﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 29th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I don't think I said that he didn't know about getting shit faced on psychedelics.  He has 20 years experience of that after all...

Malcolm wrote:
No one gets "shitfaced" on entheogens.


Sherab Dorje said:
Yes, this is a very positive thing, but my question is:  What is his motivation for building this bridge with Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
It is gonna be built whether you like it or not. And as you may have noticed, many people (I'd say most) in my generation (baby-boomers) used entheogens as a bridge to Dharma, whether you accept that or not, or like it or not.

Further, there are clinical uses for these compounds —— both LSD and Psilocybin have shown very promising results in working with addiction, PTSD, easing fear of death, and so on. These drugs are powerful and therapeutic, which is why cultures all over the world have returned to their use again and again for many millenia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
DGA said:
Libertarianism is, in the last analysis, about property and not people.

Malcolm wrote:
Rightwing libertarianism, of the Rand/Rothbart ilk, yes. Not the leftwing libertarianism of the Green Party, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Zen Language
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
That's interesting Astus. On a related note, what is the sort of cultural history of Zen poetry involving depictions of the natural world?

Malcolm wrote:
It has it origins in Song dynasty neo-confucian literati. All of the so called "Zen arts" are really Confucian arts, the skills cultivated by educated Chinese gentleman, calligraphy, archery, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:


Ayu said:
Browsing this thread I found Malcolms believe, so-called flash-backs are non-existent. Man, you are very fortunate to uave this impression. Good Karma. But if you wanted to raise this thesis as a truth, you don't have to take your aquaintances as reference. Better make interviews in mental hospitals. They will asure you: flash-backs exist and they are an inpredictable risk.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy it. I have been around the mental health system for many years, and while it is certainly true that people who are at congenital risk for schizophrenia can accelerate the onset of that disease by an average of two years by using LSD, in general, there is no such thing as a "flashback"( in the classic, scary sense of the term) from taking LSD.

PTSD, etc., this is a completely different issue. But here we are talking about neurological damage to nerve pathways caused by excess stress in combat, accidents, repeated abuse, and while it is the case that we see that kind of damage from cocaine, methamphetamine, and so on, so far no one has ever demonstrated any neurological damage resulting from using LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, etc. Part of the problem of course is that no one is allowed to do research on these compounds in any systematic way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
DGA said:
Europeans are right to be concerned about Trump. I think all of us should be concerned about the rise of far-right politics globally.

treehuggingoctopus said:
We should be more than just concerned. These forces must be stopped before it is too late -- before we find ourselves re-living not the collapse of the Weimar Republic (it is all already here) but the late Thirties. Any day now...

Malcolm wrote:
Voting for Hillary Clinton is just not the answer to this. Since it seems the Democrats are bound and determined to lose this election to Donald J. Trump by nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton, I will return to voting for the Green Party as I have done in the past.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Fightin' Monks
Content:
Queequeg said:
The trio of fight participants — who were all mid-level managers — were dismissed by the temple.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/monks-involved-brawl-front-chinese-temple-article-1.2617411

Setting aside the disgraceful impression this makes...

I'm not sure what "dismissed" means, but for the sake of argument, let's say this was "defeat" in the Vinaya sense. Is fighting an offense that amounts to defeat?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment of Robots?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Longquan temple says it has developed a robot monk that can chant Buddhist mantras, move via voice command, and hold a simple conversation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-religion-robot-idUSKCN0XJ05I

Is the robot a fancy prayer wheel? or a practitioner?

Malcolm wrote:
The former.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Astus said:
I don't hold the dharmakaya to be anything, not even blank void. It is just a term for the emptiness side of buddha-mind, while the rupakaya accounts for the aware, functional side.

Malcolm wrote:
Clearly, your opinion of this is not really well founded. We have already seen that dharmakāya is defined as the buddha's jñāna, his pristine consciousness, which is characterized by the twin omniscience.

Astus said:
One realises things with the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Which mind? Certainly not the eight consciousnesses. For example, which mind among the eight consciousnesses is operative in the realization of emptiness?

Astus said:
If dharmakaya means the enlightened mind, what are the other kayas?

Malcolm wrote:
Enlightened speech and body.

Another way it is put is that all kāyās at the time of the basis (before any realization occurs at all) are the dharmakāya. All kāyas at the time of the path are sambhogakāya. All kāyas at the time of the result are the nirmanakāya.

Mapping the three kāyas to the clarity and emptiness of the mind, as I pointed out already, is from the point of view of the explaining the basis of the three kāyas, not their realization. We can say that emptiness corresponds to dharmakāya because dharmakāya is the the ultimate realization of the nature of reality. We can say that clarity corresponds to the sambhogakāya because clarity is evident and distinct and the sambhogakāya emerges as a visible result, and so on. There are many ways to parse these things. But parsing things in this way does not mean that the emptiness of one's mind is the resultant dharmakāya, such arguments destroy the path. Why, because the basis has not been realized in a proper way and that basis and the result are confused.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: AYAHUASCA
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
It's not ADHD at all. Sherab Dorje is an Aussie (by upbringing,at least) and that means that like me he has an exquisitely sensitive bullshit detector. Mine has saved me more wasted hours than I can count, and I'm sure SD would say the same of his.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Your BS detector is highly over-rated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
AlexMcLeod said:
As a student of history and economics in my personal life, I cannot support anyone who proposes that government can solve societal problems. Only people on an individual level can do that. That is why I must vote Johnson again this year.

Malcolm wrote:
Guess you dont like the solutions presented by roads and sanitation much, nor national health care, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, the following is a completely wrong view.

Wayfarer said:
'The Dharmakaya is a soul, a willing and knowing being, one that is will and intelligence, thought and action. It is not an abstract metaphysical principle like Suchness, but it is a living spirit that manifests in nature as well as in thought. Buddhists ascribe to the Dharmakaya innumerable merits and virtues and an absolute perfect intelligence, and make it an inexhaustible fountainhead of love and compassion' D T Suzuki Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism

'The Dharmakaya, though manifesting itself in the triple world (past, present, and future), is free from impurities and desires. It unfolds itself here, there, and everywhere, responding to the call of karma. It is not an individual reality, it is not a false existence, but is universal and pure. It comes from nowhere, it goes to nowhere; it does not assert itself, nor is it subject to annihilation. It is forever serene and eternal. It is the One, devoid of all determinations. This Body of Dharma has no boundary, no quarters, but is embodied in all bodies. Its freedom or spontaneity is incomprehensible, its spiritual presence in things corporeal is incomprehensible. All forms of corporeality are involved therein; it is able to create all things. Assuming any concrete material body as required by the nature and condition of karma, it illuminates all creations. Though it is the treasure of intelligence it is void of particularity. There is no place in the universe where this Body does not prevail. The universe becomes, but this Body forever remains. It is free from all opposites and contraries, yet it is working in all things to lead them to Nirvana.'

Suzuki, commentary on Avatamsaka Sutra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Furthermore, the next fault is that a blank void cannot be a source of anything, and dharmakāya is the source of the two rūpakāyas.

catmoon said:
It take it you are not much concerned with the findings of modern science on this subject.

Malcolm wrote:
I dont think modern science supports the view that a blank void can be source of anything at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Comissioning Naga offering pujas
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Placation is always easier than attempting to overpower.

The weakest can easily placate even the strongest foe through offering.

Overpowering and destruction should always be the last options taken.

Malcolm wrote:
Sometimes, you have to straight to the nuclear option.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, you don't have to change anything.

Astus said:
If the dharmakaya includes both emptiness and awareness, what do sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya stand for?

Malcolm wrote:
In which system? In which context?

I am talking about the three kāyas of the result. Your comments, especially the comments from Kongtrul and so on are derived from discussions about the three kāyas of the basis, but they are not the actual three kāyas.

If you claim, as you have, that dharmakāya is only emptiness, there is the fault that dharmakāya will be a blank void. The dharmakāya is realization of emptiness, the realization of dharmatā. That realization is nondual with emptiness, but it still is a realization. A blank void cannot realize anything.

Furthermore, the next fault is that a blank void cannot be a source of anything, and dharmakāya is the source of the two rūpakāyas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 28th, 2016 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
is a term used to describe the mind of a buddha. It is not simply an term describing a blank insentient emptiness.

Astus said:
Then you have to change the roles given to sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya as the functional aspects. Because where dharmakaya refers to emptiness, the three bodies together make up a complete buddha-mind, and they do not exist separately.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you don't have to change anything. It is very clear that sūtra states dharmakāya is the jñāna of a buddha.

Astus said:
Kanthā. It means anything that lacks a mind.
Interesting. In the dictionaries online it translates to "rag, patched garment; wall, town". But if it means anything mindless, how is it specifically for rocks?

Malcolm wrote:
If it is for everything, it is also for rocks.

Astus said:
That is how it is parsed in some Vajrayāna contexts,  but never in sūtra, where it is generally treated as synonym of dharmakāya.
Maybe in TB, but have not encountered with it in EAB. But their unity is known:

"The dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya, and nirmāṇakāya—
The three bodies are fundamentally a single body.
If one can see it oneself within the nature,
This is the cause of bodhi and the achievement of buddhahood."
(Platform Sutra, ch 10, BDK Edition, p 90)

Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are inseparable, just as your body, speech and mind are inseparable. Three aspects, one entity.

Astus said:
"The concluding practice is the conviction that the ordinary mind that was from the beginning the unity of clarity and emptiness is itself the naturally arising three kayas - its emptiness is dharmakaya, its clarity is nirmanakaya, and the union of those is sambhogakaya."

(Jamgon Kongtrul on Mahamudra of the Shangpa Kagyu, in The Treasury of Knowledge: Book Eight, Part Four: Esoteric Instructions, p 246).....

Malcolm wrote:
You can parse it like this, and this is very characteristic of the new tantra schools, where dharmakāya is related to the emptiness aspect of the nature of the mind, but that is not the real dharmakāya. As we already saw dharmakāya = jñānakāya.

The Śrī Māladevi Sūtra states:
The dharmakāya of the tathāgatas is space-like pristine consciousness, the kāya of the pristine consciousness of the tathāgatas.
Vasubandhu's commentary on the Dasabhumi Sūtra states very clearly:
With respect to that, the first deliverance is the dharmakāya that exists only through pristine consciousness, devoid of mind, intellect, or consciousness. Why? Because dharmakāya is the kāya of pristine consciousness.
The Amnāyamañjarī, a commentary on the Saṃputa Tantra states:
The kāya of pristine consciousness is the dharmakāya.
The Vimalaprabha, commentary on Kālacakra states:
The omniscient kāya of pristine consciousness is is the innate nature of the victors and is likewise the dharmakāya.
The Great Tantra Clarifying The Meaning of Freedom From Proliferation states:
Since there are no causes and conditions in the dharmakāya, 
self-originated pristine consciousness, it is not conditioned.
The Tantra of the Dimension Of Samantabhadra’s Pristine Consciousness, The Most Refined Gold states:
The buddhas of the three times are free from mind [sems]. 
Since they lack the group of eight consciousnesses, they also lack the mind. 
The self-originated essence, dharmakāya,
is the pristine consciousness that does not arise from mind.
Mipham says about this:
It must be understood that pristine consciousness does not arise from the mind because the reality of the mind is natural luminosity, just as emptiness, the dharmatā of all entities, is the reality of entities but does not arise from entities.
Furthermore, the Tantra of the View of the Great Perfection, Perfect Deep Pristine Consciousness states:
Since this self-originated essence that has always existed
was not produced from a cause nor generated by a condition,
be confident that the self-originated pristine consciousness
is the dharmakāya that was not fabricated through any sort of effort.
Mipham futher states:
However, that dharmakāya, the original knowing and empty pristine consciousness, does not need to be based on methods with characteristics such as the cessation the vāyu in the central channel and so on. [20/a] If there is no contraction between the empowerment that transfers the blessings of the guru and our own path of the Great Perfection’s introduction of the mind essence as the dharmakāya that actualizes the transcendent state (dgongs pa) of the nonarising original purity of one’s own mind, the pristine consciousness that resembles that is the meaning pristine consciousness indicated by the fourth empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So here you definition of dharmakāya = emptiness is inadequate, since it would leave dharmakāya as an inert void.

Astus said:
Dharmakaya...

Malcolm wrote:
is a term used to describe the mind of a buddha. It is not simply an term describing a blank insentient emptiness.


Astus said:
No, but they do have a word for the insentience of rocks.
What is it?

Malcolm wrote:
Kanthā. It means anything that lacks a mind.

Astus said:
As for as there being more than three bodies of the buddha, that very much depends on whether one considers svabhāvakāya to be a synonym for dharmakāya or not. I am inclined to think it is a synonym.
As for the fourth body, I think it's just an extra emphasis on the oneness of the three bodies.

Malcolm wrote:
That is how it is parsed in some Vajrayāna contexts,  but never in sūtra, where it is generally treated as synonym of dharmakāya. Haribhadra seems to be the first person to really make a real distinction between dharmakāya and svabhāvakāya, but it is controversial, and at least in Tibetan Buddhism, only accepted by the Gelugpas.

Astus said:
Linji said it all (p 19, tr Sasaki): "They are just empty names, and these names are also empty."

Malcolm wrote:
it is easy to reduce everything to nihilism with flippant quotes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Astus said:
Dharmakaya refers to the ultimate nature of buddhas, and that is emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not really square with sūtra:

For example, the commentary of the Lanka states:
"'The buddhas are the dharmakāya,' and it is said there are no bones, blood or so in the body (kāya) because that is a kāya of pristine consciousness (jñāna)."
So here you definition of dharmakāya = emptiness is inadequate, since it would leave dharmakāya as an inert void.


Astus said:
It seems that Buddhist thinkers did not bother with creating a special word for the insubstantiality of rocks. Note: dharmakaya is just one of the three/four bodies, so it is not all there is to a buddha/mind.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but they do have a word for the insentience of rocks.

As for as there being more than three bodies of the buddha, that very much depends on whether one considers svabhāvakāya to be a synonym for dharmakāya or not. I am inclined to think it is a synonym.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
#Bernieorbust

frank123 said:
Unfortunately its bust for you.

Malcolm wrote:
It aint over till its over. He is going to the convention. And, I will never vote for Hillary Clinton...(or Donald Trump).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If seeing the mind = seeing tathāgatagarbha, than this makes mind unconditioned or tathāgatagarbha conditioned, but undesirable consequences.

Astus said:
There is no such thing as the unconditioned. Unconditioned means unbound, empty.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "thing." I mean "dharma", and as such, there are indeed unconditioned dharmas, for example, space, cessation, emptiness, tathāgatagarbha, luminosity and so on.


Astus said:
Seeing the mind means recognising that it's empty and conditioned, and by that one is not conditioned any more by imagined essences. So as they say, the emptiness is the dharmakaya, the awareness is the sambhogakaya, and appearances are the nirmanakaya.

Malcolm wrote:
If emptiness = the dharmakāya, then is the dharmakāya is just something inert, like a rock?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016, part 2
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
#Bernieorbust


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Astus said:
whereby seeing the mind becomes seeing buddha-nature. But that still leaves space for a gradual development.

Malcolm wrote:
If seeing the mind = seeing tathāgatagarbha, than this makes mind unconditioned or tathāgatagarbha conditioned, but undesirable consequences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Ok, that still confuses me about what is actually introduced or pointed out (and not from an experiential standpoint, simply from the theoretical standpoint of this convo), but your earlier explanation made it a little clearer...it still sounds like you are saying something like the child luminosity is not actual luminosity, but maybe it's just the labels confusing me.



Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha theory is important in Dzogchen, Kagyu and the Jonang school. It is not important in Gelug and Sakya. Your teachers are mainly Sakya.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I'm still utterly confused about the implications of this, and again am interested in whether there is "partial awareness" of it, and if not, why not.

Malcolm wrote:
No, just as there is no partial awareness of dharmakāya, there is partial awareness of tathāgatagarbha.

Johnny Dangerous said:
If there's no partial awareness of it, through introduction or pointing out, then I don't understand how taking result as path makes sense.

Malcolm wrote:
"Taking the result as the path" simply means visualizing our aggregates, elements and sense bases as a pure buddha mandala and cultivating divine pride. It doesn't really have anything to do with tathāgatagarbha theory.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Yes, I understand that Cone, my question was more about the topic of Malcolms saying it is not possible to "experience" (or use the term realize, recognize or whatever, experience probably IS a bad term, but it is after all just a term) Buddha Nature at all until one is a Buddha, and how that works. If the answer is just that it can't be described, and is outside the range of conceptuality well yeah, I get that. It seemed like a more specific claim to me.

Malcolm wrote:
As the citation I mentioned states, not even 10th stage bodhisattvas have anything more than a rough idea about sugatagarbha. This has very little to do with introduction vs. analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
That is not really something I have heard said by any of my teachers, unless I've misunderstood their teachings, and that's why I'm asking you for clarification.

Malcolm wrote:
Direct introduction uses three experiences: bliss, clarity and conceptuality to point to the nature of the mind. But the "nature of the mind" being pointed to is an example wisdom, not a result of analysis. It resembles the wisdom of buddhahood, but is not it. However, since it is not a result of analysis, it is easier to actualize the real nature of the mind based on introduction, or so the theory runs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
What's an example wisdom? Direct perception of what?

Malcolm wrote:
That, my friend, you must hear from a qualified guru.


Johnny Dangerous said:
I already have qualified teachers, I'm asking the question in regards to the conversation and overall topic. I don't see why you can't answer it.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, you need to hear this from your guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
Whenever I read Sutra, Shastra and Tantra, I try to do so (initially) without referring to commentaries.


Malcolm wrote:
Not a sound practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...what are we introduced to in direct introduction and pointing out instruction"?

Malcolm wrote:
An example wisdom based on direct perception.


Johnny Dangerous said:
What's an example wisdom? Direct perception of what?

Malcolm wrote:
That, my friend, you must hear from a qualified guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
Why do you equal totalitarianism with republic?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the classical republic, which you claim to esteem, is a class-based totalitarian system in which only a certain constituents even had rights at all, including and especially the right to elect an assembly to represent their interests.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
...what are we introduced to in direct introduction and pointing out instruction"?

Malcolm wrote:
An example wisdom based on direct perception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Its nature is without beginning, middle, or end;
hence [the state of a buddha] is uncreated.
Since it possesses the peaceful dharmakaya,
it is described as being “spontaneously present.”
Since it must be realized through self-awareness,
it is not a realization due to extraneous conditions.
Uttaratantra Shastra

And that's just page two.  What is being said here seems to have no bearing at all to what has been said in this thread over the past few pages.

Malcolm wrote:
The translation is a little wrong:

Should be:
Because it is a nature without beginning, middle or end,
it is unconditioned. 
Because it is peaceful and the dharmakāya's possession,
it is called "effortless"
Since it must be realized by each one for themselves, 
it cannot be realized through other conditions.
Now then, Asanga's comment on "dharmakāya's possession" states, "it is seen distinctly by the dharmakāya."

And as the Nirvana Sūtra states several times:
Son of a good family, though tathāgatagarbha exists in their bodies, even tenth stage bodhisattvas see only a rough approximation of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 27th, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
In which case Buddhism is reduced to yet another religiously based ethical system to ensure social cohesion.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one valuable aspect of Dharma, to be sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Saoshun said:
It's called democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, so you prefer monarchy, tyranny...?


Saoshun said:
Republic in classical sense (not the way US peuple understand republicans) with empowerment of law and freedom based. Tax free of course, besides VAT tax and little taxes. No social help...

Malcolm wrote:
So, rightwing class-based totalitarianism, in essence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I really think you need to study the Uttaratantra.
Where in the Uttaratantra is this particular concept of Buddha nature being unattainable mentioned?

Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatgarbha is not unattainable. But it is something can only be perceived by Buddhas, since it is the dharmakāya.


Johnny Dangerous said:
All the similes (the part which sticks out in my mind) I don't remember saying anything like this, only that it is necessary to remove obscurations.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they must be removed completely, otherwise, it cannot be seen.


Johnny Dangerous said:
It seems like it would be more clarifying to explain the question about direct introduction, pointing out, etc., since if what you are saying is true, then taking result as path doesn't make sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Taking the result as the path is a method. It is not actual, one is not taking the actual result as the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Bristollad said:
Kakistocracy is a form of government where the least qualified individuals are in power. Some argue that all governments eventually break down into this; others argue they all start that way. Many believe that not to engage in matters of power and government is tantamount to voting for Kakistocracy.

Saoshun said:
It's called democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, so you prefer monarchy, tyranny...?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
If the Tathagatagarbha is primodial and unconditioned and beyond the range of samsaric beings then it would follow that:

a)  There is no reason to engage in wholesome actions because the Tathagatagarbha cannot be realised via them and there is no reason NOT to carry out unwholesome actions because the Tathagatagarbha cannot be effected/tainted by them.

b)  There is no way to become enlightened since our enlightened "bit" is already enlightened and can only be approached by the enlightened anyway.

c)  Samsara and Nirvana are mutually exclusive.

Seems to me to miss the whole point of Buddhism since it is the UNenlightened (ignorant) that need to be enlightened.

AND, like JD asked but did not receive a response to:  How does this all fit into the schema of direct introduction???  Theoretically, I cannot be introduced to anything since it is beyond my capacity as a samsaric being...

Malcolm wrote:
I really think you need to study the Uttaratantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
I would do not vote if even if I could....history always repeats itself.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason for the second half can be found in the first.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All phenomena are one unique bindu.

Queequeg said:
Can you clarify that?

Each phenomena is a unique point or all phenomena are essentially one?

Malcolm wrote:
They are all contained in one state without any edges or corners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
Now apparently I have this thing (which is not a thing) called the Tahagatagarbha, the source (for want of a better word) of enlightenment and liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
Whoever told you that?

The teaching of tathagātagarbha is supposed to be encouraging, but it is never said anywhere it is something like an engine of liberation operating in the background. As the Uttaratantra states:
Why is it taught "Buddhagarbha exists?"
It is to abandon five faults
in whomever they exist:
timidity, criticizing sentient beings as inferior, 
holding the true to be false, 
slandering the true Dharma,
and elevating oneself.
It is also never said anywhere in the tathāgatagarbha literature that tathāgatagarbha is within the experiential range of anyone but the buddhas.

It is taught for us to have faith in it, that is all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Lama Tsultrim Allione/ Tara Mandala Experience?
Content:


DGA said:
To the best of my knowledge, Lama Tsultrim regards him as her root teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is correct, she considers the 16th Karmapa her root guru (so she told me once), and has forged a relationship with the present one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Astus said:
However, essentially it means peace of mind, where in the first four stages one's enjoyment of peace calms down, while the formless stages are about refining the object that sustains the attention. Naturally, there is the tendency to elevate holy concepts to unreachable levels, at which point they disappear from practice, while the actual practices are simply renamed. And that's how we have calming meditation with new names in Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a very idiosyncratic statement. One assumes the author must be intimately familiar with the subject through his own personal experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Tathāgatgarbha is something that can only be seen by buddhas. It cannot even be realized by tenth stage bodhisattvas.
This really is  a bit of semantic distinction to me at this point, I am not sure what it is supposed to mean outside of self-referential bhumi literature etc. .

Malcolm wrote:
It means that for everyone else it is a something taken on faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
But what you are saying is closer to:  the beggar knows that the rock is a priceless gem but is incapable even of trying to extract and use it.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is correct.


Sherab Dorje said:
The theory I have read says that all wholesome actions/activities spring from the alayavijnana and manifest via the manovijnana.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no contradiction here: wholesome activities of ordinary persons are nevertheless afflicted, unless those wholesome activities are connected with the path. The ālayavijñana is entirely afflicted. It only exists so long as there are bijas. When they are gone, it vanishes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Ok, then something you can realize, be, however you want to put it, I'll leave the correct wording to you. Nonetheless, this is stated at least in Lions Roar Sutra i'm sure, and in Uttaratantra I think..I can dig out the quote if you want.

Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatgarbha is something that can only be seen by buddhas. It cannot even be realized by tenth stage bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
If I cannot relate to it then it is pretty bloody useless isn't it?  It is like saying to somebody that they possess the rarest and most priceless jewel in the universe but they cannot see it, touch it, feel it, etc...  Actually it is locked away in a secret and completely inaccessible safe and only the cirators are allowed to look at it.

Johnny Dangerous said:
There are some experiential "proofs" for Tathgatagarbha in the Uttataratantra, and Lions Roar of Queens Srimala Sutra IIRC, basically it goes like: If there were no Buddha nature, what would be there to experience the defilements as a negative thing. So actually, it is something we have some experience of all the time, but do not recognize it as such.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Tathāgatagarbha is unconditioned. It is not something we can "experience."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
No one, laws are already settled as function of the body and other things, those who can perceive those laws like for example "Volenti non fit iniuria" which makes life very easy. Law must secure freedom of people based on classical thought of law.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, this cannot be taken seriously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
MindTheGap said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar

Your motivation for study was never in question, my friend

Malcolm wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that when we study the various tenet systems in a systematic way, it eliminates a lot of conceptuality we might have about this thing or that thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a pure ālaya in Indian Yogacara.

Sherab Dorje said:
The alaya vijnana is essentially pure, and cannot be tainted by the unwholesome seeds which are contained in it.  That is what I was lead to understand as being the view.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are confusing ālaya with the ālayavijñāna. The ālayavijñāna is always with traces/seeds. When they are eradicated, it ceases to exist.

Sherab Dorje said:
In sutra, you can but have mere faith that you possess tathāgatagarbha, other than that, there is no way for you to relate with it. Only buddhas can perceive it.
If I cannot relate to it then it is pretty bloody useless isn't it?  It is like saying to somebody that they possess the rarest and most priceless jewel in the universe but they cannot see it, touch it, feel it, etc...  Actually it is locked away in a secret and completely inaccessible safe and only the cirators are allowed to look at it.

Malcolm wrote:
Among the metaphors you will read in the Uttaratantra is the metaphor of the beggar who uses a rock for his pillow, not realizing that inside of it is a priceless gem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
Malcom with all respect to you. I just want to be govern by Law not idiocracy of compulsive human choices based on the emotional-political sausages and games, sheeps can not rule otherwise they will be ruled by thinking they are making a choice - is so damn easy to see, are you guys blind or something? I'm not totalitarian. I'm preaching here SANE freedom regulated by LAW which create responsibility.

Malcolm wrote:
Who sets up the laws?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Tagathāgarbha is unconditioned, it also does not produce any mental phenomena at all.

Sherab Dorje said:
Well that's a strange view.  Are you saying that the Dharmakaya has no relation with the phenomenal world?  So how do/can I, a phenomenon, relate to my Tathagatagarbha?  Is my Tathagatagarbha seperate to me?  Is there an enlightened Greg, and an unenlightened Greg, and never the twain shall meet?

The "some" I am referring to are the Yogacara.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a pure ālaya in Indian Yogacara.

In sutra, you can but have mere faith that you possess tathāgatagarbha, other than that, there is no way for you to relate with it. Only buddhas can perceive it.

A study of the Uttaratantra might prove useful for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 26th, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:


MindTheGap said:
Well, I could just as easily say, "Time is relative. See Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity."

but, with all due respect, how does that add to the conversation?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, when you take the time to read the MMK, you will see how it adds to the conversation.

MindTheGap said:
I don't know the MMK. I'm not a scholar of Buddhist philosophy. I was encouraged to make this thread by SD, and so I try to contribute in the way I can. Maybe I don't always do a good job of it - for that I apologize.

If I can find the MMK, perhaps it will lead to more understanding. Thank you for the suggestion.

Malcolm wrote:
Mulamadhyamaka karikas.

We don't study Buddhist philosophy to be scholars, we do so to eliminate our unexamined concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't care what "some," whoever they are, say.

Tagathāgarbha is unconditioned, it also does not produce any mental phenomena at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
in UK the right wing is more leftist then leftist in many EU countries, when I speak with someone about those topics I just cannot believe people can be that stupid, that why democracy should be banned by law.

Malcolm wrote:
Careful, your inner totalitarian is showing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
catmoon said:
Footnote to my last post -

The term "buddhi" is, as far as I know, entirely my own invention and I know of no instance in which it has ever been used in scripture.

Malcolm wrote:
It means "intellect" and it is a frequently used Sanskrit term in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist literature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
rory said:
Okay I remembered Kukai and the Shingon, Japanese esoteric school (the Chinese one went extinct during the T'ang) reveres Vairocana Buddha and the Mahavairocana Sutra so I think this is where TIbetan Buddhism and East Asian Buddhism meet:

Malcolm wrote:
It is true that the Mahāvairocana-abhisambodhi is an important tantra in Tibetan Buddhism. And one can see a direct line from it through the Sarvatathāgata tattvasamgraha (another text of great importance in Shingon), through the Guhyasamaja, and finally Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
MindTheGap said:
Well, the thought occurs to me, what about the relativity of time.

Is time as empty as all other phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
Time is not established. See Nāgārjuna's analysis of time in the MMK.

MindTheGap said:
Well, I could just as easily say, "Time is relative. See Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity."

but, with all due respect, how does that add to the conversation?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, when you take the time to read the MMK, you will see how it adds to the conversation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What is tathāgatagarbha...

Sherab Dorje said:
It's not really a "what"....and who is able to perceive it?
I think we see manifestations of it every day whenever we observe instances of selfless love, compassion, generosity, ethical behaviour, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha is the dharmakāya encased within temporary afflictions.

Only Buddhas can see it.

The phenomena you describe above are a result of kusala, positive mental factors, not tathāgatagarbha. Nevertheless, in ordinary person, positive mental factors are afflicted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no need for the beings of the six realms, or grass, trees or rocks to generate bodhicitta, or have buddhanature; everything has always been the state of Buddhahood from the very beginning. That is the ultimate Tibetan Buddhist view.

Sherab Dorje said:
Now all we need to do is realise this and samsara is suddenly transformed in Sahaloka!

Malcolm wrote:
Sahaloka is the name of this world system. It means "The world that is hard to bear."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If one does not start from right view, one will never have right meditation.

Sherab Dorje said:
I'm going to play devil's advocate now:  If one has received correct instruction on the practice, surely the view will arise based on the object being used.  Since all beings possess Buddha Nature it would stand to reason that once the conceptual mind is calmed their Buddha Nature will arise spontaneously REGARDLESS of conceptual view, since one is calming conceptual mind (where all this talk of view is taking place) to ZERO.

Malcolm wrote:
What is tathāgatagarbha and who is able to perceive it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not.

Sherab Dorje said:
Sez you. If it did, where are all the Hindus abandoning their philosophies and following Buddhadharma?
What makes you think that they do not?  Are you saying that Hindu's (or practitioners of almost any religious system) cannot gain insight into their enlightened nature?  They have to have a bit of their hair snipped in order to do so?

Malcolm wrote:
If one does not start from right view, one will never have right meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
This is what I meant when I said that shamata absorption gives rise, spontaneously, to insight.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not. If it did, where are all the Hindus abandoning their philosophies and following Buddhadharma?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
rory said:
I don't think Tibetan Buddhism has such theories, as I think (from a previous discussion on pet deaths) that animals must have a human rebirth. If I'm wrong please post the scholarly source so I can increase my knowledge.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need for the beings of the six realms, or grass, trees or rocks to generate bodhicitta, or have buddhanature; everything has always been the state of Buddhahood from the very beginning. That is the ultimate Tibetan Buddhist view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
MindTheGap said:
Well, the thought occurs to me, what about the relativity of time.

Is time as empty as all other phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
Time is not established. See Nāgārjuna's analysis of time in the MMK.

Losal Samten said:
What of Sapan's moments?

Malcolm wrote:
They have no duration, so they are immune to MMK's reasoning. They are also not able to withstand ultimate analysis, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
MindTheGap said:
Well, the thought occurs to me, what about the relativity of time.

Is time as empty as all other phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
Time is not established. See Nāgārjuna's analysis of time in the MMK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Mkoll said:
Thanks for that sutta, but I'm asking for a passage refering to "mindfulness of breathing combined with the four foundations of mindfulness, described famously as the ekayāna, the quick vehicle." Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Bakmoon said:
The opening of the Satipatthana Sutta sounds like what Malcom had in mind, but it isn't put that way. This passage though doesn't adress this question directly enough though, so I thought a more explicit example would be beneficial.

Malcolm wrote:
Ānāpānasati sutta, MN 118.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment and Phenomena
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All phenomena are one unique bindu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon? (Nov 2016)
Content:
Zla'od said:
To begin with, how can I know how a guru is "supposed" to behave?

Malcolm wrote:
There is an entire literature devoted to how to select a qualified guru, and how to avoid those who are not qualified; likewise, this literature contains advice on how to differentiate qualified students from unqualified students.


Zla'od said:
The notion that once chosen, a guru ought never to be abandoned runs counter to my experience with people who have left cults.

Malcolm wrote:
This notion does not exist in Tibetan Buddhism itself, but there are some people who mistakenly assert this belief.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 25th, 2016 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus said:
In other words, disciples like to believe that a teacher has special powers, so they attribute some otherwise ordinary events to those powers. That's not different from calling some events the acts of God.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus said:
Also, the very first abhijna includes all sorts of magical powers, that could have definitely helped in spreading and defending the Dharma over the centuries. But clairvoyance and telepathy should have proved useful in several cases, when Buddhist masters had encounters with all sorts of rulers.

Malcolm wrote:
And they have.

Astus said:
We are talking about clairvoyance, manomāyakāyas and so on. What is material about that?
Do you know anyone who has passed some tests for those abilities?

Malcolm wrote:
Why should they have to?

Astus said:
Likely not. At the same time, we don't need to look as far as India to find clairvoyants and such. If, as you say, it is something humanly capable - and it's not as hard as attaining insight into emptiness - I don't see why it is not a common thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Clairvoyance, of the random kind, is not uncommon. Mothers and their children experience it all the time.

Astus said:
Not all people with such capacities are Buddhists, and even Buddhist monks, including the Buddha, have demonstrated their powers openly numerous times according to the stories.

Malcolm wrote:
What makes you think they still don't? As I said, you apparently don't know any real yogis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So please explain to me how the "remaining" bit is not about a type of mental focus.  Albeit a loose rather than tight focus.  Realistically though even "classical" samatha becomes effortless after a certain degree of familiarisation (like remaining in the natural state), so... I am having problems discerning the difference.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no focus. If you are focused, you are not resting in the nature of the mind, but rather, bound by a thought.

Vasana said:
But then by settling in to the experience of emptiness ,1 of the 3 experiences, one can still rest in the nature of mind if you're not distracted /attached.

Using focus or effort only initially as a means to go beyond it,basically. That is,to arive at knowledge that it's present at all times. Until that view is realized for one self ,you still need to employ various methods of focus and tranquillity to know it for oneself.

Malcolm wrote:
You never settle in any of the three experiences, if you do, you are settling into a deviation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
People who have such capacities are not supposed to demonstrate them idly, and if they are monks, they are forbidden to do so.

Sherab Dorje said:
Do you believe that "proving" to the world that telepathy can arise as a consequence of dhyana is an idle demonstration?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who had such abilities would know what you were thinking and avoid you.

Sherab Dorje said:
Why would they avoid me?  I mean, apart from the obvious (ie not wanting to see the post-holocaust chaos that is my mind ).

