the bodhisattva path.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Guide to the Middle Way by Chandrakirti.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not illustrate the path, it describes the qualities of the ten stages with no reference whatsoever to the paths of accumulation and application and focuses on the sixth bhumi, where he takes issue with various opponents over what he perceives to be their misunderstandings of the middle way, principally, Yogacarins.

Paths describe realization. Stages describe qualities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
The Cakrasamvara Tantra says:

For a brahmin, one should sacrifice twenty times over seven days. For a kshatriya, one should sacrifice seven times, and for a vaishya, five times. For a shudra, sacrifice three times, and for an outcaste, once. ---translated by David Gray


Since Tibetans are outcastes, how does it effect Tibetan Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
This cannot be taken literally. Every single word of the Cakrasamvara is intentional language.

Also, Tibetans are outside the varna system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism, Social Equity, and odd interpretations of karma
Content:
Rakz said:
You know better than they do? Do you have firsthand experience of what it is like to go through a divorce in the west as they have?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, was taken to the cleaners too. But I am a man, not a child. So you know what? I don't complain because I am old school, not like these modern whiny man-babies of today.

Gyurme Kundrol said:
What do you suppose are the forces, philosophies and social ideals that led to a culture of whiny man babies?

Malcolm wrote:
Reactionary politics in response to feminism, mainly. The 80's men's movement was really pathetic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There are virtually no Madhayamaka texts which illustrate the bodhisattva path.

Minobu said:
I cannot argue this point but it seems skewed somehow.
If not impossible taken at face value.

The  philosophy is aimed not solely at destroying the "I" so to speak but to see what reality truly is.
There is a conventional "I" and the complete lack of an "I" is nihilistic. Even though the "I" is not inherent it does need to be dismissed entirely .

the most important point is that it is a "view" to be developed.

after reading yours and some others here discussing Emptiness, i feel you are all more or less bent towards nihilism, to some extent.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. In order to be an advocate of annihilation, first one has to propose something which exists. We propose existents of no kind whatever. Therefore, we cannot be accused of annihilationism.

Minobu said:
One person said it is about taking things apart.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka is wholly critical, and not constructionist at all.

Minobu said:
As far as saying no Madhayamaka texts which illustrate the bodhisattva path
I did say that compassion is the goal . Like all buddhist teachings.
I don't know how you can take compassion out of the philosophy and justify it by using the words no Madhayamaka texts which illustrate the bodhisattva path

Malcolm wrote:
Compassion is the basis of the Mahāyāna path. Madhyamaka however is concerned primarily with correcting faults with respect to ultimate truth.

Minobu said:
I must say that nihilism seems to be the focal point in what you are and others here are dictating concerning the nature of the Philosophy.

Malcolm wrote:
I've already rejected this assertion.

Minobu said:
what did you say about Buddhas only see Buddhas and not sentient beings...something like that...it keeps coming back to me and now i see those words taken at  face value,Malcolm, completely dismiss the fact the Buddha taught ignorant deluded sentient Beings...why teach at all if we are all Buddhas...

Malcolm wrote:
So we will recognize our own state and actualize it. However, buddhas too are mere appearances and are not real in anyway. As Haribhadra so wonderfully said, the entire path, from beginning to the attainment of Buddhahood is totally illusory.

Minobu said:
True A buddha sees the potential  and the Tathagatagarbha , but saying they only see other Buddhas again is misleading and nihilistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas have no impure vision. Therefore, they do not see sentient beings, they only see buddhas. Likewise, buddhas do no see any impure realms, they see only buddhafields.

Minobu said:
also why am i getting a tone that Madhyamika is somehow inferior to you .
i get a tone and wonder if this is true about your feelings towards it.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka has serious limitations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Jeff H said:
In that sense, as a training technique for ordinary beings, the residue of “mere existence”, which seems to be affirmed as a form of existence in distinction from inherent existence, is no more than a temporary synonym for “appearance” which is not affirmed, it's simply not negated.

Malcolm wrote:
People have no problem negating an illusory elephant. It is also mere appearance. The problem comes about when one uses the term "mere existence."

It is instructive to note that the term conventional truth appears nowhere in Nāgārjuna's writing. He does not according truth status to mundane conventions, he merely advises in the analysis on karma that they should not be be violated (for obvious reasons), and that they should be employed in order to make it possible to understand ultimate truth. In fact, the term "convention" appears only four times in the whole of the MMK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In a dream you think it is all real. When you wake, you realize it was not real.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
If I am a worldly person, I can't say the dream was "not real", the same way I can't say the movie is "not real". Even when I wake up, if I say the dream is "not real" then I'm saying it didn't function at all. But even when I'm awake I remember that the dream functioned. I remember the events of the dream. It isn't "unreal". It's just "less real" than the objects of my waking life. If you say there's "no" water in water you wouldn't chase the oasis in the desert at all, and you'd die of thirst not knowing if it would function as an oasis or a mirage.

Malcolm wrote:
This has little to do with with making a distinction between inherent existence and existence, that is my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your perception of water is delusion-based. Why? Because not all beings of the six realms have a consensus upon the liquid you are drinking. So for you, it is water; to a deva, asura, hell being and so on, your insisting it is water is deluded.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You really need to do some investigation into valid cognition!

Liquid is empty of inherent existence which means how it appears depends on karma.

Malcolm wrote:
...which comes from affliction which is itself based in delusion.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Liquid appears to me as water, that's not deluded because I'm a human being. If I saw water as pus and blood that would be a deluded perception for me but not for a hungry ghost. If I saw water as being inherently existent, that would also be a deluded perception.

Malcolm wrote:
It is deluded because it clearly is not perceived as water by all. There is no objective water which is a nondeceptive authoritative object which invariably produces an authoritative cognition. Nor are human cognitions authoritative, rendering all other cognitions nonauthoritative. In fact, authoritative objects and authoritative objects cannot be established.


Tsongkhapafan said:
The fact that it appears differently to different beings doesn't prove that the perception of water is deluded, it proves that water is a mere appearance to mind depending upon karma and being dependent; it's empty, not deluded.

Malcolm wrote:
The fact that the appearance of water is one's karmic vision proves it is deluded. Karmic vision is deluded by definition.

As  Virupa said, "For sentient beings in affliction there is impure vision."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
conebeckham said:
You think worldly people are able to distinguish between existence and "inherent existence?"

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Yes, otherwise they would all be unable to distinguish whether they were dreaming or awake. If you tell someone that when they are eating a cheese sandwich "it is like when you are watching a movie", they would understand what you mean.

Malcolm wrote:
Your example does not follow. In a dream you think it is all real. When you wake, you realize it was not real. But this does not mean that you thought appearances in a dream were inherently existent while you were in the dream, or that you now think this computer screen you are reading inherently exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All conventional perceptions are deluded. Relative truth in toto is defined by Candrakīrit as the object of a false cognition. The reluctance on your part to accede to this represents a limitation of your understanding, not a limitation of Madhyamaka.

We all know that there is no water in a mirage and no elephant in an illusion. What we seem to not understand is that there is no water in water or an elephant in an elephant either.  The point of Madhyamaka is to show that there is no water in water nor elephants in elephants. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Madhyamaka. It is very simple.

Tsongkhapafan said:
In your hurry to deny that which is valid and exists, it seems you have no explanation as to why I can drink water but not a mirage. It's because one is a valid appearance to mind and the other is not, but such subtle distinctions don't exist in your philosophy.

Malcolm wrote:
Your perception of water is delusion-based. Why? Because not all beings of the six realms have a consensus upon the liquid you are drinking. So for you, it is water; to a deva, asura, hell being and so on, your insisting it is water is deluded.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The lack of subtlety in your view means you are really missing something important.

Malcolm wrote:
Your insistence on a nonexistent subtly is similar to animals who chase mirages in the desert and die of thirst.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
It is essential to combine wisdom and compassion on the spiritual path to enlightenment, and that is why conventional truth is crucial in Madhyamika philosophy. Let me quote from the book “Relative Truth, Ultimate Truth” by Geshe Tashi Tsering:

“Understanding conventional truth enables the practitioner to develop the method side—compassion, concentration, and ethics—whereas understanding the ultimate truth leads to the wisdom side—emptiness. These realizations will, in turn, result in the two Buddha bodies, the truth body and the form body.

People who want to be free from suffering need to cultivate an understanding of reality, the wisdom of ultimate truth, while developing the method side of the practice, which entails a thorough understanding of conventional truth. There is no other way.”

Malcolm wrote:
There are virtually no Madhayamaka texts which illustrate the bodhisattva path. This is because Madhyamaka and Yogacara present the same path; while having differences over the nature of consciousness and reality. The texts by Madhyamaka authors that treat the path (the Abhisamayālaṃkara literature) are taxonomic, and do not present a path different than that of the Yogacara masters since the Abhisamayālaṃkara was written by a Yogacara master, Maitreyanatha.

The collection of reasoning and the praises of Nāgārjuna are entirely critical. One might imagine Āryadeva's 400 to be a path text. In reality, it engages in what you would like to call "conventional analysis" for the first four chapters and ultimate analysis for the final four chapters. But in general, it does not present a path. It is wholly concerned with correcting misconceptions.

It is really only Śantideva that presents a Madhyamaka path text, and to a lesser extent, Nāgārjuna's Ratnavali.

But for the most part, Nāgārjuna and other Madhyamakas are concerned only with refuting the mistaken views of others without putting forward some unique view called "Madhyamaka." They are instead attempting to critically restore the Buddha's middle way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Minobu said:
Thank you for seeing the actual point i was making, and making it known.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that Madhyamaka is only about emptiness. It is not about conventional reality. Conventional reality needs no defense from Madhyamakas and the idea that it does is a deviation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's really incorrect. Madhyamaka is also about the relationship between conventional and ultimate truth, otherwise you're a bird with one big fat emptiness wing flying round and round in circles.

It's not about defending conventional truth, it's about understanding the subtle relationship between conventional and ultimate truth, seeing the harmony between them and how the middle way can unite the two truths without contradiction; it's not good enough to write off appearances to mind as simply manifestations of ignorance à la Gorampa. Not all conventional perceptions are deluded ones.

Malcolm wrote:
All conventional perceptions are deluded. Relative truth in toto is defined by Candrakīrit as the object of a false cognition. The reluctance on your part to accede to this represents a limitation of your understanding, not a limitation of Madhyamaka.

We all know that there is no water in a mirage and no elephant in an illusion. What we seem to not understand is that there is no water in water or an elephant in an elephant either.  The point of Madhyamaka is to show that there is no water in water nor elephants in elephants. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Madhyamaka. It is very simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Minobu said:
You cannot experience the Madhyamika view without touching upon both conventional and ultimate reality, with one's awareness.
the ultimate reality being all things are empty of inherent existence .
Which for the uninitiated  does  not translate as  nihilistic in nature as well.


the Madhyamika  understands conventional reality, does not dismiss it

the whole point is to blow away both simultaneously and maintain a middle view by seeing the empty nature of all things.
to blow away the concept of inherency and the concept of nihilism . which brings you to a view that everything is empty .

even emptiness is empty , and that awareness is also empty .

to deny conventional reality and dismiss it, is fanatical , taking something to the extreme and missing the entire point of the philosophy.

Tsongkhapafan said:
These are good points, thanks for making them. The whole idea that Madhyamaka is just about emptiness is incorrect, as emptiness cannot exist alone without conventional reality. Emptiness of inherent existence is always the emptiness OF something, a point that is missed by many people writing on this thread. Buddha himself said:

Form is empty; emptiness is form.

The validity of form is not denied.

Minobu said:
Thank you for seeing the actual point i was making, and making it known.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that Madhyamaka is only about emptiness. It is not about conventional reality. Conventional reality needs no defense from Madhyamakas and the idea that it does is a deviation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Anyone wanna tell me how many dharmas can fit on the end of a pin?

Malcolm wrote:
All of them.

conebeckham said:
What pin?

Malcolm wrote:
All of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 12:44 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:
If by refuting existence 
there will be however be non-existence,
therefore, by refuting non-existence, 
for what reason will there not be existence?
Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.


cloudburst said:
Malcolm, could you give a citation here so we can look at your translation from other sources please?
I assume:
"there will be however be non-existence" means
"there will however be non-existence" or ""there will be however non-existence," whichever one prefers for readability?

the truth is so many assertions and contradictions have been asserted and dropped in this conversation that is would be impossible for someone who was not already versed in these issues  to make any sense of it.

Do you recommend that we should accept that Nagarjuna, the prototypical Madhyamika, accepts the law of the excluded middle?

Malcolm wrote:
Ah, typos. Gotta love em.

"there will however be non-existence"

You can find this in the Hopkins translation.

It seems that Nāgārjuna accepts the law of the excluded middle as well as the law of noncontradiction conventionally, except in the case of the four fold negation, or with respect to the https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/#LNCBudTet.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Anyone wanna tell me how many dharmas can fit on the end of a pin?

Malcolm wrote:
All of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Is it not true though, that the idea of existence (in the functional sense, not the philosophical sense) is renowned among worldly people?

Malcolm wrote:
Worldly people are incapable of making a distinction between inherent existence and existence. One, not only because existence is included in inherent existence sui generis, but two, there is no need to make the distinction. The coarse object of negation is sufficient.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The problem is that your view is coarse and so you are unable to make a distinction between the mode of existence that normally appears to the minds of sentient beings (inherent existence), and mere appearance, mere imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Inherent existence is not a mode of appearance that appears to any sentient being's mind. This is your basic mistake. Appearances are not imputations; instead imputations are based on appearances. Therefore, the coarse object of negation, existence, is sufficient.

For example, when we negate the existence of an illusion, we are negating the appearance itself. The elephant in an illusion is not an elephant. We are not negating some inherently existing elephant in the illusion, we are saying in that appearance of an elephant is not an elephant. All phenomena can be understood the same way.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Thus your object of negation 'existence' is too general and is also negating mere appearance. Negating something that does exist is a wrong view.

Malcolm wrote:
Since existence is included in inherent existence, and since you claim inherent existence never existed, for you also existence never existed. You must accept this consequence.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You are also unable to make a distinction between an object of a valid mind and an object of a non-valid mind

Malcolm wrote:
All relative truths are objects of false cognitions, so says Candrakīrti.

Tsongkhapafan said:
thus you tar all appearances with the same brush and miss another level of subtlety and profundity in relation to conventional truth.

Malcolm wrote:
But there is nothing profound in conventional truth, since it is just the object of a false cognition. Conventional truth is not profound, it can be useful however.

Tsongkhapafan said:
If you don't really understand conventional truth, you don't completely and accurately understand ultimate truth, thus the means to attain liberation is lacking.

Malcolm wrote:
All that one needs to understand is that conventional truth is based on a consensus of ordinary people who are suffer from deluded cognitions, thinking that things exist when they don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 8:58 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Gelugpas negate inherent existence, not existence in general, so this establishes the nonexistence of inherent existence, not a total nonexistence.

But Gelugpas do not negate the nonexistence of inherent existence. They negate the inherent existence of the nonexistence of inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
There is really no difference between existence and inherent existence, as Nāgārjuna shows and as I have discussed many times. It is in fact a barren distinction:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence..."

Bakmoon said:
The conventional existence which Gelugpas do not refute is not the same as 'existence' as understood by worldly people, so it isn't fair to lump it in under the category of existence. in a general sense like that.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is, who else do you think Gelugpas are talking to, āryas? The whole point of the Gelugpa view is that they claim to be addressing common people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
conebeckham said:
An illusory appearance is eating an illusory sandwich.  On this level of convention, which is predicated on ignorance, nonetheless appearances function, and my grilled cheese sanwiches are especially delicious.   And filling.

All of this occurs on the level of the seeming, and there is no contradiction at all.  Between you and I, my grilled cheese sandwiches are.....beyond description.

Bakmoon said:
Is it not true though, that the idea of existence (in the functional sense, not the philosophical sense) is renowned among worldly people?

Malcolm wrote:
Worldly people are incapable of making a distinction between inherent existence and existence. One, not only because existence is included in inherent existence sui generis, but two, there is no need to make the distinction. The coarse object of negation is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
You're right, from one point of view we are just relying on words;  but words are empty of inherent meaning so we need to receive the correct meaning from living realised Masters.

Malcolm wrote:
We do, so it is imperative to find one. Good luck!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You're the one with the words Malcolm. The negation of inherent existence is just that - a non-affirming negative. There is no affirmation therefore you're incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
A nonaffirming negative (med 'gag) only applies to a proposition of one's opponent. An affirming negation (ma yin 'gag) is a negation that affirms one's own position.

Only Madhyamakas use exclusively use nonaffirming negatives since they have no position of their own to defend.

Now the negation of inherent existence will only be a nonaffirming negation if someone proposes something as being inherently existent and you directly negate it without proposing something in its place.

But you set forth the negation of inherent existence as a negation that affirms ( ma yin 'gag ) your own tenet system. Therefore, you are using the term incorrectly.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Negatives are not about debate...

Malcolm wrote:
Incorrect, they are explicitly about debate.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Inherent existence does not exist therefore it is always correct to negate it because grasping at it is a wrong awareness and the root of samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
And since existence is included in inherent existence, it is always correct to negate it as well.


Tsongkhapafan said:
What do we need to put in its place? Nothing. It's a mere negation that doesn't affirm any positive phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
In your case, you use the negation of inherent existence to affirm mere existence. Therefore, you have a position and your use of the negation of inherent existence is not a nonimplicative negation, but rather an implicative negation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's also no nihilistic because we are not putting something that exists out of existence - we are merely realising that what we always thought to exist does not. 'There is no inherent existence' tells you that there is no inherent existence and it doesn't affirm anything in its place.

Malcolm wrote:
Your use of negation is meant to affirm a position, mere existence, and therefore, you are not using a nonimplicative negation.


Tsongkhapafan said:
An affirming negative on the other hand is realising something by negating something else. For example, "my cousin lacks being female" tells you that my cousin is male.

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily, in this day and age.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Negating inherent existence is a non-affirming negative.

Malcolm wrote:
Not when it is used to affirm mere existence, which is strictly how you use it.


Tsongkhapafan said:
When I negate the inherent existence of form, I realise only a lack of inherent existence of form. When I negate the inherent existence of emptiness, I realise only a lack of inherent existence of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
When you negate the inherent existence of form or emptiness, you are affirming form and emptiness because your negation is implicative, not nonimplicative — and you cannot escape this consequence for as long as you affirm mere existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The negation of existence establishes nonexistence..

Bakmoon said:
Gelugpas negate inherent existence, not existence in general, so this establishes the nonexistence of inherent existence, not a total nonexistence.
Malcolm wrote:
For example, if one negates inherent existence, one is establishing a nonexistence. If one in turn negates that nonexistence, for what reason is one not establishing its opposite? These are the kinds of flaws that flow from treating the absence of inherent existence alone as emptiness.

Bakmoon said:
But Gelugpas do not negate the nonexistence of inherent existence. They negate the inherent existence of the nonexistence of inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
There is really no difference between existence and inherent existence, as Nāgārjuna shows and as I have discussed many times. It is in fact a barren distinction:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence or dependent existence..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
You're the one with the words Malcolm. The negation of inherent existence is just that - a non-affirming negative. There is no affirmation therefore you're incorrect.

Malcolm wrote:
A nonaffirming negative (med 'gag) only applies to a proposition of one's opponent. An affirming negation (ma yin 'gag) is a negation that affirms one's own position.

Only Madhyamakas use exclusively use nonaffirming negatives since they have no position of their own to defend.

Now the negation of inherent existence will only be a nonaffirming negation if someone proposes something as being inherently existent and you directly negate it without proposing something in its place.

But you set forth the negation of inherent existence as a negation that affirms ( ma yin 'gag ) your own tenet system. Therefore, you are using the term incorrectly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
It is a perfectly fair criticism. The negation of existence establishes nonexistence. The negation of nonexistence establishes existence. For example, if one negates inherent existence, one is establishing a nonexistence. If one in turn negates that nonexistence, for what reason is one not establishing its opposite? These are the kinds of flaws that flow from treating the absence of inherent existence alone as emptiness.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Bakmoon's comments are correct. Negation of inherent existence establishes the non-existence of inherent existence (it never has existed). It is not non-existence that is being negated, it's the inherent existence of lack of inherent existence that is being negated. We are not negating emptiness, merely its falsely appearing as inherently existent. Thus one is realising the non-true existence of emptiness such that emptiness itself is not grasped as something.

Malcolm wrote:
Keep going, pretty soon you will wrap yourself up just as nicely as any silkworm in a cocoon.

1) Negating an existence establishes a nonexistence.

2) Negating a nonexistence establishes an existence.

3) Negating inherent existence establishes a nonexistence.

4) The latter is what you call emptiness, the nonexistence of inherent existence.

5) Thus, the negation of the inherent existence of the nonexistence of inherent existence (emptiness) can only be an affirmation of the existence of inherent existence because of the rule concerning such double negations.

Thus, you tie yourself in knots with this entirely clumsy, illogical and unnecessary language.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo...
གང་ཚེ་དངོས་དང་དངོས་མེད་དག
When neither an entity (dngos po, bhāva) nor a nonentity (dngos po, abhāva)...
Not one of the words in the following phrase exist in the Tibetan translation, not to the mention the Sanskrit original.
Eventually, when the true existence of things and the true existence of emptiness....
None of Śantideva's Indian commentators understand this to mean the "true existence of..." and translated non-entity as emptiness is quite strange and wrong.

The primary commentator, Prajñākaravarman, states:
As such, this means that when neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before the mind of the yogi, because at that time an apprehensible aspect does not appear, all concepts are pacified through the absence of perception.
It is in sum, an incorrect translation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's a translation of the meaning, not just the words.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a translation of the meaning. The meaning of bhāva is not "true existence." Never has been, never will be.

Tsongkhapafan said:
I know you are a literalist, Malcolm, who believes that the mere words of a text convey the correct meaning, but this is simply not the case.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an extremely facile argument. Not even worth the electricity it uses on the internet.


Tsongkhapafan said:
I have given a clear explanation of the real meaning of this verse.  Can you explain how Prajñākaravarman's commentary differs from the explanation I gave? I don't believe there is any difference except that it is incorrect to say there is an absence of perception per se because there is no mind without an object.

Malcolm wrote:
And yet, that is indeed what the text says. When there is neither an entity nor its absence present before the mind, there is nothing else to perceive, and mind is pacified.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Thus, even the commentary requires clarification as to the correct meaning which is that all concepts of inherent existence are pacified through the absence of perceiving inherent existence.

Malcolm wrote:
The commentary says nothing about concepts of inherent existence, in fact, none of them do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Now you are just tying yourself in knots. So first you have the negation of inherent existence, which you call emptiness; but then, you have to negate the inherent existence of your negation, and we all know double negations affirm their opposite, thus in negating the absence of inherent existence which alone you claim to be emptiness, you are affirming inherent existence. It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:
If by refuting existence 
there will be however be non-existence,
therefore, by refuting non-existence, 
for what reason will there not be existence?
Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.

Bakmoon said:
That's not a fair critique of the Gelug position because Gelugpas do not negate the emptiness perceived in meditation, but rather they negate the inherent existence of that very emptiness. Just like Gelugpas do not negate pots, but only negate the inherent existence of pots, so to they do not negate emptiness, only the inherent existence of that emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a perfectly fair criticism. The negation of existence establishes nonexistence. The negation of nonexistence establishes existence. For example, if one negates inherent existence, one is establishing a nonexistence. If one in turn negates that nonexistence, for what reason is one not establishing its opposite? These are the kinds of flaws that flow from treating the absence of inherent existence alone as emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Minobu said:
the Madhyamika  understands conventional reality, does not dismiss it

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamakas are only concerned with conventional truth to the extent that it allows one to formulate the conventional ultimate, understand it, and realize nirvana. Beyond that, Madhyamakas have no other conventional horses in relative races.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Jeff H said:
It is attributed to Kelsang Gyatso. I still have the Tharpa recording of his Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life from my previous association with NKT. This is chapter 9:34 in the book and on the recording it is found on disk 4, track 2, at 4:28.

I'd be very interested to hear from Malcolm or one of the other translators here, just how the translation is mistaken.

DGA said:
It's really weird.  What's "the true existence of emptiness," for starters?

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's not weird - it's the appearance of emptiness being inherently existent; in other words, how emptiness appears on the paths of accumulation and preparation. The verse is saying that when, in meditation, there is no appearance of inherent existence and not even the appearance of inherent existence of emptiness, the mind will abide in a direct realisation of emptiness in which all dualistic conceptions have been pacified. This is the path of seeing onwards.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are just tying yourself in knots. So first you have the negation of inherent existence, which you call emptiness; but then, you have to negate the inherent existence of your negation, and we all know double negations affirm their opposite, thus in negating the absence of inherent existence which alone you claim to be emptiness, you are affirming inherent existence. It is just as Nāgārjuna states in the Ratnavali:
If by refuting existence 
there will be however be non-existence,
therefore, by refuting non-existence, 
for what reason will there not be existence?
Thus, we again see the necessity of the step by step negation of the four extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
That's not what Shantideva is saying at all. This is an alternative translation of the verse you quoted:

DGA said:
Would you please give a source for this translation?  that is, can you say who the translator of this verse is?

Jeff H said:
It is attributed to Kelsang Gyatso. I still have the Tharpa recording of his Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life from my previous association with NKT. This is chapter 9:34 in the book and on the recording it is found on disk 4, track 2, at 4:28.

I'd be very interested to hear from Malcolm or one of the other translators here, just how the translation is mistaken.

Malcolm wrote:
The text merely says:
yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo...
གང་ཚེ་དངོས་དང་དངོས་མེད་དག
When neither an entity (dngos po, bhāva) nor a nonentity (dngos po, abhāva)...
Not one of the words in the following phrase exist in the Tibetan translation, not to the mention the Sanskrit original.
Eventually, when the true existence of things and the true existence of emptiness....
None of Śantideva's Indian commentators understand this to mean the "true existence of..." and translated non-entity as emptiness is quite strange and wrong.

The primary commentator, Prajñākaravarman, states:
As such, this means that when neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before the mind of the yogi, because at that time an apprehensible aspect does not appear, all concepts are pacified through the absence of perception.
It is in sum, an incorrect translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
This is an alternative translation of the verse you quoted:

Malcolm wrote:
Your alternate translation is simply wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When you negate existence, it is not so much a negation as a not finding. When analyzed, things are not found to exist, not exist, both and neither, both in the relative and the ultimate. We don't negate existence, but when sought, it is not found.

Kenneth Chan said:
This means that you essentially agree that we do not “negate existence in its entirety.” You are just putting the same meaning in different words, and placing the emphasis on this idea that “it is not so much a negation as a not finding.” Nonetheless it means that we do not negate existence in its entirety. You are just using a different interpretation of the word “negate.”

Malcolm wrote:
When something is not proven and is completely unfindable when sought, we can conclude it is nonexistent. Thus, when an existent thing is not proven and cannot be found when sought, we can concluded it is nonexistent. For example, when a mirage appears we search for the water in that place where the mirage appears, we can conclude that mirage is an appearance of water that does not exist. Of course the mirage arises because of causes and conditions, but if we assume that the mirage exists, this represents a limitation of our analysis. It is not a conventional analysis, it is a defective ultimate analysis.


Kenneth Chan said:
The next part of your comment is also another case of a difference in the interpretation of words. In this case, we are talking about the word “analysis.” It is important to make the distinction between analysis concerning the ultimate truth (ultimate analysis) and analysis concerning only conventional matters (conventional analysis). Here, Malcolm, you are mixing up these two forms of analysis in your use of words. Let us look closely at your comment line by line.

Malcolm wrote:
When we use analysis in Buddhadharma, we are not engaged in conventional anlysis; we are always engaged in ultimate analysis. Why? Because all analysis is a search for the real. An analysis which is incomplete is a faulty analysis.

However, what Nāgārjuna show is that some kinds of analysis are defective. For example, Vasubandhu states that truths are cognitions: a relative truth is an appearance that has not been analyzed, such as water; ultimate truths are analytical cognitions of those appearances, for example, ascertaining that water is limpid, cool, and wet. Thus, for Sautrantikas following the scriptures, these svalakṣanas, intrinsic characeristics are ultimate (paramartha satyas) because they represent the final limit of analysis. However, from a Madhyamaka point of view, these are not conventional analysis, these are defective ultimate analysis. See for example Nāgārjuna's analysis of the five dhātus.


Kenneth Chan said:
According to you however, appearances can bear analysis.
Now we are having a problem with your use of the word “analysis.” You are failing to make a distinction between ultimate analysis and conventional analysis. Appearances can bear conventional analysis even though appearances cannot bear ultimate analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamakas never engage in conventional analysis. What would be the point? The point of Madhyamaka is not to reinforce conventional appearances which are by definition objects of false cognitions. The point of Madhyamaka is solely to point of the defective ultimate analysis of others.

Kenneth Chan said:
For example, a snake is an appearance to nonanalytical mind;
This is referring to a mind that does not use both conventional and ultimate analysis, and not just ultimate analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
This is referring to a nonanalytical mind.


Kenneth Chan said:
the rope is an appearance to a mind that has embarked upon analysis,
This refers to conventional analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this refers to a mind that has not completed an ultimate analysis. For example, analyzing water into its intrinsic characteristics, or the perception of the shards left over when a vase is smashed with hammer, in Vasubandhu analysis of the two truths.


Kenneth Chan said:
but if we stop analyzing there, the rope remains a false appearance, because it is composed of parts, etc. When subjected to an ultimate analysis, no rope is found when sought.
Now, suddenly, you revert back to ultimate analysis only.

Malcolm wrote:
No, here the ultimate analysis is continued to its final conclusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Lukeinaz said:
I am a bit confused about this conceptual image.  The way I understand it is that we use analysis to come to a conclusion which produces a feeling.  So when I am shocked at not finding my car exactly where I parked it I rest in this feeling.  Where does the conceptual image fit in here?

Tsongkhapafan said:
It is a conceptual image. The empty space that your car occupied has no meaning from it's own side; your eye consciousness just sees a vacuity. You conceptually impute 'no car' on this space so now you have a generic image of no car, not just an empty space.

This emptiness has meaning - the object of negation is car, and what is realised conceptually is 'no car'. Your mind is resting in the generic image of an absence of car.


Malcolm wrote:
This an implicative negation, not a nonimplicative negation. Madhyamaka negation is nonimplicative, meaning, when the object is negated, there is nothing else to which to refer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Lukeinaz said:
I am a bit confused about this conceptual image.  The way I understand it is that we use analysis to come to a conclusion which produces a feeling.  So when I am shocked at not finding my car exactly where I parked it I rest in this feeling.  Where does the conceptual image fit in here?

Malcolm wrote:
The problem here is the notion of "the generic image of emptiness." Emptiness cannot have a generic image since emptiness is not a thing, like a vase and its blueness. Meditating on the concept, "this is empty" is also unworkable. Of course, when we are learning about emptiness, of course we have to come to confidence in emptiness rationally, through reasonings. But when it comes to applying confidence in meditation, it is the position of the Sakya and Nyingma schools that focusing on a concept of emptiness is not a correct vipaśyāna, and in fact can lead to rebirth in the formless realms.

Correct vipaśyāna meditation on emptiness is resting the mind in an objectless equipoise discovered through exhausting all possible conceptual proliferation concerning entities in terms of all modes of their existence, as Śantideva notes. It is not resting the mind on the concept that results from conceptual analysis, rather, the mind that deconstructs even the notion., "this is ultimate" and rests in that state, free of proliferation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
Queequeg said:
The crux of the problem for people resistant to rebirth seems to be this notion of mind generating form. This is completely at odds with the assumption that mind is a function of material.

rachmiel said:
I have no problem with the notion of mind generating form. Or of other notions, speculations, theories as to the nature of reality. So many wonderful stories! (Some perhaps "truer" than others.)

My issue is with certainties: My/this view is *the* view. And that issue holds, no matter who or what that source of certainty is. That's why I'm an eclectic. I look at religions/philosophies as blind men holding forth on the nature of the elephant. Each gets an aspect of the whole, but no one gets it 100%. So I pick and choose ... and that becomes my blind man's scope of understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
This assumes you are sure this is an elephant. It might be a tiger.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not when one understands that it is the mind that generates the body, rather than the other way around. For example, the mind of a buddha can generate a billion bodies at the same time.

Queequeg said:
The crux of the problem for people resistant to rebirth seems to be this notion of mind generating form. This is completely at odds with the assumption that mind is a function of material.

BTW, just a billion?

Malcolm wrote:
It is the standard number, but it is not a limitation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2016 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
Bakmoon said:
For example, consider yourself right now in comparison to when you were a young child. Physically the body replaces it's material after every so many years, and mental phenomena only arise for very short spans of time, so there isn't any underlying 'packet' that makes the child-you and the current-you the same person. And yet at the same time, there is continuity between the two, so we can designate it as the same person.

The only difference between this little thought experiment and how rebirth works is that in rebirth, you get a different physical body. But because the body clearly isn't a self or person, that doesn't really change anything. The continuum of mental states between one rebirth and the next is there, and that's what makes it possible to designate them as the same person, just as the continuum of you and you as a child allows you to be considered the same person.

rachmiel said:
It's a vivid analogy ... but does it hold? The body-brain is the material medium in which the energy of self arises. Isn't it a leap of faith (in Buddha, the teachings, your own intuition) to believe that this energy continues when the material is no more?

Malcolm wrote:
Not when one understands that it is the mind that generates the body, rather than the other way around. For example, the mind of a buddha can generate a billion bodies at the same time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Grigoris said:
Understand or realise (or both)?

Malcolm wrote:
Understand.

Grigoris said:
So if I read a couple of books, listen to a couple of lectures, get the terminology down and grasp the concept I will 100% never return to Samsara again?

Malcolm wrote:
That is one kind of understanding. I was referring to another —— the kind of understanding you only obtain from the intimate instructions of a teacher. It can't be gained from any book. But if you grasp that ideas behind the intimate instruction and gain that kind of understanding, applying it in your direct perception, then yes, according to Dzogchen tantras, etc.,  you will never return to samsara, one hundred percent. You just need a teacher who themselves have this understanding, and hopefully, realization. They can explain this to you, but no one else can. Then of course, all the books of Dzogchen will become immediately understandable (at least in Tibetan).


florin said:
In dzogchen, Namkhai Norbu remarks, understanding is more important than meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he does. All of the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2016 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


conebeckham said:
Just to add to this, the stilling of all false concepts is also represented as the "exhaustion of concepts."  That's the state.  Malcolm's covered everything else I would have said.
Except-
Your Generic Image is an object of conceptual mind.  It cannot be the cause of realization.