Malcolm wrote:
People who have such capacities are not supposed to demonstrate them idly, and if they are monks, they are forbidden to do so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Śamatha in Mahāmudra/Dzogchen is not based on mental one-pointedness, it is based on recognizing and remaining in the nature of the mind pointed out during introduction. It is also vipaśyāna. It also does not matter whether you are seated, standing, lying down, etc.

Sherab Dorje said:
So please explain to me how the "remaining" bit is not about a type of mental focus.  Albeit a loose rather than tight focus.  Realistically though even "classical" samatha becomes effortless after a certain degree of familiarisation (like remaining in the natural state), so... I am having problems discerning the difference.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no focus. If you are focused, you are not resting in the nature of the mind, but rather, bound by a thought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We are talking about clairvoyance, manomāyakāyas and so on. What is material about that?

Sherab Dorje said:
Nothing.  But, that said, if a person IS clairvoyant then they should be able to read other peoples minds in a controlled experimental situation.  Shouldn't they?  Psychology (the Behavioural Sciences I studied) were quite adamant about using scientific (experimental) method to examine mental phenomena/processes (object recognition, for example), so theoretically...

I could easily think of a range of experiments that could be used to test telepathic ability.

Malcolm wrote:
Anyone who had such abilities would know what you were thinking and avoid you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The śamatha and vipaśyāna discussed in Mahāmudra and Dzogchen is completely different than the śamatha and vipaśyāna discussed in sūtra, which is what we are discussing. The former is based on introduction, the latter is not.

Sherab Dorje said:
And this will effect the ends how exactly?

Malcolm wrote:
Śamatha in Mahāmudra/Dzogchen is not based on mental one-pointedness, it is based on recognizing and remaining in the nature of the mind pointed out during introduction. It is also vipaśyāna. It also does not matter whether you are seated, standing, lying down, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Are you saying that sadhanas etc... do not lead to dhyana?

Malcolm wrote:
They do not. They do many things, but the cultivation of dhyāna is not among them.

Sherab Dorje said:
Without stabilization following insight the memory of the experience (which is all that remains) can easily become an object of attachment.

Malcolm wrote:
Then it is not seeing the truth.

Sherab Dorje said:
Impossible not to form karma if you are an ordinary person.
Of course.  But there is such a thing as positive karma.  Dana (for example) gives rise to positive karma vipakka, yes?  So why can't mental absorption also give rise to positive outcomes?

Malcolm wrote:
Rebirth in samsara is never positive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Vasana said:
Lesser capacity encompasses those who need to practice shine ,lhagtong + see their non duality etc

Malcolm wrote:
The śamatha and vipaśyāna discussed in Mahāmudra and Dzogchen is completely different than the śamatha and vipaśyāna discussed in sūtra, which is what we are discussing. The former is based on introduction, the latter is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Vasana said:
We still have the 2 obscurations and 'tranquility subdues them while insight uproots them.'

Malcolm wrote:
This apples only to the afflictive obscuration, not the knowledge obscuration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
We are still talking about dhyana my friend!

Malcolm wrote:
Not when we start talking about sadhanas, etc.

Sherab Dorje said:
By dhyana practices you are talking specifically about classic sati practices (for example)?

Malcolm wrote:
Specifically I am talking about the four dhyānas.

Sherab Dorje said:
There is no doubt about that.  But I have met people that were lead astray by the bliss arsing around insight too, so...

Malcolm wrote:
That was not authentic insight.

Sherab Dorje said:
At the same time, if attachment is not formed, couldn't they be taken as mental traces that help foster realisation since they will compel us to seek out instruction in a future lifetime?

Malcolm wrote:
Impossible not to form karma if you are an ordinary person.

Sherab Dorje said:
And I am asking/saying:  What if there is no attachment?  Why would they then necessarily be the seeds for future samsaric rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
I have never met an ordinary person who was free of attachment to anything at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus said:
The materialist approach is to interpret the powers in a way that they should exist in a materially effective way, just like you seem to say. And that's why it is easily refuted as false by others with a similar materialistic approach.

Malcolm wrote:
We are talking about clairvoyance, manomāyakāyas and so on. What is material about that?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
This is where I fail to see why on-pointed meditation is mental-proliferation.

Malcolm wrote:
The first of the four yoga is one-pointedness. The second is freedom from proliferation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:


Astus said:
I don't recall the Buddha advising his disciples to use clairvoyance for anything.

Malcolm wrote:
Bodhisattvas are supposed to cultivate the five abijñas to be of benefit to other sentient beings. For example, being able to know the minds of other sentient beings means that one will automatically know what kind of teaching for which they are suited, etc. Buddha gave much advice of this kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I mean someone who is either a stream entrant or a first stage bodhisattva.

Sherab Dorje said:
So in order for one to "advance" in meditational practice one has to be "advanced" in meditational practice.  Interesting theory. When you cultivate dhyānas as a normal person, not an ārya, you are doing nothing more nor less than cultivating samsaric paths for rebirth.
If one is not attached to dhyana, then why would this necessarily lead to the cultivation of samsaric paths?

In which case, and please correct me if I am wrong, are you saying that we have to give up meditation practices (and here I include sadhana, mantra, Yidam, etc... all of which are meditation practices) and devote ourselves to Dana while waiting for stream entry to spontaneously manifest?

Malcolm wrote:
You are now changing the scope of the discussion. I was focused specifically on dhyāna.

The practices you describe are bhavana (sgom pa) practices, not specifically the cultivation (sgom) of dhyāna.

Because the pleasures of dhyāna are quite intense, there is a great danger of being distracted by them if one is an ordinary person. And they do create traces for rebirth in the form realms which need to be eradicated later, because their very cultivation is a form of karma. In fact, the main reason why the Buddha went through the eight dhyānas was to eradicate traces he created through meditating them previously. And of course, bliss, clarity and nonconceptuality themselves place one at risk for taking rebirth in one of the three realms, depending upon which one there is attachment for, which is why in Mahāmudra there are extensive remedies for attachment to these three experiences which result in rebirth in the three realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Tell that to a Theravadin.

Malcolm wrote:
They would be the first to point that out.

Mkoll said:
It depends on who you ask. Passages in support of jhana being required can be found at AN 9.36 or MN 64 for example, and passages against in the commentaries or AN 4.170 for example. And respected teachers and masters have different views on the question.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. However, there are also other ways the Buddha describes to become an ārya, for example, mindfulness of breathing combined with the four foundations of mindfulness, described famously as the ekayāna, the quick vehicle.

As MN 64 points, differences are based on capacity. Review the Cousin's article on śamathayāna and vipassanayāna. It's instructive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
Did you catch the quotation marks?

What we can do is make the conditions that make ripe beings come. Like putting out a bird feeder.

Malcolm wrote:
If you have those freedoms and endowments, then if you fail to follow Dharma, it is because of some internal obscuration.

Queequeg said:
Its the old fate/free will question. Unsolvable. One of the conditions is that the Dharma endures where you're born. It's the people before us that caused Dharma to endure and be available for us. Our practice to make it endure for others.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as we are under the control of karma, what free will we have is afflicted.

There are myriad world systems where there is Dharma. I am not so worried about this one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This isn't true at all.

Sherab Dorje said:
Really?  So what are you claiming?  That discursive mind and mental proliferation lead to insight?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. But then, neither does one-pointed meditation, which is just another type of mental proliferation.



Sherab Dorje said:
When you cultivate dhyānas as a normal person, not an ārya, you are doing nothing more nor less than cultivating  samsaric paths for rebirth.
In what sense are you using the term "arya" here?  Do you mean a vow holding monastic?  An Arhat?  A Bodhisattva on the path?

Malcolm wrote:
I mean someone who is either a stream entrant or a first stage bodhisattva.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
No school of Buddhism requires this. All that is required is seeing the truth (insight).
Insight, without first calming the mind, is basically impossible.  Too much noise.

Malcolm wrote:
This isn't true at all.

Sherab Dorje said:
For example, lay people are expected to practice primarily generosity, patience and diligence, along with wisdom...
You are talking about the Theravada tradition, yes?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Mahāyāna tradition

Sherab Dorje said:
Sitting meditation is useful for calming the mind, but not much beyond that.
May experience shows otherwise, for me a calm mind is the foundation upon which wisdom and insight are built.

Malcolm wrote:
When you cultivate dhyānas as a normal person, not an ārya, you are doing nothing more nor less than cultivating  samsaric paths for rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The development of the dhyānas has no bearing on liberation.

Sherab Dorje said:
Tell that to a Theravadin.

Malcolm wrote:
They would be the first to point that out.

Sherab Dorje said:
But seriously, what you say means that meditation does not work.  I don't know if you are aware of this but all schools of Buddhism require the practice of meditational absorption.

Malcolm wrote:
No school of Buddhism requires this. All that is required is seeing the truth (insight). If equipoise equalled seeing the truth, we would all be first stage bodhisattvas.

For example, lay people are expected to practice primarily generosity, patience and diligence, along with wisdom, while monks are expected to practice discipline and dhyāna, etc.

Sitting meditation is useful for calming the mind, but not much beyond that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Well, let's put it this way:  If even attaining the first jhana is rare, then the implication is that we, as practitioners following the Buddha's path, are completely and utterly screwed.  It means that, essentially, all we can do is attempt to practice ethical behaviour in the hope that we can gain rebirth that will allow us to start to approach liberation.  It means that the teachings on the precious human birth are a scam.  That this precious human rebirth is actually NOT a suitable vehicle for liberation, etc...

What it basically means is that the entire edifice of Buddhist institutions for study and practice are USELESS.

That the idea of liberation is just a front to keep us from killing and raping one another.

So far nothing has been offered by anyone to the contrary.

Malcolm wrote:
The development of the dhyānas has no bearing on liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
Did you catch the quotation marks?

What we can do is make the conditions that make ripe beings come. Like putting out a bird feeder.

Malcolm wrote:
If you have those freedoms and endowments, then if you fail to follow Dharma, it is because of some internal obscuration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus said:
Further clarification of my approach on the matter.

If powers are taken to be real magic, they actually remain only a matter of stories, good for entertainment and nothing more. But if they are understood as meditation/religious experiences, they regain their relevance and become something that people can relate to, that they can truly use for something, etc. And people do experience them, as many practitioner can testify.

Sherab Dorje said:
Astus has a point.  If they are the outcome of meditational absorption then theoretically they are achievable by all meditation  practitioners. Otherwise they are just mythological accounts with which to impress the credulous.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they are achievable by anyone with sufficient mastery of equipoise, from which they will naturally arise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus said:
Further clarification of my approach on the matter.

If powers are taken to be real magic, they actually remain only a matter of stories, good for entertainment and nothing more. But if they are understood as meditation/religious experiences, they regain their relevance and become something that people can relate to, that they can truly use for something, etc. And people do experience them, as many practitioner can testify.


Malcolm wrote:
Your approach to the subject is no different than any other scientific materialist.

What can you use clairvoyance for if it is not a real capacity of the human mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 24th, 2016 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
I'm not really this cynical and misanthropic IRL.

We have to fix this because we have no choice. I am an "evangelical" Buddhist because I believe that propagation of Dharma is the best hope of fixing this and equipping our descendants with the tools to overcome the obstacles they will face.

Malcolm wrote:
You can't propagate Dharma evangelically. People only come to Dharma if they have a precious human birth with eighteen qualities of freedom and endowment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon? (Nov 2016)
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
That is, a society where their are checks and prerequisites regarding somebody being, or claiming to be, a teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
In religion, there are little in the way of checks and balances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Dan74 said:
What would it do if someone on the internet said that it was not rare? It's much like any sort of attainment, impossible to prove.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is very easy to prove. When you have the first dhyāna, you are able to remain in one pointed concentration for a specified period of time, for example, one week, without moving. If you claim to have mastered the first dhyāna, then you should be able demonstrate such feats easily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The first one means that you can stay in meditation for as long as you like without physical discomfort. As I said, first dhyāna is pretty rare.

Sherab Dorje said:
You mean it assists remaining in meditation... because as long as there is discursive thought (albeit directed), one will exit meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
It means that these four or five factors are what distinguish the first dhyāna. It is assumed that you are in one-pointed concentration. But if you cannot sit still, you cannot focus one-pointedly, and when you can no longer sit still, you can no longer maintain one pointed concentration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Is meditational absorption (jhana, dhyana) possible or not?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
It was stated http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=22234&start=80#p334893 (and in other threads) by Loppon Malcolm that:
Malcolm wrote:
There are very few people who have attained even the first dhyāna, let alone the fourth, in this day and age.

Sherab Dorje said:
I figure this is a pretty significant statement to make and, if it is true, seems to have many severe implications.

Personally I think that the characteristics of the first jhana:  "...rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation." are qualities that any earnest meditational practitioner can recognise form their practice.

So, is the claim unfounded or unrealistic or untrue?

Malcolm wrote:
These are not characteristics, these are specific mental factors: physical ease, mental joy, one-pointedness, initial attention and sustained attention.

The first one means that you can stay in meditation for as long as you like without physical discomfort. As I said, first dhyāna is pretty rare.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon? (Nov 2016)
Content:
Zla'od said:
Ethical complaints should not be hand-waved away with quasi-magical claims.

Malcolm wrote:
Educate yourself as to how a guru is supposed to behave. If you pick the wrong one, you've only yourself to blame, i.e., caveat emptor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
These days? Tibet and India.

Astus said:
it seems very unlikely that if there are people with genuine supernormal powers, they just remain unnoticed.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, they prefer to remain unnoticed. And, imagine how annoying it would be to be able to "hear" all the chatter in other beings' minds. What a cacophony.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Guru Mantra Origin / Sanskrit Questions
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I imagine it was first recorded by Yeshe Tsogyal.  Karma Lingpa then found it in the 14th Century.

quad said:
Right. I was not disputing Yeshe Tsogyal as the original author of the commentary, I was  just asking if this was the first text the mantra was recorded in. The commentary doesn't specify if it's a new mantra, just expands on it's purpose and benefits. For all I know the mantra was being used before the 14th century, and this text is just further teaching on the practice. If you're answering with knowledge that it is indeed the first written appearance of the mantra, then thank you.

My first question though was really just a lead-in to how the mantra was written in it's original text, as PADMA or PÄDMA?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a guru name mantra. It is likely it goes back to the late 8th century. We have clear evidence for it by the 13th century in the works of Guru Chowang. It probably existed in Nyang Ral's termas as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Inge said:
What kind of ecological collapse do you think awaits us?
And when do you believe this is going to happen?

Malcolm wrote:
A total breakdown of planetary weather patterns, etc., the result of human overuse of resources, habitat destruction, mass extinctions, the acidification of the oceans.

It is happening now, all around us. We surrounded by it as we speak.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
It's not as rare as you think.

Astus said:
If it were only a matter of gaining the fourth level of absorption - something that's not exclusive to Buddhists - magical feats would be as common as marathon runners, or at least as world class athletes.

Malcolm wrote:
There are very few people who have attained even the first dhyāna, let alone the fourth, in this day and age.

Of course, since you don't know any real yogis, you have never encountered people who have these capacities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 23rd, 2016 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:


Astus said:
If that's so straightforward as you say, where are all the telepathic and miracle making yogis (besides all the stories)?

Malcolm wrote:
These days? Tibet and India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:


Astus said:
Again, this does not actually explain how it is possible, or how it works, it just says that it happens so. So, "samadhi" is an insufficient reason. Unless what you mean is that we can have such experiences of the powers during meditation, but it should not be taken literally.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it explains both how it is possible and how it works. When you are less distracted by your own thoughts, you can perceive the thoughts of others more easily. A mind is both unimpeded and unimpeding by nature. It should be taken literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Astus said:
OK. Still, what is the cause/condition/reason for being able to do so? You said that "It is a very simple principle that does not require much analysis." - that is practically like saying that "it just happens".

Malcolm wrote:
Samadhi is the cause and condition of being able to perceive the thoughts in the mind of another.

Losal Samten said:
Is this a meditational samadhi or the caitasika samadhi of a regular mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Dhyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The three realms are not just a production of solely our own traces

Astus said:
Then the triple realm is not just a mental construct. It sounds like you say the world is a virtual/mental reality of many minds.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is how reality is described in the Mahāyānasamgraha, among other texts.



Astus said:
Subject a has a thought that Subject b perceives.
OK. Still, what is the cause/condition/reason for being able to do so? You said that "It is a very simple principle that does not require much analysis." - that is practically like saying that "it just happens".

Malcolm wrote:
Samadhi is the cause and condition of being able to perceive the thoughts in the mind of another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:


Astus said:
When and how do we perceive others' minds? Since the triple realm is a production of one's own delusions, even mountains are just the false projections of concepts. How could traces (what are such traces anyway?) of minds then come from others?

Malcolm wrote:
The three realms are not just a production of solely our own traces, as the example the women who meditated herself as a tiger frightening her fellow villagers with a tiger shows, or the example of manomāyakāyas which are perceptible to others also shows. Other sentient beings traces are strong enough to generate appearances for our own minds as well.



Astus said:
You seem to fail to grasp generic sameness as opposed to sameness as identity. If I apprehend someone else's direct perception of a blue vase, my perception and theirs are generically the same, but the sameness of identity.
What specific details would be different in a single moment of thought?

Malcolm wrote:
You are barking up the wrong tree. Subject a has a thought that Subject b perceives.


Astus said:
Then there is the funny case of the group of arhats who all shared one mind, in the sense that since they were completely open to one another, it appeared to them as if they had but a single mind.
Just out of curiosity, where is that story found?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Good question, I saw it here or on E-Sangha, maybe Anders was the one who introduced it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon (Nov 2016)
Content:
Zla'od said:
Meanwhile, the name of Dzongsar's organization, "Siddhartha's Intent," suggests a similar back-to-basics approach...

Malcolm wrote:
It's a reference to the title of a book by Sakya Pandita, which is indeed a call for a back to basics approach.

Zla'od said:
Dzongsar for his part grew up with family connections to prominent lamas who tended to recognize one another's children as tulkus, and accept teachers from one another's families, as a means of perpetuating their family's charisma as religious professionals.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure that they were not that interested in perpetuating their families charisma as religious professionals. It is not a very fun job.

Zla'od said:
An acquaintance of mine who complained to Dzongsar about the predations of Sogyal Rinpoche, was told to keep quiet.

Malcolm wrote:
Unless Sogyal is guilty of a crime, by which I mean, he is convicted of sexual harassment or worse, there is really nothing to say about his morays and habits with (consenting) adults.


Zla'od said:
And of course Dzongsar praises Trungpa and maintains close ties to the Trungpa organizations.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a a lot to praise. But what you really fail to understand is that these folks (Trungpa, Dzongsar, Sogyal, etc.) are all students of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. They are a vajra family and of course they are going to stick together.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nah, we are f&^%ing doomed.

treehuggingoctopus said:
I am convinced we are in for a nightmare ride. I do not think it is absolutely certain we are bound for new dark ages.

Kim O'Hara said:
Climate scientist Kevin Anderson is on the same page, having been quoted as saying, “I don’t think we are going to succeed, but I don’t know we are going to fail.”

Malcolm wrote:
You guys are kidding yourselves. Our present civilization will not withstand the full fledged ecological collapse of the kind we face.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


rory said:
For Tibetan Buddhism and followers of Yogacara that is the case (I assume from your quote) but the revolutionary point of the Lotus Sutra is that

the Dragon girl isn't a human, she is a serpent

Malcolm wrote:
Not that revolutionary. The Goddess of the Ganges isn't a human, she is a devī.


rory said:
The point being made by Zhiyi that anything with buddhanature - women, animals, etc can become immediately enlightened, the onerous systems of rebirth is rendered unnecessary. Very revolutionary...

Malcolm wrote:
I wouldn't call this revolutionary.


rory said:
this idea was taken up and extended to enlightenment of non-sentient beings: eg grasses and trees- Ch: caomu chengfo; JP: sokomu jobutsu. An idea much celebrated in Japanese art and literature..

Malcolm wrote:
I am not sure that we can consider any living thing nonsentient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Minds are essentialy unimpeded and nonimpeding so the question of how they connect is irrelevant. It's the wrong question.

Astus said:
Since we generally don't perceive others' minds, there is something impeding that perception, or there is a lack of condition for perception. What is it?

Malcolm wrote:
Who says we don't perceive others minds. We just don't know that the appearance of the triple realm is a mentally generated appearance. The traces of other minds are of enough strength even to create appearances for ourselves.



Astus said:
Also, if there is no separation between minds, they still remain separate continua, i.e. different causal sequences. If two continua could result in the same moment of consciousness, that would mean two sequences becoming one, and from then on they could not go on different sequences, unless we assume that from a single moment of consciousness two different moments could occur.

Malcolm wrote:
You seem to fail to grasp generic sameness as opposed to sameness as identity. If I apprehend someone else's direct perception of a blue vase, my perception and theirs are generically the same, but the sameness of identity.

Then there is the funny case of the group of arhats who all shared one mind, in the sense that since they were completely open to one another, it appeared to them as if they had but a single mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
1. Direct perceptions are nonconceptual, there is no concept of "blue" when a blue object, for example, a blue vase, is initially perceived.

2. Your mind becomes an object for other minds  because of the characteristics you grasp. It is a very simple principle that does not require mych analysis. Whether or not a person other than you apprehending your thoughts has grasping to them as well is irrelevant. Minds are essentialy unimpeded and nonimpeding so the question of how they connect is irrelevant. It's the wrong question.

For example, the blueness of a vase.

Astus said:
OK, that's a concept, a function of perception (samjna).
Upon what should a mind depend? If you assert it must continue based on sense perceptions, than you cannot explain how a mind continues in a completely nonconceptual samadhi, for example, nirvikalpa samadhi (which in a Buddha is called Vajropama Samadhi).
When there is nothing grasped, there is no grasper either. But that means only the lack of substantialisation of object and subject, not that there are no phenomena.
Same only in the sense in the sense that two fires are both hot; different in so far as the two fires are distinct. In other words, I I apprehend the ball in your mind's eye, the image I perceive in my mind will be indentical to how you perceive the ball, but different inso far as our minds are distinct continuums.
Mind is the subjective experience. To make it an object is not any more a subjective experience, therefore not the experience of another's mind, but a concept about what is in another's mind. In other words, you can think that I think about a ball. That happens even when I tell you that I think of a ball, so you know what I think about. Telepathy is knowing what I think without I telling you. But since there is no connection between the minds, what is the cause of knowing it? Without connection it is like seeing a ball that's in another room - there is no light reaching the eyes from the ball, so it cannot be seen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
If we are very, very lucky, capitalism will end before the direst consequences of the currently unfolding global ecological catastrophe manifest...

Malcolm wrote:
Nah, we are f&^%ing doomed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Intoxicants - what is, what isn't?
Content:
MindTheGap said:
Thanks, Ayu I guess smoking, through the process of being overcome, leads to personal growth. That's a good way to look at it.


Malcolm wrote:
Tobacco takes up a radioactive isotope, pollonium 210. This is why the tar from tobacco etc. gives you cancer, and marijuana does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: How can we know if Karma has matured/ripened?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
...thus invalidating Meru abhidharmic cosmology completely.

Malcolm wrote:
Not a problem.

Mother's Lap said:
Our sky is blue because we face the sapphire side of Meru dontyouknowthankyouverymuch!

Malcolm wrote:
It is a nice idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 22nd, 2016 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: How can we know if Karma has matured/ripened?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
We're on Jambudvipa...

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. Jambudvipa is India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
there is such a thing as a mind that does not apprehend characteristics, hence a mind without characteristics.

Astus said:
What counts as characteristic?

Malcolm wrote:
For example, the blueness of a vase.

Astus said:
What does a mind without characteristics depend on?

Malcolm wrote:
Upon what should a mind depend? If you assert it must continue based on sense perceptions, than you cannot explain how a mind continues in a completely nonconceptual samadhi, for example, nirvikalpa samadhi (which in a Buddha is called Vajropama Samadhi).


Astus said:
There are a number of differences between a ball and a mind. What makes a consciousness is a moment of cognition. If one has the very same moment of cognition, then it is the same mind.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Same only in the sense in the sense that two fires are both hot; different in so far as the two fires are distinct. In other words, I I apprehend the ball in your mind's eye, the image I perceive in my mind will be indentical to how you perceive the ball, but different inso far as our minds are distinct continuums.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But it clearly does, since it is described as such in many sūtras, etc.

Astus said:
A mind without characteristics exists? That would be an independent consciousness, a soul.

Malcolm wrote:
You mistake my meaning — there is such a thing as a mind that does not apprehend characteristics, hence a mind without characteristics.




Astus said:
Yes, consciousness is of something, of characteristics. Saying that telepathy is seeing the characteristics is equal to seeing the mind, just as there is no roundness and ball separately, therefore experiencing the same characteristic as another is being one with the other, a merging of minds.

Malcolm wrote:
No, no more than seeing a ball is merging with a ball.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: How can we know if Karma has matured/ripened?
Content:
kdolma said:
How long does one have before Karma is ripened or matured, that one has to face the consequences?

I haven't found any clear sources about the ripening of Karma...

1. When it ripens?

2. How it ripens?

3. How long one has when doing purifying practices before it matures? if it's too late?

4. How it all comes together to ripen?

Malcolm wrote:
Look in the Abhidharmakosha, part four.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Jeff H said:
I'm surprised no one has responded to this article. It's pretty long, so maybe no one read it. But she seems to back up her case against Bernie (and for Hilary) with competent research and sound logic.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a hit piece, and virtually everything she says is unfounded or spinned.

Jeff H said:
Yes, it reads like a hit piece, but that's why I was expecting someone who knows better might rebut some of her major points.

Malcolm wrote:
It is too long to make it worthwhile. Let's just put it this way, the Clinton Campaign now supports the Citizen's United contention that one cannot make a link between donations and influence, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon (Nov 2016)
Content:
Zla'od said:
One of my professors observed that a traditional Tibetan response to somebody like Trungpa would have been to chase him over to the next valley!

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so. He was a terton.

Zla'od said:
As for the tulku "system," it is no system at all, but a family of related institutions / de facto family businesses / charismatic upstarts, some of which enter into alliances with one another. Dzongsar is very much a product of this milieu.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, how could it be otherwise?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
LunaRoja said:
I thought this article raised some very good points...

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.o1z4pylpx

Jeff H said:
I'm surprised no one has responded to this article. It's pretty long, so maybe no one read it. But she seems to back up her case against Bernie (and for Hilary) with competent research and sound logic.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a hit piece, and virtually everything she says is unfounded or spinned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon (Nov 2016)
Content:
Zla'od said:
If Tibetan lamas were Christian evangelists, then Mr. Dzongsar would be Rob Bell. He's selling a certain image of himself. He wants us to think of him as something of an iconoclast, but at the end of the day, he's very much a member of the guild.

Come now, is over-judgementalism of gurus really the biggest problem facing Tibetan Buddhism today? I would argue that we have the opposite problem--we don't hold them (and they don't hold each other) to a high enough ethical standard. (No, I'm not talking about alcohol here.)

Malcolm wrote:
It is the job of a prospective student to hold a guru to an ethical standard. There is no governing body which deems who is fit and who is unfit to serve as a guru, though the tulku system would hold that place if it were effective at recognizing tulkus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Astus, indeed minds do not enter each other. However, in knowing the mind of another, what is required is that the mind to be known apprehends characteristics. If it does not apprehend characteristics, there is nothing for another to apprehend about that mind— for example, when some devas became unnerved when they could not locate a favored monk, they were informed that he was a) now an arhat b) in equipoise, which is why they were unable to find him with their minds.

Astus said:
That is the idea that http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=334111&sid=744a1659a6aff7331c07d0a6f592d7c9#p334111 analysed in his writing, and criticised it.

As for minds with characteristics, if we say that consciousness necessarily has an object - one is always conscious of something, not just conscious - then a mind without characteristics does not exist.

Malcolm wrote:
But it clearly does, since it is described as such in many sūtras, etc.

Also, realized people (bodhisattvas, arhats) with liberated minds may indeed cognize characteristics when in post-euipoise. All the examples you gave merely demonstrate that point. Further, sound is apprehended by characteristics, etc. All cognitions are cognitions via characteristics from which we conceptually abstract our world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
in the deceptively appearing bodies of sentient beings.
Yes so? It means that the deceptively appearing bodies of sentient beings have sugatagarbha, it does not mean that there are no sentient beings nor that they have no bodies, as Vimalamitra points out when defining a sems can, a sentient being:
Since the mind [sems] is adulterated with concepts within the body (an aggregate of assembled elements), the mind is dependent on the body. Thus the possessive particle “can” is used.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Any question of beings is bound to be dualistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Not from the point of view of Buddhanature.

maybay said:
From the point of view of Buddhanature there is no question of beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahaha, than how do you explain this passage from the Inlaid Jewels Tantra:
Just as oil has always been naturally perfect
within sesame seeds and mustard seeds,
the seed of the sugatas
with corresponding light is present
in the deceptively appearing bodies of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Any question of beings is bound to be dualistic.

Malcolm wrote:
Not from the point of view of Buddhanature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


maybay said:
For my part I'm addicted to learning. I don't know how to stop reading news, and Twitter and all these things. And I think, call me conceited, but if I can't restrain myself from the nonsense I've been so carefully and purposefully introduced to, how in the world is a third-world refugee going to have the strength of mind to resist the pandora's box of corrupting influences that lie waiting for them on the other side of basic literacy?

Malcolm wrote:
You have not defined "purity," so what are to understand by your invocation of "corruption?"

maybay said:
Purity might be what those traditional Indian have, and those educated Indian woman have lost, which causes them to lose the will to live.

Malcolm wrote:
Which traditional Indians? Pre-Gupta? Post-Gupta? Pre-Mughal? Post-Mughal? Pre-Victorian? Post-Victorian? Which ones have lost the will to live?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Dan74 said:
What's the argument here actually about?

maybay said:
A few things. Some people think that beings are all equal...

Malcolm wrote:
They are all equal.

maybay said:
even though the realms of samsara clearly differentiate levels of suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
That's not a function of innate equality, that is a function of circumstances.

maybay said:
Some also think inequality is unknown to Bodhisattvas, who are graded in one of ten levels.

Malcolm wrote:
All bodhisattvas on the stages have the same realization. The bhumis measure qualities, not realization.


maybay said:
They also think that if two composite aggregations share a common element then they must be labelled equal.

Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatragarbha pervades all sentient beings. This alone is a reason to consider all sentient beings equal.


maybay said:
And probably most distressing is the idea that if anyone is considered low, that entitles those who are high to abuse them.

Malcolm wrote:
Dualistic much?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
US will fall anyway, there is no way that US can recover from debt.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it can.

Saoshun said:
Yes, by starting a war, the same as Hitler did.

Malcolm wrote:
No, a great deal of that debt has already been paid down. Keep in mind, it is not the US economy that will be upset by a US default. If the Republicans get in, you can be sure that there will a) be another war b) that US debt will again grow.

But the debt is not really a problem, people imagine that it is because it sounds "bad." But that is a silly judgement which stems from not understanding how the economy works and how money is created (i.e. through lending).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 21st, 2016 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: can one mind enter another?
Content:


Astus said:
What is the explanation of the movement of thoughts between beings?

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, indeed minds do not enter each other. However, in knowing the mind of another, what is required is that the mind to be known apprehends characteristics. If it does not apprehend characteristics, there is nothing for another to apprehend about that mind— for example, when some devas became unnerved when they could not locate a favored monk, they were informed that he was a) now an arhat b) in equipoise, which is why they were unable to find him with their minds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 20th, 2016 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: New Book by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: The Guru Drinks Bourbon (Nov 2016)
Content:
Zla'od said:
I don't hold liquor against him, but in view of the wider Buddhist ethos (not to mention the Trungpa fiasco) this is in questionable taste. Is his point that tantra means incorporating samsaric delights into the path, like those famous peacocks in the poison grove? Or that we ought not to judge one another (or our gurus) according to normal, possibly dualistic / conceptual standards of spiritual propriety, lest we accidentally condemn Drukpa Kinlay? Is the consumption of intoxicants fundamentally different from the actions-to-avoid of the other precepts? Surely no one would produce a book like this, but about shoplifting, or slaughtering chickens.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a question mark in the title: The Guru Drinks Bourbon?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 20th, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


maybay said:
For my part I'm addicted to learning. I don't know how to stop reading news, and Twitter and all these things. And I think, call me conceited, but if I can't restrain myself from the nonsense I've been so carefully and purposefully introduced to, how in the world is a third-world refugee going to have the strength of mind to resist the pandora's box of corrupting influences that lie waiting for them on the other side of basic literacy?

Malcolm wrote:
You have not defined "purity," so what are to understand by your invocation of "corruption?"

maybay said:
But it has nothing to do with Dharma, and if it falls within the four means of attraction, I'm still waiting to hear where you would place it.

Malcolm wrote:
You forget that the gift of writing implements is included within those four means, specifically within dāna, as is conferring fearlessness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 20th, 2016 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
Why not see it as a thing?

Malcolm wrote:
Because then it would be seen as a self.

Daizan said:
You say it's not a thing to avoid seeing it as a self. That doesn't mean it's not a thing.

Malcolm wrote:
If the self were a thing, it would have something by whch it could be identified. The five aggregates are things, the self is mot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 20th, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Most educated people are tame.

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of Buddhadharma is to tame sentient beings. It is a form of education. But before people can understand Buddhadharma, they also must have certain prerequisites, and standard literacy is among those requirements.

Sohei said:
The purpose of Buddhadharma is to liberate sentient beings. It is an education to that end, and literacy is not necessarily a requisite.

Malcolm wrote:
There have been different kinds of literacy throughout history. Being trained in an oral culture is a kind of literacy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 20th, 2016 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
US will fall anyway, there is no way that US can recover from debt.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Most educated people are tame.

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of Buddhadharma is to tame sentient beings. It is a form of education. But before people can understand Buddhadharma, they also must have certain prerequisites, and standard literacy is among those requirements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What continues, in essence, is a mistaken idea about reality, which has no beginning and reproduces itself
Daizan wrote:
Why not see it as a thing?


Because then it would be seen as a self.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
But you yourself called it :   it self



It's hard not to use concepts, when trying to describe the indescribable.......but I think by saying that it "reproduces itself" is a good description


Malcolm wrote:
This is not an issue of describing the indescribable. Conventionally we use pronouns such as I, me, mine, myself, etc. But nothing real is described by them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It was clear to me. YMMV.

Queequeg said:
You're also extraordinarily tuned in. Yep, mileage for people who aren't following every single twist and turn in this drama is considerably different than yours.
Bernie aint running for Buddha.
I prefer my candidates avoid, as much as possible, the ten nonvirtues. I would have thought this was a no-brainer. If you condone someone acting non-virtuously, than you also accrues the same karma x the number of people who condone it.
I prefer my candidates to hammer an advantageous truth at every opportunity. BTW, if you're telling the truth, that's not calumny.

Dial it back a notch, dude.

Malcolm wrote:
The campaign is already vituperative enough without encouraging more of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
Why not see it as a thing?

Malcolm wrote:
Because then it would be seen as a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not really. Bernie voted for it while predicting at the same time it would have the undesirable consequence of making sentencing harsher, but it contained the violence against woman act, so he had to vote for it.

Queequeg said:
He voted for it with reservations. ie. he voted for it. Put a footnote on the sentences of every poor sap who got sentenced under the law. I guess that diminishes the sting a little?

Malcolm wrote:
He voted for it because it contained an important amendment, the Violence Against Women act. That was the only reason he voted for it. He would have voted against it, except that it contained a billion dollars of funding for that VAW act.



Queequeg said:
Bernie referred to it by declaring it was a racist thing to do, but he failed to emphasize what was racist.
He said the term was racist.
It wasn't clear what he was referring to. He assumed everyone knew the real point of the question was the "super predator" comment. On second thought, he didn't bunt, he whiffed.

Malcolm wrote:
It was clear to me. YMMV.



Queequeg said:
This is calumny, one of the ten nonvirtues.
Bernie aint running for Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
I prefer my candidates avoid, as much as possible, the ten nonvirtues. I would have thought this was a no-brainer. If you condone someone acting non-virtuously, than you also accrues the same karma x the number of people who condone it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Well what do you mean by opportunity?

Malcolm wrote:
Access to education.

maybay said:
This is a euphemism. You know there's no place on earth where education as possibility doesn't become education as a necessity for everyone.

The problem is it's like introducing an alien species into another land. Because whatever. It's compassionate. But then this new species goes berserk, so you've also got to bring over the bug that typically keeps it under control. So you do that, but then that bug starts eating other things. Before you know it you've knocked a delicate ecosystem into a wobble, which now depends on you each day to keep it from falling over.

Malcolm wrote:
So now education is a pestilence? You have a very strange view of the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Sohei said:
However, I think women should not ever be drafted. Military standards should not be lowered to allow women.

Malcolm wrote:
Lowered? Tell that to the women fighters in the PKK. They will swiftly hand your ass to you.

Sohei said:
Professional and educational quotas for women should have a terminus.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, you are a troll.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Dunning-Kruger Effect
Content:
Daizan said:
Dawkins is a gene-centred view where it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. This is significant in regard to human behavior.

Malcolm wrote:
Doesn't work out too well for various kinds of spiders and fish...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
I wish it, thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
Just as long as we are clear it is not a thing which moves from one life to another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
In the part of the debate that I watched, the crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law was brought up, which is now controversial because it led to a dramatic increase in incarceration, particularly, African Americans. Bernie supported the bill also, so, as for support, its a wash; they both are guilty of making sentencing much harsher.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. Bernie voted for it while predicting at the same time it would have the undesirable consequence of making sentencing harsher, but it contained the violence against woman act, so he had to vote for it.


Queequeg said:
Bernie referred to it by declaring it was a racist thing to do, but he failed to emphasize what was racist.

Malcolm wrote:
He said the term was racist.

Queequeg said:
In politics, you gotta throttle your opponent at every opportunity, make them look like the crooked noses they are!

Malcolm wrote:
This is calumny, one of the ten nonvirtues.

Queequeg said:
When asked about how Hilary has been in the pocket of the banks, he couldn't come up with anything.

Malcolm wrote:
Speeches, Speeches, Speeches. How many times does he have to say it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Queequeg said:
He doesn't seem to have it in him to turn the knife.

Malcolm wrote:
That is the job of voters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
"I habit" could be interpreted as a force.
So what might we call the force being transferred in rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
No "force" transfers.
What continues, in essence, is a mistaken idea about reality, which has no beginning and reproduces itself without end unless it meets with the path. If you wish to consider this a "force," ok.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Does (Tibetan) Buddhism fit in a Western archetypal sche
Content:
Adamantine said:
a really bizarre thing

Malcolm wrote:
Maybay seems fond of the bizarre.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
So what might we call the force being transferred in rebirth?

Malcolm wrote:
No "force" transfers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
I suppose you consider education a right.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course education is a right, as is healthcare, housing, and so on.

maybay said:
Nozick can pretty much kiss goodbye to his minimal state.

Malcolm wrote:
Did I ever say I was a follower of Nozick? Absolutely not. I admire his writing, I admire his thinking, I think he is excellent philosopher, but his "minimalist" state is a fantasy at best. States do not remain "minimal."

That said, a state's job is to guarantee rights, and since I am not a dead letter constitutionalist, I think it is quite alright that in the process of working things through we "discover," or rather uncover new rights, for example the education, healthcare, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
I suppose you consider education a right.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course education is a right, as is healthcare, housing, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
The question is what's reborn, not "is what's reborn the same as what came before?"

Malcolm wrote:
"Rebirth" is a convention. AS Nāḡrjuna puts it:
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing transfers.
He comments on this:
In that respect, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Termed ‘serially joined’, those  having not ceased, produce another produced from that cause. Nevertheless, not even the subtle atom of an existent transmigrates from this world to the next.
He continues further:
One who has conceived of annihilation
even in extremely subtle existents,
is not wise and will never see 
the meaning of "arisen from conditions."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


maybay said:
No two people are granted the same opportunities.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "opportunity."

maybay said:
Well what do you mean by opportunity?

Malcolm wrote:
Access to education.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
Daizan said:
Bakmoon writes that there is a causal continuity between mental continuums, Bristrollad. What does this mental causal continuity consist of if not mental factors?

Bakmoon said:
By causal continuity I don't mean an underlying substrate of mental factors, but a cause and effect relationship between consciousness at one time and consciousness at another.

Daizan said:
Why wouldn't we conclude from this that consciousness is the thing that is reborn?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a consciousness identical with the previous moment of consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 18th, 2016 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


maybay said:
No two people are granted the same opportunities.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "opportunity."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 17th, 2016 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth
Content:
rachmiel said:
Aha. This is clarifying, thanks. I'm a big fan of process philosophy, and what you describe sounds very similar to (my take on) its take on processes.

How could I find out more about what Buddhism considers to be formless existences? This seems to be getting at the heart of the "what is reborn?" question.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate Madhyamaka point of view on this is that what take rebirth is a non-existent "I habit" which is the agent of action and which can experience retribution of action, but there is no actual entity which undergoes rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 17th, 2016 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Sohei said:
Of course, it only reduces the birth rates for women who are disposed to being educated.

Malcolm wrote:
It reduces birth rates in women who are encouraged to go to school and given the opportunity to do so in a supportive environment.



Sohei said:
From the perspective of Emptiness, their deeds are neither good nor evil and their views are in perfect accord with the ultimate nature of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an entirely specious statement.


Sohei said:
Frankly, whether it is they who are evil or you is more a matter of politics and applied violence than morality.

Malcolm wrote:
People like like those who make up Boko Haram are deeply perverted sentient beings who are enemies of the Dharm, and would destroy it in a second if given the power and opportunity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 17th, 2016 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Sohei said:
When people say that men and women are naturally equal and that inequality is an artificial or socially constructed condition, they are ignoring the fact that the amount of status conferred to individual human beings in a state of nature is determined by fixed (or relatively stable) characteristics related to survival.

Malcolm wrote:
State of nature? What does that mean?

Sohei said:
When we talk about social equality, what we're really talking about are social controls that can aid in intelligently harnessing our human energies towards forwarding the civilizational endeavor. However, thinking that these controls erase our differences - or forgetting that these differences exist - is foolish and even dangerous, in some cases.

Malcolm wrote:
"Equality" does not mean there are no differences among individuals. It simply means that everyone granted the same opportunities and recognized to to have the same rights irrespective of their "race," gender, gender preference, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 17th, 2016 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In any case, the Goddess of the Ganges episode with in the Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra is a much better example of the lack of importance of the role of gender in terms of ultimate awakening.

Queequeg said:
We can speculate about the original.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing to speculate about. The Tibetan and Sanskrit versions are very clear. Please see Kern, Dover edition, 252-254. Not sure why you say that the Sanskrit manuscripts Kern had access to do not contain this tale. Also masculine and feminine endings are very precise in Sanskrit, so his translation is not mistaken [see Hurvitz also].


Queequeg said:
In any event I think you'd agree in light of the weight of misogyny in the Buddhist corpus, it's only good that we have versions that emphasize that gender is of little matter when it comes to attaining buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think the Lotus Sūtra is a good example of this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 17th, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Actually, in East Asia, this is not how the passage is read.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but the way it reads in the original Sanskrit is that she transforms first into a male, and then proceeds to attain buddhahood.

Queequeg said:
Same in the Chinese. But this transformation is framed as an instantaneous transformation perceived through miraculous vision. The Naga girl remains in front of the Buddha before the assembly.

I was not aware of a Sanskrit source for this chapter. The Sanskrit Kern translated does not include this chapter.

We may have an instance of the translation improving the original.

Malcolm wrote:
This story is included in the Tibetan version, and it is not framed as a vision generated by the nāgā princess. In the Tibetan translation, she transforms herself into a boy, etc. Generally, Tibetan translations are much more faithful to the Indian text.

In any case, the Goddess of the Ganges episode with in the Vimalakirti Nirdesha Sutra is a much better example of the lack of importance of the role of gender in terms of ultimate awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:


Queequeg said:
Actually, in East Asia, this is not how the passage is read.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but the way it reads in the original Sanskrit is that she transforms first into a male, and then proceeds to attain buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Can women become Buddhas?
Content:
Mother's Lap said:
Can females transition from the path of joining to the path of seeing in sutra?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
DGA said:
There's all manner of misogynistic material in Mahayana texts. I haven't encountered any in Dzogchen material so far, but then again, I'm only able to read translations.  (one reason why I'm thankful for translators.)  Malcolm, can you think of any examples of misogynistic content in Dzogchen texts that can be discussed publicly? I reckon this may be better off in a separate thread, but here we are.

Malcolm wrote:
I have yet to find any either [in Dzogchen tantras].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Such as?

Malcolm wrote:
The Ratnavali would prove to be an instructive text for you to read for starters.

maybay said:
I pray that all women
Will be able to achieve rebirth as the most supreme men
And will constantly forever after
Be able to gain perfect fulfillment in the clarities and bases.

Oops...

Malcolm wrote:
Perfectly understandable given the impossibility of changing patriarchal India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
Such as?

Malcolm wrote:
The Ratnavali would prove to be an instructive text for you to read for starters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
I should not be concerned with building a just society.

Malcolm wrote:
It is comforting to know that the Mahāyāna tradition does not share your social pessimism.

maybay said:
I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the workings of karma.

Malcolm wrote:
You are pretty pessimistic. You seem to think that worldly people are incapable of even temporary benefits in samsara. But we know this is not true. If it were true, there would be no reason to study the outer four sciences, and yet, we are encouraged to study them all and apply them. We also have many examples of social welfare programs recommended by Nāgārjuna, Padmasambhava, etc., to the leaders of their day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
I think now of creating right wing buddhist movement. (but do not think of trump or something like that)

Malcolm wrote:
And how is Capitalism going to help anything? It is destroying the planet.

MiphamFan said:
Last year you were saying capitalism is still superior to communism. Do you take that back?

Malcolm wrote:
Communism, by which we mean, the USSR, etc. was a disaster, as is Marxism-Leninism in general. So yes, it is better than that. It does not however mean I am by any means pro-capitalist.

MiphamFan said:
He maintained that the sovereign state has a role to play in defence, justice and building of public works which benefit no specific party as well as education. Also he thought that monopolies and collusion of employers and bankers should be stopped even if is in way an encroachment of their natural liberties, because they will harm society at large.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But it is not sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
DGA said:
I'm glad you raised the question of social justice, maybay. I think that's the heart of the discussion here. What would a just society look like--what would be its features? How is one to be achieved?

maybay said:
I should not be concerned with building a just society.

Malcolm wrote:
It is comforting to know that the Mahāyāna tradition does not share your social pessimism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
conebeckham said:
Where do you live?  How were you educated?  Can you deny the benefit of society, any society, in your life?  I just......nevermind.

Malcolm wrote:
My guess, someone from a former Communist bloc country.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 16th, 2016 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
@Malcolm

Capitalism itself it's just the way of the money and economy moves.

Malcolm wrote:
Capitalism is an ideology every bit as much as Marxist-Lenism.


Saoshun said:
To be leftist you need only repeat slogan which you do not understand (it's just example not pointing out) or who have not any resonance with reality or happen in reality but only sound nice.

Malcolm wrote:
The same is true of the right.


Saoshun said:
To be right (right winged means RIGHT minded really) you need to have reasoning first and clarity of what happen in the times and situation rather then spoke things just because they are nice which do not exclude being nice.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, just like Rush Limbaugh.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
Also, the problem with leftist people they can spread all kinds of hypocrisy, feminism etc. because of the history of the strong western right wing hand which created the best civilization in the world, the west were so healthy so powerful that the strength of our ancestor which suffered well to build the best civilization in the world still keeping up this bull turd but if we would start with idea of feminism, leftist, socialism, we would not even survive to those days already conquered by other lower barbarian.

Malcolm wrote:
Lower barbarians? You are aware that the US and Canada, as well as the countries in Latin America exist only because of a wholesale policy of racial genocide exercised for 400 years?


Saoshun said:
We would be like Indian or Africans, still in the turd-houses.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the effect of 500 years of colonialism.


Saoshun said:
That's the harsh truth, and we can wiggle tails and spread the funny socialist ideas but do it on the ground of the pure western right wing traditional civilization which is easy to do, till the ground it's get weaker and we say bye. It's just sad for me that fellow Buddhists fall for it. All those things are sweet till life get you or other fanatics which bomb himself screaming "allah akbar" and then just scream in TV about socialturdism that he blow himself up or raped because we on the west are racists or we should have more equal rights and because the west is bad. Guys wake up till it's not to late and spread the message otherwise we are done.

Malcolm wrote:
You sound pretty much like Donald J. Trump.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
Queequeg said:
To be completely honest, I only have a vague idea as to what adhimokkha means (also Skt. adhimukti). ?

Malcolm wrote:
It primarily means inclination, interest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
I think now of creating right wing buddhist movement. (but do not think of trump or something like that)

Malcolm wrote:
And how is Capitalism going to help anything? It is destroying the planet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Saoshun said:
Why (mostly in tibetan buddhism) there are so many leftists people who believe socialist dream? It's discredid the buddhism as real thing.

because people who cannot realize simple truth of life will not recognize genuine dharma, so forgot about enlightenment if you are leftist by system not by compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
I am a Green, which is leftist by definition. My political views are influenced primarily by Arne Naess, but also by Murray Bookchin, etc., many people in the international Ecology/Peace movement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
This is not a question of equality. Provisioning for women in education will not increase the distribution of educated people in society, it will shore up intelligence in the wealthy, who typically marry each other.

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously this is wrong, literacy rates are the highest they have ever been in human history, and educating women is a proven way to reduce birth rates.

maybay said:
Inequality is at its http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21621908-what-impressive-work-economic-history-tells-you-about-inequality-breaking. I don't dispute that education has increased. I say its distribution is unequal. At the end of the day husbands and wives sleep in the same bed, but poor people in other countries have no reprieve, and the only solace they might find in the narcissistic issues forwarded by developed nations is the possibility of joining them - which is the elites' worst nightmare. Unless these people are educated, in which case the most ambitious and unattached will emigrate, and they take all their horror stories with them, partly to earn sympathy and attention, partly as a poultice for their conscience.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, globally speaking, income inequality has never been higher in human history, this is perfectly true. But this state of affairs will not continue forever, or it will shift somewhere else. After all, it used to be the case that Europe was largely quite poor in comparison with China, the Muslim world and so on, and it was only the Columbian exchange which gave the Europeans and their descendants the present global dominance they presently enjoy.

In the meantime, while regressive forces such as Boko Haram may be may be acute, they are limited. In general, most people wish to emulate the lifestyle of Europe and North America, our civil liberties and opportunities, unequal though they may be when compared to the global economy as a whole. And for as long as people aspire to emulate our civil liberties and opportunities, they will continue advertise their support for equal rights, democracy and so on., as they do now, no matter how inexpertly or superficially.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
DGA said:
Boko Haram

Malcolm wrote:
Means something like "Western Education (boko) Sucks (haram)."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Of course there would be less force and coercion.  The reason force and coercion are necessary is because there is an attempt to impose an idea (the fundamental INequality of men and women) onto an obviously dissonant reality (the fundamental EQUALITY of men and women).  When you try to put a square peg into a round hole, you are forced to use a hammer at some point.

maybay said:
This is not a question of equality. Provisioning for women in education will not increase the distribution of educated people in society, it will shore up intelligence in the wealthy, who typically marry each other.

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously this is wrong, literacy rates are the highest they have ever been in human history, and educating women is a proven way to reduce birth rates.



maybay said:
Worse still is that the people whose minds you wish to turn will then only see you in the light of greed, and they will see your call for equality for women as a ruse to disempower the men, their unity, and their country. And this will cause them to double down on authoritarian rulership, to find solidarity with other authoritarian regimes, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Peoples begin setting things right in their society when they finally realize they are squandering a social resource, the intelligence, resilience, and cleverness of women.

maybay said:
In a state of nature men and women are not equal. They are different.

Malcolm wrote:
Different does not mean unequal. Dogs and bitches are not the same, but they are not unequal. Equality and sameness are not coterminous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Perhaps when equality is achieved, there will be less ongoing force and coercion.

Sherab Dorje said:
Of course there would be less force and coercion.  The reason force and coercion are necessary is because there is an attempt to impose an idea (the fundamental INequality of men and women) onto an obviously dissonant reality (the fundamental EQUALITY of men and women).  When you try to put a square peg into a round hole, you are forced to use a hammer at some point.

maybay said:
This is not a question of equality. Provisioning for women in education will not increase the distribution of educated people in society, it will shore up intelligence in the wealthy, who typically marry each other.

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously this is wrong, literacy rates are the highest they have ever been in human history, and educating women is a proven way to reduce birth rates.



maybay said:
This is a question of justice, which should be balanced against other principles of welfare. But the force you are talking about is largely unsolicited and coming from outside of these societies, which is unjust. Take Martin Luther King's hyperbole 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' This approach has led to skilful change in some countries through embargo (such as South Africa), but only when the unjust group was of little economic value. The hypocrisy is evident when a group continues to enjoy economic benefit with another while being at odds with their principles. So forcefully liberate the Saudi people from their oppressive government if it means so much to you (I don't support this) but don't continue to buy their oil while decrying their iniquity. You need to make honour an implicit requirement for trade. Otherwise it is just your greed that is powering their inequality (not the cause, but the condition. See my previous posts). Worse still is that the people whose minds you wish to turn will then only see you in the light of greed, and they will see your call for equality for women as a ruse to disempower the men, their unity, and their country. And this will cause them to double down on authoritarian rulership, to find solidarity with other authoritarian regimes, etc.
In a state of nature men and women are not equal. They are different.

Malcolm wrote:
Different does not mean unequal. Dogs and bitches are not the same, but they are not unequal. Equality and sameness are not coterminous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Mechanics of Enlightenment
Content:
Astus said:
What more do you want?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
Queequeg said:
is there clarity in the moment of transmission?

Malcolm wrote:
The experience of clarity can be used a vehicle for transmission, just as can an experience of nonconceptuality or bliss. Since there are three realms, they are each dominated by one of three major experiences, when not recognized for what they are. Attachment to bliss causes rebirth in the desire realm; attachment to clarity causes rebirth in the form realm; attachment to nonconceptuality causes rebirth in the formless realm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
So clarity simply describes the absence of affliction, or it is what is there without the afflictions and obscurations?

Malcolm wrote:
It describes it essential nature which is distinct, and its power, which encompasses objects of knowledge.

For example, look toward your left, then rotate your head to the right all the way. Everything you see is part of your clarity, even though you may not have identified every object in your field of perception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
Queequeg said:
Malcolm - don't know if you edited after my response or if I just missed it first go round, but got it.
mind's lack of obstruction
to confirm... this is experiential

Malcolm wrote:
For example, clarity is that lack of obsctruction your mind manifests. In reality, it has not obstructions, however, with afflictions, its range and power is limited. For example, powers like clairvoyance developed in meditation are due to strengthening clarity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:


tomamundsen said:
Tony Duff maintains that when it's used as a noun, it is actually just an abbreviation for 'od gsal ba. Is that incorrect?

Malcolm wrote:
Tony Duff maintains many things...

tomamundsen said:
Well I didn't mean to say that in order to pit him against you and argue over who's right and wrong. I'm more curious about why exactly it would not be understood as an abbreviation in that usage? He has an explanation of what gsal ba means as an adjective/adverb: "To be evident to the senses.  Although this could be taken as "clear", the term is used in the sense of "obvious", "evident", "distinct", and hence clear to the senses." Which seems to line up with your explanation.

I guess this distinction is more relevant when you're look at an actual instance when translating a text... Maybe not as helpful when just trying to understand the word.

Malcolm wrote:
The sanskrit term underlying gsal ba is vivṛta (and a few other terms that mean the same thing). For example, in one commentary on Hevajra, we find གསལ་བ་ནི་མངོན་པའོ, i.e., "clear" means "evident." A long commentary on Abhidharma states,"Clear means fully knowing, but unclear means it is not clear."

Your mind is empty, because it cannot be established, but it is "clear" because it is distinct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
Queequeg said:
I don't know if this has been discussed before in the forum - a quick search did not readily turn anything up directly on point.

What is Clarity in the context of DC? I've read descriptions, but I'm not getting any clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
"Clarity," gsal ba refers to mind's lack of obstruction. It is sometime conflated with 'od gsal ba, luminosity, which has been discussed at length elsewhere.

tomamundsen said:
Tony Duff maintains that when it's used as a noun, it is actually just an abbreviation for 'od gsal ba. Is that incorrect?

Malcolm wrote:
Tony Duff maintains many things...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 15th, 2016 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Clarity
Content:
Queequeg said:
I don't know if this has been discussed before in the forum - a quick search did not readily turn anything up directly on point.

What is Clarity in the context of DC? I've read descriptions, but I'm not getting any clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
"Clarity," gsal ba refers to mind's lack of obstruction. It is sometime conflated with 'od gsal ba, luminosity, which has been discussed at length elsewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 14th, 2016 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: What is dharma, according to your understanding?
Content:
wuyouxianren said:
Or alternatively: How many senses can the word "dharma" be used in Buddhist teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhism, the word "Dharma" has ten meanings: 1) object of knowledge 2) path 3) Nirvana 4) mental object 5) merit 6) longevity 7) discourse 8) phenomena 9) certainty 10) religious tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Instead what you are doing is drowning Zen teachings in some beautiful, but not-Zen at all, teachings and expressions, and Zen folks like Dharmagoat and me get stamped down. Here, in "Zen", I am happy to talk to Meido about Zen (respectfully agreeing to disagree sometimes), but I would not charge into the Rinzai Section and tell him why I think he is a old shavepate and Dogen thought his Ancestors were full of gas etc.

Instead of discussing Zen here, how about we take it outside to Open Forum? Then, let's talk, debate, challenge anything! (Respectfully) no holds barred (within the TOS and Right Speech)

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
Please read this post:


https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=21711&start=20#p333315

Written by a contemporary Tibetan Khenpo, who fluent in Chinese, also seems to be very expert in Chan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
No, that's not what I'm saying.

Sherab Dorje said:
So please explain, to this idiot, what you are trying to say with the research you posted?

maybay said:
Change is suffering. It should happen skilfully, not forcefully. When I listen to people talking about rights I just don't get the sense that a skillful argument is being made. I hear foot stamping and fists on tables. I search for something in what they have said that suggests humility – a recognition that they may not have all the facts, that they perhaps do not fully understand the issues, and that the outcomes are ultimately out of their control. Too often I come back empty handed.

Malcolm wrote:
Glasses are for looking outside, mirrors are for looking inside. Perhaps you need to use a mirror more frequently than glasses if your inquiry keeps coming up empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 13th, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: The practice as an obstacle
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When infinite obstacles arise for those who are properly practicing the sublime Dharma, the sole method for removing them is to supplicate the guru. An instruction better than that has never been taught, is not taught and will never be taught by all the buddhas of the three times. When all obstacles are removed, because of that, siddhi is attained. Based upon that, also all paths are traversed.
-- Guru Padmasambhava

heart said:
good post!

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Comes from the zhal gdams snying byang of the Bar chad kun sel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: The practice as an obstacle
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When infinite obstacles arise for those who are properly practicing the sublime Dharma, the sole method for removing them is to supplicate the guru. An instruction better than that has never been taught, is not taught and will never be taught by all the buddhas of the three times. When all obstacles are removed, because of that, siddhi is attained. Based upon that, also all paths are traversed.
-- Guru Padmasambhava


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple. Chan/Zen is those traditions that lay claim to being heirs and preservers of the teachings of Bodhidharma and his followers. We dont need a metadiscussion to understand this much.

jundo cohen said:
I believe you are now engaging in meta-discussion.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
I had this reply in mind, as well as the posts to which you are replying.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22419&start=60#p333127

[metadiscussion on]

It frankly gets a bit boring to watch you unnecessarily defending the Zen forums from "invasions." If there is a problem in the Zen forums, hit the report button, and let the mods sort it out. [metadiscussion off]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:


Astus said:
How can you expect keeping Zen in the Zen forum if you don't specify what Zen is?

jundo cohen said:
Well, ya know, they say that everything is Zen, so theoretically one can talk here about baseball, politics, leaky sink fixing. Jesus and the Beverly Hills Housewives ... all "Zen".

But it probably means (with a few grayish areas) folks who follow and have trust in the teachings of Soto/Caodong or Rinzai/lLinji lines, much as "Nichiren" Buddhism means folks who are trusting and following the teachings of Nichiren.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple. Chan/Zen is those traditions that lay claim to being heirs and preservers of the teachings of Bodhidharma and his followers. We dont need a metadiscussion to understand this much.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Way too much meta-discussion going on here...

jundo cohen said:
DHA asked, I simply responded respectfully.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
Check the TOS.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Intellectualization
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Way too much meta-discussion going on here...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One can read this charitably, and understand that it is so awful being a woman in this world, one would want to be born somewhere where there is no gender. Often, this is how teachers try to gloss this passage. However, in the sūtra, no mention is made of the one hundred faults, or even single fault of being a male. It is made clear in this text that being male is preferable to being female. This sentiment is not uncommon in the sūtras. And we very often find women in Buddhist literature referring to themselves as being of inferior births because they are women.

People should think long and hard about these things, and not dismiss concern such imagery as being of no consequence.

maybay said:
With this logic anyone who says samsara is suffering should be given blows to the neck and groin. The essence of what you are saying is that a view of how things are, combined with modern pragmatism, results in reaffirming the state of things. The call to fight for rights does not liberate us from the conditions that deny them to us, it mires us in trying to fix what the sutras have always told us is beyond repair.

Malcolm wrote:
You seem to fail to understand that in order to give something away, first you must own it. If you give away or sell something which you do not own, in Buddhadharma this is considered theft. In order to give away your wife and children, no matter how unbearable it may seem to you to do so, as was the case in this jataka, the tacit understanding is that they are your property which can in fact be disposed of as you wish.

Your argument, "The call to fight for rights does not liberate us from the conditions that deny them to us, it mires us in trying to fix what the sutras have always told us is beyond repair," is morally bankrupt in so far as it suggests that the struggle for human freedom and rights (as well as the freedoms and rights of animals, plants, and all other living things) ought to be abandoned at the outset because it is "samsaric," and from a Mahāyāna point of view, is even more problematical, because it is predicated on the mistaken idea that one should never strive to improve conditions which result in temporary happiness for sentient beings. The Buddha himself never hesitated to to advise rulers to understand the rights of their subjects and their own obligation to defend those rights. In fact, improving the temporary conditions of sentient beings through supporting the struggle for human rights in general, and women's rights specifically, properly falls within the Mahāyāna's four means of conversion (offering protection). Indeed, your reactionary dissent shows that you have utterly failed to understand that Mahāyāna Buddhists should be in the vanguard of the struggle for human and ecological rights precisely because aiding those who are in need of protection and emancipation (and there is no better way to ensure secular protections and emancipation than through social justice predicated on a theory of intrinsic rights) precisely falls within the activity of a bodhisattva, for example, HH Dalai Lama, Bhikku Bodhi, Roshi Glassman, Thich Naht Hahn and many others.

While the seeds of the emancipation of women, the explicit condemnation of slavery and human trafficking, and so on, can all be found in the twelve limbs of the Buddha's teachings, so too can regressive attitudes and practices, such as the patriarchal notion and practice of considering women and children to be the property of husbands and fathers.

Buddhists need to be honest about these patriarchal memes in Buddhist core literature, as well as secondary literature, and understand them, analyze them, and not make wan excuses for their presence in our Dharma traditions. Why? Well, for one, in the West, arguably, the majority of active practitioners of Buddhadharma appear to be women. Buddhadharma must accommodate this situation. To accommodate it, we must recognize that within Buddhadharma sexist and patriarchal culture forms have been preserved and promulgated, which has lead to the disenfranchisement of women. For example, given the literary output of Western women in the past 100 years, one can hardly imagine any other reason there are so few women Buddhist authors in the past 2500 years than the fact that women were systematically barred from higher education and that their gender was the reason they were barred from such educations. The institutionalization of patriarchal norms in Buddhadharma is found right at the beginning of the bhikṣuni sangha, when it was declared that even the most senior bhiḳsunis were required to bow to and sit behind male novices.

The time for this to change has arrived. It is changing, and we should be supportive of these changes. For the first time in history there are women Geshes, thanks to HHDL, and so on. Male dominance in Buddhadharma is coming to an end, as it should, and for the first time in history, women are finding their voices in the Dharma. We should recognize that wholesale suppression of the Dharma voices of human women (as opposed the transvaluation of women's voices as ḍākinīs and so on, something extraordinary as opposed to something ordinary) for the past 2500 is a loss to the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 11th, 2016 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Dundee said:
DGA just what I see in the news. This was a discussion I did not want to get trapped in. The question I asked did not actually get addressed and as one person put it the "soapie" or "soap opera" as it is also called continues. This topic might be better left to the Azealia Banks and Sarah Palins of this world. Myoho-Nameless you have a very different perspective and that is interesting.

I just try to keep my mind steady so it doesn't get tossed about by this or that. A strong mind is the best ally as the Buddha taught.

Malcolm wrote:
It always astonishes me when people who follow Buddhadharma are unwilling to address on of the chief causes of suffering among human beings, the exploitation of and discrimination against women, and are unwilling to take a hard look at the inequality women have been subjected to in Buddhist countries and how women are portrayed. For example, in the sūtra of the Guru of Medicine, this sentiment is expressed:
When I have attained the the awakening at of actualizing buddhahood in that unsurpassed perfect, complete awakening, any women who are afflicted by the one hundred faults of womanhood, who decry the state of womanhood, who wish to be completely liberated from birthplaces of women, they will turn away from the state of womanhood, and until they have attained the state of awakening will be born with a male gender.
One can read this charitably, and understand that it is so awful being a woman in this world, one would want to be born somewhere where there is no gender. Often, this is how teachers try to gloss this passage. However, in the sūtra, no mention is made of the one hundred faults, or even single fault of being a male. It is made clear in this text that being male is preferable to being female. This sentiment is not uncommon in the sūtras. And we very often find women in Buddhist literature referring to themselves as being of inferior births because they are women.

People should think long and hard about these things, and not dismiss concern such imagery as being of no consequence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 10th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
PS - Our is a "way beyond words and letters". Some interesting research on the origins of this phrase in recent years. Radicals would burn all the Sutras and Commentaries before reading them, but most (like Dogen) would read them first then "burn them " (figuritively or literally). The point is not to be ignorant of traditional Mahayana doctrine, but not to be imprisoned by it, to expose its juice by bending it into almost unrecognizable sometimes iconoclasic or seemingly heretical forms, and to leap free.

Malcolm wrote:
According to Tibetan sources, what Bodhidharma said was that once one has ascertained the view, do not rely on sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 10th, 2016 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
If you read it you would understand that this point is dealt with in the jataka and that it caused the bodhisattva great pain. But you've obviously made up your mind about your phantom demon so carry on. Its no wonder religious fanaticism arises as such a force in this world when people like you cultivate it at every opportunity.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand that even today woman and children in India and other places in the world are daily sold into slavery, and this is because they are born in a world society that is rampantly patriarchal. The jataka tale is a story that could happen only in a society where women and children are essentially regarded as property rather than as people who possess inherent rights to their own persons.

The only religious fanatacism here is the one that would seek to defend what is indefensible, i.e., treating women and children as property which can be given away.

Your final comment is a pure ad hominem and is inappropriate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 10th, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
To give without any expectation of what will happen, without attachment in other words, is the perfection of generosity. And that is what this literature, not a sutra, is meant to illustrate.

Malcolm wrote:
To give away another person into slavery is simply wrong. I understand the point it is meant to illustrate, and I also understand that it communicates patriarchal entitlement as well.

Jatakas are the Buddha's own recollections of his past lives. They are included in the twelve branches of the Buddha's teachings. They are Buddha vacana, and not merely "literature." They are included in the bka' 'gyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
DGA said:
What's patriarchy?

Malcolm wrote:
A social system in which women and their civil rights are not recognized and are systematically denied.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
How about a link Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
You will find it recounted in the section on the perfection of generosity in Sakya Pandita's Clarifying the Muni's Intent, which can be found in the recent publication, Stages of the Doctrine, published by the Library of Tibetan Classics.

maybay said:
What is the name of the sutra please. And also you can explain what is blameworthy in giving up wife and children, and also how it should not be seen as, if anything, a slight toward Brahminism, rather than what you are suggesting.

Malcolm wrote:
This story is part of the Vessantara Jataka, as Sapan says:
"Here, one should reflect on and demonstrate to others the Jataka tales of how Viśvaṃtara gave his wife and children to be the slaves of a brahmin..."
There is nothing blameworthy in giving up one's wife and family, per se. But giving them up as slaves to a brahmin in order to perfect generosity could only be seen as laudable in an extremely patriarchal civilization where women and children have no legal status as holders of personal rights.

The story illustrates that in highly venerated Indian Buddhist Sūtras, a man's family was considered his chattel, to be disposed of as he wished, however he wished.

It is one of the most famous of all the Jatakas, carved into the walls of Angkor Wat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is the famous account of the bodhisattva who voluntarily gives hus wife and children up to a brahmin as slaves...do you really want me to go on?

maybay said:
'Famous' is one of those subjective adjectives beyond dispute. If you question it you only suggest your own ignorance.
Scholars should be the last people to use this word.

Malcolm wrote:
Unless they are referring to something which indeed is famous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
maybay said:
How about a link Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
You will find it recounted in the section on the perfection of generosity in Sakya Pandita's Clarifying the Muni's Intent, which can be found in the recent publication, Stages of the Doctrine, published by the Library of Tibetan Classics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


Tenso said:
There may some minor misogynistic references here and there but let me know when you find one that advocates the beating of women or using them as sex slaves.

Malcolm wrote:
There is the famous account of the bodhisattva who voluntarily gives hus wife and children up to a brahmin as slaves...do you really want me to go on?

Tenso said:
Why would I believe in such stories? A true bodhisattva would never do such a thing.

Malcolm wrote:
You made the argument that such misogyny could nit be found in the sutras, and yet, this is an account fiund in the very Mahayana sutras you claim cannot have such misogyny.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to find misogyny, you need look no further than Buddhist sutras.

Tenso said:
There may some minor misogynistic references here and there but let me know when you find one that advocates the beating of women or using them as sex slaves.

Malcolm wrote:
There is the famous account of the bodhisattva who voluntarily gives hus wife and children up to a brahmin as slaves...do you really want me to go on?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 9:53 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
That is an ill-considered statement, esoecially in llight of your indignant outburst decrying Islamic mysogyny, and proclaiming it worse than mysogyny in Buddhist cultures.