Tsongkhapafan said:
There is no realisation without conceptual minds. If you want to abandon all conceptions this is Hashang's view and leads nowhere, except to becoming a stone.

The path to a non-conceptual realisation of emptiness is the path of conceptuality; there's no other path other than to abandon conceptual minds and this is not a spiritual path.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot abandon concepts through conceptuality. It simply isn't possible. One can exhaust conceptuality through examining all possible modes of the exustence of a given thing, but the Buddha says nowhere that one should meditate on a conceptual view of emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
DGA said:
Right.  Which is to say that while someone (anyone) who applies the correct effort after having received the right teachings can become realized and may share "pure vision" teachings with the world, BUT only those with the correct past life connection to Guru Rinpoche can reveal terma now.

This takes us back to a discussion we were having in which the distinction between mind terma and pure vision was disregarded, which was unfortunate.  Here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=23725#p356254

Grigoris said:
The distinction was not disregarded, nobody bothered to define the distinction.  There were statements made, but no explanations.

On the basis of the explanations, I am more than willing to accept that there would be a distinction made between the two categories.

DGA said:
OK, now I understand your position better.

Malcolm wrote:
This  problem also plagues Dzogchen Community. ChNN has said over and over again he is not a terton. People keep insisting however that the Longsal teachings are termas. But they are not. They are dream teachings. ChNN never had an treasure index and so on. And it is not like he receives these teachings while he is awake ( I suppose he could, but it never appears that way in the texts of his teachings. They are always received in dreams). Of course, if one accepts he is the tulku of Adzom Drugpa, one could argue that this manner of receiving teachings is easier for doubtful westerners to swallow than the trope of pulling caches out of caves guarded by nāgās.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Nagarjuna's view is the harmonious union of the conventional and the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't. He proclaims in the S ixty Verses of Reasoning:
When the victors have proclaimed that nirvana alone is true, 
at that time, what kind of scholar does not think the rest is false?

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's only false for non-Buddhas and Nagarjuna's words are only from the perspective of Sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
So, now, you, a Gelugpa, are claiming that the view of sūtra and tantra are not the same?

And your response makes no sense. Nāgārjuna is very clear here that there is only one truth, nirvana. Everything else is false.


Tsongkhapafan said:
If you look only from the perspective of emptiness you have no way to reconcile conventional and ultimate truths and your view is contrary to the valid perceptions of worldly people who Buddha would never disagree with.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to reconcile them. Relative truth is an appearance to a nonanalytical mind. Ultimate truth is found upon analysis of those appearances. Why? Because as Candra points out, all things bear two natures, one relative (pre-analytical) and one ultimate (post-analytical). This is why, until Buddhahood, there is an equipoise (ultimate truth) and post-equipoise (relative truth) phase of insight meditation. In buddhahood, the mind is completely integrated with ultimate truth, and there is no division into equipoise and post-equipoise. The buddhas have no false cognitions at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
But that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen is Tsongkhapa's presentation of Madhyamaka so we have no disagreement.

Malcolm wrote:
That has never been under question. Other things about Tsongkhapa's presentation, such as asserting that only inherent existence is to be negated, are much more problematical.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Certainly not. By negating inherent existence only, this allows harmony with conventional truth because existence per se is not being negated - that's nihilistic. That's saying that the objects perceived by worldly people are not valid and do not exist because they are ONLY hallucinations of ignorance. Yet they perform reliably, which is quite different to the water of a mirage which is definitely wholly a hallucination.

You have no way to explain this reliability if you negate existence in its entirety - you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by negating that mere appearances exist and function in accordance with karma. For you there is no difference between a horse and a unicorn so your conceptions about conventional truths are inadequate. It seems you are denying relative truths.

Malcolm wrote:
When you negate existence, it is not so much a negation as a not finding. When analyzed, things are not found to exist, not exist, both and neither, both in the relative and the ultimate. We don't negate existence, but when sought, it is not found. In other words, there is an appearance, when it is examined, its existence cannot be found in its parts, in one part, or separate from its parts, etc. In other words, we accept appearances as they are prior to analysis, since a relative truth is an appearance to a nonanalytical mind. When appearances are analyzed however, they cannot withstand analysis. According to you however, appearances can bear analysis. For example, a snake is an appearance to nonanalytical mind; the rope is an appearance to a mind that has embarked upon analysis, but if we stop analyzing there, the rope remains a false appearance, because it is composed of parts, etc. When subjected to an ultimate analysis, no rope is found when sought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Nagarjuna's view is the harmonious union of the conventional and the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't. He proclaims in the S ixty Verses of Reasoning:
When the victors have proclaimed that nirvana alone is true, 
at that time, what kind of scholar does not think the rest is false?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hi All, just a reminder for those interested, I will be live streaming a talk on the book from https://facebook.com/zangthal/.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
But that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen is Tsongkhapa's presentation of Madhyamaka so we have no disagreement.

Malcolm wrote:
That has never been under question. Other things about Tsongkhapa's presentation, such as asserting that only inherent existence is to be negated, are much more problematical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


cloudburst said:
this is where I think you haven't grasped Je Tsongkhapas interpretative genius. I am happy to go around the merry go round for another dance if people find it helpful, Im just not sure that that is what this thread is about.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand Tsongkhapa's point. The point is that such a short cut is fine for bodhisattvas on the stages who have realized emptiness, but not for commoners, who have not. They still need to plod, step by step through the four fold negation until they get it right. Commoner who think negating inherent existence is sufficient wind up with a nihilistic view of the ultimate, thinking that the generic image of a negation is emptiness.

Tsongkhapafan said:
What does the generic image of the four fold negation look like?  Surely it's just an intellectual negation?

Negating inherent existence is not nihilistic because inherent existence has never existed. Realising that you are clinging to something that has never existed and letting go is not nihilistic, it's liberating. When you realise there is no inherently existent I and there never has been, all fears and suffering disappear because these hallucinations were based on the experience of a false self.

Malcolm wrote:
Asserting that the ultimate is a mere negation is nihilistic.

The fourfold negation has no generic image, that is the point. The fourfold negation stills all false concepts possible about the relative and the ultimate leaving the mind in a state of freedom from proliferation. Śantideva says in Chapter 9:
When neither entities nor nonentities are present before the mind,
since at that time there is no other aspect, it is without an object, totally peaceful.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Over time, you come to feel that the things you normally see (inherently existent things) do not exist at all and all phenomena are like dreams, mere appearances to mind.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not need to meditate on the absence of inherent existence existence to come to this "feeling:"
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:58 AM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
tingdzin said:
The last thing Tibetan Dharma in the West needs is for a bunch of people to start hanging out terton shingles, although I've see a couple of instances already. We have enough bogus tulkus, emanations, and dakinis without providing a further ego-enhancing role to aim at.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Demonetisation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus the full fledged and cynical attack against climate science.

Coëmgenu said:
Its not a cynical attack "against" it. These people doubtless know the reality of climate change...

Malcolm wrote:
That is why the attack is cynical


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


cloudburst said:
this is where I think you haven't grasped Je Tsongkhapas interpretative genius. I am happy to go around the merry go round for another dance if people find it helpful, Im just not sure that that is what this thread is about.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand Tsongkhapa's point. The point is that such a short cut is fine for bodhisattvas on the stages who have realized emptiness, but not for commoners, who have not. They still need to plod, step by step through the four fold negation until they get it right. Commoner who think negating inherent existence is sufficient wind up with a nihilistic view of the ultimate, thinking that the generic image of a negation is emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:35 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
What does that mean? What is the meditation that leads to an experience of the freedom from extremes? If you say "things don't exist but they don't not exist" what does that even 'look like'?

It's not a practical object of meditation so this creation is purely intellectual and cannot lead to liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
How is meditating on a nonexistence practical?

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's really simple - you take away that which is not true and end up with the truth. By realising that there is no snake on the basis of that rope, your mind mistakenly believing that it exists ceases and you see the truth.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are not in fact meditating on the absence of inherent existence? Or are you?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:32 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
My purpose is to show that the findings of quantum mechanics provide strong scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa's view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen is, in fact, correct. And I have done so. Whether you agree or disagree with this interpretation of Madhyamika philosophy does not change this fact.
One, this is not Tsongkhapa's unique idea. It is the Buddha's unique idea.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Thanks for confirming that Tsongkhapa's view and Buddha's view are the same, it's what I've been saying all along.

Malcolm wrote:
No one claims that the Buddha did not reject inherent existence. That is not what is under dispute about Tsongkhapa's presentation of Madhyamaka. It never has been.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 10:30 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
First you say that consciousness is not worth being taken into account because there are no machines that can measure it. But Buddhism definitely takes consciousness into account.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism isn't science and it isn't scientific.

Kenneth Chan said:
Then you say "it does not necessarily follow that someone who accepts that dependent phenomena are devoid of inherent existence necessarily needs to accept that consciousness is anything other than neuronal interactions produced in a brain on the basis of sense stimulus. This latter point is what your paper fails to prove." But the purpose of my paper is not to prove this. It is to show how interpreting quantum mechanics in terms of Madhyamika philosophy can solve the mystery of quantum physics.

Malcolm wrote:
Only by taking consciousness into account, according to your paper. But since consciousness is not an empirically verifiable entity, well, you draw the conclusion.

Kenneth Chan said:
Then you say that there is no point in even trying to understand "conventional presentations of reality" because, based on a religious claim, we can never understand everything. What has this got to do with what my paper is trying to show? I make no claim that its aim is to understand everything.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that. Reread my comment.


Kenneth Chan said:
So you admit, when challenged, that those two facts are indeed facts.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a fact that you made two claims, those were the only facts I was admitting.

Kenneth Chan said:
But Malcolm, you claim that you have already provided the refutation regarding the scientific evidence for Lama Tsongkhapa's view.

Malcolm wrote:
You definitely have not provided any scientific evidence for any Buddhist view, let alone Tsongkhapa's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
conebeckham said:
It is ironic that a thread about TsongKhapa's Madhyamaka is accused of being overly intellectual.
...
In the end, whether engaging in Analytical Meditation as per the Geluk presentation, or in Awareness/Emptiness practice of Mahamudra or some sorts of Dzogchen, or in the completion Stages of one's yidam practice, the crucial point is to "rest" in equanimity, in a mental state generated by or facilitated by whatever preceding techniques one has utilized, is it not?

Tsongkhapafan said:
What does that mean? What is the meditation that leads to an experience of the freedom from extremes? If you say "things don't exist but they don't not exist" what does that even 'look like'?

It's not a practical object of meditation so this creation is purely intellectual and cannot lead to liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
How is meditating on a nonexistence practical?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, the fact that you think that my explanation is "an article of faith" proves that you do not understand my paper.

boda said:
Hello Kenneth,

If I may ask, do your fellow physicists agree with your paper?

Kenneth Chan said:
My paper is completely new. Most physicists have not even seen it. It will, of course, be extremely difficult to get them to stop insisting on materialism, because the entire body of academic work of many physicists may be dependent on this very idea of materialism.

Malcolm wrote:
The proper word these days is physicalism:
In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical. Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" or "many-substance" view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated. Physicalism is closely related to materialism.
Materialism is too easily confused with greediness, etc. In other words, this sentence is true, "Not all physicalists are materialists."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, the fact that you think that my explanation is "an article of faith" proves that you do not understand my paper.

Malcolm wrote:
Your proclamation that Madhyamaka solves the mystery of quantum physics is proven nowhere by your paper since it hinges on the role of consciousness as a factor which you consider unaccounted for in the interpretation of quantum physics. You admit that consciousness is beyond any measurable observation by present methods. So your claim amounts to a mere speculation without an ounce of experimental evidence to prove it.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, it is a fact that all the interpretations of quantum physics deny a role for consciousness (apart from the one by von Neumann and Wigner which is generally not accepted by physicists because of the problem of solipsism, as I discussed in my paper). It is a fact that no scientific equipment can directly measure consciousness. That means that my paper is based on these two facts. And now you are saying that because it is based on these facts, it is mere speculation??

Malcolm wrote:
You wish physicists to take in to account something they cannot empirically account for. The fact that physicists do not take consciousness into account in their observations is not solved by recourse to Madhyamaka. In other words, it does not necessarily follow that someone who accepts that dependent phenomena are devoid of inherent existence necessarily needs to accept that consciousness is anything other than neuronal interactions produced in a brain on the basis of sense stimulus. This latter point is what your paper fails to prove. Indeed, you keep treating consciousness as if it is something which needs to be taken into account without having convinced anyone in your field that this is a problem. I also do not see it as a problem. Why should it be. All conventional presentations of reality, no matter how subtle or embracing, are bound to be incomplete, because no one but a Buddha has the omniscience to understand everything in its essence and in all its diversity. But this is not a scientific claim, this is a religious claim, and is rightly outside of the domain of secular science.

Kenneth Chan said:
I challenge you to prove that these are not facts. Please prove that these two things are not facts, because I would really like to see you try. This is the problem with debating with you. You seem to want to dispute everything without even knowing the facts.

Malcolm wrote:
Your paper is indeed based on two facts. The second fact is insoluble since there is no empirical basis, accepted by everyone, which accounts for consciousness at all.

Kenneth Chan said:
My purpose is to show that the findings of quantum mechanics provide strong scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa's view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen is, in fact, correct. And I have done so. Whether you agree or disagree with this interpretation of Madhyamika philosophy does not change this fact.

Malcolm wrote:
One, this is not Tsongkhapa's unique idea. It is the Buddha's unique idea. Two, your main contention with other physicists, that they do not take consciousness into account, is not solved by Madhyamaka.

As to the second point, your main idea here is trivially true. Anyone who has studied Mahāyāna Buddhadharma at all understands that all entities, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are niḥsvabhāva, devoid of inherent existence. I am not sure why you think this is a mind-blowing revelation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Crazywisdom said:
The other big causal theory from then was that the result is complete within the cause...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is Saṃkhya, arising from self...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
rachmiel said:
Malcolm,

When will your Wisdom podcast be downloadable?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
We consider this to be a malformation of the four-fold negation, as you know, and an affirmation that the ultimate is in fact mere one-sided negation.

cloudburst said:
of course.
I think the issue here is that you have failed to see the brilliance of what Lama Tsongkhapa has done. He has simply essentialized the critique. Refuting the first extreme, inherent existence sorts the issue, the rest is just clean-up. It's celan up that may need to happen, and of course we study it.

Malcolm wrote:
But it really does not.

The reason why Nāgārjuna refutes four extremes is that Jains, for example, maintain that things both exist and do not exist simultaneously, thus the refutation of the third extreme is needed, or the speculation that in the phase of arising, an entity may be said to both exist and not exist, as in the opinion of some Abidharmikas. Nonexistence is refuted because the Carvakas hold that a self which exists now is later annihilated, and existence is refuted in order to eliminate the belief that existents are veridical and nondeceptive, etc.

Production from self is refuted because this is what the Saṃkhya school holds, production from other is what the Vaiśeṣika school holds, and production without causes is what the Carvakas hold, and so on.

Each and every one of Nāgārjuna's refutations has as specific opponent in mind, and it is sloppy to think that one can simply clean them them with a pen because one imagines they are unnecessary double negatives.

Thus when the Buddha or Nāgārjuna says, "Not existent, not nonexistent, not both existent and nonexistent, and not neither existent and nonexistent" he has a specific opponent or class of assertions in mind which he is negating, one by one. Since these points of view are very possible in the mind and can be and are held, it is necessary to go through each one, step by step, in order to eliminate the faulty conceptualization which produces them in one's own mind.

Negating inherent existence only addresses the first extreme, but not the rest. That is the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
cloudburst said:
When others hear 'this exists' or 'that exists', they flip out, because they have been taught that all existence is existence by way of a nature. We say existence and they helplessly conclude that we are "realists in the conventional and nihilists in the ultimate." I have pondered, especially in the light of this recent "quantum physics" thread as to whether they don't understand what is being said, or simply find it expedient NOT to.

Malcolm wrote:
We consider this to be a malformation of the four-fold negation, as you know, and an affirmation that the ultimate is in fact mere one-sided negation.

As for the QP thread, I think the OP's project is quixotic at best.

cloudburst said:
Meanwhile, even though he debates as though he is totally certain of what he writes, he is just working it out as well.

Malcolm wrote:
There are certain themes about which I am utterly consistent.

BTW, it is pretty hilarious to move this into the Sakyapa Thread. I am no more a Sakyapa, than I am a Nyingmapa, a Gelugpa or Kagyupa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
The relentless criticism of Tsongkhapa's views on DW gets a bit wearing after a while.

Malcolm wrote:
Gelugpas only have themselves to blame for this, considering that the Gelugpa hegemony expended endless energy suppressing and censoring generations of scholars in Tibet that disagreed with the Gelug orthodoxy.

Even you have over and over again here proclaimed that only Tsongkhapa's understanding of Madhyamaka is correct, and everyone else's is faulty and does not lead to liberation. When you make such claims, it is normal people will object to your dogmatism.

Tsongkhapafan said:
I've not seen a single person post any useful meditations on emptiness or any practical information that would lead to a realisation of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
One assumes you are including yourself in this criticism.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Does anyone have anything practical to say?

Malcolm wrote:
Do you?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:


ThoroughlyCutting said:
Okay. What about the money you're pumping into the market that helps perpetuate this particular cycle of suffering? Regardless of the motivation to aid the being whose flesh is being consumed, the practitioner is fully aware that their action is serving, small part though it is, as a basis for the continuation of the meat industry to continue. There are billions of animals slaughtered every year for this purpose. Isn't it more reasonable to work for the end of this situation, rather than supporting it?

Malcolm wrote:
This argument has been hashed out a million times on the great vegetarian thread.

Since all of the food that we eat also involves the deaths of hundreds of billions of non-food creatures every year— insects, birds, rodents— there is no diet which free from cost to sentient beings. So we do the best we can. If you don't want to eat meat, that is fine. But please do not pretend that agriculture is not an abattoir in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Malcom,

Can you recommend this book as a starting point for those who have received transmission yet are new to Dzogchen teachings and have not read any other material?

If not can you recommend a starting point so one can work towards this material?

Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
Otherwise, get the Precious Vase and work through it. Or get both.

pael said:
Is WWT webcast of Namkhai Norbu enough for this also?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Jeff H said:
Malcolm and the other critics of Tsongkhapa have raised serious questions for me about the object of negation. The purpose of debate is not winning; it is examination. I think the concept of inherent existence is a useful expedient in my efforts to process selflessness. Malcolm thinks it is a pernicious obstruction. Despite his strong arguments, I’m not inclined to renounce the wisdom of the lineage that has taught me about inherent existence. I need to understand what he is saying, and learn what the Gelugs say, then decide for myself. I think that is what Buddha taught. (And, yes, even though I am no academic scholar like many on DW, my method is still largely intellectual. It’s my karma now, and by following through, I hope to generate a more practice- and faith-based karma for the future.)
.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think the Tsongkhapa's treatment of inherent existence is a pernicious obsctruction— everyone agrees that phenomena have no inherent existence. The disagreement 1) is over the issue of the intellectual history of Madhyamaka in India, and 2) over novelties in Tsongkhapa's own interpretation which seem unwarranted when Indian Madhyamaka is examined.

Finally, the purpose of these conversations is to eliminate concepts which lead us deeper into the cave, for everyone involved, including myself.

Finally, the reason why this conversation comes up again and again is because of the historical accident that the political dominance of the Ganden Phodrang propelled the teachings of Tsongkhapa to prominence and thus, they were the first version of Tibetan Madhyamaka to which early Western Buddhist scholars had access. This has skewed Madhyamaka studies in the West almost from the beginning.

It is necessary to redress this imbalance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, the fact that you think that my explanation is "an article of faith" proves that you do not understand my paper.

Malcolm wrote:
Your proclamation that Madhyamaka solves the mystery of quantum physics is proven nowhere by your paper since it hinges on the role of consciousness as a factor which you consider unaccounted for in the interpretation of quantum physics. You admit that consciousness is beyond any measurable observation by present methods. So your claim amounts to a mere speculation without an ounce of experimental evidence to prove it.

Kenneth Chan said:
Actually I believe there is little point continuing this debate with you since you make blanket statements like the above, even when you do not understand my meaning. It is quite telling that, at no time, did you ask me for clarification before immediately attacking what you presume I am saying.



Malcolm wrote:
It is quite clear what you are saying. The problem is quite simply that you have an axe to grind with other physicists, and are using Madhyamaka incorrectly in order to bolster your claims about the lack of accounting for consciousness as a factor in observations of quantum phenomena. The problem with your whole theory is that Madhyamaka does not make any statements about consciousness per se. In Buddhadharma, theories about consciousness belong to Abhidharma and Yogacāra. At best, Madhyamakas are like Supreme Court justices, who are only interested in resolving ultimate truth claims.

You have claimed, over and over again that quantum physics is plagued by problems of inherency. It is true that physicalists regard the material world as real in the strong sense, in varying degrees. But their notion of the real does not necessitate that things are permanent, constant, unchanging, and independent— the ancient sense of "the real" that Madhyamaka critiques.

Instead the modern sense of the real is "the matter of fact." So for some physicists, the big bang is a matter of fact, i.e., real, until it is proven otherwise. In other words, the notion of the real in modern science is pragmatic, ala Charles Pierce, who echoes quite well the notion of conventional truth in Madhyamaka, "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed upon by all who investigate is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
These statements of yours show that you have completely misunderstood my meaning. I am in no way making a philosophical argument by putting forward a philosophical stance on mind, matter, and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
Then why say, "Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics?"


Kenneth Chan said:
So quantum mechanics cannot possibly take into account factors that relate directly to mind and consciousness. That is the point I am making.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a trivial point. We know this already.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Who was Chokro Lui Gyaltsen?
Content:
crazy-man said:
Klu’i rgyal mtshan, Cog ro
Tibetan translator, ca. 8th Century A.D.

-dBu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa śes rab ces bya ba (Tibetan translation of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), in Tg, vol. tsa, 1a1-19a6. Mmk
-rGyal po la gtam bya ba rin po che’i phreṅ ba (Tibetan translation of Ratnāvalī), in Tg, vol. ge, 107a1-126a4 (with Jñānagarbha). Rā
https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=person&bid=2&vid=495&entity=495&kid=495

more:
https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P8183
http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2002064458/
http://aibs.columbia.edu/databases/New/index.php?id=d9bb1fe1891d3879cdf337e6fe13c8bf&enc=tibetan_wylie_title&coll=tengyur
http://www.dharmawiki.ru/index.php/%27dul_ba/_%28ka_-_pa%29

Malcolm wrote:
He also translated the Buddhapalitavṛtii. His translation of Nāgārjuna's MMK is markedly superior to the later revision by Batshab Nyima Drag, which unfortunately became the standard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Matt J said:
I don't see how substance dualism survives even conventionally. When you hear a science vs faith argument, the scientist is always eager to contrast monistic materialism with dualism because dualism collapses under its own paradox: that if things are separate, how do they interact, and if they interact, how are they separate? The poverty of dualism makes it an ideal punching bag for materialists.

In addition, things are never established even conventionally, so what is the basis for erecting different substances? There is none. And Vasubandhu made a lot with breaking down the atomistic dharmas of the old Buddhist schools. Plenty of modern Madhyamaka teachers use his analysis to refute particles, and QM upholds that refutation scientifically.

Also, one thing QM shows us is that binary options are not the only options. It is not that X is either a particle or a wave, but it manifests as both. X is something else entirely. So I don't agree that if we reject substance dualism we are left with Yogacara or materialism even conventionally, which is kind of the point of the paper. There may be a higher, simpler level in which matter and mind are united the way waves and particles are. Or they may be an explanation we simply don't know about.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhist perspective is that matter arises from consciousness, in fact. This is clearly stated by Vasubandhu in the Kośa.

Also, I did not say this, "Yogacara or materialism." My point was that Kenneth original proclaimed that solution to QM was to overthrown substance dualism. He then retreated on this point when I pointed out to him that there really are only two choices if we choose substance monism: everything is either a mental event or a physical event.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
First of all, the charge that the Copenhagen interpretation rejects causality is not mine.

Second, dependent origination is strictly deterministic, "where this exists, that exists; from the arising of that, this arises."

... with respect to causality, Buddha is a determinist.

Kenneth Chan said:
This argument concerning the fact that quantum mechanics is not deterministic is extremely important and needs to be carefully addressed. Malcolm, it may surprise you to know that your argument, concerning how the indeteministic nature of quantum mechanics contrasts with the deterministic nature of causality in Buddhism, actually supports the argument that the application of Madhyamika philosophy solves the mystery of quantum mechanics. Let me elaborate.

The lack of determinism in quantum mechanics is a lack of determinism when only the materialistic factors are taken into account. It means that given all the information concerning materialistic things that it is possible to have, we cannot predict the exact behaviour of particles in the future.

Quantum mechanics can only take into account the materialistic information that experimental science can provide. Currently there is no scientific equipment that can detect or measure consciousness directly. And no such equipment means no actual data on mind and consciousness per se. And that, in turn, means that quantum mechanics does not take into account factors pertaining directly to the mind and consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
So now you are a substance dualist? And further, your proof depends on something (mind) that cannot be measured.


Kenneth Chan said:
So when we say that quantum mechanics is not deterministic, we actually mean that, given all the information on only materialistic things, we cannot predict the future behaviour of materialistic particles. This is not a problem for Buddhism. In fact, the reverse would be a problem. If, in fact, quantum mechanics is deterministic, there would then be no room for karma, motivation, mental factors, and so on, to have a role to play.

Malcolm wrote:
So you now are retreating from your position regarding the nonduality of mind and matter and are proposing instead substance dualism?


Kenneth Chan said:
If quantum mechanics is fully deterministic while being based only on materialistic considerations, we would be back to the classical idea of a clockwork universe, where mind and consciousness are totally insignificant and are to be considered only as “side-effects.”

So the fact that quantum mechanics is not deterministic actually supports the understanding that Madhyamika philosophy can actually explain the mystery of quantum physics. Also, the fact that the mind plays an important role in quantum mechanics actually suggests that the indeterminant nature of quantum physics may actually be due to the fact that quantum mechanics does not take into account factors pertaining to the mind itself.

Malcolm wrote:
That would depend on nama (mind) and rūpa (matter) being distinct substances (dravya), i.e., substance dualism.

Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, I believe it is time for you to seriously revise your position.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have a position.


Kenneth Chan said:
Your arguments concerning both causality and the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics are invalid.

Malcolm wrote:
Mere assertion.


Kenneth Chan said:
There is also no reason why Madhyamika philosophy cannot be applied to solving the problem of quantum mechanics, regardless of whether or not the Madhyamaka masters actually focused on these kinds of issues. Also, I see no reason why I have to prove that the interpretation according to the Madhyamaka view must necessarily be incompatible with the Yogachara position. That’s not really relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
I merely point out that everything you say can equally be explained from a half-eggist Yogacāra position, since they do not refute external objects.

Kenneth Chan said:
As far as I can see, the only thing that remains unresolved is the question of whether Lama Tsongkhapa’s interpretation of Madhyamika philosophy represents the ultimate truth. That point cannot be resolved on the basis of the findings of quantum mechanics. Regardless of that, it still remains true that the findings of quantum mechanics provide strong scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa’s view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated is, in fact, correct.

Malcolm wrote:
We already know things are empty of inherent existence because the teaching dependent origination negates prime movers, i.e. unconditioned first causes. The point Nāgārjuna was making was that any explanation of dependent origination which involved inherency theories is incoherent (we don't need to bring Tsongkhapa into this since the idea that a given thing that is dependently originated lacks inherent existence is not Tsongkhapa's idea to begin with).

This already renders the speculations of physicists about the big bang and so on a priori invalid from a Buddhist point of view because they do not correspond to relative truth, rendering the world static and functionless. Of course, at this point, physicists are beginning to understand that the universe has no actual beginning, it is also based on causes. But they have no math to describe the cyclic universe of ancient Indian cosmology since their observations necessarily end at conventional beginning of this one.

So, the point is not that quantum mechanics validates the Buddha's insight into dependent origination, the point is that unconditioned entities beget nothing; only conditioned entities beget conditioned entities. The real problem at the heart of modern physics is the Aristotelian notion of prime movers which is deeply embedded in our concepts of God and the origin of the universe. In my view, physicists import such ideas into their modeling unconsciously, or quite consciously in the case of the Templeton Foundation and the intelligent design folks.

However I am quite sure, since dependent origination is the correct interpretation of conventional truth, that as science progresses, its view of reality will more closely match the ancient philosophical intuitions of the Buddha— on this much we can agree.

Kenneth Chan said:
I note that you complain that I keep making this statement. It is, however, an important statement, and is, in fact, the crux of the matter. So if you disagree with it, you have to refute it. However, up till now, I see no indication that you are able to do so. So the statement stands.

Malcolm wrote:
I have refuted it. You have not shown how quantum mechanics confirms Madhyamaka, nor have you shown that Madhyamaka resolves issues in quantum mechanics. All you have done is declare this as an article of faith. I expect more than declarations of faith on such issues.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
tomschwarz said:
...calling them a reality binds them to the relative truth.

Malcolm wrote:
They are relative truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Astus said:
Causal conditionality is completely mechanical, hence deterministic. But since newer factors influence older ones, there is the possibility of enhancing or diminishing the effects of previous causes.

Anders said:
Is it though? I would expect karma to be presented in a less open-ended fashion, if it were the case that all that we do is pre-ordained. Buddhism seems to operate on the assumption that choices are open-ended to a certain extent.

Malcolm wrote:
No, karma is described as unerringly, not probabilistic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Anders said:
Is Buddhism really deterministic though? Is it a Buddhist tenet that all future events are already pre ordained?


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist causality is deterministic in the sense that a cause must always produced a result, otherwise that cause will amount to a noncause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Brass kapala
Content:
Grigoris said:
PS  I reckon the next generation of Mahasiddhas are going to have a grand old time deconstructing the Brahmanic tendencies of "modern" Vajrayana.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāsiddhas were the ones who set forth these protocols, like Padmasambhava.

Grigoris said:
Yup, and it will be up to the next Mahasiddhas to overturn their protocols, just like the 84 overturned the protocols of their forefathers...

Malcolm wrote:
You have strange ideas about mahasiddhas. They did no such thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I do not see how quantum mechanics is reaffirming the basic insight that there is no inherent existence. For example, to take your line of thinking, one can make a argument that (half-eggist) Yogacara is affirmed by quantum mechanics because of the overwhelming emphasis in your theory on the role of the observer. For example, in the half-eggist theory, physical phenomena exist, but how they exist for us is determined by our perception of them, much like your collapse of the wave function.

Kenneth Chan said:
There is no “overwhelming emphasis on the role of the observer” in my paper. I have already said, many times, that Madhyamika philosophy avoids the extreme position of solipsism. So it is not at all like the Yogacara argument.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a total mischaracterization to state that any school of Yogacāra is in anyway solipsistic.


Kenneth Chan said:
There is no solipsism because it is the interaction of the mind and the “causes and conditions” of the external world that constitutes our primary reality (although even this is empty of inherent existence). This interaction (which I call an experiential event ) involves both the mind and the “external world” in equal measure.

Malcolm wrote:
As in half-eggist Yogacāra.

Kenneth Chan said:
The quantum wave function, in quantum mechanics, would correspond to the “causes and conditions” of the “external world,” and the eigenstates and their corresponding eigenvalues would correspond to the experiential events that manifest upon the act of observation by the mind. So both mind and “external world” have the same ontological status.

Malcolm wrote:
As in half-eggist Yogacāra.

Kenneth Chan said:
The quantum wave function is not something that only occurs in the mind; it is present in the "external world" although it is empty of inherent existence because what the quantum wave function does is merely to provide a probability distribution of possible measurement results if and only if there is an actual act of measurement by the observer. So, because the very meaning of the quantum wave function depends on the mind of the observer, it is empty of inherent existence. Nonetheless, it is definitely not totally nonexistent. The presence of the quantum wave function in the "external world" means that we do not have a case of solipsism.

Malcolm wrote:
So far you have failed to remove the objection that what you say would not equally be the case for half-eggist Yogacāra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
There is no deflection here. It is simply a case of accepting that there is such a thing as conventional truth. Malcolm, you really need to see things in the correct context. I have already repeated this many times. The problem is that the philosophical framework of an inherently existing mind-matter dualism led physicists to the extremes of either solipsism or materialism. That is the problem. And Madhyamika philosophy solves this problem. Please see things in the correct context.

Malcolm wrote:
You have stated this an assertion, but you certainly have provided to proof that physicists are committed to either position ideologically.


Kenneth Chan said:
Just because "Madhyamakas do not spend time erecting theories about conventions" does not mean that Madhyamika philosophy cannot be applied to solve the problem of interpreting quantum mechanics. To claim that Madhyamika philosophy cannot be applied as a solution to a problem would be illogical. Again, please see things in the correct context.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka cannot be applied as solution to this problem because Madhyamaka merely provides a rule set for falsifying ultimate truth claims. It does not set out any ultimate truth claims of its own. Ultimate truths are the objects of veridical cognitions derived from the analysis of entities. This is why for example, Candra says any given entity bears two natures, one relative, one ultimate.

Kenneth Chan said:
Please see things in the correct context. The problem of having to fit quantum mechanics into the framework of an inherently existing mind-matter dualism led physicists to the extremes of either solipsism or materialism. Since solipsism is unacceptable to physicists, they turned to materialism, but it is simply not possible to interpret quantum mechanics properly with materialism.

Malcolm wrote:
Or course it is. You yourself have admitted it to be so. However, there is one problem here. You have never defined what for you materialism means. As I understand it, materialism— by which I understand you to mean physicalism— is the claim that a "mind" is merely a convention for physical events which occur in a brain which give us the illusion of of self, and so on.

Kenneth Chan said:
That is the problem in interpreting quantum mechanics, and Lama Tsongkhapa’s view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated solves that problem.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see how, given all that I have said. As far as I can tell, you are just making the same claim over and over again regardless of anything which shows that your claim is irrelevant to the problem you claim exists.


Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, how many times do I have to say this? We are dealing with the problem physicists have in interpreting quantum mechanics, and physicists are generally not interested in philosophy per se. I know physicists; most of them, in fact, claim that philosophy is "a lot of hot air"! So if you ask them about Hume or Dennett, they will probably tell you that they are not interested in what they say. So whether or not Hume has addressed the problem of inherency is irrelevant here. Physicists, in general, insist on materialism and that is the problem.