Tenso said:
You should know better than to conflate Buddhism with misogynistic cultures it finds itself in. The Buddha was very progressive and lenient with women for his time. A lot of the misogyny in Islamic cultures on the hand is derived straight from the Quran.

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to find misogyny, you need look no further than Buddhist sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Tenso said:
I wouldn't consider DK to be a Buddhist at all.

Malcolm wrote:
That is an ill-considered statement, esoecially in llight of your indignant outburst decrying Islamic mysogyny, and proclaiming it worse than mysogyny in Buddhist cultures.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
I still don't understand what that has to do with the conversation, the fact that Islam, and some of it's writings contain horrible shit against women (BTW things like stoning adulteress is found in texts important to all 3 Abrhamic faiths AFAIK) has nothing to do with whether or not Buddhist misogyny is ok.

Tenso said:
For the tenth time it is not ok and Buddhists should do their best to deal with it. Just wanted to point out that we are still in a much better position than a religion like Islam which is misogynist to its core.

Malcolm wrote:
So we are to understand that DK's "absolutely sickening" misogyny is far superior to mysogyny in Islamic cultures?

I guess you were unaware that in Buddhist Sanskrit literature the noun for "women" literally translates into Enlgish as "inferior birth."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar khyentse... monk?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The reality is that Ngakpa's garb, hair and so on are symbols of freedom from contrivance. Spending a lot of time being worried about one's gear sort of defeats that purpose.

Sherab Dorje said:
Sometimes wearing the garb is a matter of samaya.

Malcolm wrote:
In the Dudjom tradition hair empowerment (which I have received twice in its entirety), specific gear is not mentioned. When you receive it, you are supposed to maintain uncontrived hair, conduct and mind, and that is all.

In KDL's terma tradition (which I have also received), it is more elaborate, but the main thing is to not cut one'e hair.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar khyentse... monk?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Striped zen doesn't mean anything.

conebeckham said:
Depends, eh?
At some centers it's a "badge of rank," and those within that framework recognize it as such.  Variously it's referred to as a DrupDra Zen, or Tummo Zen, etc. At some centers it's worn to distinguish merely serious lay practitioners from monks, who wear solid maroon.   Some centers encourage the straight white zen for layfolk, while wearing a straight white zen at other centers is taboo--unless you're "qualified."

Then again, wearing any sort of clothing really is no sign of anything.  Perhaps that's what you mean.  Some dress as monks, and are not monks.  Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's comments are pretty clear, I think, in that regard.

Malcolm wrote:
The reality is that Ngakpa's garb, hair and so on are symbols of freedom from contrivance. Spending a lot of time being worried about one's gear sort of defeats that purpose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar khyentse... monk?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
He is wearing a stripped zen over a lay person's robe. But normally, HH Dudjom R. dressed like a Tibetan aristocrat.

Nakpa robes mean the whole kit

Adamantine said:
Well wearing a striped ngakpa zen while keeping long hair still differentiates you from being a) a monk and b) merely a layperson with primarily worldly concerns even if you aren't wearing the entire uniform. I think HH Dudjom R was at a level where relative things did not matter much however he still made the effort to show the ngakpa signs at various occasions which contradicts the sentiment in that article. But if you want to split hairs there's this pic and more:

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty sure Dudjom R. mostly wore aristocrat's robes.

Striped zen doesn't mean anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I did not defend Drugpa Kunley. Maybay clearly has a very high opinion of DK. I pointed out that he was reducing his hero to the level of your statement, and that nevertheless, DK's statements should not be used to justify the objectification of women.

Tenso said:
What is your opinion of DK?

Malcolm wrote:
My opinion of Drukpa Kunlay's autobiography is that in the context of Tibetan culture, it is very bawdy, ribald, entertaining, and that for Tibetans it represents a kind of transgressive taboo breaking of an awakened person, in imitation of Indian Mahāsiddhas.

It is nevertheless sited within Himalayan patriarchal culture, and his attitude towards women, and that of 15th century Bhutanese men in general, leaves much to be desired from a modern perspective, much as, from a feminist perspective, Buddhism as a whole is rife with sexism. If you are not a woman, you might not be aware of how much the sexism in Buddhism is hurtful to our sisters, mothers, and daughters.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Dzongsar khyentse... monk?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Adamantine! Do you know what the Wylie for phagen is? I'm having trouble looking that up as it's spelled.

dzogchungpa said:
Maybe this: http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/pha_rgan

Regarding the OP, there's some relevant info here:
http://all-otr.org/public-talks/8-the-grilling

Adamantine said:
Well from that article I take exception to this, very odd comment: "And even Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche, for example, didn’t ever wear the robes of a ngakpa; he always dressed as a householder."

What would you say he is wearing here?

If you look at this album you'll see almost every photo he is wearing ngakpa robes. . .on various occasions. http://www.tersar.org/lineage-and-teachers-photo-galleries/teachers-gallery/

Malcolm wrote:
He is wearing a stripped zen over a lay person's robe. But normally, HH Dudjom R. dressed like a Tibetan aristocrat.

Nakpa robes mean the whole kit:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Samsara itself is a bardo, as is awakening. It does not matter how many "lifetimes" we spend in it, since the mind stream itself does not die, but in each lifetime, appropriates a new form.

The bardo of samsara begins with delusion and ends with awakening, there is no "afterlife."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When people slut shamed  Melania Trump on face book, I called them out for that. When people fat shamed Chrus Christie, I called them out for that.

Tenso said:
Funny as hell when you freak out at that one little comment I made while defending Drukpa Kunley. Probably some of the most misogynistic material I've ever read. Would be way too graphic to even post anything of his on here. Absolutely sickening and your hypocrisy on this issue is very revealing.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not defend Drugpa Kunley. Maybay clearly has a very high opinion of DK. I pointed out that he was reducing his hero to the level of your statement, and that nevertheless, DK's statements should not be used to justify the objectification of women.

Was Tibet a patriarchal culture where women wrere treated poorly? Of course it was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 8th, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Experiences of bliss or of dukkha come and go as all experiences do.
Great bliss is not an experience which comes and goes.

But realising emptiness isn't an experience - it's an insight into the the transitory nature of all experience.

Malcolm wrote:
No. It is more than that. It is the realization that all phenomena have never arisen from the beginning, as it says in the Prajñāpāramita:

Mañjuśrī, "What which arises in dependence in reality never arose."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tom said:
Gelugpas classify some conceptual cognitions as direct realizes (དངོས་སུ་རྟོགས་པ་) because they say that they realize their object through the force of experience. Examples include the second moment of an inferential cognition and also memory.

Certainly, Dignaga who defines direct perception as “that which is free from conceptualization (kalpanā)" would protest and then Dharmakīrti would follow, and then Candrakīrti would also object.

Malcolm wrote:
And this because they follow the system Phyapa as noted above...

Tom said:
Sorry, if i'm repeating something above... only read the last couple of posts.

Malcolm wrote:
No worries Tom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tom said:
Gelugpas classify some conceptual cognitions as direct realizes (དངོས་སུ་རྟོགས་པ་) because they say that they realize their object through the force of experience. Examples include the second moment of an inferential cognition and also memory.

Certainly, Dignaga who defines direct perception as “that which is free from conceptualization (kalpanā)" would protest and then Dharmakīrti would follow, and then Candrakīrti would also object.

Malcolm wrote:
.but these too are not direct perceptions.

Tom said:
A distinction is made here between མངོན་སུམ་ཏུ་རྟོགས་པ་ and དངོས་སུ་རྟོགས་པ་.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the formere is a direct perception, tne latter cannot be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Wayfarer said:
realising it relies on a complete transformation of perception and if we say 'well there's nothing to realise' then why not simply stay as we are?

Astus said:
To stay as we are would mean being lost in the concepts of gain and loss. Seeing that all is empty means that there is nothing that can be grasped. When there is nothing to be grasped, there is no attachment, and without attachment there is no suffering. But nothing to grasp doesn't mean total blankness, it means that all experiences constantly change, hence nothing to rely on. That is the non-abiding mind, but not simply mindlessness.
Realisation pertains to the nature of reality, or to the 'nature of all experience' if you like. As I understand it, that is why realisation is for keeps, it doesn't come and go
The realisation is the realisation of all being in a flux. It is giving up the mistaken idea of permanence, and one that misconception is completely removed, there is no view attached to, and that lack of grasping doesn't come and go.

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from what has fluctuated and not fluctuated, there is presently no fluctuation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tom said:
Gelugpas classify some conceptual cognitions as direct realizes (དངོས་སུ་རྟོགས་པ་) because they say that they realize their object through the force of experience. Examples include the second moment of an inferential cognition and also memory.

Certainly, Dignaga who defines direct perception as “that which is free from conceptualization (kalpanā)" would protest and then Dharmakīrti would follow, and then Candrakīrti would also object.

Malcolm wrote:
And this because they follow the system Phyapa as noted above...but these too are not direct perceptions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
DGA said:
Dogen fan.

Malcolm wrote:
Definitely, Dogen is very interesting. Good thing they revived the study of Dogen in Soto.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
If you cannot describe this "radical non-lookers, to the marrow non-searchers", taking the posture for the sake of the posture, then you are simply not describing Soto Zen Shikantaza. Period. You are describing what is certainly an amazing approach or technique for many people, I am sure, but you are describing a helicopter.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no technique: there is only recognition, realization and awakening. Meditation is a distraction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of prāmāṇas (valid cognizers): direct perceptions and inferences. The former are always non-conceptual, the latter are always conceptual.

Tsongkhapafan said:
That's a Sautrantika viewpoint.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess that makes Candrakīrti a Sautrantrika.


Tsongkhapafan said:
That is not a direct perception (pratyakṣa), that is an inference (anumaṇa).
It's not an inference because it doesn't depend on reasons.


Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing inference for syllogism. A syllogism is an inference for another.

Tsongkhapafan said:
The object (generic image of emptiness) is manifest. A cognizer that apprehends a manifest object is a direct perceiver.

Malcolm wrote:
A generic image is strictly an inference. For example, when you see smoke, you infer there is a fire.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


conebeckham said:
Tsongkhapafan, can you give us an example of a valid cognition that is a conceptual direct perception?

Tsongkhapafan said:
A valid cognition of the generic image of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a direct perception (pratyakṣa), that is an inference (anumaṇa).

There are two kinds of prāmāṇas (valid cognizers): direct perceptions and inferences. The former are always non-conceptual, the latter are always conceptual.

One might include a third, testimony of a reliable witness, but not everyone will accept this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
And perhaps "emptiness is emptiness" is not quite correct. I believe there are different approaches and interpretations of what this is too in various Traditions, but that is for another day.

Malcolm wrote:
Interpretations of and approaches to emptiness are not important. Realization of emptiness is important.

Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svāhā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Maybe some of the more scholarly and intelligent types than me around here like Astus and Anders will say I am wrong, and it is just my blindness. I would like to hear what they feel about this.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, your inner sectarian is showing.

Emptiness is emptiness. There is only one way to realize it, which is, to realize it. Everything else is bullshit.



M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Direct perception can also be conceptual. All that direct perception means is that something is apprehended without depending upon reasons. There are two types of valid cognizers, direct valid cognizers and inferential valid cognizers. The former category contains direct perceivers which are both conceptual and non-conceptual.

Malcolm wrote:
No, direct perceptions can never be conceptual, and Candrakīrti agrees that this is so, in fact, he insists on it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
But I am still struggling to see so much of this as Soto Zen Practice or descriptions to which Soto Zen/Shikantaza folks would relate.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, Jundo, what is being said is that there no difference at all between Soto and other Mahāyāna paths, other than words and rhetoric.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Bliss in Zen (sukha)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mahāsiddha Virupa chimes in:

All sentient beings are emanations of mahāmudra,
the essence of those emanations is the forever non-arising dharmadhātu,
also all characteristics of dualistic appearances, happiness, suffering and so on,
are the play of mahāmudrā, the original dharmatā.

Because there is no truth and nothing on which to rely in play itself,
reality never transcends the seal of emptiness.

Some are completely tortured with empowerment rites,
some always count their rosary saying hūm phaṭ,
some consume shit, piss, blood, semen and meat,
some meditate the yoga of channels and winds, but all are deluded.
And:
That great profound term “mahāmudrā”, 
whatever it’s basis of designation is, also has the label “empty”;
as moments are empty by nature who realizes selflessness?
There is no realizer, just a name, a term, a label,
Also that is not perfect, a projection of disciples, 
also in disciples there is no self, similar with illusions and emanations,
“Mahāmudrā” is a mental imputation of the childish. 

“Delusion” and “non-delusion” are mere names, mere labels,
who is the person to feel or be aware of delusion?

If not even an iota of the result, nirvana, exists, and is not perceived,
“liberation and non-liberation” is an adventitious reification,
Nothing exists in peaceful and pure space, so what is the path of liberation?

“Ultimate and relative” are also just emphatic labels,
but the two truths don’t exist in the dharmadhātu, the dharmadhātu does not exist.
Mahāsiddha Kotalipa also adds his voice:
Inanimate and animate phenomena
abide as appearances because there is no duality;
they are naturally pure,
peace, space, and immaculate.

Nonduality is a merely a name,
even that name will not exist;
sensation and one who senses are free from signs,
nonduality is great bliss.

Liberated from all concepts,
without the dualism of duality, supreme peace,
like space, liberated from conceptuality,
that is called nondual, 

the meditation on the appearances of all phenomena
with the yoga of abiding in the inconceivable.
And:
whether I become a Buddha
or not and go to hell,
hell itself blissful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 9:33 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
frankc said:
Well at least you say it works both ways. But to quote the glorious Buddha Drukpa Kunley, "Where can I find the best chung and the most beautiful women?"

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with finding people attractive, but there are ways of expressing one's admiration for them other than by suggesting that most men are so puerile that would "give their left nut" in order to be with them.

Tenso said:
Yeah you need to chill. I wasn't being serious.


Malcolm wrote:
When people slut shamed  Melania Trump on face book, I called them out for that. When people fat shamed Chrus Christie, I called them out for that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 6th, 2016 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, he states in his commentary to the MAV:
The wisdom that knows all aspects
is asserted to have the characteristic of a direct perception.

cloudburst said:
yes, omniscience is completely free from conceptuality. I'm not clear on how your quotation bears on the subject.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is the definition of a direct perception. Your above definition makes it impossible for a direct perception to be non conceptual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
cloudburst said:
there is no such thing as a "collection of stars" independently, so in order for such to appear, there must first be a conceptual act aka imputation. If you directly perceive things that you do not impute, they must exist independent of imputation. You are claiming that thing exist as more than mere name. This is not the first time your realist slip has peeked out from under your madhyamika skirt.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the world, external objects exist independent of our imputations, things such as pots, pillars, and so on, forming the basis of our imputations.

These "facts" as not my point of view, these "facts" are facts known to the world at large. Try explaining to Joe the Plumber that his truck is merely his imputation and enjoy the blank uncomprehending stare you will receive in return.

What I find so strange is why a so called "prasangika" spends so much time on a species of mind-only theory. A proper Prasangika just accepts at face value what the world accepts. Certainly Candrakirtī never makes the distinction you are trying to make, and never would assert that direct perceptions are a result of imputations. For example, he states in his commentary to the MAV:
The wisdom that knows all aspects
is asserted to have the characteristic of a direct perception.

And in the Prasannapāda, he clearly accepts the conventions around direct perceptions and inferences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
cloudburst said:
Imputations are actions that function as the cause of perception. For example, first you impute the big dipper upon a collections of stars, then it subsequently appears to you.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, this is the most inane thing you have ever said, and you are not usually given to making such unsupportable assertions. The only way your theory works is with by invoking a theory of universals, for example, the conventionally existent universals proposed by Phya pa (but strictly rejected by Dharmakīrti).

First you see a collection of stars, than you decide to give it a name: direct perception first, imputation second.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


cloudburst said:
Just trying to match the response to the question.... it was an invalid question.

the question seeks an answer based in inherence, and that makes no sense in the end.
The truth is, conventionally, that these exist begininglessly in mutual causation, so "which came first" is pointless, like chicken and egg.

Im not sure what you intend with the 'animals' question, but yes, animals impute objects and perceive things directly as well.

conebeckham said:
Is "perceiving things directly" the same as "imputing objects?"

cloudburst said:
imputing conceptually is the cause of directly perceiving. One could say that the act of direct perception is a mere imputation, but this type of language seems to be muddying this discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
A direct perception is a non-imputing consciousness, by definition. If this were not the case, even the ārya's realization of emptiness through yogic direct perception would be an imputation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Is it right to hold stocks in agriculture if they involve slaughter?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
What about exclusively crop growing producers?

Malcolm wrote:
It is hard to be pure in samsara. You just have to use common sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Is it right to hold stocks in agriculture if they involve slaughter?
Content:
seeker242 said:
What damage does holding stocks do?

Malcolm wrote:
It is wrong livelihood. One holds stocks with an expectation profits.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan astrology
Content:
maybay said:
Astrology can say something about your personality, but then so can your friends. They'll instinctively know what colors suit you. Generally a cold personality needs warm colors, and visa versa. Aim for harmony.

Malcolm wrote:
There is really quite a bit more to it than that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:




cloudburst said:
Invalid reply -- do animals use names? Do they have direct perceptions?
Just trying to match the response to the question.... it was an invalid question.

the question seeks an answer based in inherence, and that makes no sense in the end.
The truth is, conventionally, that these exist begininglessly in mutual causation, so "which came first" is pointless, like chicken and egg.

Im not sure what you intend with the 'animals' question, but yes, animals impute objects and perceive things directly as well.


Malcolm wrote:
Imputations and direct perceptions are mutually causal? No, I don't think so. Imputations are second order perceptions based on primary perceptions, i.e. direct perceptions. If it were otherwise, you have to invoke a theory of universals to explain perception, and that leads one outside of Dharmakīrti about what is conventionally acceptable very quickly. Universals, like "cowness" are utterly nonexistent abstractions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Is it right to hold stocks in agriculture if they involve slaughter?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Is it right to hold stocks in agricultural producers which also engage in animal husbandry (which involves salughter directly or indirectly)?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Dundee said:
Everybody is an object. Everybody has height, weight, mass and volume. Some men have more height than other men. Some women have a higher volume than other women. Everybody is a living object and nobody can help it

Malcolm wrote:
Lame comment: no one is a commodity, no one should commodified, and no one should be subject to the oppression of objectification, men, women or children.

There is a direct link between global warming and the objectification and commodification of living beings. Given that this is a Dharma website, I would have thought this was obvious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
frankc said:
Well at least you say it works both ways. But to quote the glorious Buddha Drukpa Kunley, "Where can I find the best chung and the most beautiful women?"

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with finding people attractive, but there are ways of expressing one's admiration for them other than by suggesting that most men are so puerile that would "give their left nut" in order to be with them.

maybay said:
Care to hear some more Drukpa Kunley quotes?

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to reduce DK to the level of Tenso's comment, by all means dont let me stop you. But if you think that DK's statements validate the objectification of human beings as objects and commodities...you have mot understood anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 9:53 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
But you are insisting on the difference between "conceptual" and "non-conceptual" which is not within everyday conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.  Mundane worldly convention includes all conventions utilized by mundane people in every area of life.

Herbie said:
your seem to confuse buddhist conventions with everyday conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
The notions of direct perception, etc., do not come from Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Herbie said:
Now you are changing the context of conventions because "direct vs indirect perception" does not belong to the context of everyday conventions but to the context of philosophical conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the case. Questions of direct perception and inference are entirely mundane and are well within mundane worldly convention.

Herbie said:
But you are insisting on the difference between "conceptual" and "non-conceptual" which is not within everyday conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is.  Mundane worldly convention includes all conventions utilized by mundane people in every area of life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 9:33 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
frankc said:
Well at least you say it works both ways. But to quote the glorious Buddha Drukpa Kunley, "Where can I find the best chung and the most beautiful women?"

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with finding people attractive, but there are ways of expressing one's admiration for them other than by suggesting that most men are so puerile that would "give their left nut" in order to be with them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 9:29 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
That is based on valid cognition of a convention that says that there is "internal" and "external".  So that is perfectly fine and I agree with this convention.

Malcolm wrote:
Since external objects are acceptable, also direct perceptions are acceptable as non-conceptual cognitions that do not depend on imputations.

Herbie said:
Now you are changing the context of conventions because "direct vs indirect perception" does not belong to the context of everyday conventions but to the context of philosophical conventions.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the case. Questions of direct perception and inference are entirely mundane and are well within mundane worldly convention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
The point in question is just so simply solved: you are taking a Svatantrika perspective which is not mine. That's it!

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact I am not. Tsongkhapa also accepts the conventional existence of external objects. Why? Because ordinary people do.

Herbie said:
That is based on valid cognition of a convention that says that there is "internal" and "external".  So that is perfectly fine and I agree with this convention.

Malcolm wrote:
Since external objects are acceptable, also direct perceptions are acceptable as non-conceptual cognitions that do not depend on imputations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That has nothing to do with the point in question.

Herbie said:
The point in question is just so simply solved: you are taking a Svatantrika perspective which is not mine. That's it!

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact I am not. Tsongkhapa also accepts the conventional existence of external objects. Why? Because ordinary people do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa does not contradict Candrakirti on this point anywhere.

Herbie said:
i think Candrakirti's presentation is grounded on the buddhist bhumis which renders it more difficukt to extract the pure rational philosophy in contrast to the "Final exposition of wisdom" which actually consists of extracted chapters of Tsongkhapas's works but which is more easily accessible as to its rational philosophical core. One just has to skip certain chapters.

Malcolm wrote:
That has nothing to do with the point in question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Prasanga take the Sautrantika presentation as the base line for conventional truth. I suggest you read Madhyamaka-avatara.

Herbie said:
I prefer to stay with "Final exposition of wisdom" since this is the only work which contains a consistent presentation of Tsongkhapa's Prasangika.

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa does not contradict Candrakirti on this point anywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Herbie said:
Wow, you have completely abandoned Tsongkhapa with this statement.

Malcolm wrote:
I have not because I make explicit what Tsongkhapa makes ambiguous and blurred.[/quote]

Really, you are too much.
Objects exist conventionally, this means there are external objects.
yes but if you say that objects exist independently of conceptual imputation (which is what you are saying) in the conventional then you are actually taking a Svatantrika perspective, not a Prasangika perspective.[/quote]

The Prasanga take the Sautrantika presentation as the base line for conventional truth. I suggest you read Madhyamaka-avatara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
But you seem to ignore that there are no objects in the first place because they do not inherently exist. There is a sense impression that does not display objects in the first place. Objects only arise out of the sense impression dependent on having arisen dependent on conceptual imputations before.

Malcolm wrote:
Wow, you have completely abandoned Tsongkhapa with this statement. Objects exist conventionally, this means there are external objects.

Your assertion cannot be taken seriously by anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
They are inseparable, because there is no perception of something without the ability to apprehend it and what you are apprehending is mere appearance, mere name (mere name doesn't mean only a name).

Malcolm wrote:
Direct perceptions are non-conceptual by definition, so what you propose is impossible.

Herbie said:
i would not say "impossible" but that it is the only way the expression "direct perception" could make sense: you can directly perceive objects only because you are familiar with the conceptual imputations of them. And "you are familiar" means that you are conditioned appropriately before you "directly perceive". So it boils down to the dichotomy of " inherently direct vs. inherently conceptual" being completely inappropriate.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Herbie, direct perceptions are by definition non conceptual. In other words, a direct perception happens when a sense organ and object and a moment of consciousness come together: for example, when an eye consciousness apprehends a blue object before any labeling of the object as blue occurs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
New York has unexpectedly become a significant contest... I don't remember when NY actually mattered in any primary process.

Ordered and put up the Bernie signs this weekend! I know the studies say lawn signs don't matter...

We live on one of the main streets into and out of our village. Hoping the signs will encourage people and get them thinking, in the words of the Immortal Yankee, Yogi Berra,

IT AINT OVER TIL ITS OVER!

Damn encouraged to see Bernie kick off in the Bronx!

The Boogie Down is the last bastion of New York F'in City!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Nothing exists without a name, not even 'appearance'. Try to refer to anything without using a name.

Malcolm wrote:
Which comes first, a a direct perception or a name?

Tsongkhapafan said:
They are inseparable, because there is no perception of something without the ability to apprehend it and what you are apprehending is mere appearance, mere name (mere name doesn't mean only a name).

Malcolm wrote:
Direct perceptions are non-conceptual by definition, so what you propose is impossible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Commodification/objectification of the human form is very big business these days.

maybay said:
Care to hazard a guess what Ms Trump does for a living?

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite aware of what Ms. Trump does for a living. She had an excellent teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Nothing exists without a name, not even 'appearance'. Try to refer to anything without using a name.

Malcolm wrote:
Which comes first, a a direct perception or a name?

cloudburst said:
which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Malcolm wrote:
Invalid reply -- do animals use names? Do they have direct perceptions?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: translation help
Content:
diamind said:
can anyone help me translate this.  possibly correct the spelling.  one lama not speaking English wrote this out and gave to me. my tibetan is only limited to be able to write alphabet.  thabks

༄།སེམས་ཀྱི་ངོ་བོ་སྤྲོས་བྲལ་སྐད་གཅིག་མ།

རང་རིག་དོན་གྱི་ངོ་བོ་བླ་མ་ལ།

འདུ་འབྲལ་མེད་པའི་ངང་ནས་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས།

འཁྲུལ་སྣང་གཞི་ལ་དག་པར་བྱིན་གྱིས་་རློབས།

Malcolm wrote:
From a state of inseparability, I supplicate
the ultimate guru, my own vidyā—
a moment of the essence of mind free from proliferation—
bless deluded appearances to be purified in the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: The Panama Papers
Content:
Anders said:
I am frankly shocked that the leaks published by a washington-based organisation funded by Ford and Rockefeller have shown dodgy dealings from Putin, Assad, FIFA, third world countries and token Europeans whilst nothing so far have pointed a finger at any US operations

I guess they must be clean as a whistle. Good for them.

Malcolm wrote:
We would never use a firm from Panama...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: The Perfectly Imperfect Beyond Perfection/Imperfection (Zen) Buddha
Content:
jundo cohen said:
In his book Faces of Compassion: Classic Bodhisattva Archetypes and Their Modern Expression (Wisdom Publications, 2012), Soto Zen teacher Taigen Dan Leighton wrote,

"Knowledge (jnana in Sanskrit, etymologically related to the Greek gnosis) is contrasted with wisdom, as this knowledge refers to practical understanding of the workings of phenomena in the conventional world -- not useless knowledge just learned for knowledge's sake, memorizing facts and information by rote as is done for regurgitation on tests in some unimaginative educational systems. As the flip side of wisdom, the perfection of knowledge can be seen as the function or implementation of wisdom -- but fully informed by wisdom's insight into the essential. This knowledge, also referred to as the perfection of truth, is at the service of wisdom, putting wisdom to work in the world."
https://www.amazon.com/Faces-Compassion-Bodhisattva-Archetypes-Expression/dp/0861713338/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Malcolm wrote:
Statements like this merely indicate the author's lack of familiarity with Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist literature.

Jñāna is deeper than prājñā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Nothing exists without a name, not even 'appearance'. Try to refer to anything without using a name.

Malcolm wrote:
Which comes first, a a direct perception or a name?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:


frankc said:
Is it sexist and objectifying to be attracted to a girl and openly speak about it?

Malcolm wrote:
It can be.

frankc said:
Does it work both ways?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

frankc said:
Are all the girls that went to see Jacob's shirtless muscle body in the twilight movies sexist and objectifying Jacob?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Commodification/objectification of the human form is very big business these days. It is also quite damaging to many people's feelings of self-worth. Abdullah Öcalan has something interesting to say about this:
Political and military power play quite an important role in maintaining the capitalist system’s hegemony. But what is crucial is to possess and subsequently to paralyse society via the cultural industry.  The mentality of communities under the influence of the system has weakened and its members have become gullible. Many philosophers claim that society has been turned into a society of the spectacle, similar to the zoo.  The sex, sports, arts and culture industries, in combination and in sequence, bombard the emotional and analytic intelligence incessantly by means of a diverse spread of advertisements. As a result, both emotional and analytical intelligence have become completely dysfunctional; the conquering of society’s mentality is thus complete.
http://www.freeocalan.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/liberating-Lifefinal.pdf

frankc said:
If you were being sarcastic about "most men" being dumbasses then my mistake.

Malcolm wrote:
I was responding the fantasy that when it comes to being in a relationship with a woman, foremost in most men's minds is her putative looks. Indeed, the objectification/exploitation of everything and everyone is the basis of Donald Trump's entire worldview and indeed, his (now failing) campaign.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Is optimism bad?
Content:
Boomerang said:
O Realizer of the Transitory World. Don’t have,
   as objects of your mind,
The eight transitory things of the world: 
Namely, material gain and no gain, happiness and unhappiness, 
Things nice to hear and not nice to hear, or praise and scorn. 
Be indifferent (toward them).

If I've decided that I'm going to live as a lay person, with a career and bills to pay, is it bad for me to be optimistic about achieving success in my worldly endeavors? If I'm going to interact with people daily, is it bad for me to take the optimistic attitude that I am well-liked by my peers? If I have an illness, is it bad for me to be optimistic about recovering?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a problem to enjoy your life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Title: Re: Why is Nichiren Buddhism marginalized in the American Buddhist community?
Content:


dharmapdx said:
Thank you. What you write here is exactly the issue I am facing. I feel that I need an "organized curriculum," and I'm envious that other schools have exactly that.

Malcolm wrote:
Then, you should study in the Tendai school, using Nicherin's works as a modifying reference.

dharmapdx said:
That's actually a great idea. Any book suggestions, websites, etc.? Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
Talk to DGA.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Yes, I did say that, not because I was advocating Vedanta, but because of the impossibility of making the mind an object.

The essay by the Dalai Lama says:
As to the question of whether or not a single mental state can observe and examine itself, this has been a very important and difficult question in the Buddhist science of mind. Some Buddhist thinkers have maintained that there is a faculty of mind called "self- consciousness," or "self-awareness." It could be said that this is an apperceptive faculty of mind, one that can observe itself. But this contention has been disputed. Those who maintain that such an apperceptive faculty exists distinguish two aspects within the mental, or cognitive, event. One of these is external and object-oriented in the sense that there is a duality of subject and object, while the other is introspective in nature and it is this that enables the mind to observe itself. The existence of this apperceptive self-cognizing faculty of mind has been disputed, especially by the later Buddhist philosophical school of thought the Prasangika.

Malcolm wrote:
Prasanga is sutra, not tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 10:35 AM
Title: Re: Sexism (from POTUS 2016)
Content:
Tenso said:
Though, let us not kid ourselves here. Most men would give away their left testicle to be with a woman like Ivanka. Can't really say the same about Heidi no matter how accomplished she is.

Malcolm wrote:
Most men are dumbasses.

frankc said:
Who invented most of the cool stuff? who are the majority of the ordained? who are the majority of scientists? How many men have died defending their family? How many men have died fighting to protect their country? How many men have sacrificed their lives for others? When the titanic went down, who was let off the ship first when men stayed on the ship to sink and die? Were there any feminists on the titanic? Maybe they weren't noticeable after twisting their short crew cut hair into little pigtails and jumping into the nearest life boat. Is anyone triggered? #thetriggering. Does Dharmawheel have a safe space?

Video with men saving people's lives. Dumbasses or heroes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDrd8ELhhvM

Malcolm wrote:
I was responding to the blatent sexism and objectification of Ivanka Trump in the observation made above. "Most men" obviously would do no such thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 4th, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Soto-zen, Dogen and reincarnation
Content:
jundo cohen said:
So, in that way, the Buddha himself implied and often directly said that "Karma" and "Rebirth" only exist so long as sentient beings in delusion see the world that way, and they each vanish when we pierce through the dream in Wisdom. Nonetheless, as the fox koan reminds us, we must continue to honor Karma, and seek the good, in our every volitional word, thought and act in this life.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is not so simple as merely deciding, on the basis of a conceptual apprehension of emptiness, that there the nature of reality is free from arising and ceasing. Sentient beings are delusion. As my signature points out, "So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity."

The point is to realize that true knowledge, the light of which dispels the darkness of delusion. Then we can talk about freedom from birth and death, and the solutions to the other primary existential questions that spur us on the path that leads to awakening.

DGA said:
Malcolm, do you use the word "knowledge " in this context as a direct translation for the Sanskrit jnana? I'm asking because this may be relevant to a parallel discussion

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=22352

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, the idea of transcendent knowledge applies here, lokottarajñāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Soto-zen, Dogen and reincarnation
Content:
jundo cohen said:
So, in that way, the Buddha himself implied and often directly said that "Karma" and "Rebirth" only exist so long as sentient beings in delusion see the world that way, and they each vanish when we pierce through the dream in Wisdom. Nonetheless, as the fox koan reminds us, we must continue to honor Karma, and seek the good, in our every volitional word, thought and act in this life.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is not so simple as merely deciding, on the basis of a conceptual apprehension of emptiness, that there the nature of reality is free from arising and ceasing. Sentient beings are delusion. As my signature points out, "So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity."

The point is to realize that true knowledge, the light of which dispels the darkness of delusion. Then we can talk about freedom from birth and death, and the solutions to the other primary existential questions that spur us on the path that leads to awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?
Content:


Wayfarer said:
and immediately got called (or got slapped down as) 'a Vedantin' for saying it.

Malcolm wrote:
You said:

Wayfarer said:
But my approach to the 'nature of mind' is different, in that I say that mind is never 'an object of perception' - it is not 'out there' and can't be known as any kind of essence, substance, or in any objective sense. It is always the 'unknown knower, the unseen seer', which is a pre-Buddhist idea from the Upanisads.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, the clarity aspect of the mind can be taken as a direct object in meditation, this is the basic practice of Mahāmudra, Dzogchen, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Why is Nichiren Buddhism marginalized in the American Buddhist community?
Content:


dharmapdx said:
Thank you. What you write here is exactly the issue I am facing. I feel that I need an "organized curriculum," and I'm envious that other schools have exactly that.

Malcolm wrote:
Then, you should study in the Tendai school, using Nicherin's works as a modifying reference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is to distinguish karmically arisen appearances from appearances of pristine consciousness.

florin said:
Isn't this distinction somewhat unnecessary ?

Malcolm wrote:
This distinction is the whole basis of Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point is to distinguish karmically arisen appearances from appearances of pristine consciousness.

Panaesthesia said:
No, the point is to recognize the emptiness of all appearances...

Malcolm wrote:
Not going to argue with you about it. But it is as I have said. All appearances are empty. Some appearances arise from karma, some do not. In Dzogchen teachings, we work with the latter, including the sound of dharmatā, which is just a "sound" that arises from your own state, for example, the sound and sights that you hear and see in the bardo of dharmatā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:


Panaesthesia said:
"Dharmata Swayambhu Nada"

Malcolm wrote:
This is Sanskrit, not Tibetan. Tibetan would be rang byung chos nyid sgra, dharmatā svayambhu śabda.

Panaesthesia said:
Thank you for the correction Malcolm. My lack of attention to details like that shows why I should stick to my own language and my own words!
"self-arising"

Malcolm wrote:
Self-arising, in Dzogchen teachings, means "arising from one's own state," rather than from "other."