Malcolm wrote:
I think the problem here is that you are not defining your terms well. Physicist in general tend to be physicalists, that is, they reject the idea that there is some kind of mind which exists separate from materials processes, if they even accept that mind exists at all. Hence they tend to be substance monists. You keep claiming they are dualists, in general, and I do not see how you can make this generalization. Your claim is something like the "all true scotsman" fallacy.

However, whether or not all physicists, some physicists or none of them are substance dualists or physicalists, this has no bearing at all on whether or not they agree in principle that observation affects the outcomes of experiments in quantum mechanics. Einstein rejected this idea, but his rejection of this, his insistence that there had to be an actual physical event which correlates to an observation, has been dismissed for 80 years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Namkhai Norbu and Vegetarianism
Content:
theanarchist said:
Okay, next time I need a car, I buy one from a dealer in stolen goods, because, you know once the car is stolen from it's previous owner, it's inert.

When I buy it I automatically ask for it to be killed. The price of the meat includes the wage of the professional butcher doing it. I pay him with the money I pay for the meat.

Malcolm wrote:
Now, you are simply making irrational arguments. A car is inert from the start.

You only pay a butcher if you ask him to kill an animal for you. This is clearly forbidden. Otherwise, when you buy meat in a modern market, the consciousness of that animal is long dead, well on its way to yet another rebirth. There is no connection between meat that I buy, and the suffering of said animal. It already happened and is finished, for that life.

Karma is volition, and the secondary acts of body and voice that proceed from that. In order for killing to be part of my karma, I must request some being be killed or do it myself. Otherwise, there is no karma involved.

ThoroughlyCutting said:
In that case, how is the animal benefited by the Dzogchen practitioner? If the meat is inert and there is no connection between it and the animal killed for it, how is this connection possible?

Malcolm wrote:
The connection comes through one's mindfulness of that animal and its samsaric pain and suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
The fact that Madhyamaka texts do not reject substance dualism in toto is a clear indication that the conventional truth is important in Madhyamika philosophy. There is no misunderstanding of Buddhism. This is just another case involving conventional truth and ultimate truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth, you have spend many pages proclaiming that the reason issues in quantum mechanics is resolved by Madhyamaka is that in Madhyamaka there is no substance dualism.

The minute that I point out that Madhyamaka does not reject the classical substance dualism which pervades Sūtrayāna Buddhism, you then deflect.

Madhyamakas do not spend time erecting theories about conventions. A conventional truth is something which is functional, designated on the basis of relative appearance to healthy sense organs. The minute something which was previously thought functional is shown to be conventionally false, Madhyamakas also reject that. As long as everyone accepts it is true, Madhyamakas will waste no time tilting windmills. for example, if physicalism proves to be true, Mādhyamikas would be bound to accept it, since it would be conventionally established. And as there are no ultimate phenomena, there would no refuge for Madhyamakas there.

Kenneth Chan said:
Please see things in the correct context. The problem of having to fit quantum mechanics into the framework of an inherently existing mind-matter dualism led physicists to the extremes of either solipsism or materialism. Since solipsism is unacceptable to physicists, they turned to materialism, but it is simply not possible to interpret quantum mechanics properly with materialism. That is the problem in interpreting quantum mechanics, and Lama Tsongkhapa’s view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated solves that problem.

Malcolm wrote:
And as I pointed out, the problem of inherency is not an issue in the modern philosophy of science and hasn't been since Hume.

One can be a total physicalist ala Dennet, and the idea that states are determined also by the observation is no less true. Madhyamaka does not solve that issue. Madhyamaka is the extraneous to that.

When you collapse mind/matter dualism, you have two choices, all events are mental events (Yogacāra) or all events are physical events (Dennet, etc.). This still does not prevent the observation of phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: Brass kapala
Content:
Grigoris said:
PS  I reckon the next generation of Mahasiddhas are going to have a grand old time deconstructing the Brahmanic tendencies of "modern" Vajrayana.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāsiddhas were the ones who set forth these protocols, like Padmasambhava.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Brass kapala
Content:
Grigoris said:
If you do not have transmission for these practices...

Malcolm wrote:
...you cannot and should not do them, including making their offerings. Stick to the outer offerings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What the Gelugpas seem to describe in ontological terms, the Sakyapas and others described in phenomenological terms.


Bakmoon said:
Well, Gelug Madhyamaka presents things primarily from the perspective of ordinary beings, so to an extent that's to be expected. The question of which approach is better is largely one of pedagogical concern with respect to that set of issues I think. Personally I find issue that Gelug Madhyamaka not propounding freedom from all views with regards to the ultimate to be a much more significant issue. Primarily because that issue doesn't seem to be primarily an issue of terminology.

Malcolm wrote:
Pramana is not really for distinguishing bad argumentation from good argumentation, it is really for understanding how we perceive things.

Bakmoon said:
Either way, Madhyamikas of all stripes in Tibet use aspects of pramana conventionally and find it to be useful, and conventionally make distinctions between things that are accepted conventionally, and things that are not accepted conventionally, and many find it convenient to use some variation of the word 'exist' on the level of convention rather than a much longer technical term.

Malcolm wrote:
I think a major difference is that Sakyas and those who follow Sapan, as well a Nyingmapas, reject the idea that Buddhist epistemology (pramāṇa) has any soteriological value; whereas the Gelugpas and some Kagyus, such as Drigung, think it has soteriological value.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Demonetisation
Content:
DGA said:
Frankly, I think we may be in the midst of a reset that none of us asked for.  For example, the alliance of the coming Trump administration with Putin against China reorganizes more or less everything in global trade.

Malcolm wrote:
It is about oil (exploiting the Arctic, in which China has no foothold) vs. cheap consumer goods.

Thus the full fledged and cynical attack against climate science.

DGA said:
yes. the alliance with Russia sets up Canada and Norway as the only real opposition. Canada and Norway.   Maybe Denmark (via Greenland)?

the attack on climate science is only partly attributable to this, however.  Trump used it to good effect in appealing to coal country voters.  This made a significant difference in Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Also to the "earth is only 500 years old" Jesus rode a dinosaur to Temple set.

Malcolm wrote:
In my opinion, this is the outcome of a decades old strategy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Demonetisation
Content:
DGA said:
Frankly, I think we may be in the midst of a reset that none of us asked for.  For example, the alliance of the coming Trump administration with Putin against China reorganizes more or less everything in global trade.

Malcolm wrote:
It is about oil (exploiting the Arctic, in which China has no foothold) vs. cheap consumer goods.

Thus the full fledged and cynical attack against climate science.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Demonetisation
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Sometimes I think that nothing short of a truly dramatic calamity could really change such things. Nothing short of resetting the system and starting anew. I would love to be proved wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
This is pretty nihilistic. Things may suck, but things will suck much worse with a reset:

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, actually we don't. Direct perceptions are not imputations. Conventional designations are subsequent to appearances. Appearances do not arise from conventional designations, conventional designations are made on the basis of appearances. Relative truths are not determined by conventional designations. Relative truths are appearances to an non-analytical mundane mind which is not influenced by adventitious delusions.


Bakmoon said:
Agreed, but my point is that when you have to start talking about things in the conventional world and describe them as illusory, mere appearance, mere designation, or anything like that, if that is to assert an ontological concept, then it seems like asserting ontology is totally unavoidable, so why pick on the Gelugpas?

Malcolm wrote:
What the Gelugpas seem to describe in ontological terms, the Sakyapas and others described in phenomenological terms.


Your last sentence just means you have to cripple yourself.

Bakmoon said:
That kind of an issue is something that everyone who wants to make use of any pramana has to deal with, not just Gelugpas. The way I see it, the Munchausen Trilemma is a form of ultimate analysis that refutes pramana, but conventionally we can still accept the helpful aspects of pramana so we can distinguish bad argumentation from good argumentation. I don't see how other systems of logic can dodge this issue either to be honest.

Malcolm wrote:
pramana is not really for distinguishing bad argumentation from good argumentation, it is really for understanding how we perceive things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Grigoris said:
In the case of Dzogchen practitioners, and by this I mean people who actually understand Dzogchen teachings, 100 percent.
Understand or realise (or both)?

Malcolm wrote:
Understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Asserting things are mere imputations is an ontological concept.

Bakmoon said:
And yet all Madhyamikas do this when they have to address the issue of accepting conventionalities.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually we don't. Direct perceptions are not imputations. Conventional designations are subsequent to appearances. Appearances do not arise from conventional designations, conventional designations are made on the basis of appearances. Relative truths are not determined by conventional designations. Relative truths are appearances to an non-analytical mundane mind which is not influenced by adventitious delusions.
Unicorns are imputations. Horse are imputations. Now you have to define the difference between a false one and a true one. And that is where you start making ontological assertions. A true imputation involves a correspondence theory between what you perceive and what is out there. Now, we already know that a correspondence theory is invoked by Candrakīrti on the basis of the distinction between two modes of false cognitions: 1) false cognitions about natures 2) false cognitions about common appearances, i.e., seeing one moon as opposed to two.

However, this does not bear up to analysis either since in the experience of a yogi, he or she may see a given space as the pure land of Avalokiteśvara, Potala, where we all see a midden heap filled with trash. In this case then, is the experiential appearances of a yogi deluded, like the drunk's perception of two moons? A madmen too may see his region as the Potala buddhafield. A madman too may believe he is Avalokiteśvara.

Bakmoon said:
Can't you make a distinction though based on the mind of the perceiver though? A Yogi has a valid yogic direct perception, whereas the madman has impaired faculties.

In any case, I'm not surprised that you can easily get into trouble when you start looking at these issues in pramana. It's like the old chicken and egg problem with perception relying on inference and inference relying on perception. Under analysis, pramana falls apart just like everything else, so if you are trying to work things out conventionally, you have to accept that pramana is able to function and remember to steer clear of the issues that lead you to analyze too deeply.

Malcolm wrote:
A common person cannot make a distinction between the mind of a madman or a yogi. He or she can only make a distinction on the basis of their conduct. Even this not certain, since most people will regard a yogi engaged vratacarya, or the conduct of strict discipline to be lunatics. The point is that in the Gelug persentation, conventional truth is put forth from the perspective of Sautrantikas following reason, which is essentially a pramana based perspective. Why do you think other schools give Gelugpas such a hard time. No only are the contradictions in Tsongkhapa's teachings with respect to what Nāgārjuna fathers and sons have said, but there are problems with his resorting to the conventional truth perspective of pramana.

Your last sentence just means you have to cripple yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:


Grigoris said:
When you say common, what do you mean?  60-70%?

Malcolm wrote:
In the case of Dzogchen practitioners, and by this I mean people who actually understand Dzogchen teachings, 100 percent.

Grigoris said:
And how do you know a dead person's mindstream has been liberated?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a tantra devoted to discussing this issue called the sku gdung 'bar ba. It also has a 150 folio long commentary. I'll get to it in a couple of years. In brief however it discusses the kinds of signs one has at the time of death and in the bardo, and how others can know from these one's realization. it also discusses signs from past lives which are discernible in this lifetime and so on.

It is all really a question of whether you trust what the Buddha has said in Dzogchen tantras and teachings. If you don't trust this, and approach this issue from the point of view of the eight lower vehicles, then it probably means Dzogchen is not an appropriate teaching for you yet. But there is always hope. Even hearing the word "Dzogchen" means that you will eventually attain liberation through Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
Minobu said:
i just posted this in what could hijack another thread , i think it is appropriate here for this is where i got sparked to think about  what i just deleted.



Malcolm and others, i am not a Dzogchen initiate, but am fascinated with it.
I once asked a Rinpoche,in a group setting, who i was practicing under diligently.
I asked what are the chances of a  Tantra practioner who is a householder ,attain enlightenment in this life.
He said out right. "very slim to none."
What about Dzogchen, which I am thinking about embarking on.
Also 10 years ago I wanted to embark on this path but it was like you really needed to be close for awhile to a Guru / Teacher before recieving the empowerments.
In other words , really be close to one.

Now it seems that it's easy to find someone , even online in a webcast to receive this empowerment.

Back in the day only a select few monks could receive any sort of empowerment , then it became like me....walk in off the street and for a few bucks  you too can be Vajrayogini .

really hope this received well and in the light of just what the words say with no agenda here..
i need honesty and compassion to comfort a part of my being at this juncture.

Malcolm wrote:
It is rare anyone achieves Buddhahood in this lifetime. It is very common however for Vajrayāna practitioners to attain buddhahood at the point of death, or even in the bardo. It is even more common for Dzogchen practitioners to achieve buddhahood at the time of the death or in the bardo, and in the case of Dzogchen practitioners, provided they understand the teachings and practice in a precise way, it is certain they will never return to samsara again.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Fair enough, but as I understand it, conventional existence isn't meant to be an ontological concept. Gelug Madhyamaka accepts that conventional existence is, like everything else, a mere imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Asserting things are mere imputations is an ontological concept.



Bakmoon said:
If I say that horses exist and unicorns don't, I don't think that is an ontological statement about the nature of reality. I think that is just a distinction between things that are rejected on the level of worldly convention and things that are accepted on the level of worldly convention.

Malcolm wrote:
Unicorns are imputations. Horse are imputations. Now you have to define the difference between a false one and a true one. And that is where you start making ontological assertions. A true imputation involves a correspondence theory between what you perceive and what is out there. Now, we already know that a correspondence theory is invoked by Candrakīrti on the basis of the distinction between two modes of false cognitions: 1) false cognitions about natures 2) false cognitions about common appearances, i.e., seeing one moon as opposed to two.

However, this does not bear up to analysis either since in the experience of a yogi, he or she may see a given space as the pure land of Avalokiteśvara, Potala, where we all see a midden heap filled with trash. In this case then, is the experiential appearances of a yogi deluded, like the drunk's perception of two moons? A madmen too may see his region as the Potala buddhafield. A madman too may believe he is Avalokiteśvara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:


Bakmoon said:
I guess my main summary of the whole issue is that everyone (both Gelug and non-Gelug Madhyamikas) agree that mere appearances are not refuted, but the Gelug tradition puts qualifiers into all the negations to make this clear up-front, and non-Gelug Madhyamikas generally leave the qualifiers out and don't feel the need to make all of the technical terms fit together into a detailed and comprehensive philosophical system.

Malcolm wrote:
Appearances are the object of analysis, but they are not the object of negation. For example, when we have a moon in the water, we do not say, that moon in the water does not exist. We do however subject it to analysis to understand that it is not the real moon. Also the appearance of the moon in the sky is an object of analysis. However, since conventional appearances are not able to bear ultimate analysis, any concept regarding their existence or nonexistence has to be abandoned. It is the only way the creation stage works. For example, the third Docupchen asks Gelugpas, "If for you appearances are conventionally established in the perception of ordinary people, does this not render the creation stage a mere imputation and a false appearance?"

In reality, when practicing Vajrayāna, Gelugpas use a species of Yogacara Madhyamaka just like everyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Inherent deja vu all over again
Content:
Jeff H said:
In the thread concerning Kenneth Chan's essay on https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265#p367191, there was a familiar sub-topic critiquing Tsongkhapa’s use of “inherent existence”. The sub-topic started around https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265&start=80#p367976, and reached a pinnacle for me https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265&start=160#p368353, with my summation and the replies from Malcolm and Bakmoon that followed, concluding with this from Bakmoon: Thank you both, Malcolm and Bakmoon! These direct responses are particularly good grist for my still churning mill. I'm struggling to formulate a coherent question about all this to put to a couple of my teachers.


Bakmoon said:
Would you like to talk over some of these issues in a new thread? I know from experience that these subtle issues are really opaque if you haven't studied the subject fairly closely already, so I can definitely sympathize with the confusion.

Jeff H said:
I’d like to take Bakmoon up on his suggestion of a thread to explore the critique of Tsongkhapa. I’m putting this in the Gelug forum because my purpose is to compose a question for my Gelug teachers, and I’d like some assistance.

On DW it seems like a foregone conclusion that Tsongkhapa’s teachings on the topic of inherency as the object of negation have been overturned. Tsongkhapafan always takes up the banner, but it appears that most of the rest of us who follow Gelug teachings aren’t really up to entering the debate.

How should I present this question to my teacher? Here’s my starting place:

“Some say Tsongkhapa’s qualification of ‘inherent existence’ is unnecessary. Worse than unnecessary, as one person put it, ‘The main criticism of Tsongkhapa's view is that it supposes that a nonexistence (the absence of inherent existence) is ultimate. This makes Tsongkhapa's point of view subtly nihilistic.’ 

“They point to references from Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti that indicate the object of negation is simply existence and, by extension, non-existence. They say there’s no reason to belabor conventional appearance as an instance of what might be called ‘false existence’, and that to do so leaves an impression of true existence in the student’s mind.

“I revere the Tsongkhapa-based teachings I have received, but I do not know how to respond to these criticisms.”

Malcolm wrote:
The actual problem is that the Gelug view promotes relative realism (not nonexistent in the relative) and ultimate nihilism (not existent in the ultimate).

Your teachers will probably tell you to stop listening to Sakyapas and Nyingmapas. But the truth is that the Gelugpas have never amounted an effective rebuttal to Gorampa or Mipham. The scholar who has the most balanced view about all of this in the modern epoch is HHDL. He is committed to Tsongkhapa's view, but has the largeness of heart to try and understand the critiques against Tsongkhapa's view and to try and see where there is commonality among them.

The normal trope is that Tsongkhapa explains the view from the perspective of an ordinary person; the Sakyapas explain the view from the perspective of the path; and the Nyingmapas explain the view from the perspective of the result. It is a gross generalization, but there is some truth in it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
So the central mystery of quantum physics is simply the fact that no consistent interpretation can be found for the formulation of quantum mechanics. That basically means that the mystery is why quantum physics cannot be explained.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, because the data is not complete, there are therefore inconsistencies.

Kenneth Chan said:
We know now that the actual reason for this mystery is that physicists had been required to fit any possible interpretation into the prevailing philosophical framework of an inherently existing mind-matter duality.

So isn’t it true that Madhyamika philosophy solves the mystery of quantum physics?

Malcolm wrote:
No, since Sūtrayāna Buddhadharma conventionally asserts a classical substance dualism. Madhyamaka texts do not reject this.

Your thesis is predicated on a misunderstanding of Buddhism— i.e. that Buddhism in toto rejects substance dualism, but it does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Differences between Chöd wang and TroNak wang?
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Also, does anyone happen to know the lineage history of the Chöd wang that both Lho Ontul Rinpoche and Lamchen Gyalpo Rinpoche typically give?  It's given for empowering the practice of the lüjin composed by Lho Nuden Dorje (after a Karma Kagyupa had requested it), and also for the extensive sadhana compiled by Gyalpo Rinpoche himself.  It doesn't come from the Yangzab terma cycle, since there's no Chöd practice there, and it  seems there isn't a Troma wang in the Fivefold Mahamudra lineage of Drikung either, from what i can tell, so I'm at a loss...

ratna said:
I don't know what empowerment Lamchen Gyalpo Rinpoche gives, but the wang for the Rainbow Body Chod that Lho Ontul Rinpoche often gives comes from the terma of Lho Nuden Dorje.

R


Malcolm wrote:
It is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Sadhana Practice
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I think the more accurate position to take (based for example, on Mañjuśrīmitra's Meditation of Bodhicitta ) is that buddhahood could also be accomplished indirectly as well, through mantra practice, as he says:
Further, because 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 three symbolic mudras, 
generate the mind as the great dharmamudra and meditate the recitation of the essence [mantra].
Mipham, summarizing Mañjuśrīmitra's autocommentary, adds:
If it is asked, “What is the method of realizing the definitive meaning through the indirect method?,” since nonactivity is illustrated with the activity of fabricated efforts, like pointing to the moon with the finger, also awakened mind correctly grasped through a symbol will accomplish awakening, because the Bhagavan Buddha, the teacher of devas and humans, has declared that it is “great awakening.” Any unfortunate one who conceptualizes entities should make efforts in the indirect method of realization.


M

RikudouSennin said:
This is similar to what Dudjom Lingpa says in Vajra Essence 182-184

"For the direct identification within your own being, you first establish all phenomenon included in samsara and nirvana as emptiness. Once you have ascertained them as the displays of the space of ultimate reality, you identify this state as the great revelation and apprehend your own natute. As a result, you naturally settle in ground pristine awareness as the great freedom from extremes. This is the swift path, the yana of the great perfection.

In reliance upon the relative, effortful path--as a means for leading beings to ultimate, effortless absolute space-- the kayas and facests of primordial consciousness of the ground sugatagarbha are generated as signs. And many sadhanas involving visualisations and recitations are taught in accordance with the many accounts of the names and meanings of deities to be revealed, buddhafields, palaces, teachers and retinues
All accounts assering that by striving in meditative practice you will reach some vast region somewhere else, called a buddhafield, are called paths of expedient means."

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because the Copenhagen interpretation is the dominate interpretation, and it explicitly rejects causality, contra Einstein, etc.

Anders said:
That is too simplistic, and only considers Bohr.

The Copenhagen interpretation rejects determinism. Not causality per se. As can be seen from this quote from Bohr:

"In physics, causal description, originally adapted to the problems of mechanics, rests on the assumption that the knowledge of the state of a material system at a given time permits the prediction of its state at any subsequent time."

Moreover, as a strict instrumentalist, Bohr did not reject causality as a physical law (of which he was noncommittal), but as a useful mode of description and measurement concerning certain properties at the quantum level, of which he claimed their causal (deterministic) properties could not be known at the quantum level.

Heisenberg, in contrast, did not equate causality with determinism and understood quantum physics to be very much causal, albeit probabilistic causality.

Kenneth Chan said:
The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the interpretations I discussed in detail in my paper. And Anders is absolutely correct. It does not reject causality. What the Copenhagen interpretation actually rejects is determinism, not causality.

The Copenhagen interpretation, and, in fact, quantum mechanics in general, is not deterministic because we cannot determine the exact future behaviour of a particle, even if we have all the information it is possible to have concerning a particle. This is because the quantum wave function of the particle only provides us with a probability distribution of possible measurement results if and only if we make a measurement. With only knowledge of a probability distribution of possible measurement results, it means that we cannot predict the exact result of a future measurement on a particle.

But that hardly means that it rejects causality. There is still cause and effect, only the exact effect cannot be predicted beforehand from the information we can have about a physical particle. Einstein’s unhappiness about this probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics was what prompted him to declare: “God does not play dice.”

There is, nonetheless, still cause and effect. The clearest example of this in quantum mechanics would be that it is the act of measurement by an observer that causes the collapse of the wave function ... only we cannot predict beforehand exactly how the quantum wave function would collapse. That surely does not mean that there is no cause and effect.

In fact, it is exactly this cause and effect that constitutes the process of dependent origination. In the collapse of the wave function, the physical particle, in Heisenberg’s words, makes the transition from the “possible” to the “actual” and manifests as a particle, in dependence upon the mind of the observer that apprehends it. And since the particle is only dependently originated, it is empty of inherent existence.

How then does this not provide scientific evidence for Lama Tsongkhapa’s view that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated?

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, the charge that the Copenhagen interpretation rejects causality is not mine.

Second, dependent origination is strictly deterministic, "where this exists, that exists; from the arising of that, this arises."

Further, I do not see how quantum mechanics is reaffirming the basic insight that there is no inherent existence. For example, to take your line of thinking, one can make a argument that (half-eggist) Yogacara is affirmed by quantum mechanics because of the overwhelming emphasis in your theory on the role of the observer. For example, in the half-eggist theory, physical phenomena exist, but how they exist for us is determined by our perception of them, much like your collapse of the wave function.

But in fact, with respect to causality, Buddha is a determinist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, exactly how did you come to the conclusion that "quantum mechanics rejects causality"?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the Copenhagen interpretation is the dominate interpretation, and it explicitly rejects causality, contra Einstein, etc.

Anders said:
That is too simplistic, and only considers Bohr.

The Copenhagen interpretation rejects determinism. Not causality per se. As can be seen from this quote from Bohr:

"In physics, causal description, originally adapted to the problems of mechanics, rests on the assumption that the knowledge of the state of a material system at a given time permits the prediction of its state at any subsequent time."

Moreover, as a strict instrumentalist, Bohr did not reject causality as a physical law (of which he was noncommittal), but as a useful mode of description and measurement concerning certain properties at the quantum level, of which he claimed their causal (deterministic) properties could not be known at the quantum level.

Heisenberg, in contrast, did not equate causality with determinism and understood quantum physics to be very much causal, albeit probabilistic causality.

Malcolm wrote:
Which throws the Buddha's dictum, "where this exists, that exists; from the arising of that, this arises" into question, necessitating a reframing, "where this probably exists (but not definitely), that probably exists (but not definitely; from the probable arising of that (but not definite), this probably arises (but not definitely)."

All this goes to show that Buddha's teaching of dependent origination was not intended originally to be applied to external phenomena, but rather, the processes of living beings only.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 12:00 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Malcolm, exactly how did you come to the conclusion that "quantum mechanics rejects causality"?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the Copenhagen interpretation is the dominate interpretation, and it explicitly rejects causality, contra Einstein, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 8:06 AM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
Grigoris said:
Basically we are saying the same thing.  What Malcolm is outlining is the correct effort I am referring to.

DGA said:
I'm not so sure.  You're saying that with the right kind of effort, anyone could become a terton.  (unless you are saying something else, in which case please correct me).

Malcolm is saying that the right kind of effort for someone today would have to involve getting in a time machine to create the correct causal relations to Guru Rinpoche in a past life.  (unless I understand Malcolm incorrectly, &c).

Malcolm wrote:
What I was saying is that in order to be terton one must be a reincarnation of one of the twenty five disciples.

Of course, this a very specific Tibetan socio-historical phenomena. Becoming realized person is the basic qualification for revealing any sort of new teaching of the Buddhas into the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
rachmiel said:
"However, when Ferdinand (the bull) is led into the ring, he is delighted by the flowers in the ladies' hair and lies down in the middle of the ring to enjoy them, upsetting and disappointing everyone. Ferdinand is then sent back to his pasture, where to this day, he is still smelling flowers."

One must imagine Ferdinand happy.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I remember the tale fondly. It was one of my favorites.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Please tell how exactly am I encouraging this “fault”? All I am saying is that quantum mechanics shows that it is true that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated. Whether or not this is to be considered the “ultimate reality” and whether or not this is actually “a negation” are actually different issues altogether.

Malcolm wrote:
You are going to have to demonstrate to me, in a simple way, why this is correct. Just how does quantum mechanics confirm that "all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently originated?"

How so, when for example the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics rejects causality?

I am sure you are more familiar than I with the intellectual history of quantum mechanics, but how, for example, can you show that causality is necessary, when quantum mechanics theory for the last century 80 years has in general rejected it?

In order to show that quantum mechanics confirms dependent origination, you would have to show that quantum mechanics confirms causality.

The Buddha's proposition is a simple one, all conditioned entities arise from a cause, and all causes are themselves effects.

This is entirely separate from the notion of the presence or absence of inherent existence, introduced into Buddhism in order to explain causality by ṥrāvakas later on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:
rachmiel said:
So many flowers!

Malcolm wrote:
You ought to change your name to Ferdinand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth and karma
Content:


rachmiel said:
Sound about right?


Malcolm wrote:
You are getting old. You will die in a relatively short amount of time, even if you are lucky enough to live another fifty years. At this point, you resemble a hamster on a spiritual wheel. Lots of effort, going nowhere fast.

You need to start with the four common foundations.

This may sound like harsh advice, but it isn't.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2016 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


boda said:
So what, if anything, does it mean for a quantum event to fail your dependent origination test?

Malcolm wrote:
It means a scientist has not properly analyzed the event in question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Jeff H said:
I learn a lot every time this topic, about how wrong Tsongkhapa was, comes up. I do not reject attacks on his position about the object of negation, but neither am I ready to renounce it, or all the masters who have propagated his teaching, including my teachers. Cone may be right that today Tsongkhapa’s is a minority teaching –- and it certainly appears to be so on DW. But in my personal, lineage-oriented world it is highly respected. And I think valid.

Malcolm wrote:
The sectarianism concerning this was started by Keydrup Jey who violently attacked people who disagreed with Tsongkhapa. You can read the tenor of his polemics in A Thousand Doses of Emptiness translated by Jose Cabezon. Keydrup Jey too was the one who began the earnest canonization of Lama Tsongkhapa. There is a recent book http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/authorized-lives which explores this. It is very interesting and worthwhile reading.

Dudjom Rinpoche wisely quips that if one were to take seriously all of the polemics in the history of Tibet, no one's teachings could be regarded as valid.


Jeff H said:
It seems to me that in the end the negation of inherent existence and inherent non-existence comes to the same place as the negation of existence and non-existence. Neither side is saying that anything exists independently.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no term in Sanskrit niḥniḥsvabhāva. This is only svabhāva and niḥsvabhāva, inherent existence and the absence of inherent existence.

It is an argument which mainly concerns 1) pedagogy 2) Tsongkhapa's novel attempt to create a system out of what he called "Prasangika" which would be largely unrecognizable to any Indian Madhyamaka scholar. A great deal of the debate turns on how definitive Nāgārjunas own writings are. For those who consider Nāgārjuna definitive and straightfoward, many Gelug attempts at subtly and nuance seem off-base. Gelugs respond that Nāgārjuna needs interpretation, which is tantamount to saying that Nāgārjuna's own writings are not definitive.

Jeff H said:
Tsongkhapa is saying that what we experience is a relative existence in the minds of people like me. I start from a place of not recognizing that I actually perceive phenomena as independent “ping pong” balls (to use Berzin’s expression). Tsongkhapa provides me with a stepping stone of conceptualizing inherent existence first.

Malcolm wrote:
Be honest— did you have any idea of "inherent existence: prior to reading any Madhyamaka?


Jeff H said:
But the Tsongkhapa lineage always teaches not to confuse the experience that is left after negating inherent existence for any kind of concrete reality. The principle is that we simply can’t deny our experience –- experience simply is.

Malcolm wrote:
The main criticism of Tsongkhapa's view is that it supposes that a nonexistence (the absence of inherent existence) is ultimate. This makes Tsongkhapa's point of view subtly nihilistic.

Jeff H said:
I still think that Kenneth is using the Madhyamaka-Prasangika method correctly to negate the view of materialism among physicists, and without affirming another view in its place.

Malcolm wrote:
Instead he is encouraging another fault— regarding ultimate reality as a negation.

Jeff H said:
He’s simply using the particular version of an ancient teaching, which he was taught, to show them that when faced with conventional evidence contradicting materiality as they know it, they should accept that evidence rather than trying to stuff it into a materialistic box. That would be a great lesson, but not a view.

Malcolm wrote:
As far as I can tell, he is trying to convince himself that Madhyamaka confirms quantum mechanics. But it does not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
pael said:
Were Virupa tertön? Who was his guru? He found Hevajra tantra, right? Can anyone find new tantra?

Malcolm wrote:
Not just anyone, pael. Only people who are one the bodhisattva stages who also have the correct dependent origination accumulate through past lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Did he have a falling out with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche?

Malcolm wrote:
When NIda started teaching Mantra Healing though Shang Shung Institute (SSI), Norbu RInpoche felt this was outside the scope of SSI's mission, and so Nida, after fulfilling his obligations to SSI, parted with SSI and struck out on his own. It was not a sudden thing, but a gradual disengagement. Nida's departure seems to have been precipitated by a Sache project Nida had initiated at Mergigar in 2003. Nida, at some cost, had five boulders placed in a meadow (below the Yellow House) at Merigar and painted the colors of the five elements. Norbu Rinpoche really did not like this at all  and immediately had some Dzogchen community people who had helped Nida paint the boulders scrub the paint off with wire brushes. FYI, I was there at the time and witnessed everything first hand. After this point, Nida and SSI began to slowly disengage.

So I think it is fair to say that there was some substantive disagreements over the direction Nida was taking at SSI, and so in order to be more free to follow his own dictates, Nida moved on, since he was not a student of Norbu Rinpoche. I would not characterize this as a falling out, but rather, a parting of ways after a largely successful collaboration seemed to have run its course. The Italian SSI still teaches Kunye in Nida's style, rather than Dr. Phunstok Wangmo's style. Actually, I think it is good Nida moved on. Diversity is good in education, and hopefully Nida's various projects with respect to Tibetan Medicine will bear fruit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Dr. Nida Chenagtsang
Content:


adividya said:
Regarding his qualifications, I am new to this forum, and question how appropriate it is to list details of anyone's Vajrayana lineage masters or accomplishments in this way.

Malcolm wrote:
Perfectly appopriate, as the Union of the Sun and Moon Tantra shows:
If the history is not explained, 
there will be the fault of lack of confidence
This means the history of the lineage — how can there be confidence in a lineage if someone does not know from whom this or that master received this or that transmission, permission, what retreats they have done, where, how long, etc? It is therefore a perfectly reasonable question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
When I used the term "dependent origination" in the passage above, I was not actually referring to the 12 causal links...

Malcolm wrote:
The general theory of dependent origination (Where this exists, that exist; with the arising of that, this arose) was taught so that monks would stop bugging the Buddha about their past lives.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's a ridiculous statement. Buddha taught dependent origination to show how samsara arises and how to cut its root - he taught it so that people would develop wisdom. Buddha can't be 'bugged' by anything.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha was trying to forestall a lot of stupid questions (bugging) by monks with regards to their past lives. In response, he taught the general theory of dependent origination. Please see the Abhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ at 2:25cd.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 10:28 AM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
How to become terton?

dzogchungpa said:
I think Naropa has a degree program for that now.

Malcolm wrote:
A weekend certificate course, so I hear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 10:16 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
When I used the term "dependent origination" in the passage above, I was not actually referring to the 12 causal links...

Malcolm wrote:
The general theory of dependent origination (Where this exists, that exist; with the arising of that, this arose) was taught so that monks would stop bugging the Buddha about their past lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
It is so crucial, in fact, that should the lineage of transmission be broken, the lineage is considered lost even though the texts of the lineage are still available.


Malcolm wrote:
There are in fact ways of restoring an interrupted lineage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
Pardon my ignorance. What is the difference between pure vision and a terma?
If I understood Alan Wallaces introduction correctly Dudjom Lingpas 5 Dzogchen texts (The Sharp Vajra of Conscious Awareness Tantra,
The Foolish Dharma of an Idiot Clothed in Mud and Feathers , The Enlightened View of Samantabhadra, Buddhahood Without Meditation, The Vajra Essence ) are from pure visions.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, which means they are a product of Dudjom Lingpa's experiential realization, rather than a text predicted by Guru Padmasambhava and concealed by him or one of the 25 disciples.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
There is a saying, that siddhas have siddha gurus.
Is this true for Tertons, do they usually have a guru who was a terton?
Who can become terton?
And now for the grand question.
How to become terton?