Panaesthesia said:
Ok, it's not as clean as I would hope. Since there is no "one" to have "one's own state," the "arising immanently" sense of "autogenous" is a better description of what is experienced.

Thanks again, for taking the time.

Malcolm wrote:
Worries about language are at best a distraction. The point is to distinguish karmically arisen appearances from appearances of pristine consciousness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Why is Nichiren Buddhism marginalized in the American Buddhist community?
Content:
Queequeg said:
There is no organized curriculum, by any NIchiren groups AFAIK, that can provide an accessible and practical approach starting with basics through the higher levels of practice. Japan was so unstable in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries and the Nichiren community immediately after Nichiren's passing more or less struggled. Nichiren's description of the Daimoku as an amulet tied around our necks really bore out. Through those centuries of turmoil, little survived except the Daimoku. We certainly lost the curriculum Nichiren taught which appears to have been heavily loaded with study of Zhiyi, Zhanran and Saicho, and without that foundation, I don't think you can really understand him.

At this point, the curriculum needs to be reconstructed. I don't see anyone in a position to do that. SGI is stuck and lost without Ikeda. Shoshu has gone back to being their closed off sect. Nichiren Shu, while pleasant and open does not seem to have the inspiration, content to be the managers of historic temples. To the extent that they've innovated practices, it seems to be in the direction of Japanese style asceticism. Everyone else seems like they are sleep walking through the performance of the traditional rites.

Malcolm wrote:
There is also no client base. In Japan, Nicherin Buddhism was very tied in with Japanese "shamanism." Nicherin priests played important community roles.

In America, everyone wants to be a practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:


Panaesthesia said:
"Dharmata Swayambhu Nada"

Malcolm wrote:
This is Sanskrit, not Tibetan. Tibetan would be rang byung chos nyid sgra, dharmatā svayambhu śabda.

Panaesthesia said:
"self-arising"

Malcolm wrote:
Self-arising, in Dzogchen teachings, means "arising from one's own state," rather than from "other."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Re "The Rain of Nectar of the Mantras Which Pacify a Myriad of Diseases"
Content:
pemachophel said:
Thanks for the replies Loppon-la and Dharma sis Yudron. That's how I'll search for this tomorrow.

Malcolm wrote:
nad sna tshogs zhi ba'i sngags bdud rtsi'i char pa/
gsung 'bum/_mi pham rgya mtsho Volume 29 Pages 121 - 312 Open Access Work under CC-BY License. See TBRC License Policy for more information.

http://www.tbrc.org/#library_work_ViewByOutline-O1PD451591PD453352DB646812DB646821PD657051PD65720%7CW2DB16631


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Dreloma decides 487 bce
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
The 2016 issue of Dreloma, the Drepung Library periodical has a thorough article on the correct date for Buddha's nirvana.  It gives supporting evidence for and against the Tibetan, Chinese, Sri Lankan dates.  Using mainly the dates of kings of Ceylon and India, the author picks 487 bce as most likely.

Western scholars picked this date some years ago, so it was interesting to see Sonam Morup  compare all the estimates and side with the West.


Malcolm wrote:
Newest dates are 407 BCE, cf Gombrich, Cousins. This also is more in line with the accounts preserved in Dzogchen annals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
thanks! It was an amazing experience, doing that course in 2011-2012 - my only regret being that it didn't last 10 years instead of just two. At the time I had a very flexible employment arrangement, two days a week I would spend on Campus, working on my day-job from the student labs and then going to lectures and tutorials.



The Sydney University quadrangle.

Malcolm wrote:
You had it easy, my "masters" degree ( slob dpon, ācarya ) in Buddhist studies took 15 years to gain, and included a three year solitary retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Following a new Lama
Content:
Justmeagain said:
In terms of Empowerments, can they be given en masse as we see HHDL and others have done in the past? Again, I can't see there being much opportunity to sit in front of someone like D Rinpoche for a HYT empowerment for example.

Malcolm wrote:
You have to become his student.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


cloudburst said:
impressive.

Malcolm wrote:
You will see when you read it. You also have to recall that the canonical translation of the Pramāṇavārttika was made by Sapan. Phya pa's system is interesting in its own right, but it is far afield from Dharmakīrti.

cloudburst said:
sounds good

both Chaba and Dharmakirti both assert provisional views, so I don't mind if they diverge from each other, we can take what is good from both.

Malcolm wrote:
After you read Sapan, you will not be so interested in Phya pa, or blo rigs, anymore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Re "The Rain of Nectar of the Mantras Which Pacify a Myriad of Diseases"
Content:
pemachophel said:
Does anyone know who the spell the Tibetan title for this book by Ju Mipham? And/or does anyone know if it can be found at TBRC? I'd like to look at this text. I tried searching for it at TBRC and didn't have any luck since I'm not sure of the Tibetan word order and the Tibetan for the translator's "myriad."



Malcolm wrote:
It is probably the nad sngags 'bum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's absurd to assert, as Sakya Pandita does, that names don't signify anything because Buddha said "Shariputra, all phenomena are mere name". Mere name and mere appearance are synonyms, so names do most definitely signify something.

conebeckham said:
Really?  There are no "appearances" prior to naming? Are you certain?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a big problem with Gelug philosophy, pointed out already by Gorampa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
fckw said:
Interesting discussion here, thanks guys! (I'd love to hear a little more about Shaktism in comparison.)

Malcolm wrote:
The basis has an aspect of consciousness, as the Six Dimensions clearly states:
If that aspect of pristine consciousness did not exist, 
it would not be any different than the physical matter of the four elements.

fckw said:
Just one question: You are aware probably, that such logic is not valid reasoning according to Western philosophical standards, right? In Western thought you of course cannot conclude from the premise "...did not exist..." to "...would not be any different than physical matter...". According to Western thought, if something did not exist, then it could not be either different or same as anything else that does exist. (Whether a non-existent thing is same or different from another non-existent thing is an open question.)

Malcolm wrote:
The passage means that if the basis isn't a consciousness, it would be inert, like the four elements.

What is the basis? Garab Dorje states in a commentary in the Vima Snying thig:
"The fundamental basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion of each individual's vidyā."
We saw already that essence, nature and compassion are aspects of what is termed "pristine consciousness" aka ye shes or primordial wisdom.

I also want to point out, that though it may seem to some people that Dzogchen is proposing some temporal beginning to samsara and nirvana, this is really not the case. Dzogchen is not a cosmology. It is a phenomenology of bondage and liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


cloudburst said:
Whether or not it represents the system of Dharmakirti is a debate, not a fact.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it really is a fact.

cloudburst said:
impressive.

Malcolm wrote:
You will see when you read it. You also have to recall that the canonical translation of the Pramāṇavārttika was made by Sapan. Phya pa's system is interesting in its own right, but it is far afield from Dharmakīrti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Why is Nichiren Buddhism marginalized in the American Buddhist community?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Kosen Rufu was a massive goal, and at least in the 60's and 70's, even 80's, that was the actual goal of SGI. The teachings they spread were also radically, fire and brimstone Nichiren - in that any deviation from the Lotus Sutra, embodied for them in the Daimoku and Gohonzon, was an unacceptable compromise.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't forget the Nam/Namu internet war of the mid 90's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Why is Nichiren Buddhism marginalized in the American Buddhist community?
Content:


dharmapdx said:
But what do others here think?

Malcolm wrote:
The SGI I people I met back in the '80's always tried to convince me that I should chant for money and cars. Seriously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


cloudburst said:
Whether or not it represents the system of Dharmakirti is a debate, not a fact.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it really is a fact.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
you cant mix and match: you can either say the mind and the willow tree in the garden both exist, or you can say that they both don't exist, but you cant say there is a thing called "mind" which has certain qualities, but the thing called "the willow tree in the garden" does not have those same qualities and is only a projection. thats simply blatant mindism, AKA reification. Im not saying the willow tree in the garden has a mind or rigpa, just that it has the same qualities (empty and spontaneously present) as your posited minds. And the basis of both of them, and everything else, is what is called gzhi in Dzogchen parlance. This gzhi is not the mind, nor is it the willow tree. It is not emptiness, clarity, or in the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. It is no "thing", nor is it "nothing", but when an empty and clear mind discovers it, that mental event is called rigpa.

krodha said:
You view the gzhi like a Vedantic purusa.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, like brahman, or so it seems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I said the basis is a set of generic qualities of a given consciousness

gad rgyangs said:
you cant mix and match: you can either say the mind and the willow tree in the garden both exist, or you can say that they both don't exist, but you cant say there is a thing called "mind" which has certain qualities, but the thing called "the willow tree in the garden" does not have those same qualities and is only a projection. thats simply blatant mindism, AKA reification. Im not saying the willow tree in the garden has a mind or rigpa, just that it has the same qualities (empty and spontaneously present) as your posited minds. And the basis of both of them, and everything else, is what is called gzhi in Dzogchen parlance. This gzhi is not the mind, nor is it the willow tree. It is not emptiness, clarity, or in the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. It is no "thing", nor is it "nothing", but when an empty and clear mind discovers it, that mental event is called rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Dante, the term "basis" describes a state of nonrealization, nothing more.

We use the term to describe a set of qualities of what is termed "pristine consciousness." The basis is a consciousness, term "pristine consciousness, as the Six Dimensions states:
Because pristine consciousness has three aspects, 
the basis is explained in different words.
The Sgra thal gyur states:
The pristine consciousness dwelling in its own essence
is inseparable in three modalities.
Further, the Illuminating Lamp commentary on Sgra thal gyur states
the pristine consciousness—subsumed by the consciousness which apprehends primordial liberation and the abiding basis as ultimate—is inseparable in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere consciousness.
A rock in a garden is just a projection of a mind that does not recognize its own state. This is very explicitly stated of inanimate objects — they are reified out of the five lights from our nonrecognition of the five lights. For example, the Illuminating Lamp states:
The luminous aspect of delusion resulting from that is stirred by a subtle vāyu. Also, all the previous lights are stirred and obscured, such that the light’s own appearance grows dimmer and dimmer. After it becomes impure, the latent appearances of earth, water, fire, and air emerge and appear as subtle particles.
Etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


cloudburst said:
Sakya Pandita's pov is an interpretation of the original material, like any other commentary. I sincerely doubt the publishing of the Treasury is going to be particularly exciting in the way you suggest, as those who have confidence in Chaba's system will refute it in turn, as many Sakya scholars did back in the fifteenth century as they embraced the new presentation of Lama Tsongkhapa.


Malcolm wrote:
You'll see.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
but since you posit multiple minds, then you are positing a "universe" of minds.

Malcolm wrote:
And the problem is?

gad rgyangs said:
you seem to be fixated on reified minds. there are no minds, only mental events, and those of course are empty & clear. go and look for something that you are calling "mind" and when you find it, get back to me.

Malcolm wrote:
A mind is merely a label for an aggregate, just like "Dante" is a label for an aggregate. Please don't bore me with this trivia.

gad rgyangs said:
exactly. so you are singling out one particular label for an arbitrary aggregate: "mind", and calling the nature of that arbitrary label "the basis", meanwhile insisting that all other arbitrary labels of other aggregates are of things that "dont exist" (like the universe), and then you are insisting that there is a basis that inheres in your chosen aggregate-label, but not any other labels. Thats why I am saying you are an inveterate mind-reifier.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said the universe didn't exist. I did not insist that basis inheres anywhere. I said the basis is a set of generic qualities of a given consciousness, the realization of which results in Buddhahood. It is really not hard to understand and is all perfectly consistent with Dzogchen texts and teachings. Shabkar writes:
Fortunate children of good families, listen without distraction:
although the discourses of the eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dharma and so on,
taught by all the victors of the three times,
are equal with space and immeasurable,
in reality, they were taught in order to realize one’s own mind;
apart from this, nothing else was taught by the victors.

And:
All perceived appearances are the appearances of one’s mind.
The outer world that appears to be inert is the mind.
The sentient beings inhabiting it appearing in six classes are also the mind.
The appearance of the happiness of the higher realms of gods and men is the mind.
The appearance of the suffering of the three lower realms is also the mind.
Avidyā appearing as the five poisons is also the mind.
Vidyā appearing as self-originated pristine consciousness is also the mind. [106]
Negative thoughts appearing as the traces of samsara are also the mind.
Positive thoughts appearing as buddhafields are also the mind.
The appearance of obstacles of ghosts and demons is also the mind.
The appearances of gods and siddhis are also the mind.
The appearances of the variety of concepts are also the mind.
Non-conceptuality, appearing as one-pointed meditation, is also the mind.
The signs and colors of things are also the mind.
The absence of signs and non-existence of proliferation is also the mind.
Appearances without the duality of being one or many is also the mind.
Appearances that are not established as being either existent or non-existent are also the mind.
There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.

And:
This relaxed unfabricated ordinary mind
is the vast space of the realization of the Jinas free from extremes.
Frankly, my friend, I think you are a little too hung up on words.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The universe does not exist outside the minds that project it,

gad rgyangs said:
but since you posit multiple minds, then you are positing a "universe" of minds.

Malcolm wrote:
And the problem is?

gad rgyangs said:
you seem to be fixated on reified minds. there are no minds, only mental events, and those of course are empty & clear. go and look for something that you are calling "mind" and when you find it, get back to me.

Malcolm wrote:
A mind is merely a label for an aggregate, just like "Dante" is a label for an aggregate. Please don't bore me with this trivia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 2nd, 2016 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
yet he also says that through the experience of emptiness and clarity one may discover instant presence/rigpa. And discovering rigpa means, first the discovery of the inseparability of emptiness and clarity, not as experiences but as the nature of reality, and then, through that, the discovery of the basis, which, as he says, is the nature of both the individual and the universe.

Malcolm wrote:
The universe does not exist outside the minds that project it, and there is no inseparable clarity and emptiness for us to discover apart from the inseparable clarity and emptiness of our own minds. The fact that we can discover the knowledge of our own state through the three experiences proves that we are discovering the knowledge of the real state of our own minds, and nothing else. As far as the reality of the universe goes, well as Āryadeva put it, when one discovers the emptiness of one thing, one discovers the emptiness of all things, and as the Dzogchen tantras put it, knowing one thing liberates everything ( gcig shes kun grol ).

You should should also bear in mind that the experience of clarity, which is connected with lhun grub, is just an example, the same goes with the experience of emptiness, it is merely an example. This is why, for example, we don't attain the first bhumi at direct introduction (99.999 percent of us at any rate) —— that only happens if one happens to be diligent enough to reach the third vision in this life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
conebeckham said:
Anyone translating that text, Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
It should be out from LTC somewhat soon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
According to Lorig...

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, Sakya Pandita demolished that. I don't know why the Gelugpas persist in using this clumsy Tibetan system invented at Sangphu that has nothing to do with Dharmakīrti.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Perhaps because it is not a Tibetan system because it comes from Dignaga and Dharmakirti? I wasn't aware of Sapan's objection to it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the system of Lorigs (blo rigs) used in Gelugpa was invented by a Tibetan scholar named Phya pa at Sangphu in the 12th century. He was one of Loppon Sonam Tsemo's academic professors. Sakya Pandita refutes Phya pa's system utterly in the chapter on blo in his tshad ma rigs gter. Since Sapan's rigs gter has not been published yet in English, very few people are aware of this. Once it is published, it will cause a stir, because thousands of people will realize that the blo rigs they have been taught be Gelug is just Tibetan fabrication, and does not represent the intention of Dharmakīrti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
No, you are confusing the experience of emptiness (just a state of nonconcepuality) and an experience of clarity (which is not the same thing as luminosity) for inseparable clarity and emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
so what you are saying is that when someone perceives emptiness and enters the first buhmi, they are not perceiving emptiness, just non-conceptuality?[/quote]

What I am saying is that the the term "experience of emptiness" refers to an experience of nonconceptuality, where one's mind seems empty of thoughts and concepts (actually there is still a very subtle stream of thoughts and concepts). It is not the same thing as realizing emptiness, a point which ChNN (since he seems to be the only authority you accept) has made repeatedly over the years.

Likewise, "the experience of clarity," as opposed to the clarity aspect of the nature of mind, refers to a heightened sense of awareness, where, as ChNN notes, Longchenpa describes being aware of things even though they are outside of his immediate audiovisual range, such as features of the mountains behind him and so on.

The experience of bliss, obviously, does not refer to the bliss of awakening, but rather pleasurable sensations, for example, during sexual intercourse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Ngakpa Livelihood
Content:
maybay said:
You're not forced to deal with the dominant forces of the time.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell that the carpenter's union...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
I am still hung up on the water/pus/nectar.  Malcolm would you agree the appearance of such substances is the result of each individuals karma?

Also, if you say they are all equally deluded what is actually there once the delusion ceases?

And for Tsongkhapa, is the water like a blank canvas awaiting one's designation?

Malcolm wrote:
As to your first question, these are indeed karmic appearances.

As to your second question, a buddha perceives only a display of pristine consciousness, so pristine consciousness or primordial wisdom is what is "actually" there once the delusion ceases.

This is old argument in Tibetan circles. What Tsongkhapa actually argues is that the posited liquid substance  is validly divisible into six portions: molten iron, pus and blood, water as an environment, water as water, and water as nectar over which asuras and devas squabble, thus rendering all perception conventionally valid, not only in their own domain, but generally so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 7:00 PM
Title: Re: Following a new Lama
Content:
Justmeagain said:
Hi just following on from a previous thread. With the risk of sounding trite I am very much drawn to Dzongsar Rinpoche. Can one be a follower of a Lama without actually meeting him or receiving empowerment from him? I was initially initiated in the Gelug tradition but Dzongsar's teaching sing to me ☺

Malcolm wrote:
Only in the same sense you can follow someone on twitter or facebook.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
ChNNR sez:
those who are interested in the Ati Dzogpa Chenpo teaching and follow its principle must first of all train earnestly in separating nature of the mind, or instant presence, from mind. The principal reason for the need for this separation is to avoid the deviation and error that can occur when most practitioners apply the practice on the path, i.e. that of mistaking experiences such as emptiness or clarity for our real nature.
So: our real nature is beyond emptiness and clarity. That is the basis, and direct knowledge of that is rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you are confusing the experience of emptiness (just a state of nonconcepuality) and an experience of clarity (which is not the same thing as luminosity) for inseparable clarity and emptiness.

So I think you have not understood this point correctly at all. But please feel free to continue to understand things however you like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is all Dharma has to say about reality.

The rest of Dzogchen is an explanation about how minds are deluded, and how they liberate themselves. That's it. The rest is all complicated details.

mirrormind said:
For a mind that is just empty and aware the experience of something separate and concrete like an individual being must be utterly fascinating and alluring.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, kicking the chain of dependent origination into high gear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:


Queequeg said:
pardon my interruption, but if Vajrapani = Nyala Pema Duddul, that seems like a big deal and pretty relevant to my question. The exchange with Vajrapani becomes something quite different than a literal exchange like one would have with a friend at the cafe.

Malcolm wrote:
His experience is a dialogue with Vajrapani. But if we were there, we likely would not see Vajrapani ourselves. But he would.

Queequeg said:
I get that.

But, its not that there is Vajrapani, then NPD, as two separate and distinct entities. There's something more nuanced going on. Correct?

Is my conversation with you, if we were to talk by phone or over coffee or something, of the same nature?

Malcolm wrote:
It is like a dialogue of wisdom with mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:


Queequeg said:
pardon my interruption, but if Vajrapani = Nyala Pema Duddul, that seems like a big deal and pretty relevant to my question. The exchange with Vajrapani becomes something quite different than a literal exchange like one would have with a friend at the cafe.

Malcolm wrote:
His experience is a dialogue with Vajrapani. But if we were there, we likely would not see Vajrapani ourselves. But he would.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Texts like this can lead to awakening. Dune never will.

Queequeg said:
sorry to press you because you didn't answer one of my questions.

Are you saying, in reading Dune or the Avatamsaka Sutra, the ideal approach is the same - to be absorbed in the story?
Likewise, Nyala Pema Dudul's writings are a product of jñāna because was a Buddha, for real.
I will take this under advisement.

Malcolm wrote:
When reading Avatamska, one enters a samadhi on the mind of the Buddha. Frank Herbert has buddhanature, but I don't think reading Dune results in samadhi that leads to awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so you are saying that all buddhism has to say about reality is that minds are aware and empty.

Malcolm wrote:
In so many word, yes. That is all Dharma has to say about reality.

The rest of Dzogchen is an explanation about how minds are deluded, and how they liberate themselves. That's it. The rest is all complicated details.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between Vajrapani's mind and Nyala Pema Duddul's mind. The idea that the latter is reporting the words of the former, is a mere convention for mortals, but is not how things actually are. There is a reason Dzogchen tantras begin, "Thus did I explain at one time..." and only later restart with a coventional, "Thus did I hear at one time..."

Sherab Dorje said:
There is no difference between Vajrapani's mind and anybody's mind, but know we are veering kind of off track, in which case one could say that all prophecies are the words of Bodhisattva.... or Buddha... or ...yogini or ad nauseum.

For the puropses of this discussion though it would probably be intelligent to stay with the convention that Vajrapani uttered the words and Nyala Pema Duddul wrote them down for us.

Malcolm wrote:
It was NPD's vision, don't think you can really say that it was outside the dimension of his realization, i.e., Vajrapani was a manifestation of his own awakened mind. The same thing goes for my teacher's [KDL] constant visions of Padmasambhava.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
There is no getting around it. The problem is animal agriculture typically causes far more death and destruction.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697
Science of The Total Environment
Volume 536, 1 December 2015, Pages 419–431

"The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss"

dharmagoat said:
It is that simple really. If you care about sentient beings you minimize the amount of farmed meat you consume.

Malcolm wrote:
It really depends on how those animals are raised. I have seen many grass-fed operations in my region where soil has been restored by rotational grazing, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Again you are making the same mistake:  Vajrapani hit the home run, not Nyakla Pema Duddul.  Nyakla Pema Duddul merely reported what Vajrapani stated.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between Vajrapani's mind and Nyala Pema Duddul's mind. The idea that the latter is reporting the words of the former, is a mere convention for mortals, but is not how things actually are. There is a reason Dzogchen tantras begin, "Thus did I explain at one time..." and only later restart with a coventional, "Thus did I hear at one time..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:


Queequeg said:
I don't know how familiar you are with the Lotus Sutra...

Malcolm wrote:
Very familiar. Read it many times, in many versions.

My point is that the Lotus Sūtra is a product of jñāna. This immediately puts it in a different class than other things. Texts like this can lead to awakening. Dune never will.

Likewise, Nyala Pema Dudul's writings are a product of jñāna because was a Buddha, for real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
According to Lorig...

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, Sakya Pandita demolished that. I don't know why the Gelugpas persist in using this clumsy Tibetan system invented at Sangphu that has nothing to do with Dharmakīrti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
then what is the mereological relationship between the basis of my mind and the basis of your mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Does there have to be one?

gad rgyangs said:
you're the one positing multiple bases, so how do they relate to each other? or are you willing to just say "reality consists of a bunch of minds" and leave it at that?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not multiple bases, no more than there are multiple heats.

The basis, as we saw above, is just the dharmatā of one's own mind, just as heat is the dharmatā of fire. We don't say of emptiness for example, that there multiple emptinesses for multiple entities, we don't need to say that of the basis either when we understand that the basis is a generic set of attributes for all minds, just as emptiness is a generic attribute of phenomena. We speak of emptiness often without distinguishing whether we mean one emptiness or many emptinesses, because it is understood at the outset that there is no entity "emptiness" that needs to spoken of in plural or singular terms. Likewise, we don't need to speak about the basis in plural or singular terms because we can understand at the outset the term "basis" refers to the dharmatā of the mind, and not some entity out of which minds arise, or in which they are somehow located. Likewise, we discuss fire in terms of heat, we don't say that fires have heats, we merely generically declare that all fires are hot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:
Queequeg said:
I would point out, "interpretive space" is not the same as skepticism.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, but it is still very conceptual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
then what is the mereological relationship between the basis of my mind and the basis of your mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Does there have to be one?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That is a lot of intellectual jugglery. How do you keep all those balls in the air?

Queequeg said:
I'm not sure what you mean...

What's the difference in viewing the sutras (leaving aside tantras, because I have little familiarity with them) as accounts of legends and viewing them as not literally true, but not untrue, nonetheless?

QQ wrote: "I don't think a giant stupa actually, materially came out of the ground and floated up in the air while Shakyamuni was discoursing with disciples at Grdhakuta some eight years before his parinirvana. That does not mean to me that its an untrue story."

Malcolm wrote: "Mahāyāna sūtras are not history, no sūtras or tantras are. They are legends about people who lived 2500 years ago. However, the legendary though they may be, this does not mean they are not documents of events."

Are we saying something substantially different? I come around to a similar conclusion - "Such concerns just are not important."
If you ever meet such a person...
That would be wonderful.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that I don't go into an interpretive space. When I read "A great stupa floated up out of the ground," I feel a part of that space in which bodhisattvas and stupas billow out of the ground, I don't go into some space of removed skepticism.

When I read Dune however, it is different because Herbert, for all his virtue as an author, was not a buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Since the ultimate pervades them without any nature at all, it is contained within each individual consciousness.
this is very different from saying, as you do, that the ultimate is each individual consciousness

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that each individual consciousness was ultimate per se. The point is that the ultimate (inseparable luminosity and emptiness) is a generic attribute they all share, in the same way all fires share the generic attribute of heat, and so on, or that each and every entity is empty. As Candra points, all things have two natures, one relative, one ultimate. In Madhyamaka, the ultimate nature of each and everything is emptiness. This is true also in Dzogchen; but in Dzogchen, not only are all minds ultimately empty, they are also ultimately luminous. This inseparable luminosity and emptiness is given the name "one's unfabricated mind" by Vimalamitra, or as Mipham puts it:
That basis is originally pure from the aspect of lacking any proliferation, and since it is not solely empty like space, its impartial clarity is naturally perfect without being delimited or falling into extremes. Since it is the source of the appearances of all samsara and nirvana, compassion is said to pervade everything. In the Dharma terminology of the Great Perfection, the pristine consciousness that is said to be three-fold. 

Likewise, in the sūtras and tantras,  it called “the dhātu” and “emptiness” from the aspect of the characteristic freedom from all kinds of proliferation that cannot be perceived at all. [4/a] From the aspect of intrinsically radiant (mdangs) clarity it is called “self-originated pristine consciousness.” Since it does not change in aspect, it is called “original mind (sems),” “original mind (yid),” “naturally luminous mind,” “the vajra of mind,” “the vajra of space that pervades space” and so on. Even though there is an explanation with many different names, all of them are not different in meaning than dharmatā of the mind, the nondual dhātu and vidyā, or bodhicitta, the ultimate reality is like a vajra.
 
Therefore, since the so called “dharmadhātu” is not understood to be only empty, it is the emptiness that possesses the supreme of all aspects, whole and indivisible from luminosity. Though it is called “self-originated pristine consciousness,” the subjective mind that realizes the emptiness of the duality, and of subject and object, does not know conditioned signs. It is also necessary to understand that such natural clarity does not have an iota of a sign that can be designated as conditioned.

The bodhicitta mentioned in the mind series of the Great Perfection, the dharmadhātu mentioned in the space series, the self-originated pristine consciousness mentioned in the intimate instruction series, the dharmadhātu mentioned in the Prajñāpāramitā, the original mind mentioned in most of the mantra tantras and so on may have different names by virtue of their purposes, but since the meaning to understand is the pristine consciousness of that meaning which illustrates the union of knowing and emptiness, the reality of all phenomena, it is the original connate pristine consciousness. Since it is naturally settled dharmatā because it is not generated by the traces of transmigration’s three appearances, it is called the great bliss that is free from all pain of transmigration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"seeing that the display of the mind as your own state is called "rigpa."
all you need to do is remove the  "of the mind" from this sentence, and it will be basically correct, although clearer would be "seeing the display as the display of the basis is called rigpa", with the understanding that, as ChNNR says, "the universal level, and the level of the individual, the two being essentially the same. If you realize yourself, you realize the nature of the universe"

Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to remove "mind" from the sentence, since rig pa is knowledge that a mind has, apart from which, no rig pa is possible. This is the reason why prajñā and vidyā are synonymous. For example, Vimalamitra in the Vima sNying thig, among the five definitions of vidyā, which are contextual, states first that vidyā is "a clear nonconceptual consciousness contaminated by many consciousnesses." The second type is the vidyā that appropriates the basis (meaning the body) existing in the body, generates consciousness, existing within its own clarity, also termed, "unripened vidyā." The third type of vidyā is the one that exists in the basis, defined as possessing three pristine consciousness of essence, nature and compassion. The fourth is defined as the vidyā of insight, vipaśyāna, having to do with the visions. The fifth is the vidyā of thögal, here meaning vidyā at the conclusion of the fourth vision.

In the end, all five of these are just means of talking about one's own mind and it's knowledge of its own state or lack thereof, since all five of these vidyās, Vimalamitra points, are essentially the same.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:


Queequeg said:
I see where you're going with that, but I'm not at all convinced that the Lotus Sutra is a record of an actual encounter with Shakyamuni.

Malcolm wrote:
Define "actual."

Queequeg said:
You know, pics or it didn't happen.

I don't think a giant stupa actually, materially came out of the ground and floated up in the air while Shakyamuni was discoursing with disciples at Grdhakuta some eight years before his parinirvana. That does not mean to me that its an untrue story.

The Lotus Sutra more or less says that its fiction if you read between the lines. The parables of the burning house, the rich man and poor son, the phantom city, the good doctor who sends word that he is dead, Shakyamuni who was born at Lumbini, awakened at Gaya, turned the Wheel at Sarnath, and passed at Kusinagara - he says its all upaya. It presents the Buddha as saying, everything is an expedient to bring you to awakening and make you equal to me.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a lot of intellectual jugglery. How do you keep all those balls in the air?

Look, Mahāyāna sūtras are not history, no sūtras or tantras are. They are legends about people who lived 2500 years ago. However, the legendary though they may be, this does not mean they are not documents of events.

One tantra states, "The single vajra word is heard differently by those of different capacities."

Nyala Pema Dudul was a buddha. If he says he chatted with Vajrapani, I believe him. Three of my teachers are tertons. One of them (now deceased) chatted with Guru Padmasambhava regularly as clearly as we are typing words on this board. If you ever meet such a person, worries about whether the scenario in the Lotus Sūtra, etc., happened or not will vanish. Such concerns just are not important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"minds" are imputations. the presence that makes the imputation "mind" is what rigpa knows/realizes/is.

Malcolm wrote:
"Rigpa" is just a mind that is undeluded concerning its own state. Apart from that, there is no other "rigpa."

You can put scare quotes around "mind" and make all kinds of distinctions in English around words you have not defined nor clarified; but the basic reality is this: Dzogchen teachings describe how sentient beings become deluded, and how to remedy that delusion with the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
"mind" is an imputation, a conceptual proliferation. the basis is neither since it is beyond all conceptual categories. seeing this directly is called rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
No, seeing that the display of the mind as your own state is called "rigpa."

For example, how do "sense organs rise up from the basis" in the following citation from the sgra thal gyur?
since the buddhas did not become deluded,
the sense organs that rose up out of the basis
recognized the self-appearances as natureless
For that matter, how would one account for this citation as well?
In the basis, totally undifferentiated
and undefined,
consciousness is grasped as moving, vanishing,
and spreading out,
and holding taints through accumulation.
Moreover, we here have a citation from the commentary on the sgra thal gyur would adds more understanding:
In Ati, the pristine consciousness—subsumed by the consciousness which apprehends primordial liberation and the abiding basis as ultimate—is inseparable in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere consciousness. Since the ultimate pervades them without any nature at all, it is contained within each individual consciousness.
Again, the so called generic basis is set of qualities which all consciousnesses share.

Even when we get to defining sems, what does the sgra thal gyur say?
Sems enters the pure and impure
three realms, and also buddhahood.
The basis has an aspect of consciousness, as the Six Dimensions clearly states:
If that aspect of pristine consciousness did not exist, 
it would not be any different than the physical matter of the four elements.
If it were the case that the basis was single entity, there could not be separation of samsara and nirvana. How can delusion be accounted for, which is the whole reason for describing the basis? As Vimalamitra further states:
[D]elusion arises from the difference between the basis and the conscious aspect of the basis.
If the basis is some unitary entity, this conscious aspect would have to be unitary, etc., in the sense that it would there could be no diversity. But when it is understood that the basis is generic set of attributes of every consciousness, there are no contradictions which remain.

In other words, Dzogchen is describing a phenomenology of liberation and delusion, and the language around the so called "basis" is merely a starting point for discussing that which we are deluded about. What we are deluded about is the nature our own states, and apart from a stream of empty consciousness, there is no other state that is under discussion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:


Queequeg said:
I see where you're going with that, but I'm not at all convinced that the Lotus Sutra is a record of an actual encounter with Shakyamuni.


Malcolm wrote:
Define "actual."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so luminosity is not the basis, rather emptiness and luminosity are qualities of the basis, which is itself empty of both those qualities, as well as all others, including existence and non existence.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis is just your mind. Not your thoughts, not its content, etc. It has three qualities, essence, nature, and compassion.

There is no basis apart from your mind, in its unfabricated, unmodified state. If this wasn't the case, your nonrecognition of the five lights would not result in samsara, and your recognition of the five lights would not result in buddhahood. But in any case, it is just your own mind and its characteristics we are discussing. These five lights are just the result of the stirring of vāyu which is the internal movement of your own consciousness prior its self-recognition/nonrecognition.

Now, you don't have to accept the Dzogchen account of the basis and the arising of the basis, and that is just fine with me. But let's not pretend that Dzogchen has some other kind basis in mind than the one I have just described.

From the point of view of the potentiality of the basis, your own consciousness, the basis is luminosity; from the point of the essence of the basis, your own consciousness, the basis is emptiness free from extremes. This emptiness and luminosity are inseparable, and are the essence and nature of your own mind. This is all very clearly explained in Dzogchen texts, I am not sure why you have a problem with this.་

Further, the basis is only called "the basis" because one has not realized this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:


Queequeg said:
That is interesting. From a Vajrayana perspective the only difference between a work of imaginative fiction like "Dune" and this encounter with Vajrapani is that one is "pure" and the other is not. I don't think Frank Herbert ever thought the world he conjured for Dune was anything other than fiction. Is that then the same for Nyakla Pema Düddül?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is the difference between Dune and the Lotus Sūtra. One text was written by a buddha, the other by an ordinary person. You pick which is which.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 31st, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
if luminosity is empty then it is a dependent arising. Upon what causes and conditions does it arise?

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. Why are you introducing two truths through back into the conversation?

Emptiness is unconditioned, so is luminosity. Conditioned/unconditioned, this is just a mental reification.

In any case, all fires are hot, all water is wet, all minds are empty and luminous. This is not a problem.

"There is no mind in the mind, but the nature (prakṛiti) of the mind is luminousity."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
then is luminosity a quality?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, just as emptiness is a quality: that is what the generic basis is, a set of qualities which inhere to all sentient beings.

It is not really that complicated. We say that minds are empty and luminous. When we analyze a given mind (for example, our own, since we cannot examine the minds of others), all we can discover is emptiness and luminosity. These are the irreducible facts that pertain to minds. The fact that minds are empty means they are free from extremes and not monadic, or even plural entities. The fact that they are luminous means that they are not inert, like rocks, etc. We don't need to discuss these things in terms of the two truths, because there is no separation between the two truths anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: The Negative Retributions of Guns
Content:
Queequeg said:
Are these prophets actual prophets...