Malcolm wrote:
1) Yes, generally tertons learn how to be tertons from other tertons, but not always.

2) Anyone who has A) been blessed by Guru Rinpoche b) is an advanced Dzogchen practitioner.

3) Refer to 2.

Boomerang said:
How advanced do you have to be?

Malcolm wrote:
You have to have reached the third so called "vision."

The requirement for pure visions are not so stringent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Tertön
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
There is a saying, that siddhas have siddha gurus.
Is this true for Tertons, do they usually have a guru who was a terton?
Who can become terton?
And now for the grand question.
How to become terton?

Malcolm wrote:
1) Yes, generally tertons learn how to be tertons from other tertons, but not always.

2) Anyone who has A) been blessed by Guru Rinpoche b) is an advanced Dzogchen practitioner.

3) Refer to 2.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


boda said:
Interestingly, quantum events like decay occur without a cause.

Malcolm wrote:
Perishing does not have a cause, perishing occurs due to absence of a cause. I.e. when that does not exist, this does not exist, with the perishing of this, that ceases."


boda said:
What does that mean in regard to karma, or for ignorance being the first cause?

Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who told you that ignorance was a first cause, told you wrong. There are no first causes in dependent origination. If there were, we could not describe origination as dependent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
Malcom,

Can you recommend this book as a starting point for those who have received transmission yet are new to Dzogchen teachings and have not read any other material?

If not can you recommend a starting point so one can work towards this material?

Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
There are parts in this book suited to beginners, specifically topic 8, in the sections on semzins and rushan. The first seven topics mainly cover theory and yogic anatomy. Of course the latter is very important, and one should understand them well.

Otherwise, get the Precious Vase and work through it. Or get both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes it makes perfect sense and it is the expression of a view. Through the negation of inherent existence we come to realise that things are dependently-arisen appearances and on this level, they exist. This is an assertion and therefore a view. The Madhyamaka is therefore not 'no view' or merely the negation of others' views.

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, Nāgārjuna states:
Emptiness was taught by the victor for the renunciation of views;
they say someone who has a view of emptiness is incurable.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That really isn't what I'm saying. Emptiness is the mere absence of all the things we normally see. That's a view but that mere absence is not a 'thing'. This  is the mistake that Nagarjuna is referring to, the reifying of emptiness, feeling that it is a separate reality existing behind conventional appearances when it is actually the real nature of those appearances.

Again, Nagarjuna's words require interpretation. 'renunciation of views' means 'renunciation of views of inherent existence' not renunciation of views per se - that's going too far.

Malcolm wrote:
You, my friend, have a view of emptiness, precisely as Nāgārjuna described it, " the reifying of emptiness, feeling that it is a separate reality existing behind conventional appearances when it is actually the real nature of those appearances."

You think, by making a distinction between separate reality on the one one hand and a real nature on the other that you are avoiding this problem, but it is not so. This exactly the mistake to which Nāgārjuna refers.

Emptiness is the recognition that the things we perceive are not real. It is not their absence. If you claim emptiness is the absence of things, you are reifying that absence, similar with the one who reifies the mistaken thought of a fairy castle. Thus you are dragged underwater by the crocodile of the view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Bakmoon said:
It is an affirmation of the key principle of Prasangika Madhyamaka: All things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen. This has to be how Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Lama Tsongkhapa interpreted the meaning of Nagarjuna to arrive at this conclusion. And it makes sense.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes it makes perfect sense and it is the expression of a view. Through the negation of inherent existence we come to realise that things are dependently-arisen appearances and on this level, they exist. This is an assertion and therefore a view. The Madhyamaka is therefore not 'no view' or merely the negation of others' views.

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, Nāgārjuna states:
Emptiness was taught by the victor for the renunciation of views;
they say someone who has a view of emptiness is incurable.
In his commentary to this line, Buddhapalita states:
For example, someone with a confused mind sees a fairy castle and the thought arises in his mind "fairy castle," but when he is free from that confusion and sees it as it truly is, there is no entity called "mistaken thought of a fairy castle" in the mistaken thought of a fairy castle and  he only then becomes free from a concept about a nonexistent. In the same way, when seeing how it truly is, that mistaken emptiness (which arises from the crocodile of the view [of emptiness as an] entity) is not [in fact] an entity called "emptiness." Apart from the mere expression, "emptiness,"  those that view emptiness as an entity have their eye of wisdom obscured by the darkness of ignorance and thus the great doctors, the victors, able to discern for whom a treatment will succeed or not, have said [the treatment] will not succeed [for them].
Thus emptiness is merely a therapy for wrong views, and cannot be construed as a view itself. To construe emptiness itself as a view is to render oneself incurable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2016 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
It is not the literal translation of individual words that count. Words have to be taken in context. Otherwise why do we ever need commentaries to any text? Also, you realise that both translators do not agree with you. The same word can have a different meaning if the context is different. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. You can read it your way, and I'll read it my way.

Malcolm wrote:
It is fruitless to claim appeal to commentarial authority when you have produced nothing to back up your claims by way of such commentaries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 10:13 AM
Title: Re: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
Grigoris said:
How is this theodicy?

Bakmoon said:
I think Malcolm's key point is that to say that makes it sound like a Buddha on their own can just enlighten someone if they wanted to. The problem of course is that the Buddhas in their infinite and perfect compassion already want to do this for every single sentient being, so if this were possible, they would have already done it by now and Samsara would be over.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly. Nirvanadol...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Wouldn't the Great Perfection be a kind of Buddhodicy as well? (e.g., five elements/five lights)

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, since no one can make you recognize a thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
...your position is nihilistic.

Malcolm wrote:
No, since I have not proposed something which exists. In order for someone to have a annihilationist perspective they have to advocate the nonexistence of something. I have never advocated the nonexistence of anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Shouldn't it be, like, 'Buddhodicy' or something?

Malcolm wrote:
I thought about it, but then declined to coin this term.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
conebeckham said:
It [i.e. Madhyamaka] is not nihilistic because saying that no assertion can be made about existence is not equivalent to any assertion about nonexistence.

Madhyamaka serves to point out the impossibility of making any assertion about ontological status of conditioned phenomena.  Just because no assertion can be made about the existence of things, it is not logical to conclude that a "nonexistence" is ontological truth.

Wayfarer said:
I agree with that intepretation, but it is quite different to:

Malcolm wrote:
Annihilationism, in Buddhadharma, is the assertion that something which exists now, such as a person, will be utterly destroyed later and cease to exist. But this kind of statement is only possible if someone first claims something exists.

As Buddhapalita says, and as I have stated many times:

It is not that we [Mādhyamikas] claim nonexistence, we merely remove claims for existing existents.

Wayfarer said:
Saying that 'nothing ceases because it never really existed in the first place' is completely different  to saying that 'no assertion can be made about existence.' The first is ontological (concerning what exists), the second epistemological (concerning what we know).

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgarjuna's famous mańgalam states:
Not ceasing, not arising, 
not impermanent, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not different, not identical...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 6:21 AM
Title: Re: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
Grigoris said:
Theodicy tries to reconcile the fact that this world is imperfect and full of evil and yet is created by an perfect, omniscient and compassionate God.  So I still fail to see how Queeqeg's statement is theodicy.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's world is perfect, and yet while able to reveal this merely by pointing his toe, he fails to do so.

It's a version of Theodicy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
Grigoris said:
How is this theodicy?

Malcolm wrote:
Read Queequeg's statement again carefully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Our moderator Queequeg https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=24301#p368010:
If the Buddha wanted to reveal the real aspect to beings, he can, by simply pointing his toe.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=theodicy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 in Buddhadharma, how novel and how equally indefensible. If a buddha could do such a thing, a compassionate buddha would have no choice, since they cannot bear to let sentient beings suffer in misery.

Coëmgenu said:
Surely the Buddha is always "simply pointing his toe" in the interest of revealing the real aspect to beings, since that is just what a compassionate Buddha would do. That doesn't mean we are more able to see it than if the Buddha didn't. We still have a need to purify ourselves and engage in practice of some sort.


Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg's statement states that the Buddha is not doing so, but if he wanted, he could, and then we would see it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 5:33 AM
Title: Theodicy in Buddhadharma
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Our moderator Queequeg https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=24301#p368010:
If the Buddha wanted to reveal the real aspect to beings, he can, by simply pointing his toe.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=theodicy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 in Buddhadharma, how novel and how equally indefensible. If a buddha could do such a thing, a compassionate buddha would have no choice, since they cannot bear to let sentient beings suffer in misery.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I'm having some trouble tracking down this passage. Can anyone here tell me what the chapter and verse in the MMK these are?

Malcolm wrote:
Chapter 15, verse 6, I think, or thereabouts.

Bakmoon said:
Thank you very much.

Chandrakirti commenting on this verse says:
Such are  those  who  delude themselves that they are faithfully
expounding  the  teaching  of the  perfectly  realized  one  when
they  explain  the  self-existent  and  essential  nature  of things,
saying  that solidity is  the self-existent  and  essential nature  of
earth,  that  experience  of  the  object  is  the  self-existent  and
essential nature of feeling and that being reflected as an object
is  the self-existent and essential nature of consciousness.  And
they  explain  existence-as-otherness  (parabhāva)  saying  that
consciousness  is  other  than  object  and  that  feeling  is  other
than  both.  They  explain  that  consciousness  and  the  other
factors  of personal  existence, when in the present, exist, and
when  they  are  in  the past do not exist.  They  do  not explain
the  supremely  profound  truth  of dependent  origination.  So
self-existence  and  existence-as-other  are,  as  we  have  shown,
contrary  to  reason  (upapattiviruddha).
Chandrakirti doesn't put in any qualifiers in interpreting the passage, so presumably he takes Nagarjuna's statement at face value, as a logical dichotomy.


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhapalita states:

If there is something existent, it is counted as something self-existent (svabhāva) or dependently existent (parabhāva). Because of that, if there is self existence and dependent existence, existents will be established. Also when there is no self existence, at that time there is also no dependent existence; there is no descrption of an existence not included in self existenc and dependent existence, where will that existence alone, without becoming self or dependently [existent]?
The reason that I translate parabhāva as "dependent existence" is that Buddhapalita comments on it that it is conceived as an existence which is "assisted" by another, similar in meaning to paratantra.

He continues a little later:
Someone like that, who [has a] view of self existence, dependent existence, existence or nonexistece does not see the truth in the profound as the supreme teaching of the Buddha. Because we, in the correct way, see the nonexistence of the self existence of things which appear because the sun of dependent origination arose, because of that, because we see the truth, liberation is can be accepted only for us.
Recall, existence is only valid if and only if inherent existence is valid. Dependent origination is not possible in the face of inherent existence, and for Nāgārjuna, etc., there is no existence apart from inherent existence.

Nāgarjuna closes the chapter by stating:
‘Is’ is holding to permanence,
‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.
Because of that, is and is not 
are not made into a basis by the wise. 

Because something is self existent, 
it is permanent because [it is] never non-existent;
‘produced earlier, presently non-existent’,
therefor, the consequence is annihilation.
TKF's mere existence is refuted here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Wayfarer said:
All the discussions I read on madhyamika seem to culminate with Malcolm saying that Nāgārjuna says that nothing really exists, yet that somehow this is not nihilistic. I have long since given up on ever trying to understand that.

Malcolm wrote:
Annihilationism, in Buddhadharma, is the assertion that something which exists now, such as a person, will be utterly destroyed later and cease to exist. But this kind of statement is only possible if someone first claims something exists.

As Buddhapalita says, and as I have stated many times:
It is not that we [Mādhyamikas] claim nonexistence, we merely remove claims for existing existents.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence and dependent existence? 
If inherent existence and dependent existence are established, existence will be established.

Bakmoon said:
I'm having some trouble tracking down this passage. Can anyone here tell me what the chapter and verse in the MMK these are?

Malcolm wrote:
Chapter 15, verse 6, I think, or thereabouts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Black Hayagrīva and Red Hayagrīva
Content:
pael said:
Is tinnitus karmic disease? From loud noise.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not generally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm not clear on the meaning of those quotes from Naagarjuna.

Malcolm wrote:
I am, since I have examined in detail the commentaries of Buddhapalita and Candrakīrti with respect to them. What they mean is that anyone who holds at all any view of existence has a wrong view.

The purpose of Madhyamaka is the elimination of all views, its purpose is not to privilege something called "Madhyamaka view" over other views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Madhyamaka does propose a view of reality, it's the middle way. Things exist as mere appearances, being one nature with their emptiness. The truth is between non-existence and inherent existence. It's also certainly not indifferent to conventional truth since Nagarjuna's view is the union of the two truths.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is really incorrect. If this were so, why does Nāgārjuna say:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence and dependent existence? 
If inherent existence and dependent existence are established, existence will be established.

Jeff H said:
This is very interesting to me. Certainly Je Tsongkhapa was familiar with this quote from Nagarjuna. Are you saying that Nagarjuna's term "inherent" here and Tsongkhapa's term are the same?

Malcolm wrote:
Identical, rang bzhin, svabhāva.
...
Further the Buddha states in the Ārya-kāśyapa-parivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Kāśyapa, existence is the first extreme; nonexistence is the second extreme; whatever is between those two extremes cannot be discerned, cannot shown, is not a support, does not appear, cannot be known, and is not present. Kāśyapa, this is how the middle way correctly discerns phenomena.
I know this is a stretch, but this statement reminds me of what Kenneth explains about the interval between conventional measurements in quantum observation (I think it was Heisenberg's point). It is impossible to say anything about an observed electron between observations, not even whether it exists or not. It's like, conventionally we see this phenomenon and that phenomenon, then we try to fill in a continuity (like quantum mechanics predicts probability parameters), but in fact there is nothing that can be discerned and nothing is present.

Am I completely off-base with this?
What the Buddha is saying here is that in the Middle Way, phenomena are inexpressible. All expressions are a deviation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Madhyamaka does propose a view of reality, it's the middle way. Things exist as mere appearances, being one nature with their emptiness. The truth is between non-existence and inherent existence. It's also certainly not indifferent to conventional truth since Nagarjuna's view is the union of the two truths.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is really incorrect. If this were so, why does Nāgārjuna say:
Where is there an existence not included in inherent existence and dependent existence? 
If inherent existence and dependent existence are established, existence will be established.
He then goes on to say:
Whoever has a view of inherent existence, dependent existence, 
existence, and non-existence has not seen the Buddha's teachings.
Thus when you claim that "the truth is between non-existence and inherent existence," you clearly have not seen the Buddha's teaching.

Further the Buddha states in the Ārya-kāśyapa-parivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Kāśyapa, existence is the first extreme; nonexistence is the second extreme; whatever is between those two extremes cannot be discerned, cannot be shown, is not a support, does not appear, cannot be known, and is not present. Kāśyapa, this is how the middle way correctly discerns phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Black Hayagrīva and Red Hayagrīva
Content:
pael said:
Does these deities help genetic diseases?

Malcolm wrote:
Genetic diseases are karmic diseases. So whether or not someone with such a disease can be helped by medicine or ritual depends largely on whether the disease is one hundred percent karmic, in which nothing can be done for it in this lifetime; or whether it is only partially karmic, in which something can be done.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Jeff H said:
This paper doesn't ignore the western contributions to denying inherent existence; it addresses, more specifically, the long line of physicists who are insisting on maintaining strict materialism against a growing body of evidence.

Malcolm wrote:
It is entirely appropriate that experimental science confines itself to what is observable. This made indeed lead some to take a materialist position, but quite frankly, that is preferable, in my opinion, to the intelligent design folks, whose intelligent designer is rather like the ether than Kenneth mentions in his paper above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Jeff H said:
Quantum mechanics has shown, experimentally, how "conventional truths are dissonant with how phenomena actually exist by nature". Kenneth is saying that since these results correspond with what Buddhists have said for centuries, western science should take note and move forward with fresh eyes instead of stomping their feet and insisting on inherency.

Malcolm wrote:
Inherency has been long abandoned in Western Philosophy, for example, Hume refuted necessary connection, self, and so on in his Inquiry into Human Understanding.

Further, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is fundamentally what our friend Kenneth is talking about, is old news.

What I object to, as well as some others, is the reification of Madhyamaka as if it actually proposes how conventional things are supposed to function. There are a variety of theories about this even with Buddhism, which all have their usefulness in different contexts.

The Buddha as well as Nāgārjuna, are entirely silent on the question of external, dependently originated phenomena. Cosmology is the domain of Abhidharma, and that presentation is now necessarily deprecated.

The idea of the absence of inherent existence may be a great discovery for Kenneth personally, but he is not the first person to make such a link between this idea and physics. This is why I recommended that Kenneth check out the work of https://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Reality-Buddhist-View-Physics/dp/1559391995. Wallace not only has an undergraduate degree in physics, but he is quite expert in Madhyamaka studies. He even offers what he calls "a centrist view of physical science." He offers, usefully, "Physics offers us bodies of experimental evidence which can be consistently interpreted in a variety of ways." He then goes on to explore differences in the ways in which this body of evidence may be understood in different cultures, leading to different conventional formulations of its import.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Difference between Black Hayagrīva and Red Hayagrīva
Content:


Karma Jinpa said:
Are any other deities said to specifically help with depression?  I had been lead to believe that this was a foreign concept to Tibetans, who don't have a direct word for it.

Malcolm wrote:
They do in fact. Tibetan Medicine identifies three different kinds of depression, based on the three humors. There are also some provocation illnesses whose expression resembles chronic depression.


cloudburst said:
Do you recommend any books on Tibetan medicine? I would like to find out more. I know there is the Tibetan Classics one...is that any good?

Malcolm wrote:
That one is a classical history book. This is the best book out there right now: Essentials of Tibetan Traditional Medicine by Gyato and Hakim


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Let me state here categorically that that is NOT my claim. Context, context, context. What I am showing is that, at the conventional truth level, interpreting the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of the Madhyamaka view of reality...

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka does not propose a view of reality, that's the point.

Kenneth Chan said:
in terms of the Madhyamaka view...

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka also does not propose a view. It eliminates views. Take for example Buddhapalita (the actual founder of so called "Prasangika"):
It is not the we [Mādhyamikas] propose nonexistence, we merely remove claims for existing existents.
Some people insist that one needs to append "inherent" to the above formulation, but it is not necessary, in fact.

That is why I keep saying Madhyamaka is indifferent to conventional truth presentations, since they are all inherently flawed cognitions. Conventional truths are dissonant with how phenomena actually exist by nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 11:43 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Let me state here categorically that that is NOT my claim. Context, context, context. What I am showing is that, at the conventional truth level, interpreting the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of the Madhyamaka view of reality...

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka does not propose a view of reality, that's the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 10:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
bfaus said:
Thank you Malcom for your work and continuous efforts!  I would too be interested in receiving the Lung.

Malcolm wrote:
I have just received word from the Lama I had in mind that he would be willing to do this, and the way it will work is that he will give a section of the text, which I will then read in english, and so it might take a couple of days.

When the detail are worked out, I will let you know.

M




Adamantine said:
May we ask who the Lama is? Would it be open to participation in meat space too?

Malcolm wrote:
The Lama, who will remain nameless for now, is top notch. And I am not sure yet about the venue, but watch this space, and I will keep you all in the loop when we have finalized details of dates and venue.

Thanks,

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Yes, but I am not saying that this is not the case. The purpose of my paper, however, is to show that there is a more appropriate model compared to another model which has inconsistencies even at the conventional truth level of analysis. And this argument is presented in terms of the conventional truth. Is there a problem with this?

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is the claim that Madhyamaka validates any conventional truth presentation, which is the essence of your claim.

Kenneth Chan said:
I am not saying that this is not so. Please recognise the context. I am trying to show that, at the conventional truth level, interpreting the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of the Madhyamaka view of reality resolves the inconsistencies, while doing so in terms of an inherently existing mind-matter duality would end up with all sorts of inconsistencies. Again, is there a problem with this?

Malcolm wrote:
I understand you think the anti-essentialism of Madhyamaka is helpful in clarifying some problems in physics. But this is no more true than saying the anti-essentialism of Hume would help in just the same way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Black Hayagrīva and Red Hayagrīva
Content:
Karma Jinpa said:
Are any other deities said to specifically help with depression?  I had been lead to believe that this was a foreign concept to Tibetans, who don't have a direct word for it.

Malcolm wrote:
They do in fact. Tibetan Medicine identifies three different kinds of depression, based on the three humors. There are also some provocation illnesses whose expression resembles chronic depression.

Karma Jinpa said:
I guess Khenchen Lodrö Thaye Rinpoche's translator is simply unaware of the terminology, or else not well-versed enough in Tibetan medicine to have known.

Malcolm, could you please elaborate?  I meant primarily chronic depression, a.k.a. major depressive disorder, when asking that question.  What is the Tibetan term for this, and where can I find resources on its treatment in Tibetan medicine?  I daresay this genetic mental illness is the main obstacle to my practice, and it would be quite helpful if I could discuss it with my lamas.

Much appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
Chronic depression results from either a deficiency of what is known as satisfying phelgm in the brain, or what is known as accomplishing bile in the heart.


You would need to see a Tibetan doctor to find out for sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
Thank you for the chance to clarify things. The way I am talking about the model being functional is not in terms of the ultimate truth. It is in terms of the conventional truth. When I say that a model explains how things really are in terms of functioning, I am referring to the fact that it is the appropriate model compared to another model which has inconsistencies even at the conventional truth level of analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
All conventional truths have inconsistencies, this is why none of them bear up to ultimate analysis.


Kenneth Chan said:
The presentation in the paper is, however, given mainly in terms of the conventional truth. Otherwise it would be impossible to even compare the difference between the two different philosophical frameworks, i.e. the framework of a mind-matter duality compared with Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka, including Tsongkhapa's presentation of Prasanga, actually accepts the conventional duality between mind and matter. Why? Because conventionally, mind and matter are different substances (dravya).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Difference between Black Hayagrīva and Red Hayagrīva
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Extremely Wrathful Black Hayagriva has special power to affect beings’ minds and benefit those who are depressed, dysfunctional, or crazy, as well as to cure disease.

Karma Jinpa said:
Are any other deities said to specifically help with depression?  I had been lead to believe that this was a foreign concept to Tibetans, who don't have a direct word for it.

Malcolm wrote:
They do in fact. Tibetan Medicine identifies three different kinds of depression, based on the three humors. There are also some provocation illnesses whose expression resembles chronic depression.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
bfaus said:
Thank you Malcom for your work and continuous efforts!  I would too be interested in receiving the Lung.

Malcolm wrote:
I have just received word from the Lama I had in mind that he would be willing to do this, and the way it will work is that he will give a section of the text, which I will then read in english, and so it might take a couple of days.

When the detail are worked out, I will let you know.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Jeff H said:
I’m puzzled by this outpouring of resistance to Kenneth’s position.

Perhaps I’m misinterpreting it, but it sounds to me like the main point is not to impose Madhyamaka as a scientific model. Rather it is to show that, with quantum, western science could be aligning more closely with an ancient Buddhist understanding of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The resistance comes from the fact that Madhyamakas are impartial with respect to presentations of relative truth. Their only interest in with respect to presentations of relative truth is when those presentations make claims which contradict the principles of dependent origination.

This is the reason for example that followers of Bhavavivkea and Candrakirti largely follow the Sautrantika presentation of relative truth, apart from Sautrantika tenets like partless particles and so on that that conflict with reason and are found to be irrational assertions upon analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2016 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Matt J said:
So here's a question: how do we go from stating that I cannot find x, which is an epistemological  statement, to there is no x, which is an ontological one? Why isn't it possible for to exist in a way we don't know?

Malcolm wrote:
The only mode of existence that is possible is a conditioned mode of existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Looking/feeling for "I"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you want the flavor of Malcolm, you will want to listen to my Wisdom podcast, not sure when it is to be published.

rachmiel said:
I'm definitely interested, please keep us informed.
In the meantime, the "I" is a barrier to experiencing things as they are— nonarising and unceasing.
The "I" feeling *is* "things as they are" for the feeler ... it might be an illusion, but this illusion *exists* -- similarly to how a dream exists (subjectively, for the dreamer). If this is understood, feeling the "I" is not a barrier, rather a way in. Or so I see it on this brisk December morning in the year of our Lord 2016.

Malcolm wrote:
"I" is what prevents one from seeing things as they actually are. It is the root delusion which spawns all other delusions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:
Kenneth Chan said:
In Madhyamika philosophy, particles do not inherently exist on their own right. Particles arise only in dependence upon causes and conditions, in dependence upon their parts, and in dependence upon the mind that apprehends them.

Malcolm wrote:
This is only conventionally true. When particles or their arising is sought, neither particles nor there arising can be found. For example, in the refutation of motion, Nāgarajuna states:
Apart from having moved or not having moved, [at present] there is no moving.
Arising particles cannot bear this analysis. In other words, to address your statement"
Apart from having arisen or not having arisen, [at present] there is no arising.

Kenneth Chan said:
This would correspond very well with the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. The quantum wave function of a particle would correspond to the “causes and conditions” aspect, and the eigenstate and its corresponding eigenvalue would correspond to the experiential event of the mind experiencing the particle. Neither the separate inherently-existing particle, nor the separate inherently-existing mind appears in the mathematical formulation. What does appear is the experiential event, where the conscious experience and the particle appear as a combined reality. These experiential events are what actually make up our reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The same applies to experience:
Apart from having been experienced or not having been experienced, [at present] there is no experiencing.

Kenneth Chan said:
And since, these arbitrary concepts lead to problems in interpreting quantum mechanics—problems that still remain unresolved to this day—it is probably wise that we remove them from our direct experiential interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but this is still all conventional proliferation.

In the end, what is salient to your thesis is the statement by Nāgārjuna:
For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible;
for those whom emptiness is impossible, nothing is possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Looking/feeling for "I"
Content:
rachmiel said:
The example with the car reminds me a lot of my big Aha! from HHtDL where he talked about a flower not really existing as anything but the sum of its parts, all of which were like the flower (not existing except for the sum of *their* parts, etc., all the way down down down baybey).

But, respectfully, for me your responses in this thread are right views and come off a bit clinical. I don't see the passion, wonder, or Malcolm-ness in them. Are you ever simply awe-struck by the miraculous messy unfathomable richness of ... *this* ... ? Does your worldview have soul? Does life still get you all hot and bothered?

Malcolm wrote:
If you want the flavor of Malcolm, you will want to listen to my Wisdom podcast, not sure when it is to be published.

In the meantime, the "I" is a barrier to experiencing things as they are— nonarising and unceasing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
pael said:
Is World Wide Guru Yoga Transmission of Namkhai Norbu enough?
Do I receive lung, if I sleep during it? Or do I need to stay awake? I don't understand Tibet. It is 1:30AM here during webcast.

Malcolm wrote:
You do not receive a lung if you sleep through. In any case, pael, this is all merely speculation at this point. Nothing has been confirmed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
pael said:
Is this book practical? Is it useful? Can you read it without lung? Can you use it without lung? How long lungs webcast is? When it comes here is night.

Malcolm wrote:
This book is a systematic overview of the teachings found in the 17 Dzogchen Tantras. If you have Dzogchen transmission, you can use the information in the book.

The lung would take some time, probably two hours.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: what is whiteness? what is it to be "white" in the USA?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
People have to wake up an understand that human beings have only one planet on which we live. They also have to understand that we all come from a very small population of humans that survived a global cataclysm 75,000 years ago.

binocular said:
Can you explicate your reasoning as to why people _should_ understand those things?


Malcolm wrote:
Species preservation, human and otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Hi Astus, Malcolm, and Conebeckham. Please allow me to address all your questions together.

The situation with quantum physics is really quite unique. What the physicists have discovered is a mathematical procedure, called quantum mechanics, that enables them to calculate very accurately the probability distribution of possible results of measurements made on a particle. The big problem is that we have no idea at all why this mathematical procedure works. Sounds amazing but it is true. No one knows why it works. That is why Richard Feynman openly admits that no one understands quantum mechanics.


Malcolm wrote:
If it works, it is conventionally true. It will still not hold up to ultimate analysis.


Kenneth Chan said:
But the problem does not end there. What this mathematical procedure, called quantum mechanics, tells us is that whenever an observer makes an actual measurement, our external reality changes. This process is called the collapse of the wave function. What it means is this: If the observer does not make a measurement, the external reality behaves in a certain way. If the observer does make a measurement, the external reality will behave in a completely different way!

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Meaning that entities are conditioned by our perception of them.



[/quote]
I think it is worthwhile for Buddhists to look closely at quantum physics, and I believe that is also why His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, presided over the recent conference on Madhyamika philosophy and quantum physics. Take a look at the title of this article on the conference: "Dalai Lama: Religion Without Quantum Physics Is an Incomplete Picture of Reality" ( http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dalai-lama-religion-without-quantum-physics-is-an-incomplete-picture-of-reality ). So I believe His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, would encourage Buddhists to look more closely at quantum physics, since quantum physics is telling us what our reality is really like.

What my paper shows is that there is something even better than just parallels or intersections between Madhyamika philosophy and quantum physics. Madhyamika philosophy can actually solve the mystery of quantum physics—by interpreting the actual formulation of quantum mechanics explicitly in terms of the Madhyamaka view of reality. Looking at it the other way around, it means that there is now concrete scientific evidence that Madhyamika philosophy is correct. I have deliberately written the paper in such a way that Buddhists, who may not know any mathematics or physics, can also understand it—with a bit of effort, of course. (The paper can be found at http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/direct-experiential-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/. I would, of course, be happy to clarify things further on this forum if required.)[/quote]

You might want to look at Alan Wallances work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 9:33 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If enough people demonstrated interest, I might be able to arrange for a lama to give the lung of the original Tibetan text.

Losal Samten said:
Webcasted?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, somehow, it is possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Marc said:
Dear Malcolm,

I've just purchased your book and have already gone, with care and much appreciation, through your very enlightening introduction !

Thank you for your work

A question that may (or may not) sound odd:

For those of us who have already received initiations and instructions in Trekchö & Thögal, have you contemplated the idea of giving the reading transmission of the Great Commentary via webcast ?

This, I am sure, would be a wonderful opportunity for many of us

Malcolm wrote:
If enough people demonstrated interest, I might be able to arrange for a lama to give the lung of the original Tibetan text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Do you think Trump will recognize Taiwan as a state?
Content:
Minobu said:
in any case Malcolm , nice try...what you are trying to do is well below the standards i used to have for you...

Malcolm wrote:
Your standards, you own them, not I.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics
Content:


Kenneth Chan said:
Hi Malcolm. The point here is that there is no current interpretation of quantum mechanics that is actually fully functional. All the current interpretations have conceptual problems and inconsistencies.

Malcolm wrote:
Then from a Madhyamaka point of view they fail the functionality test, and this means they are not valid. However, as long as some of the predictions made by quantum models are functional, then we can accept those as conventionally true. Conventional truth does not need to be completely true, otherwise, it would stand up to ultimate analysis.

Kenneth Chan said:
However, if we interpret the formulation of quantum mechanics in terms of the Madhyamaka view of reality—i.e. that all things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen—we can now actually obtain an interpretation that is free of inconsistencies and free of the need to add on further ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation of quantum mechanics. That is what I am talking about.

Malcolm wrote:
These quantum models can only be accepted as conventional if they make predictions that turn out to be valid. Otherwise, from a Madhyamaka point of view, if it is not functional, it is part of false relative truth, like the difference between one moon seen in the sky by a sober person and two moons seen in the sky by a drunk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Do you think Trump will recognize Taiwan as a state?
Content:
Minobu said:
A stronger America financially.
I think he will be a success in this endeavour.
the concept his policies  are  going to throw the country into recession is laughable.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't let the facts hit you in the butt http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-recessions-more-frequent-under-rep/

Minobu said:
Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Kagyu refuge tree
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2016 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Do you think Trump will recognize Taiwan as a state?
Content:



BuddhaFollower said:
The only reason why we stick to Geneva conventions is so that our soldiers are treated well.

But it's not a legally binding thing like liberals think.

Malcolm wrote:
Our agreements with the WTO etc., are very binding. For example, there was a law in Massachusetts that barred trade with Myanmar over human rights violations . It was challenged by the WTO and Massachusetts lost, http://www.citizen.org/trade/article_redirect.cfm?ID=11103:
Massachusetts officials were flummoxed to learn they were required to comply with WTO procurement rules that they had never approved.  They later learned that a previous governor had sent a letter to the USTR during the Uruguay Round without legislative consultation, much less approval which was the basis for the claim that the state was bound to the WTO procurement rules.

However, the EU and Japan suspended the WTO case pending the outcome of a federal lawsuit filed against that state by the NFTC in U.S. District Court.  The NFTC argued that the Massachusetts law “unconstitutionally infringed on the federal foreign affairs power, violated the Foreign Commerce Clause, and was preempted by the federal Act.”[ix]   The District Court permanently enjoined enforcement of the state law, ruling that it “unconstitutionally impinge[d] on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate foreign affairs.”[x]   Massachusetts appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.

Massachusetts appealed to the Supreme Court.  Seventy-eight Members of Congress, 38 state and local governments, all eight major state and local government associations, and 66 non-profit organizations filed amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs supporting the Massachusetts law.[xi]   Nonetheless, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, although on narrower grounds, holding that a state or local selective purchasing law sanctioning a nation is preempted only when Congress has passed a corresponding law sanctioning that nation – as Congress had done in the case of Burma – and only when the two laws differ.  This leaves the door open for state and local governments to pass several other types of laws.

For example, state and local governments could enact general laws to avoid purchasing goods and services from companies that violate human rights or labor standards as long as the laws do not apply specifically to companies doing business in a country where Congress has adopted different sanctions.[xii]   Thus, states and cities could divest their holdings in companies that do business in Burma or could require companies to disclose whether they do business in Burma as a condition for selling goods or services to the government because these actions do not conflict with the federal Burma law.   Under the Supreme Court ruling, state and local governments also could use preferential purchasing policies regarding countries about which Congress has not passed conflicting legislation.  Thus, the Supreme Court decision, in contrast to WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (AGP) rules, does not rob state and local governments of all their options.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling is more permissive of human rights links to procurement decisions than the relevant WTO rules.  The WTO AGP forbids consideration of any non-commercial factors in governments’, even sub-federal governments’, procurement decisions.
Here is a clear case where international laws of trade superseded local policy decisions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2016 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: what does emotional detachment mean?
Content:
White Lotus said:
when one has become emotionally detached from people and things what does it mean?

Malcolm wrote:
Its meaning depends on whether you have compassion or not.