Malcolm wrote:
Nyala Pema Duddul was a fully awakened person, a buddha. One of the people in the 19th century who attained rainbow body, leaving behind only hair and nails.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, Jundo.

There is no one, no two, and it goes without saying that nonarising never arose.

No panicked elephants to tame. There aren't even elephant tamers.

jundo cohen said:
Sorry, Malcolm. What you say is absolutely right, yet it is completely and utterly wrong.

This world is completely empty. This world is totally full.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
If you tell me I am wrong, you are praising me for being right. Guess I can't win.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
so luminosity is a primary substance?

Malcolm wrote:
If it were, it would not be empty. It is for this reason that it is an error to say that the generic basis is only a naturally perfected ( lhun grub, anabhogana ) nature ( rang bzhin, prakriti ). If this were the case, Dzogchen would be Samkhya, basically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:


jundo cohen said:
... and thus too reality in pristine consciousness is
birth and death,
coming and going,
knowing and not knowing,
bondage and liberation
... the realization of which is liberation
...for everything arises and never arises as one,
... as even non arising does not arise.

Buddha tames a panicked tusker.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
No, Jundo.

There is no one, no two, and it goes without saying that nonarising never arose.

No panicked elephants to tame. There aren't even elephant tamers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
i meant "what is the basis of present mind?"

Malcolm wrote:
Luminosity.

gad rgyangs said:
and what is the basis of luminosity?


Malcolm wrote:
Luminosity does not have a basis, per se. It is empty. This is the reason the generic basis is described as being originally pure and naturally perfected i.e. so called ka dag chen chen po, great original purity. All minds have these qualities. The emptiness of the mind is not a basis for error, but clarity is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Vasana said:
I would just like to thank you for your Discussion thus far, Gad rgyangs, Malcolm & Krodha.
Lots to chew on, Please continue.

---

This thread "Alaya-vijnana it is shared or subjective storage?" has some useful contributions within the context of personal/trans-personal bases and the questioned legitimacy of a 'container universe'. Highlighting Malcolm's distinction between the Cittamatra and Dzogchen view in particular.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=21104

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a transpersonal basis in any version of Buddhadharma (modern innovations and misinterpretations notwithstanding).

gad rgyangs said:
then you are claiming some kind of monadology, where there are multiple entities.

Malcolm wrote:
Depends a) on what you mean by monad b) entity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
then from what are all minds generated?

Malcolm wrote:
Who says minds have a beginning? There is no presentation in Dzogchen where it is asserted that minds have some ultimate origin.

gad rgyangs said:
i meant "what is the basis of present mind?"

Malcolm wrote:
Luminosity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Getting back to Nagarjuna, perhaps that is what he was pointing to with all his fancy deconstructions.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna was not pointing to anything in MMK. If you want to understand what Nāgārjuna was pointing to, you need to read the Praise to the Inconceivable ( Acintyastava ):
One who asserts dualities in pristine consciousness
such as birth and death, 
coming and going,
or bondage and liberation, 
does not know reality. 
There is no arising from anywhere,
that is what nirvana is;
because of being similar to an illusory elephant, 
in reality,  peaceful from the start. 
Even arising does not arise, 
held to be just like an illusory elephant. 
In the same way too everything arises, 
or in reality, never arises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
mikenz66 said:
Rather than focussing on the understanding of samsarae

Malcolm wrote:
As Nāgārjuna states, "These two, samsara and nirvana, do not exist. However, the thorough understanding of samsara is nirvana."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Then the perception of the snake is a valid cognition because it is a direct perception.

Jeff H said:
Not all direct perceptions are valid. Those that are valid are valid and mistaken. Those that are invalid are invalid and mistaken.

According to Tsongkhapa validity is determined by the three criteria:
1. Known to consciousness (could include invalid perceptions)
2. Not contradicted by conventional analysis (functions according to definition)
3. Not contradicted by ultimate analysis (if it exists ultimately it does not exist conventionally)

Snake on rope is contradicted by #2.

Malcolm wrote:
The point was to show the flaw in TKF's reasoning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's true that things do not exist in the way that they appear and are like dreams, but it's incorrect to say that all perceptions of beings in the six realms are delusions. If this were so, it would be impossible to attain liberation and enlightenment. Love and compassion for example are not true grasping minds therefore they are not delusions. If sentient beings did not exist at all in the way that a snake does not exist on the basis of a rope, wishing to attain enlightenment to liberate them permanently from suffering would be a delusion and so would enlightenment.

Basically, you've gone too far.

Malcolm wrote:
Are direct perceptions valid cognitions or not?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Then the perception of the snake is a valid cognition because it is a direct perception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Vasana said:
I would just like to thank you for your Discussion thus far, Gad rgyangs, Malcolm & Krodha.
Lots to chew on, Please continue.

---

This thread "Alaya-vijnana it is shared or subjective storage?" has some useful contributions within the context of personal/trans-personal bases and the questioned legitimacy of a 'container universe'. Highlighting Malcolm's distinction between the Cittamatra and Dzogchen view in particular.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=21104

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a transpersonal basis in any version of Buddhadharma (modern innovations and misinterpretations notwithstanding).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and because there are so many difference appearances to so many difference minds (buddhas and sentient beings), the so called generic basis is just that, a generic set of qualities all minds have, but that does not mean there is a universal basis from which all minds are generated.

gad rgyangs said:
then from what are all minds generated?

Malcolm wrote:
Who says minds have a beginning? There is no presentation in Dzogchen where it is asserted that minds have some ultimate origin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
As ChNNR says, the nature of the individual is the same as the nature of the universe. He does not say there is only the nature of the individual and no nature of the universe, as that would be some kind of multiple-choice solipsism.

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by "universe?" Are you asserting that rocks have rig pa ala Jax?

gad rgyangs said:
his words not mine, in CatWoL

of course rocks do not have rigpa (since they are not sentient) but they are appearances of the basis, just like sentient beings are. if the basis is mind (as you said) and rocks appear to mind, then even if they are a mistaken imputation made on the five lights, its still the basis (appearing as your mind) making that imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and because there are so many difference appearances to so many difference minds (buddhas and sentient beings), the so called generic basis is just that, a generic set of qualities all minds have, but that does not mean there is a universal basis from which all minds are generated.

When you read Dzogchen texts properly, and forgo all the bullshit that has been imputed upon them, one can understand these things very easily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Matt J said:
I think what is confusing to some people is that all appearances are delusions. In other words, appearances are delusions appearing to deluded minds. However, while this is true, it is not the case that all delusions are the same, or at the same degree, which I think is part of Tsongkhapa's point. Mipham for one distinguishes between valid and invalid conventional cognition, and also various levels of pure vision--- accordingly, a human being's vision is more "pure" than a preta's, but still under the influence of delusion.

From the Beacon of Certainty:


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, no. You are not understanding Mipham's presentation of Gorampa's view correctly. MIpham is speaking from the POV of the human realm. Tsongkhapa argues on the other hand that water has essentially six "parts", such that each class of sentient beings' perception of a liquid substance is equally valid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
As ChNNR says, the nature of the individual is the same as the nature of the universe. He does not say there is only the nature of the individual and no nature of the universe, as that would be some kind of multiple-choice solipsism.

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by "universe?" Are you asserting that rocks have rig pa ala Jax?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Dzogchen talks about the kun gzhi, but I dont think that is what Malcolm is referring to.

Malcolm wrote:
I am talking about the term spyi gzhi, which in Sanskrit would be something samanyasthana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you want to understand Dzogchen, than you have to understand that the basis is exactly what Vimalamitra says it is, i.e., pristine consciousness, luminosity, ordinary mind, etc. Otherwise, the basis is just a blank invert voidness. How can emptiness along reify anything?

gad rgyangs said:
Of course, but when you say (earlier in the thread) "There is no universal basis in Dzogchen",

Malcolm wrote:
There is no universal basis, as such. There is however a generic basis, which has three characteristics: essence, nature and compassion. Just as all instances of water are generically limpid, clear and moist, likewise the basis for each and every sentient being is the trio of essence, nature and compassion. Put in the simplest terms, all sentient beings possess a consciousness which has the nature being empty and clear. When examined from the point of view of reducing this to the most essential point, the basis is just one's unfabricated mind, nothing more, nothing less.

The all-basis is of course the imputing ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Fair enough.


Malcolm wrote:
Incidentally, it is pointed out that the people who wrote the Kalacakra tantra clearly knew that Meru cosmology was symbolic. They weren't idiots and their math accurately adjusts the calendar for latitude (a big problem in Indian astronomy up to the 10th century). It could have hardly escaped their attention that according to Meru Cosmology, it is never possible for the sun and moon to be in the sky at the same time.

So too earlier scholars must have recognized this.

It did not prevent them from having a geocentric universe, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Ganacakras in Sarma
Content:
tingdzin said:
Bump Terma's question. Do we have Indian sources laying this requirement out? Is the requirement found in in root texts or biographies or what?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we do have such Indian sources. Look in the Ganapuja texts by Dombhi Heuruka and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Been reading it. Zen, like much of Buddhism, comes in many flavors, pure and mixed.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty sure Tibetan Chan was no less pure than Japanese Zen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
jundo cohen said:
It goes on from there ...

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html

Malcolm wrote:
Seems very straight-forward to me.
For example, the Chinese original text where it literally reads Bodhidharma faced a wall for 9 years, in the Tibetan translation of the same passage, the passage reads "faced reality." In explaining Chan to Tibetans, Chinese Chan masters often had to depoetacize their texts to make them understandable to Tibetans. Studying Chan texts in Tibetan translation is illuminating because of the (invisible) oral commentary that was required to make often multivalent passages in Chinese comprehensible to non-Chinese speakers, and it gives us a sense of use of how colloquial passages that are hard to understand were understood at that time.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Tibetan Zen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Matt J said:
Are they? I thought the "lower" forms had more obscurations which is why they suffered more.


Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand, as I pointed out above; a human's perception of water seems deluded to a preta; likewise a preta's perception of pus and blood seems deluded to a human. From the point of view of a Buddha, the perceptions of pretas and humans are equally deluded.
It is not the case that a preta's perception of pus and blood in the preta realm is a delusion. A human perception of water in the preta realm is deluded since no water exists there, even conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:


Queequeg said:
But, if I figure out the genetic basis for why a cell gets switched into a cancer cell, haven't I superseded the general observation that cancer is a cell gone haywire?

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.


Queequeg said:
Certainly does not invalidate the knowledge, but its certainly superseded.

Malcolm wrote:
No, because cells still go haywire, and treatments don't really change much. People were using chemo therapy for cancer a thousand years ago.

Queequeg said:
If I have a satelite image of the Indian subcontinent, hasn't this superseded Meru cosmology, and also kind of proven ideas about the world being a flat disc as wrong?

Again, its the biases that are problematic.

Malcolm wrote:
it just means you have a better picture, it does not mean that the basic facts described by Meru cosomology have changed (India as Jambudvipa, south of a square mountainous plateau region with many rivers and valleys, Africa to the west, Australia to the east, oceans, and so on.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
jundo cohen said:
It goes on from there ...

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html

Malcolm wrote:
Seems very straight-forward to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I don't understand setting up, say for instance, Ancient Indian Medicine against Modern Medicine in antagonistic positions. Part of the problem is that the methods of developing knowledge might not be compatible, but that's as you describe, myopia, the bias against "tradition" DGA brought up.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that people in this thread keep on using modern medical and scientific conventions as if they somehow supersede or invalidate earlier knowledge. Meru cosmology was certainly abstracted by Indians, but the basic facts of the Meru cosmology are quite evident in an Indocentric view of the world. Especially given that name Ptolemy uses for the blond and red-headed horse people of the Central Asia step land, and the Meru cosmological name for the northern continent, inhabited by such horse riding people is the same, i.e. Kurus.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:
jundo cohen said:
There is nothing in any of his writing which could be considered "straight analysis" of doctrines. He was always poetical, abstract, playful to bring out facets.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I really don't agree with this based on my reading of Dogen, albeit in translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Not so sure about that ——  he still maintained the primacy of the Lotus Sutra as the best of all sūtras.

jundo cohen said:
Ah, but his approach to the Lotus Sutra is a prime example of just what we are talking about. Dogen bent and unbent, re-wilding the already wild Lotus Sutra in order to explore all its facets in a less than "straight" way ...
Taigen Dan Leighton
Dōgen’s Appropriation of Lotus Sutra Ground and Space

The Lotus Sutra is prominent among the many sources quoted by Dōgen in his
writings, highlighting the Mahāyāna context of his teachings and worldview.
In this paper I focus on Dōgen’s use of the pivotal story in Lotus Sutra chapters
fifteen and sixteen—the myriad bodhisattvas emerging from underground and
the inconceivable life-span of the Buddha—to express his own worldview of
earth, space, and time as enlightening forces. The shift in perspective expressed
in this sutra story reflects a fundamental shift in East Asian Buddhist soteriology.
A close reading of Dōgen’s references to this story discloses how his hermeneutical
play with its imagery of ground, space, and emptiness expresses
immediate awakening, beyond stages of cultivation; he cites the inconceivable
life-span story as an encouragement to present practice.

...

A full investigation of the roles of metaphor, polysemy, and intertextuality in
Dōgen’s writing would be illuminating, but is far beyond the scope of this essay.
However, Dōgen’s use of metaphor as applied to “ground,” “underneath,” and
“space” may be somewhat clarified by some of Paul Ricoeur’s discussion of metaphor.
Ricoeur says, “The understanding of a work taken as a whole gives the
key to metaphor…. The hermeneutical circle encompasses in its spiral both the
apprehension of projected worlds and the advance of self-understanding in the
presence of these new worlds” (Ricoeur 98, p. 7). Dōgen’s playful interpretations
of the world of the Lotus Sutra certainly express a pre-understanding of
a “projected world,” and also a self-understanding, or rather, Dōgen’s particular
understanding of the inner nature of self itself, from his Buddhist perspective.
His interpretive play with the world of the Lotus Sutra, in turn, further informs
and explicates the world of Dharma and practice he is expressing.

https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2862

Malcolm wrote:
Leighton is reading a lot of things into Dogen. Part of my problem with Po-mo is exactly the kind of silliness Leighton involves himself in above re Ricouer.

What I was referring to was his simple, and not unexpected, declaration that the basic scripture of the Tendai Sect is for him, primary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They understood that...

Queequeg said:
That is some fascinating stuff. How did they come to this knowledge? That's really interesting stuff.

Malcolm wrote:
They had ample opportunity to examine people with grave wounds, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Queequeg said:
No, you're still missing my point.

Sign and signified - "Impermanence" is something we can talk about - its a concept, a descriptive of how things are. The actual reality, is beyond words, concepts - it can only be known/realized, etc.

We've had this discussion before and it went around in the same circles.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, in the end, my view is more practical, less intellectual and less abstract.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:


jundo cohen said:
I believe the point made by David Loy is that it need not be strictly analytical, and analytical is only one way to approach, penetrate and express the MMK.

Malcolm wrote:
Re David Loy, CCL. I don't regard him as a serious scholar. He more like a media pundit, AFAIC. Too sloppy by far for my taste, conflating Buddhist and nonBuddhist concepts of nonduality and so on.

jundo cohen said:
Don't forget that as his personal path, Dogen seemingly rejected for himself that philosophical tradition of the Tendai.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so sure about that ——  he still maintained the primacy of the Lotus Sutra as the best of all sūtras.

I think he left Mt. Hiei because he could not find a Chan teacher there. So he went and found one in China.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: A Tale of Two (Not Two) Nagarjunas
Content:


jundo cohen said:
What is more, in the case of Nagarjuna...

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
The MMK is strictly analytical. One should consult his collection of praises for a more "poetic" presentation of Mahāyāna. Dogen certainly would have learned about the three treatises school in China which focused on Madhyamaka while he was begin educated at Hiei-zan.

Beautiful place. I formally converted to Buddhadharma on the spot while listening to a crowd of Japanese people chanting Hanya Shinkyo in the rain, led by a Tendai priest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Queequeg said:
That's some claim. Not defending anyone's myopia, but, to claim that Ancient Indian Medical Science (more appropriate to talk about Ancient Indian Doctors) knew what modern cancer researchers do now is a tough claim to make. Not saying its not true, but I don't see it.

Malcolm wrote:
They understood that cancer was a disease in which certain cells of of the body run wild. They did not understand DNA sequencing, of course. Nor did they understand genetic switches. Cancer in general however was also much more rare than it is today. But they understood the disease in general and its many secondary causes. I study this for a living. The study and practice of Tibetan medicine is part of my livelihood. The chapters on brain injuries, injuries to the limbs, etc., are really quite remarkable for their modernity. Modern Surgery was invented by Sushruta roughly around the first century AD. His textbook on surgery (Sushruta Samhita) is also truly amazing and the implements he invented, shapes and all, are used to this day by surgeons around the world.



Queequeg said:
No, they don't change at all. All conditioned phenomena are still impermanent; all afflictive phenomena are still suffering; all phenomena (conditioned and conditioned)  are still not  self; nirvana is still peaceful.
What you are stating are more or less abstract principles. The understanding of impermanence is a wholly subjective thing, and is necessarily different from person to person, because the subjective nexus is different.

Malcolm wrote:
No, impermanence is not subjective at all.

Queequeg said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm focusing on what this means for each being, which, to me, lies at the heart of this question of modernity.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess we will have to make a safe space for people with a "subjective" understanding of impermanence, and help them pretend that the very cells in their bodies are not perishing at colossal rates, that the earth does not turn, that the seasons do not change, and that there is no birth, aging, illness and death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:


jundo cohen said:
For example, one can certainly argue that reforms allowing greater access and equality for women, and greater opportunities for practice and exposure to the teachings by lay people, allow for the first time a majority of Buddhist sentient beings to have opportunities to awaken that they were de facto denied for millenia. This is so even though allowing such a role to women and lay folks often flies in the face of traditional ways. The women and lay folks were pretty much denied the opportunity even to ask those "existential questions", let alone engage in serious practice for solution.

Malcolm wrote:
This has nothing to do with the core existential questions posed by Buddhadharma.


jundo cohen said:
One could argue that a modern understanding will remove some traditional beliefs that perhaps distract from the path to awakening.

Malcolm wrote:
The issues is not traditional beliefs (which ones specifically?).


jundo cohen said:
One could argue (and I know many will disagree strongly) that an understanding of modern brain science, human psychology and the like will actually make many of our traditional practices more effective and efficient.

Malcolm wrote:
Psychology is a gross pseudoscience.

There is some advancement in the understanding of the human brain, in terms of a finer grained understand of the relationship between sense cognitions, parts of the brain and so on, but not as much as many people ignorant of the history of medical science outside Europe would like to believe.

jundo cohen said:
I believe that many of the same existential questions that drove ancient Indians or Chinese are what drive us today. Perhaps there are more sentient beings today, practicing Buddhism more seriously and with better information about it, than any time in history.

Malcolm wrote:
Census-wise, there are far less, actually. Buddhadharma is dying. Buddhadharma used to be the largest religion in the world, it is now fourth and slipping.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the existential questions which drive it have not changed.

Queequeg said:
Indeed. I get old, sick, and die.

But how these things are understood and experienced does change - at least superficially. The cancer spreading in my body I understand to be my own cells gone haywire. Dementia is the cells in my brain degenerating and breaking down inside my skull. Pain I feel is nerve endings being stimulated. Etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing here that was not known to Ancient Indian Medical Science, though modern Western Scientific historical myopia would have you think otherwise.

Queequeg said:
Taking the body of scientific knowledge we presently have, does the approach to those Buddhist existential questions change? They do because, we can't get out of our present circumstances, so the path will have to lead from here.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they don't change at all. All conditioned phenomena are still impermanent; all afflictive phenomena are still suffering; all phenomena (conditioned and conditioned)  are still not  self; nirvana is still peaceful.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: what is "modernity" in contemporary Buddhist discourse?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Some ways will rely on traditional beliefs and assumptions more, even if modern science and understanding seem to point elsewhere. Others will reject such beliefs, turning instead to a Buddhism more informed by modern worldviews. (At one extreme, for example, there may still be those who seem Mt. Sumeru and traditional views of cosmology as how this world is physically organized, while others will come to see it as but helpful metaphor or simply some which can be done without).

Malcolm wrote:
There are several cosmologies taught in sūtra and tantra. Thus we can presume that cosmologies are something relative, which are in accordance with the relative perception of the karmic vision of sentient beings.

The goals of Buddhist practice and the existential questions which drive it have not changed. Frankly, if you don't ask the right question, you will not get the right answer, and this true also of Buddhadharma. I would argue that Buddhist modernism fails to recognize the existential questions that have driven people's motivation for practice for the past 2500 years, and seeks to replace the existential questions that drove Buddha to awaken with existential questions that won't lead anyone to awaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Here's a hypothetical: is there any difference between bogus and real? Like, bogus cures, bogus spiritual teachers, counterfeit bills, and such - are the bogus copies, and the real copies, just the same?

I would say, obviously not - therefore that the difference between bogus and real is real, or something that exists.

Yes or no?

Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, there is a difference between a perception of one moon in the sky, and two. The former is true, the latter is false. However, both cognitions are the same inso far as they are both false cognitions with respect to reality.

On the other hand, as I pointed out above; a human's perception of water seems deluded to a preta; likewise a preta's perception of pus and blood seems deluded to a human. From the point of view of a Buddha, the perceptions of pretas and humans are equally deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
you cannot connect "basis" to "something" using "is" unless the "something" neither exists nor does not exist. This qualification certainly does apply to "mind", but but it also applies to everything else. So, if you are willing to say "the basis is one's own unfabricated mind" then you can just as well say "the basis is the willow tree in the courtyard". Otherwise, you are reifing "mind" and it is game over.

Malcolm wrote:
Complain to Vimalamitra, it is his statement, not mine.

gad rgyangs said:
do you agree with his statement? If so, how do you answer my critique? No quotations please, I would prefer if you spoke from your own understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course I agree with his statement. If you want to understand Dzogchen, than you have to understand that the basis is exactly what Vimalamitra says it is, i.e., pristine consciousness, luminosity, ordinary mind, etc. Otherwise, the basis is just a blank invert voidness. How can emptiness along reify anything?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis [gzhi, sthana] is one's own unfabricated mind which is originally pure, i.e., empty. The all-basis (kun gzhi, ālaya) in Dzogchen refers to the aspect of mind which gathers traces.

gad rgyangs said:
you cannot connect "basis" to "something" using "is" unless the "something" neither exists nor does not exist. This qualification certainly does apply to "mind", but but it also applies to everything else. So, if you are willing to say "the basis is one's own unfabricated mind" then you can just as well say "the basis is the willow tree in the courtyard". Otherwise, you are reifing "mind" and it is game over.

Malcolm wrote:
Complain to Vimalamitra, it is his statement, not mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 29th, 2016 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But in reality, the perceptions of the beings of the six realms are just delusions, from top to bottom.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's true that things do not exist in the way that they appear and are like dreams, but it's incorrect to say that all perceptions of beings in the six realms are delusions. If this were so, it would be impossible to attain liberation and enlightenment. Love and compassion for example are not true grasping minds therefore they are not delusions. If sentient beings did not exist at all in the way that a snake does not exist on the basis of a rope, wishing to attain enlightenment to liberate them permanently from suffering would be a delusion and so would enlightenment.

Basically, you've gone too far.

Malcolm wrote:
Are direct perceptions valid cognitions or not?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
As to rebirth, my position is that Dogen believed in rebirth and spoke of it, as would be expected of a Buddhist teacher of the 13th century. Such was the world view of the time.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know, Jundo. He harshes out on people who reject rebirth in the Shobogenzo because, according to him, to reject rebirth is to reject and destroy the Buddha's teaching of the four kinds of āryas: stream entrants, once-returners, never-returners and arhats, and thus reject the Buddha's model of liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Saoshun said:
The view you explained may be true for tantra or closer to tantra rather to dzogchen view, or I'm wrong?

Malcolm wrote:
What I explained above is precisely Dzogchen view coming from the eleven topics of the intimate instruction series.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Oh, how I knew that was coming! Saw that a mile away.

It is one demonstration of the marvelous Siddi power of being able to foresee the future that I have developed as a Zen Master.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
If you had an ounce of kindness, you would humor me and play a game of chess, a conventional one. I am white. You are black.

jundo cohen said:
I really don't play, can't even remember what all the pieces do at this point. Happy to try Shogi or (my daughter's favorite)  "Babanuki" (like old maid, but even here a few important Japanese twists) ...

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=355967011172756&story_fbid=579379058831549

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
That is ok, jundo, you can ask anyone for help if you are not sure. Surely you are empty enough to give it a go, there are no losers or winners, its just a game iof chess.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 10:39 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4.

jundo cohen said:
Oh, how I knew that was coming! Saw that a mile away.

It is one demonstration of the marvelous Siddi power of being able to foresee the future that I have developed as a Zen Master.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
If you had an ounce of kindness, you would humor me and play a game of chess, a conventional one. I am white. You are black.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Wayfarer said:
delusion only exists relative to reality. If everything is delusion, nothing is.

Malcolm wrote:
When one does not see delusion for what it is, than one is deluded. When one sees delusion for what it is, than one is awake. If one believes that any of this is more than a dream or an illusion, one is definitely deluded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 10:25 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Anyway, thank you to all who have debated with me to this point in the thread. I did not expect it to go long thought so many pages, and so many opinions and standpoints (and standless standpoints ) expressed. Our different approaches, styles, ways of communicating and points of view have been made clear through this debate, I feel.

I hope we have come to some mutual understanding of the beauty of each others' ways and how we express those beliefs.  This vast boundless world has a place for all.

May we all hold sincere beliefs, express them honestly, but speak them gently to each other honoring the other fellows' doubts and beliefs otherwise.

Gassho,  Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Ganacakras in Sarma
Content:
tingdzin said:
A question which I believe can be easily answered without breaking anyone's samaya of secrecy:

In the Nyingmapa tradition, meat and alcohol are usually considered indispensable for tsok offerings, whatever else may be offered. (I know about the exceptions, and I am not referring to the ingredients of mendrup, and this is NOT a question to be hijacked by the great vegetarian debate). My only questions are whether this is true also in the Sarmapa traditions , and if so, does anyone know how far back the custom can be traced?

Malcolm wrote:
It is definitely true in Sakya.

Back to India.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Wayfarer said:
If everything is delusion, and nothing is real, then that describes exactly the meaning of the term 'nihilism', i.e. nothing being real.

Malcolm wrote:
When one understands that everything is a delusion, one can relax, feel at ease, and be available to help others. It may sound counterintuitive to you, but it makes perfect sense to me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Saoshun said:
Not really. Rigpa is not changed by any modification of prana nor it's less visible by lack of those.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, this is how rig pa becomes ma rig pa.


Saoshun said:
No, it's not. Marigpa was created as ccarrot for a mule to point out non existence of ma rigpa really. It's creating ignorance and enlightenment to realize that there is no really ignorance at all. It's like creating contrast, I not sure if I can put it proper in the word to show what I mean, but ma rigpa is non existent as only means to stop and look.

Malcolm wrote:
My friend, I can assure you that is indeed the case that rig pa becomes ma rig pa. And why? Because vāyu stirred consciousness and that consciousness that does not recognize its own display is ma rig pa. As it states in my forthcoming translation (Wisdom, 12/16) of one of the most seminal of all Dzogchen commentaries:
As such, knowledge (vidyā, rig pa) itself becomes ignorance (ma rig pa, āvidyā) and nondelusion becomes delusion.
And how does this happen?
The trio of the essence, nature, and compassion of the original basis becomes the three ignorances. Since the essence is made the cause of delusion, it is designated “the ignorance of the same identity” and becomes so. Once the nature is made the condition of delusion, since the vāyu of the impelling karma manifests as color, it is designated “the connate ignorance” and becomes so. Compassion is made the result of delusion. Since pristine consciousness manifests as different names, that is designated as “the imputing ignorance” and becomes so. As such, from not recognizing that knowledge and ignorance have the same cause, like the front and back of one’s hand, the ignorance of the same identical cause arises from not arriving at ultimate nonduality. The connate ignorance (arising from the preceding) is a term of duality, meaning as soon as the conceit “this is originally pure” occurs, it is inseparable from that ignorance. Thus, ignorance depends on knowledge and delusion depends on nondelusion.
And as Vimalamitra states:
The vidyā that is moved and stirred by vāyu
is subtle; its stirring is difficult to understand.

You might wish to reconsider your point of view in this light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Lukeinaz said:
So this is it?  19 pages later and you don't know if you are dreaming..

Malcolm wrote:
Relative truth is a delusion. What is the point in making a distinction between levels of delusion? For you, the delusion that this liquid is water is true; and a preta's delusion that it is pus and blood is false. For a preta, its delusion that this liquid substance is pus and blood is true; and your delusion it is water is false.

But in reality, the perceptions of the beings of the six realms are just delusions, from top to bottom.

Lukeinaz said:
Man you are fast!  You also answered nicely the question I was going to ask after deleting my first post.  False relative truth.  Is that like seeing a snake on the rope?

Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
The snake is one delusion, the rope is another, the strands of the rope, yet one more, and so it goes, like an onion without a core.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Jeff H said:
Malcolm, can you explain how that is different than what Gelugpas say? That is what I understand Tsongkhapa to mean -- except that I think he says "appearances cannot be denied" is what is meant by conventional existence.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't make much of a distinction between waking and dreaming, false relative truth and correct relative truth. The latter distinction, especially from the point of view of Dzogchen, are largely unimportant.

Lukeinaz said:
So this is it?  19 pages later and you don't know if you are dreaming..

Malcolm wrote:
Relative truth is a delusion. What is the point in making a distinction between levels of delusion? For you, the delusion that this liquid is water is true; and a preta's delusion that it is pus and blood is false. For a preta, its delusion that this liquid substance is pus and blood is true; and your delusion it is water is false.

But in reality, the perceptions of the beings of the six realms are just delusions, from top to bottom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Bakmoon said:
No one takes it up as an affirmative position, but texts do point out that phenomena don't exist, and they also aren't non-existent. Obviously taking that up as a view is a mistake but I don't think just saying the words is a problem.

Malcolm wrote:
The best way to present the view of non-Gelugpas is to state that we see things as med par gsal snang, i.e. non-existent clear appearances: non-existent, because when analyzed they cannot be found; clear, because appearances cannot be denied.

Jeff H said:
Malcolm, can you explain how that is different than what Gelugpas say? That is what I understand Tsongkhapa to mean -- except that I think he says "appearances cannot be denied" is what is meant by conventional existence.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't make much of a distinction between waking and dreaming, false relative truth and correct relative truth. The latter distinction, especially from the point of view of Dzogchen, are largely unimportant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Bakmoon said:
They don't say that dependent arisings are totally non-existent though, they just say that they are neither existent nor non-existent, and are functioning illusory appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
No one says this, because this is the third extreme.

Bakmoon said:
No one takes it up as an affirmative position, but texts do point out that phenomena don't exist, and they also aren't non-existent. Obviously taking that up as a view is a mistake but I don't think just saying the words is a problem.

Malcolm wrote:
The best way to present the view of non-Gelugpas is to state that we see things as med par gsal snang, i.e. non-existent clear appearances: non-existent, because when analyzed they cannot be found; clear, because appearances cannot be denied.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Bakmoon said:
They don't say that dependent arisings are totally non-existent though, they just say that they are neither existent nor non-existent, and are functioning illusory appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
No one says this, because this is the third extreme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Gradual enlightenment
Content:


rachmiel said:
Secondly, assuming what you say is true, why is it that almost every enlightenment experience you read about is of the orgasmic flash of total understanding variety?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, for one thing, it isn't. Tibetan biographies are not filled with this sort of thing, but usually just simply note, "during this retreat X realized X" and move on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Jeff H said:
And by contrast, doesn’t Svatantrika refute self-nature in the ultimate and yet insist that any phenomenon must have some conventional inherency which is only considered existent once a valid cognizer correctly labels it?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. All Bhavaviveka says is that in the refutation of an opponent's position, a consequence is insufficient to convince them of emptiness. They must be shown that emptiness is provable through a formal syllogism which destroys their position. Candrakirti disagrees, and asserts that a mere consequence is sufficient.

There are other things for which Candrakirtī (and later Tsongkhapa and many others) criticize Bhavaviveka, but they are inconsequential to his main point.

In other words, Tsongkhapa's Svatantra is not represented by Bhavaviveka. His Svatantra is just as idealized a school as his Prasanga. Neither idealized position exists in Indian Madhyamaka in the manner in which Tibetans since the 12th century have presented it.

It has taken some time for scholarly consensus to grapple with this, but it has gradually come around. In brief, Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka is his own. Brilliant, unique, and scholarly, but it is not a Madhyamaka that is recognizable in any Indian school. In fact it represents a rapprochement of Madhyamaka dialects with a species of Buddhist logic invented in Tibet by Phyapa at Sangphu (a famous opponent of Candra and the formulator of the system of logic employed in Gelugpa).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Gradual enlightenment
Content:
rachmiel said:
Again: Can enlightenment be a low-key gradual dawning-on without any explosive high-key kensho/satori Aha! experience?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Generally, this is how it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I just treat clergy like people. Unless they get uppity.

jundo cohen said:
I will try to follow your example from now on as a model of humility and reticince.

By the way, you can search the archives of Dharma Wheel up and down, and I don't believe I have every called anyone "uppity." That doesn't seem like right speech.


Malcolm wrote:
I didn't call anyone uppity either, but when clergy get too big for their britches, well, you figure it out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
conebeckham said:
Explain the second bit of your post, please.  How am I a Svatantrika?  This is an important distinction for anyone wishing to undersand Tsongkhapa, you know?

Herbie said:
If you believe to know what I think or know then you are actually taking your own imputation of "Herbie's knowledge" as being mine which you can only do if you take your imputation as inherently existing.

Bakmoon said:
So using inference to find out what other people think makes you a Svatantrika?

Malcolm wrote:
If this is case, then Candrakirti is an Svatantrika because he clearly invokes inference in the Madhyamakāvatara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I just treat clergy like people. Unless they get uppity.

jundo cohen said:
I will try to follow your example from now on as a model of humility.

Malcolm wrote:
You often talk about what needs to change, what should be kept, etc.

Personally, I think the whole monastic thing is on its last legs, and westerners who aspire to it are deluding themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Gradual enlightenment
Content:
rachmiel said:
Thank you, everyone. I suspect that awakening comes to different people in different ways.

So are there recognized awakened ones that have never had the explosive Aha! type of enlightenment experience?

I ask because it seems like it's a "calling card" of (alleged) Enlightened-ati: To have (and often share publicly) a dramatic enlightenment experience. In certain groups I hang out with, having experienced a life-changing "transformation" or "discontinuity" is a prerequisite to be taken seriously.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I don't take the Adyashanti/Loach Kelley/Mooji/Benito/Neo-advaita crowd very seriously.

First you figure out what awakening is. Then you set about realizing it. Then you continue in that state.

It is all very low key, no drama. Drama is for storybooks and hagiographies, usually overemphasized to make a point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
To be perfectly frank with you, it really seems otherwise.

jundo cohen said:
As I always say, treat all clergy alike

Malcolm wrote:
I just treat clergy like people. Unless they get uppity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
There are many "modern" Buddhism(s) and many "traditional" Buddhism(s) developed by people in varied places over the millenia. But in general, "modern" means to me Buddhism which breaks traditions in ways heavily influenced by modern outlooks such as, for example, allowing women equality with men despite past restrictions, greater emphasis on actual lay practice (as opposed to a role as primarily a source of Dana for Merit), and a greater willingness to challenge, reject or revise stories, teachings and doctrine due to a modern understanding of historical events or how the physical universe works.

Malcolm wrote:
This is already accounted for in Buddhist teachings through the distinction between provisional and definitive teachings.


jundo cohen said:
I don't expect anyone to believe what I say because I have some title...

Malcolm wrote:
To be perfectly frank with you, it really seems otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
No! Consensus does not overrule the rights of minorities to peaceful and non-violent beliefs within a religion, especially in a Pan-Buddhist group, I believe.

Malcolm wrote:
Bucking the consensus earns you the dubious privilege of being ignored and irrelevant.

Furthermore, when someone does ask me to explain something in Vajrayāna, if there is something I cannot express, I will be honest and direct about it, "I cannot explain this to you." I certainly do not badger people with insider rhetoric and then deride them for not understanding it, a pattern all too common in your posts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Even more boring are posts written by people who rely on their supposed authority or ordinations to bolster their opinions. Not that you care, but my preference is tightly argued and brief posts with as few citations as necessary and only when necessary.
Oh man. You can search up and down in the archives of Dharma Wheel and I would never call someone's Ordination "supposed".

Malcolm wrote:
I did not call anyone's ordination "supposed." I question it when people use their supposed authority (as scholars, what have you), or their ordinations (bhikshus, Zen preists, Ngakpas, etc.), to bolster their authority. Please read more carefully and be less reactive. Thanks.

For example, no where have I ever insisted that anyone listen to me because I have the benefit of expertise in Tibetan, have done a solitary three and 1/2 year retreat, and have been awarded an Ācarya (slop dpon) degree in Tibetan Buddhism as well as a degree in Tibetan Medicine. People listen to me because they have decided they agree with me. The people who do not listen to me have decided not to listen to me because they do not agree with me. But I would never insist that someone had to agree with me because of my credentials.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Gradual enlightenment
Content:
rachmiel said:
Does Buddhism also allow for gradual enlightenment? More like a slow dawning upon rather than a sudden flash.


Malcolm wrote:
It rather depends on what you mean by awakening. Awakening itself is the first moment of the so called ārya or noble path. This is then followed by a gradual eradication of the two kinds of obscuration. Prior to this moment of awakening, one is trying to realize the union of emptiness and compassion. When that is realized, one has awoken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
No, I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Malcolm wrote:
You were the one who invoked the definition of superstition, not I.

jundo cohen said:
It will be in the eye of the beholder which doctrines are keepers, and which are outdated or inaccurate.

Malcolm wrote:
The point, which really seems to escape you, is that we all already know this. This is the essence of studying tenet systems for example, where it is understood that Vaibhashika is superior to Pudgalavada, Sautrantika superior to Vaibhashika, Yogacara superior to Sautrantika, and Madhyamaka the supreme intent of Buddha's common Mahāyāna teachings.

However, there is such also thing as community consensus, and on such issues as rebirth, the existence of three kāyas and so on, the career of the bodhisattvas, there is here too a general consensus. For example, there is a consensus among Japanese Buddhists that their ordinands are monks. However, there is a wider consensus that they have not fit the bill as such for some centuries, and definitely not since the Meiji era. I don't pretend to be expert at negotiating these differing consensuses, but then I don't have to be. For example, there maybe a consensus among Vajrayāna Buddhists that the only path to awakening in a single lifetime, from soup to nuts, is highest yoga tantra, but in conversations with people who do not share that consensus, I don't discuss it at all. What would be the point? So I don't bring it up.

jundo cohen said:
Further, many doctrines and beliefs which may be inaccurate based on their original premise can be retained for other reasons. For example, I no longer believe that the "Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch" represents the accurate and actual words of the Sixth Patriarch "Hui-neng", if such a person in that capacity actually existed at all. Scholars have produced very strong, redundant and convincing evidence that the work was written later, is largely fiction, possibly as a bit of inter-sect politics.

Malcolm wrote:
Your example is not an example of doctrine or belief. Is there something the Platform Sūtra you dispute or find archaic, apart form dismissing its author and his hagiography as legendary and not historical?

jundo cohen said:
Jundo does not like to discuss, he likes to hold forth, lecture and scold.
Thank you. I will try not do, and instead to be more like you in the future.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this would be wise. Long posts are a bore to read, in general. Even more boring are posts written by people who rely on their supposed authority or ordinations to bolster their opinions. Not that you care, but my preference is tightly argued and brief posts with as few citations as necessary and only when necessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
I just caution followers against what may be (please have an open mind!) superstition, blind faith, ancient ignorance, misguided imaginings, myth taken as history, baseless magic and delusions posing as "Teachings" which have little to do with the core path. Please have an open mind that perhaps some of those "inner realizations" are the creative dreams and hallucinations of the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The above contradicts what you state here:
And in doing so, I will continue never to attack or demean any School, Teacher or other individual who believes otherwise.
Basically, the link you provided can be applied even to anything you might identify as "core teachings of the Buddha." Under the definition you provided, all religious and philosophical discourse is superstition. All of it. Including every single word you have written about Buddhism, Zen or otherwise. Hoisted on your own pitard, wot?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


DGA said:
Jundo, is this a topic you would like to discuss?

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo does not like to discuss, he likes to hold forth, lecture and scold.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Saoshun said:
Not really. Rigpa is not changed by any modification of prana nor it's less visible by lack of those.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, this is how rig pa becomes ma rig pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Two teachers, two different answers
Content:
davcuts said:
All I know is it would be nice to know I'm not going to spend eons in hell.

Malcolm wrote:
HHDL already said that you were blameless many times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Two teachers, two different answers
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hi Dave, you did just fine.

davcuts said:
Several years ago I was in a bad place. I sent emails to two teachers asking them for help and advice. The question I asked them was regarding samaya. I wanted to know if I had broke mine. I had been in a cult which left me devastated. I won't name the cult because of TOS of Dharmawheel. As a result I spoke out against the cult and its teacher. I created a group called the Survivors for former members of the cult. The group became a success and in September of last year His Holiness the Dalai Lama met with Survivors and even invited them to attend his teachings in India this year. I have received a lot of thanks from people over the years for creating the group. One man even thanked me for saving his marriage. When I first created the Survivors group I wasn't sure if I did the right thing. We after all where being critical of our former teacher. So when I asked for advice I was surprised to get two different answers. One teacher told me it was the wrong thing to do, and I did break my samaya. He went so far to suggest the result will be hell for me when I die. The other teacher on the other hand said I did nothing wrong. The teacher from the cult I was in had broken his samaya with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and had been expelled from his university. According to the second teacher I had no samaya to break. I have struggled with this for several years and would like to know how others feel about it. Did I do the wrong thing by creating the group? Just in case I did  send a letter to my former teacher and begged his forgiveness for speaking so harshly about him. I would like to get past this but I really don't know enough about samaya to know which teacher is correct. So any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
David


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
Heidi Cruz has a Masters degree from a university in Belgium and also an MBA from Harvard. She is a highly accomplished woman, regardless of what you might think of Ted Cruz and his policies.

Tenso said:
Though, let us not kid ourselves here. Most men would give away their left testicle to be with a woman like Ivanka. Can't really say the same about Heidi no matter how accomplished she is.

Malcolm wrote:
Most men are dumbasses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If there was something or someone of interest to me to comment on, I would, without hesitation. The person making a huge fuss here about posting in forums where we "don't belong" isn't me.

jundo cohen said:
So, is the policy that I can go into any section of Dharma Wheel and "set you guys straight" (not that I would, and certainly not that you guys would see me as "setting you straight"? ) That is not what I was told several times about how this place works. I was told to stay in the Zen Section or here because people consider my criticism and skepticism of certain doctrines and historical claims as "attacks" on their beliefs and schools. I never intend my opinions to be an attack on anyone.

Anyway, even if I could go in, I would just not go into the Tibetan or Nichiren sections and "set people straight" (not that they would see it that way). WHY? I do not meddle with people's beliefs, but celebrate them and let each person be. It would not happen. I have no interest (or expectation) of "setting anybody straight" and, furthermore, my "straight" is crooked to someone else, their "straight" is crooked to me. May we each and all walk our own straight and crooked paths.

Anyway, that is a side issue ... forget I mentioned it.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
I am  not a moderator here, and have no influence over what they do. Years and years ago I was asked if I would like to be a mod, and I said no. So, I dont set policies, have no influence. I just post and that is about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
For practical purpose, I will post where ever I please.

jundo cohen said:
You can search high and low in the Dharma Wheel Archives, and I have never said such a thing about my doing so.

But don't you think possibly that your tone might strike some as a little "bullyish"? Do you go into the Nichiren section and set them straight with your wisdom too?

(Actually, seems like maybe you sometimes do?)

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=19530&p=290900&hilit=malcolm#p290900

Malcolm wrote:
In fact, that is not a post by me there, it is a reference to someone issuing a challenge to make rain. But I have no posts in that thread.

If there was something or someone of interest to me to comment on, I would, without hesitation. The person making a huge fuss here about posting in forums where we "don't belong" isn't me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I get it Jundo: while proclaiming yourself to be free of boundaries, in fact, you really like boundaries.
I like boundaryless-boundaries and boundaried-boundarylesses. Don't you get that about me by now?

However, for practical purposes, I believe the Nichiren folks should have a little corner to do their Nichiren stuff without be going in to teach them about my "boundaryless-boundaries".  No?  The Dharma Wheel is so big, give them a little private room.

Malcolm wrote:
For practical purposes, I will post where ever I please.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Starting here, you began defending the Zen forum as if it was your personal fiefdom:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22153&start=60#p327930

Things degenerated from there.

jundo cohen said:
I believe that the Nichiren folks should have one little Nichiren corner to talk Nichiren stuff among themselves, address Nichiren interpretations and practices without me running in there to set them straight, explain their purported "mistakes" from my Zenny eyes etc. In a pan Buddhist Forum, that is the purpose of a subforum dedicated to a school, is it not?

If we want to discuss, compare, correct and criticize each others' Traditions we have this "Open Dharma" etc. No?

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
I get it Jundo: while proclaiming yourself to be free of boundaries, in fact, you really like boundaries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 27th, 2016 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, in the ordinary buddha thread, I was having a pleasant dialogue with Astus, as we are wont to do, and have done now from time to time over these many years, in many different forums, from Zen to Tibetan Buddhism and everything in between.  We never have a problem with each other, and were going along just fine until you butted in. Sure, you can butt in all you like, but your butting in was a stentorian,



jundo cohen said:
Thank you, Mr. Kid Gloves. Soft Tones and Gentle Opinions.

Malcolm wrote:
You must have me confused with someone else.


jundo cohen said:
Yes, I disagreed with you and Astus on some opinions regarding Zen teaching and practices which I felt to be partial or incorrect in the Zen Forum, and I explained my reasons. I never resorted to angry pejorative, ad hominem, said that you were not entitled to your opinion. I voiced my opinions in a discussion of Zen in which I found you had things wrong. (Oh, and I have never been inside a Tibetan Buddhist thread ever that I can recall. In fact, I don't think that I have ever commented on Tibetan Buddhism ever except to say something meant to be ecumenical like "people should respect and honor our funky beliefs who do not practice our funky beliefs, people should respect and honor your funky beliefs who do not practice your funky beliefs")

Malcolm wrote:
Starting here, you began defending the Zen forum as if it was your personal fiefdom:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22153&start=60#p327930

Things degenerated from there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
I have scolded and berated people for failure to develop the ability to engage in calm and mutually tolerant discourse in which our differences in beliefs, teachings and approaches are recognized and honored.

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, I suggest you get a mirror and look in it. In other words, you are ignoring the log in your eye while focusing on the splinter in the eyes of others.

For example, in the ordinary buddha thread, I was having a pleasant dialogue with Astus, as we are wont to do, and have done now from time to time over these many years, in many different forums, from Zen to Tibetan Buddhism and everything in between.  We never have a problem with each other, and were going along just fine until you butted in. Sure, you can butt in all you like, but your butting in was a stentorian, "WARNING WARNING WARNING this is the ZEN FORUM, please STEP AWAY from the car," like this guy:




In a word, lighten up. Jealously defending your turf while claiming to be free of boundaries is..., well, you fill in the blank. And for the record I don[t care in what forums you post.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
I am playing Shogi while you play chess. Thus the lack of communication.

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo,

You keep on holding up more than one finger, meaning you are the one who is unwilling to communicate. This is amply demonstrated by your posts.


jundo cohen said:
And the fact that you have not sat in a Zendo since 1978 and that others here have only passing familiarity shows in your lack of familiarity with Zen doctrine  and approaches to Practice (I know you will deny that, but someone who left because it did not speak to them cannot then speak to the practice of those for whom it does resonate and who "got it"  and stayed.).

Malcolm wrote:
I did not leave "Zen," I went to a Zen weekend retreat as part of a course in high school on Buddhism and Taoism. I was 16. Your assumptions are pretty funny.

jundo cohen said:
You and some others around here should learn to do the same.

Malcolm wrote:
You love being a scold.

jundo cohen said:
By the way, you can search the entire archives of Dharma Wheel, any and all posts by me ever here recently or years ago AND YOU WILL NEVER EVER FIND ONE CRITICAL OR INSULTING COMMENT BY ME REGARDING ANYONE ELSE's religious sect, teacher or their beliefs. Never, nothing like that, not one. Nothing Zip Nada. You will never find one.

Malcolm wrote:
Sigh, this is just not true, but I don't have the energy to trot them all out to you again.

jundo cohen said:
Jundo has not put forth any proposition he wished to debate.

Not true. I did! I put forth the proposition that cannot be put forth nor taken away. Yes or no?

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, you have used this thread as scold to berate others, while claiming immunity from the same.

 White King's pawn to e4.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
maybay said:
I thought we were going to have a debate.

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo has not put forth any proposition he wished to debate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You already disqualified yourself from the discussion, namely: "I am neither a Gelug follower nor a buddhist..."

Herbie said:
Well then ... if this is your legitimation for being disruptive in the Gelug forum then I have already learned something important about another aspect of Tibetan buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not being disruptive at all. Debate is a time honored tradition in Tibetan Buddhism. Trust me, in debate courts in Tibet, they don't have signs saying, "Only Gelugs allowed."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
You know, I have not actually played chess in 30 years.

Malcolm wrote:
That's ok, I have not sat in a Zendo since 1978. (that's not completely true, I went to one in 1988, but to hear a Shingon priest, not to sit Zazen).

White King's pawn to e4.



jundo cohen said:
Chess or shogi, both beautiful games though the rules differ.

Malcolm wrote:
You initially posted a picture of a small boy taking on chess masters. So, while I sure shogi is fun, we are playing chess.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
heart said:
To me it seems like you are the main irrational "we vs they" poster in this thread.

Herbie said:
Hmh ... I am one and I am neither a Gelug follower nor a buddhist but I am interested in a philosophy which has been developed in buddhist context, namely Tsongkhapa's Prasangika.

heart said:
Malcolm questions everything, in any tradition, that doesn't accord to his own thinking. Everyone that been on this forum knows this. Surprise, he don't agree with everything Tsongkhapa said.

Herbie said:
Well but I understand that this is the Gelug section of this forum, not a general section, and that this is the place to learn the meaning of Tsongkhapa's philosophy. I think that this should be respected and not disrupted.

Malcolm wrote:
You already disqualified yourself from the discussion, namely: "I am neither a Gelug follower nor a buddhist..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
But the Buddhaboard without boundaries or win and lose, One Piece holding all Pieces, each movement still and still movement, is True too. No birth or death, no north south east west, nothing to gain and never a loss possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, King's pawn to e4 (since you ceded white already by asking others to go first).

jundo cohen said:
Your technique

Malcolm wrote:
There is no technique here, Jundo. Just a simple game of chess. White King's pawn to e4.
e4.jpg (11.95 KiB) Viewed 136 times
Oh, and I am still holding up one finger. How many you are holding up?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
But the Buddhaboard without boundaries or win and lose, One Piece holding all Pieces, each movement still and still movement, is True too. No birth or death, no north south east west, nothing to gain and never a loss possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, King's pawn to e4 (since you ceded white already by asking others to go first).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:



Johnny Dangerous said:
Too many people let their anger at Trump himself (legitimate, he's disgusting) distract from the bigger picture: the political setup that created him. His supporters might be wrong, but they have real grievances, and people like Brooks have been living in la la land for so long, it comes as a shock to them.

frankc said:
You just called another sentient being disgusting.

Are there any Anti Trump people here that can provide a quote of a single "disgusting" thing he has ever said?

Malcolm wrote:
His call for torturing muslims, hus depicting Mexicans as rapists, etc, you nane it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
11108870_10207811098409266_840563682120970064_n.jpg (55.02 KiB) Viewed 1472 times


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:31 AM
Title: Re: Extremist Buddhism / Bad Press Buddhism
Content:
Bhikkhu_YinRi said:
Has anyone heard of any Extremist Buddhists?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, in Tibet, Myanmar and Shri Lanka


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
You may think I am ducking...

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed you are. King's pawn to e4.

I am still holding up one finger. How many are you holding up? (No, this is not a Zen question, I would not even attempt it.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Bodhisattvabhumi (Tsadra) Hardcover – March 8, 2016 by Asanga (Author), Artemus B. Engle (Translator)
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Malcolm,

Have my copy now and already am quibbling.  On the page before the Introduction is a Tibetan verse from Je Rinpoche that mentions Buddha, Ajita and Asanga.  The last line translates as "I pray for blessings to these three..."

Who or what would send blessings to those three?  Should the 'to' be 'of' or 'from'?

Malcolm wrote:
He might have worded it a little better, "I pray to these three for blessings..."

A seriously minor quibble.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am holding up one finger. How many are you holding up?

jundo cohen said:
Which finger is that?

Malcolm wrote:
It does not matter which finger it is, but the sake of discussion, my index finger.

Now then, how many fingers are you holding up?

King's pawn to e4.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
You see, perhaps you are a prisoner of your own mind. You don't see that the board is boundless, and you have great freedom to make this game.

Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4. Perhaps you are a prisoner of your own expectations.

jundo cohen said:
Malcolm, seriously answer my question: What would a chess board with no boundaries, no squares, one Piece Peace Buddha that moves freely and covers all positions at once look like? How can you win? What would be captured?

(Seriously, answer these questions. Can you?)

You seem tongue tied to answer. Try.

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, you are not paying attention. I did answer your question.

jundo cohen said:
It would not be chess, and it would not be a game.

Malcolm wrote:
I am holding up one finger. How many are you holding up?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
You see, perhaps you are a prisoner of your own mind. You don't see that the board is boundless, and you have great freedom to make this game.

Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4. Perhaps you are a prisoner of your own expectations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


jundo cohen said:
Malcolm, seriously answer my question: What would a chess board with no boundaries, no squares, one Piece Peace Buddha that moves freely and covers all positions at once look like? How can you win? What would be captured?

Malcolm wrote:
It would not be chess, and it would not be a game. King's pawn to e4.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
PS - Malcome knows that the safest driving is never to take the car out of the garage.

Malcolm wrote:
It's Malcolm, not Malcome.

Yes, you seemed to have digested that lesson, nevertheless, King's pawn to e4. My car is out of the garage, now it's your turn.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, you need to move some pieces out of the way before you can move a rook, like the rook's pawn or a knight.

jundo cohen said:
Not with the Buddha's chess set!

Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Rook to i9.

Is that the best ya got?

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, you need to move some pieces out of the way before you can move a rook, like the rook's pawn or a knight.

dharmagoat said:
Not this rook, it has transcended the chessboard.

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to play chess, you have to play by the rules. Similarly, if you want to debate, there are also rules.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hmmm. No takers? I did not think that debating a little Zen fellow would be that scary!

My head rests on the chopping block. Give er a shot. I say it can't be cut in two.

Open to any Buddhist topic or any topic, the sky is the limit.

Gassho, J

PS - Near bedtime here in Japan, but I will check back in the morning.

Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4

jundo cohen said:
Rook to i9.

Is that the best ya got?

Gassho, J

Malcolm wrote:
Jundo, you need to move some pieces out of the way before you can move a rook, like the rook's pawn or a knight.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 26th, 2016 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hmmm. No takers? I did not think that debating a little Zen fellow would be that scary!

My head rests on the chopping block. Give er a shot. I say it can't be cut in two.

Open to any Buddhist topic or any topic, the sky is the limit.

Gassho, J

PS - Near bedtime here in Japan, but I will check back in the morning.

Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Queequeg said:
And where do I suggest these things should not be considered? This is implicit in my comment. My point is, right now, the United States is a ridiculously armed actor that is itself enthralled in fear. Letting another 9-11 type attack happen would do nothing to break this cycle of violence here and abroad.

Malcolm wrote:
We can't really prevent another major attack without resorting to draconian and fascist policies. Ala, the surveillance sate in which we live now.


Queequeg said:
We need pacification so that we can get our bearings as a country.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, so lets inflict more violence. That has worked so well so far.


Queequeg said:
When you say "we should start by...", certainly you don't mean that we should be dropping all the other rational efforts demanded by the exigencies of the moment. We should definitely be pushing back against the neo-con agenda, but we also can't stand by doing nothing while states around us fail, and Honduras is by objective measures, failing.

Malcolm wrote:
We should not be meddling in the affairs of other nations at all.


Queequeg said:
Europe is getting flooded with migrants because states in the middle east and Africa are failing; the us is flooded with migrants because states in Latin America are failing. The reasons are many, but you can't deny what's happening, and we have to deal.

Malcolm wrote:
US is hardly being flooded with illegal migrants. Illegal immigration has been a net 0 for some years.

Queequeg said:
BTW, there is no "restraining" these neo-con/neo liberaral voices. That is not how we do things, at least if we want to still be American in the best sense of that handle. Our fellow Americans are woefully uneducated, uninformed. That is where we need to start if we want to "restrain" these other voices.

Malcolm wrote:
By restrain, I mean legislatively, in the sense of not voting for their policies and candidates.



Queequeg said:
Sure. But as is implicit in your comment, you still need to address the symptoms.

Malcolm wrote:
Treating people like human beings, rather than as "others" is the place to start.


Queequeg said:
As for getting at this cause... that book they fetishize is a problem. Only their own clerics can address its interpretation. We, of course, could present our own views and convince them that their book fills their heads with wrong views... that would require engagement that I'm not convinced almost anyone is interested in, aside from atheists who just push their shallow materialism and gentle nihilism. Seems to me, some folks, maybe the type who congregate around this watercooler, might ought to feel compelled to do a little more about these wrong views.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't need to do that at all. Koranic interpretation is complex. We can, from a theoretical point of view, consider their religion "wrong view." But that is not our business.

But really what we need to sell them on is that liberal democratic values will help them maximize their potential as people. This is what most of the 3.2 million Muslims in the US understand, and the reason why they are here. And we need to stopping messing with the Middle East, stop supplying Israel with money until they agree to a two state solution, etc.


Queequeg said:
Nope. Just an observation there are people who seem to be uninterested in rooting out wrong views.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, it is not our business. We need to be more open and less racist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Sorry for any confusion - I am not saying that a valid mind depends upon a valid object and vice-versa. What determines whether an object is valid or not is the cognizer that apprehends it. Mind is primary. What I meant was, there is no mind without and object and no object without a mind, thus they mutually depend upon each other; you cannot have one without the other, otherwise mind would inherently exist as the Chittamatrins assert because it wouldn't depend on anything.

Malcolm wrote:
They don't assert this.


Tsongkhapafan said:
Although it is true that dreams awarenesses and gross waking minds do not differ in the sense that the dream is a mere appearance to the dreaming mind and the waking world is a mere appearance to the gross waking mind, we cannot say that the consciousness of living beings is wholly invalid when compared with the consciousness of a Buddha. Chandrakirti says that anything imputed by worldly people in dependence upon a valid name ­ should be realized without investigation to be existent in just the same way as they are spoken of by worldly people.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a big caveat there, "without investigation."

Tsongkhapafan said:
Buddha accepted all these things just as worldly people impute them. He would never argue with worldly people about what they realize with their valid cognizers.

Malcolm wrote:
It would be like telling a person in a dream that they are merely having a dream. It only works after they have woken up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Compassion practice in Zen
Content:
jundo cohen said:
but I sometimes wonder if the present emphasis on "Compassion" and "Loving Kindness" and such in its present form is truly how such were taught in Asia...

Malcolm wrote:
In Tibet, most definitely. We have volumes and volumes written about it. It is an integral part of the extensive training in bodhicitta found in the Kadampa school's mind training.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
It's true that there is nothing there that makes it a functioning chair. It exists and functions because it is merely imputed by a valid mind. As you say, a hallucination is not a functioning thing but a non-existent, however the hallucinating  mind is a functioning thing - it functions to confuse and to fool us into believing that a chair exists where it does not.

Malcolm wrote:
Which all entails that you believe chairs have some separate existence apart from our imputation of "chair" on some mental appearance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Let's Debate! :-)
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Note to Moderators: Please give this thread a chance, as I promise you that it will remain peaceful, pleasant, mutually respectful and informative on my part by me, and I know by everyone involved as well. Let's see what happens, just for frolic and coming to appreciate our varied ways! I assure you that this is going to be something quite powerful and beneficial for mutual understanding.

It was suggested that some folks would like to debate, your beliefs and Zen doctrines (at least through my lips). Why not? It might be good. So, please debate me. Nothing to lose. Whatever happens, okay by me.

I will let any of you pick the subject, state your premises and argue your case. Then I will respond. You can pick any point or topic you wish within Buddhism (or, for that matter, any matter). I am game.

There are only two rules: Remain civil, comrades in the Dharma. Gentle language, let us treat each other with respect. Second, do not discuss or debate among yourselves. You are all playing against only me, the Soto Zen guy, like in one of those group chess matches. You can make the first move. Anything you like. I am open to any subject, and I assure you that I will be very serious and sincere in my responses.



I predict we will all be left better for this.

I know that there was a famous debate in Llasa a few years ago. Who won that one seems to depend, say scholars, on who you ask and which version you read. Maybe this one too?

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=CJ8DCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=tibetan+zen+debate+won+version&source=bl&ots=2wlDd4RJxR&sig=2lzGDQ2UhTTFiwdQ17ih_or0bqM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi39evU79vLAhWFdKYKHWl3C0oQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=tibetan%20zen%20debate%20won%20version&f=false

Gassho, Jundo


Malcolm wrote:
King's pawn to e4.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
You're talking nonsense Malcolm. Of course there is a difference between a conventional truth and a delusion. A conventional truth is an object of a valid mind and exists and functions, a hallucination cannot; you can't actually sit on a hallucination of a chair because it's not an object of a valid mind and so if you can sit on it, it's not a hallucination.

Malcolm wrote:
How is a valid mind established as valid? Does the object make it valid?

M

Tsongkhapafan said:
The definition of valid cognizer is a cognizer that is non-deceptive with respect to its engaged object. Conventionally, if the mind is valid the object that it perceives is also valid and exists, and mind and object are mutually dependent.

Malcolm wrote:
If you assert, as you are, that a valid cognizer depends on a valid object, and that a valid object depends on a valid cognition, the consequence of this is two fold: a valid object will always be valid, irregardless of whether it is cognized or not, because it determines whether or not the cognition that perceives it is valid or not. A valid cognizer will always be valid irrespective of whether it's object is delusive or nondelusive because its validity is what makes the object valid.

For example, in a dream, appearances seem valid. We react to them as if they are valid. We only determine dream appearances to be invalid when we wake. How is waking consciousness actually different than a dream consciousnesses? Unlike a dream, we have no outside reference to judge its validity. However, our waking consciousness is merely a dream as well, and when compared with the consciousness of a Buddha, is found to be wholly invalid.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Queequeg said:
Somethin is happening here. What it is aint exactly clear.

Malcolm wrote:
On the contrary, it is very clear. This is all 1) a backlash of European colonialism 2) failed US foreign policy 3) Failed European domestic policies.

Queequeg said:
The point is, something serious is happening, some really deluded people are running around doing some horrible things, and we need to stop it before they do something really big and set certain reactions in motion that would make things even worse. I do not trust my fellow Americans to take another major attack on the chin without overreacting irrationally.

Malcolm wrote:
We should consider 500,000 children dead from the Iraq embargo, etc. We should consider the on million Iraqis who died in the second Gulf war. We should consider the millions of Iraqis and Iranians who died in a proxy war against Iran Iraq fought for the US. Compared to the losses of Muslims in the Middle East, our losses amount to nothing.

Queequeg said:
Like dealing with deluded beings, often there is nothing to do but try to restrain them and hope they come to their senses.

Malcolm wrote:
We should start by restraining the neoconservative voices in our own government who are addicted to a continually and demonstrably disastrous program of regime change, Honduras being but the latest example.


Queequeg said:
There is a pathology getting passed around like the clap in the Muslim community, and until they deal with it, we can't do much besides defend ourselves.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an excessively parochial view. It merely looks at symptoms, rather than causes. As any physician will tell you, you cannot treat a diseases merely through addressing its symptoms.


Queequeg said:
I am not convinced that they're committed to rooting this pathology out.

Malcolm wrote:
Blame the victim?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Then it's not a wrong awareness but a conventional truth.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus you have admitted there is no difference between conventional truth and delusion, and that the entire edifice of your philosophy is built on a house of cards.

Tsongkhapafan said:
You're talking nonsense Malcolm. Of course there is a difference between a conventional truth and a delusion. A conventional truth is an object of a valid mind and exists and functions, a hallucination cannot; you can't actually sit on a hallucination of a chair because it's not an object of a valid mind and so if you can sit on it, it's not a hallucination.

Malcolm wrote:
How is a valid mind established as valid? Does the object make it valid?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Then it's not a wrong awareness but a conventional truth.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus you have admitted there is no difference between conventional truth and delusion, and that the entire edifice of your philosophy is built on a house of cards.

Lukeinaz said:
That's a bit much...

Malcolm wrote:
Show the flaw in the reasoning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Thus it is the object of a valid mind whereas a chair that is hallucinated cannot perform the function of chair and is a wrong awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
It can if you hallucinate that you are sitting in it.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Then it's not a wrong awareness but a conventional truth.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus you have admitted there is no difference between conventional truth and delusion, and that the entire edifice of your philosophy is built on a house of cards.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But it is not our politics, it is European politics, and has everything to do with the fact that the French and the Belgians initially did not mind here is an international war raging

Queequeg said:
No, there really isn't. Terror is not war.
and if we don't take precautions, people within our borders get killed,
Far more people are killed in the US by right wing terrorists every year than by terrorists who are nominally "muslim."

and that, notwithstanding all the hypocrisy involved in turning a blind eye to the violence beyond our borders and being a major player in the violence, is not good for the situation... Exhibit A: 9-11, we all see how a major attack in NYC got Americans gassed up and pissed, irrationally leading to a war across the whole middle east.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, an attack, warnings of which our incompetent president ignored.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Saoshun said:
Thögal, indeed all of Dzogchen teaching, is not about yogic technique — it is a systematic approach to liberation based on a comprehensive understanding of the Dzogchen account of how one's consciousness effortlessly trapped itself and how it may effortlessly frees itself from the very same trap.

That's it! And this moment conversation should stop and to start cultivation because this explanation is crystal clear.

Malcolm can you relate about support (or supplemental) practice to dzogchen like yantra yoga? Because we have the view or theory and so to speak practice.

I mean I would like to know connection between those two especially dzogchen and yantra yoga.

Malcolm wrote:
Because our mind is stirred by wind, it seeks outside its own state, because it seeks outside its own state, it reifies the five elements; because it reifies the five elements, it takes on bodies. Therefore, to control the mind, control the wind, to control the wind, control the body.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Thus it is the object of a valid mind whereas a chair that is hallucinated cannot perform the function of chair and is a wrong awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
It can if you hallucinate that you are sitting in it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
fckw said:
I'm not sure I agree that Dzogchen is not (also) about yogic techniques.

Malcolm wrote:
If you (generally) don't understand the basic theory underlying these things, how they are essentially just a method of reversing dependent origination, you will just continue in samsaric obsessions.

In other words, without understanding the theory, these things you mention are useless and don't lead anywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
running-away.png

Queequeg said:
Actually, many of the actual actors are migrants and the children of earlier migrants, but let's not let facts complicate our politics.

If only this problem were as simple as the reactionary right and reactionary left make it out to be.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is not our politics, it is European politics, and has everything to do with the fact that the French and the Belgians initially did not mind Muslims traveling to Syria to take down Assad.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Mere chairs that arise due to causes and conditions and cannot be found upon investigation do exist....

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha, you do realize there is an inherent contradiction in your statement.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
fckw said:
But beyond that the two systems indeed look very similar to me in terms of philosophical approaches. Practice might be different though - or maybe not even. I was surprised to read somewhere in this forum the claim that the Vijnana Bhairava (with which I'm not familiar) apparently contains references to practices similar to Tögel. Of course we can always claim that a certain practice is "not exactly" the same as another one, but such an argument is really futile. Just look at the enourmous amount of various tantric texts in Vajrayana, where each and every text says something slightly different than the other one.

Malcolm wrote:
Thögal, indeed all of Dzogchen teaching, is not about yogic technique — it is a systematic approach to liberation based on a comprehensive understanding of the Dzogchen account of how one's consciousness effortlessly trapped itself and how it may effortlessly frees itself from the very same trap.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis of the universe in Trika is Shiva, who really exists, and so everything which comes from Shiva really exists. This point is made very clear by Lakshmanijoo in his critique of Advaita Vedanta.

fckw said:
Can you please point me to a resource, where Lakshmanjoo makes this critique? I'd be interested to read this up.

Malcolm wrote:
The third area of difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the essence, the substance, the basis of this universe. Vedānta holds that this universe is untrue, unreal. It does not really exist. It is only a creation of illusion (māyā). Concerning this point, Kashmir Śaivism argues that if Lord Śiva is real, than how could an unreal substance come out from something that is real? If Lord Śiva is real, then His creation is also real. Why should it be said that Lord Śiva is real and Hs creation is an illusion (māyā)? Kashmir Śaivism explains that the existence of this universe is just as real as the existence of Lord Śiva. As such, it is real, pure, and solid. This is nothing about it at all which is unreal."
-- pg. 104, Kashmir Shaivism, The Secret Supreme; 1st Books,  2000.

In Dzogchen it is held that the appearance of the universe is caused by the imputing ignorance which is a result of the neutral awareness at the time the basis arises from the basis not recognizing its own appearances as being its own state. Needless, to say, that mind is also empty, and lacks any nature or inherent existence. That mind is also individual, which accounts for why Samantabhadra woke up at the time the basis arose from the basis, and sentient beings did not.

In short, the foundation of Dzogchen teachings is the Buddha's teaching of the five elements, five aggregates, emptiness, dependent origination,etc.; while the foundation of Kashmir Shaivism is Samkhya, with an added eleven principles on top of Samkhya's original 25, in addition to asserting there is only one universal puruśa, Śiva, as opposed to Samkhya's assertion that there are infinite individual puruśas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
DGA said:
getting more specific, here are the parallels (which are not identities--he is not saying they are the same, but somehow similar) Reynolds claims
Here there are some philosophical parallels with Dzogchen. Although the Tibetan term rtsal, “energy, potency, potentiality”, is never glossed as Shakti in the Dzogchen texts, the conceptions embodied in these two terms are quite similar. The Dzogchen term rig-pa’i rtsal, “the potency or energy of awareness”, could almost be translated as Vidyashakti, which is a technical term found in the Shaiva and Shakta systems. It refers to the energy inherent within the primordial non-dual Awareness which gives rise to the diversity of manifestations. Also, the term for “manifestation” or “appearance” (snang-ba, abhasa), is found in a similar context in both systems.
Malcolm has dismissed the idea of a "primordial non-dual Awareness which gives rise to the diversity of manifestation."

OK, but what about the parallel of rig-pa'i rtsal and Vidyashakti?

Malcolm wrote:
What about prajñā in Hinduism and prajñā in Buddhism. Are they saying the same thing? Do they have the same meaning? What exactly is "vidyāshakti"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 7:56 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


Vasana said:
"The nonduality of masculine and feminine completely permeates all beings"

Malcolm wrote:
This translation is incorrect. It is from this passage:
Samantabhadri is the unrestricted vast sphere.
Vast Samantabhadra is displayed to all.
Samantabhadra father and mother have a non-dual single form. 
The state of Samantabhadri endowed with the meaning of realization
arises as every diversity since her unchanging bhaga is vast. 
The whole universe is included in her bhaga. 
The bhaga of the mother is the field of great emptiness. 
The non-dual form of the father and mother totally pervade migrating beings.

Vasana said:
Thanks for your translation Malcolm.

Are Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri ever referred to in connection with the 3 principal channels and sutble-body in the same way that Shiva/Shakti are?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is a different principle altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: Non Duality, its Function and Practice.
Content:
DGA said:
Dancer and dance are nondual.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't have to dance, as Nāgārjuna might put, "...apart from someone who has danced or has not danced, there is no present dancing."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Non Duality, its Function and Practice.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Perhaps there is a tendency around Dharma Wheei for people from other fine Traditions to rush into the Zen section and tell us what we should respond, and to answer questions asked from a Zen view? The opposite direction seems frowned upon?

Malcolm wrote:
No, there is a tendency for people to ignore sections altogether and just answer whatever topic they see first. It has nothing to do with Zen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Because I provided the Sanskrit to prove it.

Herbie said:
Being a Svatantrika at best you feel as if proving something.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, not, I am not a svatantra proponent.
If I had a thesis, I would be at fault. 
As I alone have no thesis, I alone am without fault.
-- Vigrahavyavartani.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not my interpretation. If you look at the Sanskrit you will see that this is so.

Herbie said:
That shows exactly that it is your interpretation. How could you otherwise argue in English language about something written in Sanskrit?

Malcolm wrote:
Because I provided the Sanskrit to prove it. You seem to be making the irrational argument that you cannot translate texts or thoughts.

Worse, you are not actually arguing Tsongkhapa's point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Mala's
Content:
Terma said:
Where do you buy yours from? I am in Canada so I would prefer a reliable company with reasonable shipping fees.

I would like a decent quality mala, as I know I can buy them in various shops near by me.

I know certain kinds of mala's should be used for certain practices and not for other practices.

Any suggestions from past experience?


Malcolm wrote:
The universal all around māla which may be used for all practices is the bodhiseed mala. This a fine māla. It is not too expensive.

http://www.garudashop.com/Polished_Nepalese_Bodhiseed_Mala_9_to_9_5_mm_p/mala003575.htm

Terma said:
Thanks, Malcolm.

I would like one with dividers for recitation purposes.

Are coral mala's recommended?

Malcolm wrote:
You can add dividers. Coral malas for power, mainly. But given how they are made, and the depletion of the world's coral stocks, etc. I would not buy one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 24th, 2016 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Mala's
Content:
Terma said:
Where do you buy yours from? I am in Canada so I would prefer a reliable company with reasonable shipping fees.

I would like a decent quality mala, as I know I can buy them in various shops near by me.

I know certain kinds of mala's should be used for certain practices and not for other practices.

Any suggestions from past experience?


Malcolm wrote:
The universal all around māla which may be used for all practices is the bodhiseed mala. This a fine māla. It is not too expensive.

http://www.garudashop.com/Polished_Nepalese_Bodhiseed_Mala_9_to_9_5_mm_p/mala003575.htm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Non Duality, its Function and Practice.
Content:
jundo cohen said:
...yet not asking the question leaves one speechless.

Malcolm wrote:
This is usually better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna defines dependent or extrinsic existence (parabhāva) as a species of inherent existence (svabhāva).

Herbie said:
This is your interpretation.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not my interpretation. If you look at the Sanskrit you will see that this is so.
svabhāvaḥ parabhāvasya parabhāvo hi kathyate||3||

svabhāvaparabhāvābhyāmṛte bhāvaḥ kutaḥ punaḥ|

svabhāve parabhāve vā sati bhāvo hi sidhyati||4||

bhāvasya cedaprasiddhirabhāvo naiva sidhyati|


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no universal basis in Dzogchen. The view of Dzogchen is emptiness.

fckw said:
Reading this again, maybe what you mean is that in Shaktism the "universal basis" you mention is seen as a substantial essence, whereas in Dzogchen what is termed Kun Zhi is without substantiality, i.e. it is empty?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis of the universe in Trika is Shiva, who really exists, and so everything which comes from Shiva really exists. This point is made very clear by Lakshmanijoo in his critique of Advaita Vedanta.

When I say there is no universal basis, I mean that there is no basis taught in Dzogchen which is ontologically real, singular, and overarching. The basis [gzhi, sthana] is one's own unfabricated mind which is originally pure, i.e., empty. The all-basis (kun gzhi, ālaya) in Dzogchen refers to the aspect of mind which gathers traces.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Lung disorder
Content:


Miroku said:
That's why I'd like to ask if anyone of you had any experience with developing lung disorder and how did you treat it? Also what would you recommend to prevent lung from happening? What kind of behaviour in daily life can cause it? And in general I'd like to ask you to share some of your info and experience concerning this topic.

Malcolm wrote:
You follow vatta reducing diet and behavior.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Caodemarte said:
Similarly, if you separate  "ignorance" and "wisdom" into rigid separate, opposed, real categories  (except by acknowledging that you are doing so artificially and conventionally for ease of speaking) you are not following a Mahayana Buddhist path.

Malcolm wrote:
Virgo is coming from a tradition where before one can even really begin to say one is practicing the main point, first one has to distinguish the mind (sems, citta) from pristine consciousness (ye shes, jñāna). One must also learn the distinction between ignorance (ma rig pa, avidyā) and knowledge (rig pa, vidyā, usually mistranslated as "awareness" by translators of Tibetan texts.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
This is exactly what dependent existence is because everthing that is imputedly existent is dependently existent, i.e. dependent on imputation.

Malcolm wrote:
Herbie, there are four terms at word here at work here: svabhāva, parabhāva, bhāva and abhāva.

Nāgārjuna defines dependent or extrinsic existence (parabhāva) as a species of inherent existence (svabhāva).

As I pointed out to you already, bhāva (existence) is included in svabhāva.

Nāgārjuna is saying that if you cannot prove or establish svabhāva, you cannot prove bhāva. If you cannot prove bhāva, you also cannot show abhāva, i.e., nonexistence, since abhāva is always the nonexistence of something that once existed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:


Vasana said:
"The nonduality of masculine and feminine completely permeates all beings"

Malcolm wrote:
This translation is incorrect. It is from this passage:
Samantabhadri is the unrestricted vast sphere.
Vast Samantabhadra is displayed to all.
Samantabhadra father and mother have a non-dual single form. 
The state of Samantabhadri endowed with the meaning of realization
arises as every diversity since her unchanging bhaga is vast. 
The whole universe is included in her bhaga. 
The bhaga of the mother is the field of great emptiness. 
The non-dual form of the father and mother totally pervade migrating beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism
Content:
fckw said:
According to The Golden Letters, there are significant similarities between the Dzogchen and Shaktism view.
The view associated with Kashmiri Shaivism and with Shaktism is known as Shaktivada, wherein Maya, or the world illusion, in all its diversity, is granted a certain ontological status. This diversity is an illusion in the sense that it lacks any inherent or independent reality, but it does possess a kind of relative reality in that it represents the energy, or shakti, of Chit, or primordial awareness (chitshakti). Maya is thus not just a mistake in perception, mistaking the rope for a snake; it is not something merely passive but something active and dynamic, a creative energy, or Mayashakti, which brings diversity into manifestation. Here there are some philosophical parallels with Dzogchen. Although the Tibetan term rtsal, “energy, potency, potentiality”, is never glossed as Shakti in the Dzogchen texts, the conceptions embodied in these two terms are quite similar. The Dzogchen term rig-pa’i rtsal, “the potency or energy of awareness”, could almost be translated as Vidyashakti, which is a technical term found in the Shaiva and Shakta systems. It refers to the energy inherent within the primordial non-dual Awareness which gives rise to the diversity of manifestations. Also, the term for “manifestation” or “appearance” (snang-ba, abhasa), is found in a similar context in both systems.
(John Myrdhin Reynolds, source: http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=1272&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 )

Could anyone more knowledgeable go a little bit into the similarities and differences between the two philosophical views?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no universal basis in Dzogchen. The view of Dzogchen is emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Have any of your living Teachers given away intentionally something as precious as their eyes to a beggar woman? If not, why not?

Malcolm wrote:
They gave me the Dharma, what eye is more precious than that?

jundo cohen said:
Tell that to the beggar woman!

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you know, the beggar women did not appreciate it, and she ate Aryadeva's eye, rather than putting it in her head. In case the meaning is not clear, just because you give someone eyes, it does not mean that they will use them to see. Likewise, trotting out your "profound" point of view can be like casting pearls before swine, or like the embarrassing moment when someone shows you their tattoo of the Dalai Lama that covers half of their back.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Have any of your living Teachers given away intentionally something as precious as their eyes to a beggar woman? If not, why not?

Malcolm wrote:
They gave me the Dharma, what eye is more precious than that? But to answer your question more directly, in fact my deceased teacher, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, regularly put his life at risk by ministering to poor people in Assam, to the point where he contracted TB of the bone. He also spent many years wandering from Tibet to India and Bhutan as a homeless yogi living under trees and begging for food, many years prior to the Chinese invasion in '59 before settling in Assam in the mid 60's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Bodhisattvabhumi (Tsadra) Hardcover – March 8, 2016 by Asanga (Author), Artemus B. Engle (Translator)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's quite good. I have a copy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Cannibalism in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
sha za is a translation of piśaci. "Rakṣasas", srin po, clearly refer to memories of Indian encounters with head hunters which inhabited the islands surrounding India from New Guinea and Borneo all the way to Madagascar, and who used to dominate Śri Lanka. In fact, the language of Borneo head hunters is related to only one other language in the world, the language of Madagascar.

Sherab Dorje said:
Seems you have forgotten the VERY Indian head hunters:  the Naga of Northern India and Burma.

Malcolm wrote:
I have not forgotten them, they are the ones referred to as piśacis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
It negates completely (or, better said, one finds nothing in need of correction or repair from the start, all an Affirmation). To allow the sentient beings to realize so is to "save sentient beings" (who, by the way, are not truly "sentient beings in need of saving" from the start). As Buddha, no healing required. There is here no hunger, no poverty, no war ... never was or has been or will be.

Malcolm wrote:
When you have the capacity to give away your wife and children (with their consent of course) to be the slaves of a brahmin, or your eyes to a beggar woman, then I will believe you have the understanding your words profess, and not until then.

These kinds of words are very easy to say. Just watch:
Since in me there is no birth nor death, 
the qualities of cessation are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no inside nor outside, 
the qualities of clarity are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no emptiness or things, 
the qualities of appearances are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no object of perception, 
perceptible objects are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no body or mind, 
self-apparent qualities are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no self and other, 
the five qualities of vidyā are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no creative cause, 
total concentration is totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no place to go, 
the self-apparent domain is totally perfect. 
Since in me there are no directions or sides, 
secret vidyā is totally perfect. 
Since in me appearances do not cease, 
the three qualities of the ultimate dhātu are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no one and two, 
the qualities of the bindu are totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no darkness or light, 
the qualities of direct perception are totally perfect. 
Since in me there are neither self nor concepts, 
the qualities of emptiness are totally perfect. 
Since in me the two stains do not exist, 
the five qualities of clarity are totally perfect. 
Since in me the five kāyas appear of themselves, 
the ultimate nature of the buddhafields is totally perfect. 
Since in me there is no emanating and gathering, 
the meaning of syllables are totally perfect.
But do you believe I am a realized person based on some words I translated from an old Tibetan book? No you don't, nor should you. Likewise, your capacity to rattle off elementary PP sūtra stuff does not impress.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Cannibalism in Buddhism
Content:
fckw said:
In certain Tibetan texts, the rakshasas are claimed to be cannibal demons. But, quite obviously, they don't follow any Buddhist ethics.

dzoki said:
I think the whole thing with the cannibal rakshasas etc. is a wrong translation. Cannibal is a human eating humans. Rakshasa not being human cannot be a cannibal. Same way as one would not call a tiger hunting humans a cannibal.

Tibetan texts often use expression sha za = meat eating/meat eater which some people then translate as cannibal, but this is not implied in Tibetan.

Malcolm wrote:
sha za is a translation of piśaci. "Rakṣasas", srin po, clearly refer to memories of Indian encounters with head hunters which inhabited the islands surrounding India from New Guinea and Borneo all the way to Madagascar, and who used to dominate Śri Lanka. In fact, the language of Borneo head hunters is related to only one other language in the world, the language of Madagascar.

The Ramayāna and the Nyingma accounts of the Taming of Rudra epics can be seen as mythological retellings of the conquest of Śri Lanka by Indians in the first millenia BCE.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:


conebeckham said:
When we use the word "existence," we are talking about ontology--this is not the realm of "any person's" perception of phenomenon, but is the realm of mental constructs regarding ontology.  No such constructs can be admitted, in Madhyamaka.  This is why we take issue with claiming any sort of "mode of existence" on the level of convention.  Yet phenomena appear.   No one denies this.

Malcolm wrote:
The Gelugpas invented a "Prasanga" that is really just crypto svatantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna himself makes it very plain that by "existence," he means "inherent existence," by asking the question:
Where will there be an existent not included 
in inherent existence or dependent existence?

Herbie said:
All are included in dependent, i.e. imputed existence.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not here what dependent existence is.

Anyway, if existence and inherent existence are both merely imputations, you have established there is no reason to negate one and affirm the other.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: New Guru Rinpoche art by Alex Grey
Content:
Ayu said:
I was assuming it, because once I asked an artist, who has painted many big pictures of dieties already, if it is appropriate to paint also the respective root-syllables at the certain spot. Her answer was, no, she didn't think it was appropriate. You don't see any dieties with syllables in old pictures.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure you do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Cannibalism in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
These kinds of meats were dragged to the charnel ground in ancient India.

Queequeg said:
We have an example of a teaching for particular circumstances not carrying the same meaning outside of that context without having to include footnotes.

No point to that comment. Just an observation.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But in actual fact, the sensory experience of buddhas is not confined to their six sense gates in the way ours are.

Astus said:
And this is where the interpretation and view of the teachings come in. For Chan the mind is buddha and there is no other buddha to be found.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same in Tibetan Buddhism. Mind operate through sense organs. When a mind is limited by karma and afflictions, a mind is limited in terms of what sense organs it operates through, and how.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Alcohol
Content:
dharmagoat said:
I understand that the precepts point to the fact that mindfulness is challenging enough when sober, and that consuming any amount of alcohol will deaden our faculties to some degree. This, of course, is especially important for monks and other full-time practitioners.


Malcolm wrote:
If you can't integrate it, avoid it. That applies to everything we consume with all five senses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
dharmagoat said:
How real do they need to be?

They are real enough to act on them.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and that underlies the question Virgo is asking. To what extent does ultimate truth negate the need to act on behalf of suffering sentient beings. The answer, it does not negate this need at all.

DGA said:
In my opinion, many contemporary Zen teachers know this very well, as evidenced in their emphasis on "engaged" practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree. Many contemporary Zen teachers do know this, as well as Theravadins. Frankly, it is Tibetan Buddhists who are rather deeply behind the curve on this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Virgo said:
Let me guess, sentient beings have never been ingnorant?  In a conventional sense there is no birth in samsara?  Suffering is not real, slavery is not real, abuses are not real, people are not real, harming others is not real?

dharmagoat said:
How real do they need to be?

They are real enough to act on them.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and that underlies the question Virgo is asking. To what extent does ultimate truth negate the need to act on behalf of suffering sentient beings. The answer, it does not negate this need at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They are "supernatural" compared to your abilities and mine, which is actually the point.

Astus said:
What I meant is that such abilities are not about magic powers (or synesthesia), but that categories of experiences are the works of conceptual discrimination, and concepts are interrelated and interpenetrate each other.

Malcolm wrote:
But in actual fact, the sensory experience of buddhas is not confined to their six sense gates in the way ours are. This is a fact of our karmic rebirth, and nothing more. This is why buddhas, highly realized people, do not have the same cognitive limitations that you and I do (such as only being able to see with our eyes, or hear with our ears) — they have overcome the karmic limitations of their embodiment as human beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Astus said:
You might consider those abilities of the Buddha as supernatural abilities, but in Chan that is not so.

Malcolm wrote:
They are "supernatural" compared to your abilities and mine, which is actually the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Chan, Mahamudra, and Tibet
Content:
crazy-man said:
There’s a Chinese manuscript from Dunhuang (Pelliot chinois 4646) that tells another debate story...

Malcolm wrote:
Since this is direct quote from SVS's website, it really out to be in quote brackets...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: New Guru Rinpoche art by Alex Grey
Content:
Ayu said:
Maybe this mistake was made intentionally? Such syllables are restricted and not supposed to be shared to the public, I assume.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is artistic license, it was nothing to do with being secret. There is nothing secret about ཨོཾ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྂ.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
What the hell do we have to do with people in India?
Be serious and honest. you irrationalists are the ones who are arguening with others using Nagarjuna's irrational tetralemma as argument. Nobody ever who argued with others using Nagarjunians tetralemma has ever made the point that his tetralemma has not to be taken as one unit of argument. Irrational people take the tetralemma as such, they take it as a one logical unit of argumentation. And Tsongkhapa has shown already hundreds of years ago that that is irrational bullshit. And even more than thouand years before Tsongkhapa it was Aristoteles who showed what a rational tetralemma has to be like.

Malcolm wrote:
You just seem to fail to understand that in the four fold negation of existence, each term had a specific target in mind, in the context of ancient Indian polemics [eternalists, nihilists, jains, and sophists of various types respectively]. If you want to understand Nāgārjuna, you have to understand that.

Nāgārjuna himself makes it very plain that by "existence," he means "inherent existence," by asking the question:
Where will there be an existent not included 
in inherent existence or dependent existence?
If inherent existence and dependent existence exist, 
existents will be established.  
If an existent is not established
a non-existent will not established.
Tsongkhapa's whole philosophy turns on this point.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Tsongkhapa said:
Suppose that you refute the tetralemma without affixing any such qualifications [ comm: like essentially, inherently, instrinsically ]:
you refute the position that things exist and you refute the position that things do not exist; you then say "It is not the case that they both exist and do not exist". If you now continue with the refutation saying "It is also not the case that they are neither existent not nonexistent", then you explicitly contradict your own position. If you then stubbornly insist, "Even so, there is no fallacy", then the dabate is over because we do not debate with the obstinate.

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapa is refuting a position no one takes.

Let me spell it out for you again. Nāgārjuna makes the contention that existence is actually a subset of inherent existence, when it is analyzed [not before]. When existence [inherent existence] is negated, the nonexistence of that existence is negated as well [since there is nothing present to be negated]. The third term, "existent and nonexistent" is refuted because there are some who claim that in the process of arising, a given thing can be asserted to both exist and not exist at the same time. The fourth term, neither existent nor non-existent, was refuted to refute sophists.

Since Tsongkhapa never had to deal with Jains, etc, he in effect never really saw the point of the third term, and assumed they were unnecessary double negatives. But in India, there were people who asserted both the third term and the fourth term, so it was necessary to reject all four extremes in turn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:


DGA said:
Those threads are comparatively tame to what we experienced with Lepine on the now-defunct e-sangha discussion board,

Malcolm wrote:
He was the one of the folks around whom the issue of ordination and who was a monk originally came up, in addition to that dude in LA, "tendai," now defunct it seems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 2:09 AM
Title: Re: Cannibalism in Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
First of all, let's define cannibalism. And yes, these things are actually supposed to be secret. However, they are mentioned as meats that no one wants, to overcome one's attachment to food.

Queequeg said:
I did not realize they are secret - I got the text from Amazon so I figured... (this issue might fit in with a recent discussion in the Nichiren forum about the possibility of ordering Buddhist funeral services through the retailer).

Should I request my post be deleted?

Cow, dog, horse are definitely consumed in non-negligible amounts - I've had two of those three, and can't say I wouldn't try the third, and certainly can't say the thought of a medium grilled strip steak is going to inspire aversion in me. Handling meat does make me feel ill at ease, and I sometimes contemplate the horror behind the succulent bites of steak... I think of going veg, but almost always manana.

Malcolm wrote:
These kinds of meats were dragged to the charnel ground in ancient India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Herbie said:
Everybody experiences the psycho-mental phenomenon corresponding to the philosophical object "inherent existence" when perceiving common objects but nobody knows about it being that which is superimposed on these objects  and which these object are empty of. Even those studying Prasangika do not know unless they have identified it at least indirectly in their awarenesses.

Malcolm wrote:
I refer you to the quote above.


Herbie said:
"Since the object of negation does not in fact exist, it cannot actually be ascertained, because ascertainment implies a valid mind realizing an object that exists.
Well yes, but what does "does not in fact exist" mean from the speakers perspective? And what does "cannot actually be ascertained" mean from the speakers perspective? And what does "valid mind" mean from the speaker perspective?

So obviously he introduces "actual existence" (existing in fact) in addition to "ultimate existence" and "dependent or imputed existence". That is a novelty!

Malcolm wrote:
I know it is incredibly inconvenient for you that a ranking Gelug scholar disputes your ideas, but there it is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one experiences inherent existence, even conventionally.

Herbie said:
Everybody experiences the psycho-mental phenomenon corresponding to the philosophical object "inherent existence" when perceiving common objects but nobody knows about it being that which is superimposed on these objects  and which these object are empty of. Even those studying Prasangika do not know unless they have identified it at least indirectly in their awarenesses.

Malcolm wrote:
I refer you to the quote above.


Herbie said:
"Since the object of negation does not in fact exist, it cannot actually be ascertained, because ascertainment implies a valid mind realizing an object that exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus said:
What "ordinary fellow" signifies is that the six senses function as before, the difference is in whether there is attachment.

Malcolm wrote:
But do they actually? A buddha can taste with his sight, smell with his fingers and hear with his tongue, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Cannibalism in Buddhism
Content:
Queequeg said:
"For substances of enjoyment, in outer tantras one enjoys three white or pure subtances - milk, butter and curd - and three sweet substances - molasses, honey, and sugar. In inner tantras one enjoys five meats - the flesh of man, cow, dog, horse, and elephant - and five nectars - excrement, semen, brain, blood (seminal fluid of female), and urine."
-The Practice of Dzogchen: Lonchempa Rabjam's Writings on the Great Perfection

I don't think I'm revealing anything particularly secret. The statements are out there, so, let's address them.

Is the suggestion of cannibalism literal or what?

I'm guessing, "or what".

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, let's define cannibalism. And yes, these things are actually supposed to be secret. However, they are mentioned as meats that no one wants, to overcome one's attachment to food.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Gory comentarial literature
Content:


Queequeg said:
If you want these sorts of stories, read the Jatakas - and not the collections edited for young audiences. Those tend to be just variations on Aesop's fables.

Malcolm wrote:
Other way around, demonstrably so,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Revise to "...when the Indian Mahāyāna view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life," then we can agree.

Astus said:
I'm OK with that, if we modify it to "Late-Indian Mahayana", or something to a similar extent. After all, Chinese Buddhism has Indian origins as well, but then it's developed on a separate path, and that's why even Xuanzang's teachings have not been as widely accepted as Fazang's.

Malcolm wrote:
We have no evidence, apart from perhaps Bodhidharma, of any kind of sudden awakening school in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus said:
Naturally, when the Tibetan view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life.

Malcolm wrote:
Revise to "...when the Indian Mahāyāna view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life," then we can agree. The conflict in Tibet was never between Tibetans and Chinese, it was between Indians and Chinese. This is why many early Tibetans, such as Nubchen, and later Longchenpa, etc., sided with the Chinese with respect to the outcome of the Samye debate.

DGA said:
is this another way of saying that TienTai and Ch'an may have more in common with, say, Dzogchen (viz. Lonchenpa) than Indian Mahayana, to your mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, absolutely. Chan is based on definitive Mahāyāna sūtras, unlike the graded path approach of Kamalashila. Indians were just as selective about their reading of Mahāyāna as any other movement. In other words, there were winning and losing trends of Mahāyāna in India itself. Indian Buddhism over all went for gradualism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Astus said:
Naturally, when the Tibetan view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life.

Malcolm wrote:
Revise to "...when the Indian Mahāyāna view of the bodhisattva path is used, there is no basis for Zen's and Tiantai's teachings of enlightenment in one life," then we can agree. The conflict in Tibet was never between Tibetans and Chinese, it was between Indians and Chinese. This is why many early Tibetans, such as Nubchen, and later Longchenpa, etc., sided with the Chinese with respect to the outcome of the Samye debate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your descriptions sound very similar to the Vedantic notion of brahaman. You don't merge with brahman, you always were brahman, but you just did not recognize it.

jundo cohen said:
The light of Enlightenment is still shining in as and through the parsing of terms and spinning of mental wheels, but one must look through all the churning thoughts  of categories and distinctions. Easier to see when the mind mazes are dropped.

Malcolm wrote:
You, Jundo, in particular keep using the term "Enlightenment" and "Buddha" as if it were some state that exists as the basis for everything and everyone.

Is this really how you see things? I mean if so, that is nice, but I have a hard time distinguishing this from Hinduism.

jundo cohen said:
We are always Enlightened and ever (without beginning or end) Buddha. Always have been, always will, for all time without measure of time, for you me and everyone.

However, we are not Enlightened, and remain separate from Buddha until we realize so.

Once we realize so, we see that we were always Enlightened and always are precisely Buddha and there was nothing in need of realizing from the get go. Until we realize so, there is need to so realize.

Buddha is not a fellow or godhead we try to merge with, so I am not sure of the reference to Hinduism. There is no need to merge with what one already is, both a fellow and not a fellow, a thing, all things and no things.

Gassho, J


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
jundo cohen said:
The light of Enlightenment is still shining in as and through the parsing of terms and spinning of mental wheels, but one must look through all the churning thoughts  of categories and distinctions. Easier to see when the mind mazes are dropped.

Malcolm wrote:
You, Jundo, in particular keep using the term "Enlightenment" and "Buddha" as if it were some state that exists as the basis for everything and everyone.

Is this really how you see things? I mean if so, that is nice, but I have a hard time distinguishing this from Hinduism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Where is the salient comment?

DGA said:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2061
Hi Malcolm, you might remember someone in Quebec selling magic ninja lessons from the e-sangha days.  This fellow:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=3949&start=20#p37441

The thread I linked above was about him.  It turns out that he is an associate of our friends at Hongaku Jodo--affiliated with them somehow.  Seishin pointed this out here.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2061#p14754

and some of Lepine's webpages are listed on the Hongaku Jodo page.

I was expressing surprise that this comparatively anodyne thread had caught their attention, but previous discussions that were much more critical and were about them specifically had not.

Malcolm wrote:
I meant where in the video.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Malcom's point is basically this: If the object of negation is experienced by individuals, then that would make it conventionally existent, but everyone including Tsongkhapa rejects the idea that intrinsic existence exists conventionally. And if the object of negation is not experienced by individuals, then how on earth can people identify it as per Tsongkhapa's instructions?

Tsongkhapafan said:
Of course the object of negation is experienced by individuals.

Malcolm wrote:
No one experiences inherent existence, even conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


Astus said:
Those who practice the Great Vehicle use the method of “transformation (of the mind)” because they understand that amid our afflictions there is our inherent Buddha nature. It is like forging steel from iron. The nature of steel is within the wrought iron. If we throw away the pieces of iron, we will not be able to refine the steel. Similarly, “there is no water besides the waves.” Therefore, in Mahayana, bodhisattvas cultivate the myriad good practices of the six paramitas. By benefiting self and others, they transform afflictions, and return to their pure inherent nature. Just as when we practice charity for a long time, we will naturally diminish greed. By contemplation of compassion, anger will naturally subside. When we are diligent in the cultivation of actions, speech, and mind, we can overcome sloth. When the mind is scattered and confused, we must use samadhi to overcome delusive thoughts. This is known as “transformation.” The last of the six paramitas is “prajna.” Prajna overcomes ignorance. Our mind is filled with ignorance and confusion; it easily forms attachments to the external environment. If we can reflect inward, without falling into dualism, without the concept of subject and object, and attain “triple emptiness,” we will attain prajna paramita. We can then face each encounter with clarity and mindfulness, thereby extinguish all our afflictions.

In the Ultimate Vehicle, we neither transform our afflictions nor extinguish them; our mind is originally pure and lucid. This mind is inherent in everyone; we do not need to seek it externally. This is the Chan School’s principle of “affliction is bodhi; birth and death (samsara) is nirvana.”"[/i]
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=59 )

Malcolm wrote:
I am pretty certain I don't agree with the characterization of Mahāyāna ārya practice above.

I fail to see a distinction between this so called "great vehicle" and this so called "ultimate vehicle." For example, the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra states:
The characteristic of the element of formations and the ultimate
is the characteristic of being free from being the same or different;
whoever conceives them as being the same or different, 
they have entered in improper view.
And the Madhyāntavibhāga states:
These two, samsara and nirvana,
arise adventitiously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:


florin said:
As i said , there are no uk based dzogchen teachers.
But you could do what Malcolm suggested .That would be best.

DGA said:
Is James Low not based in the UK?  this link was already offered in this thread...

http://www.simplybeing.co.uk


I'm eager to get to Tenerife myself...

Malcolm wrote:
I don't generally recommend teachers with whom I have no personal experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... The notion that there substantial differences in ultimate truth between the two approaches is a novelty introduced by Tsongkhapa.

Herbie said:
"Novelty" certainly is relative because an interpretation that differs from other interpretations is just another interpretation. I mean Tsongkhapa and other interpreters, they all referred to the same main Madhyamaka sources. The difference of Tsongkhapa's philosophy is that it is completely rational as to use of language in the context of objects of knowledge and that there are no mystical esoteric gaps in his philosophy represented often by the term "ineffable". Because of its linguistic rationality there is no need to seek refuge in esoteric concepts. Objects are objects of knowledge and what is known can be linguistically and consistently expressed. The hallmark of his philosophy is the concept of "inherent existence" which renders the concept of "emptiness" philosophically intelligible because speaking of something as empty one should be able to say what it is empty of without damaging the world of human conventions which includes the conventions of language, the conventions of all sciences, the conventions of all religions and the conventions of all philosophies. In this sense Tsongkhapa's philosophy as philosophy is a meta-system because it covers all other systems and thus it is also perfectly applicable in a non-religious ("secular") context.

Malcolm wrote:
[The Buddha:]
When all phenomena are done away with,[4] 
	all means of speaking
	are done away with as well.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.06.than.html

This is the essential core of Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: What's lineage, what is it for, & how does it work?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Where is the salient comment?

DGA said:
I was sent a link to this video today.  Congratulations, DharmaWheelers:  internet celebrities we are.

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]


For the record, and as I've said elsewhere, I really don't care if anyone wants to start their own school or tradition or lineage or banh mi sandwich cart for that matter.  Do whatever you like, and trust that others will do the same--and whatever they like might include asking questions about your sandwiches and their prices on public venues.



Postscript:

forgot to add this to an earlier post. I wonder why it is that this thread on lineage has struck a nerve, but earlier discussions of this school and its offshoots has not.
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=2061


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:


jundo cohen said:
...Sentient beings are not "born in Samsara," they never have been ... they just think they are.

Malcolm wrote:
That is sufficient for being born in samsara.

[Edit]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Question: how is the awakening put forward in Chan different than realization of an Arhat?

Astus said:
See for yourself the differences described:
"Whoever knows that the mind is a fiction and devoid of anything real knows that his own mind neither exists nor doesn’t exist. Mortals keep creating the mind, claiming it exists. And Arhats keep negating the mind, claiming it doesn’t exist. But bodhisattvas and Buddhas neither create nor negate the mind. This is what’s meant by the mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist. The mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist is called the Middle Way."
(Bodhidharma: Wake-up Sermon)

Malcolm wrote:
This is certainly a Mahāyāna doxographical claim. And further, what is the difference then between a bodhisattva and buddha? This distinction in the one that you really fail to tease out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddha is an Ordinary Fellow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
That's it then, just see the nature of the mind and you are omniscient? If this is case, would you then claim that first stage bodhisattvas have not seen the nature of the mind? Because they are certainly not omniscient.

Astus said:
As far as the fully sudden approach goes, only buddhas know it. Consider http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=329214#p329214, where Huangbo makes it clear what one is enlightened to directly and how it compares to the gradual path.

Also, Dazhu says:

Q: What is Sudden Enlightenment?
A: "Sudden" means instantly stopping false thought. "Enlightenment" means [awareness] that one attains nothing.

and

"Sudden Enlightenment means liberation during this lifetime. Just as a lion-cub, from the moment it is born, is a real lion, likewise anyone who practices the Sudden-Enlightenment method has, from the moment he begins his practice, already entered the Buddha-Stage. Just as the bamboo-shoots growing in springtime are not different from the parent bamboo-shoots, because they are also empty inside, likewise anyone who practices the Sudden-Enlightenment method to rid himself suddenly of false thought abandons, like the Buddhas, the sense of an ego and a personality forever. Being absolutely deep, still and void, he is, then, without an iota of difference, equal to the Buddhas. Thus, in this sense it can be said that the worldly is holy. If one practices the Sudden-Enlightenment method, he can transcend the three realms during this lifetime."

Malcolm wrote:
Astus,

Being free from rebirth in the three realms is arhatship, not buddhahood. Arhats also realize emptiness.

Question: how is the awakening put forward in Chan different than realization of an Arhat?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:
Saoshun said:
I actually checked everything and I'm going. Thanks Malcolm. I will just go and see what happens, like buddha. Either I realize or die.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, death is inevitable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 21st, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: recommended Dzogchen retreats/courses/teachers
Content:


Saoshun said:
That's what I did found but there is dzogchen bon teacher but opinions on him are not really good as lama, his name is Lama Khyimsar Rinpoche or something like that

http://www.dzogchencommunityuk.org/

http://www.simplybeing.co.uk/

Malcolm wrote:
Go to Tenerife.


Saoshun said:
Norbu welcome openly guys from dharmawheel forums?

Malcolm wrote:
I have sent scores of people to see ChNN from this and other forums. But it is not like you should introduce yourself with "Malcolm told me to come." Just go and receive teachings. That is sufficient.


