﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Do you not have shops that sell only vegetables in the US?

Malcolm wrote:
Not where I live, and not in most of the USA.

dharmagoat said:
Here we can choose not to shop at supermarkets. We even have the option of buying from local growers. Does this mean that the points you are applying to everyone do not apply to everyone?

Malcolm wrote:
All of the CSA's where I live raise animals for slaughter.


dharmagoat said:
Some. Perhaps less than you currently do?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't really eat that much meat. Way less than the average American. The average American eats a quarter pound of meat every day. I eat maybe a quarter pound of meat a week on average.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddism without buddism
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Sometimes you can water things down too much and create the lowest common denominator. My problem with the Dalai Lama's teaching is that he makes it sound as if you don't need Buddhism to make the world a better place...

Malcolm wrote:
You don't. Dharma [ Lha chos ] is about personal transformation, not social transformation.

Tsongkhapafan said:
you just need secular ethics.

Malcolm wrote:
Secular ethics [ Mi chos ] are about outer transformation and governance, not inner transformation. We need both Lha chos and Mi chos.

Tsongkhapafan said:
He almost never encourages people to take refuge in the Three Jewels which is most odd for a Buddhist monk.

Malcolm wrote:
Dharma is not an evangelical religion.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Secular ethics is too general and is never going to provide a real solution to people's suffering - the only solution is liberation and enlightenment which are only part of Buddhism, therefore to my mind, the selling of secular ethics is selling people short and undermining Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
You ought to study the freedoms and endowments again. Not everyone has the karma to be a practitioner of Dharma. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

In the meantime, secular ethics are what the world needs. They will lead eventually to Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And I have also demonstrated that meat is consistently supplied to the market in excess of demand. Our commodity markets are driven on futures, expectations of demand, not real demand.

dharmagoat said:
This does not mean that demand ceases to influence production.

Malcolm wrote:
The number of slaughtered animals in the chain far exceeds the actual demand for meat. Additionally, as I also pointed out, money we pay to markets which sell meat is not divvied up from moneys from vegetables. The only way to avoid supporting that market's purchasing of meat in general is to stop shopping at omnivore markets.

dharmagoat said:
A cattle rancher is not paid for the crops his neighbour grows.

Malcolm wrote:
They are separate businesses.

A market is one business. When you buy groceries in a market, you are supporting all that market's economic activities, not merely the ones of which you approve. Its like taxes — when you pay taxes, you are supporting all of the Gvt.'s activities, including wars of which you may disapprove. You may not approve of the wars which are fought, freeing you from the karmic burden of them; you may not approve of a market selling meat, freeing you from that that burden of karma. I also do not approve of killing and slaughter, but I also know that my eating meat bought at whole foods, for example, has nothing to do with the act of ordering an animal killed, etc. It would be different of course if I ordered a side of beef from a local rancher. But I don't.

If our culture changes so that no one buys meat, I won't buy it or eat it since it won't be available any longer.  But all the evidence suggests that animals will be slaughtered for meat long after we are gone, and in the mean time, since there is no fault with eating meat that is pure in three ways, I will continue to do so when I need to, since I have found that I actually need to eat some amount of meat, to maintain my health. It is a survival issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one is saying that we should not practice ahimsa. What we are saying is that your idea of "ahimsa" is problematical when you claim that by definition eating meat is harmful.

dharmagoat said:
We can agree that once an animal has been killed for its meat the harm has been done. As you have said, meat itself does not suffer. What you consistently overlook is how the acceptance of this meat, especially if it is paid for, completes the cycle of supply and demand. By rewarding the killing for meat, the consumer is encouraging subsequent killing.

Malcolm wrote:
And I have also demonstrated that meat is consistently supplied to the market in excess of demand. Our commodity markets are driven on futures, expectations of demand, not real demand.

This is not like Tibet, where, for example, Shabkar could reasonably scold monasteries for ordering sheep to be slaughtered based on demand for meat in monasteries.

The number of slaughtered animals in the chain far exceeds the actual demand for meat. Additionally, as I also pointed out, money we pay to markets which sell meat is not divvied up from moneys from vegetables. The only way to avoid supporting that market's purchasing of meat in general is to stop shopping at omnivore markets.

I am certain that in the near future, there will be a trend toward vegan and vegetarian markets — but that does not exist now, at least nowhere near where I live.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
As to complicity, as I've said a million times, we are all already indirectly complicit in lots of horrible things

seeker242 said:
The point I'm trying to make is that this is largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if our activity causes a lot of inevitable harm or not. The point is that not all harm is inevitable...The point is that not all harm causing is created equal. If one can choose a less harmful choice, one should choose a less harmful choice. The idea that "it won't matter anyway" is just a cop out. The same logic can be used to refute recycling or even voting in a democratic election. It can be used to refute any action where the effect is cumulative. AKA "my individual vote won't matter, so I'm not going to vote". Just imagine if everyone believed that...

Malcolm wrote:
No one is saying that we should not practice ahimsa. What we are saying is that your idea of "ahimsa" is problematical when you claim that by definition eating meat is harmful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
If it makes you happy to insist on adding lhun grub, ok, but it isn't necessary. The Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:
The basis is called “great original purity” which is present as the essence, nature and compassion.

tomamundsen said:
Isn't lhundrup the "nature", though?

Malcolm wrote:
lhun drub and thugs rje are potentials of ka dag.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 7:52 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
MalaBeads said:
Malcolm,

Would you say more about rupakaya? You can assume i know nothing except maybe the word.

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Rūpa means form — it refers to the sambhogakāya and nirmanakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The nine position scheme consists of varying interpretations (of the basis) that key adepts have chosen to champion. They are:
1. gza' gtad dang bral ba [championed by Oḍḍiyāna Mahārāja and Vimalamitra]

2. lhun grub [Garab Dorje]

3. bdag nyid chen po [Vairocana]

4. rang byung ye shes [Ānandā (nun)]

5. bya btsal dang dral ba [Buddhagupta]

6. bde ba chen po [Śrī Siṃha]

7. gnyis su med pa [Kukurāja and Mañjuśrīmitra]

8. thig le chen po [Rājahastin]

9. chos thams cad gzhi ji bzhin pa [Garab Dorje, Dhahenatalo (king) and gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas ye-shes]

Malcolm wrote:
You should clarify this is from sems sde, not man ngag sde.
Thanks, I actually wasn't aware of this, although makes sense. Are Nubchen's expositions generally classified as sems sde?[/quot
yup


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Mkoll said:
I don't see anything in that study that says grass-fed beef is less carbon intensive than organic agriculture. I also didn't see anything saying that ruminants are capable of zero carbon emissions.

You also said "studies." Plural means more than one. Can you deliver?

Malcolm wrote:
Also you can look.

Prior to oil age, the earth was basically in a steady state carbon wise for millennia. Meat and all.

What has causing global warming is oil, and nothing else.

Cattle raising that uses little or no oil is naturally going to be more efficient, carbon wise, that any plowing of fields done the old fashioned way.

However with proper strategies that include grazing animals...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198705000401

Then, the damage that conventional plowing does to the land...

http://agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/50927.pdf:
The moldboard plow causes the largest amount of carbon losses...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
alpha said:
In the schema i came across in my readings the 7 positions listed do not include bdag nyid chen po
The list is as follows:
Kadag
lhun grub
ma ges pa
nges pa'i don
cir yang sgyur du btub pa
cir yang khas blang du btub pa
sna tshogs su char'ba

asunthatneversets said:
The nine position scheme consists of varying interpretations (of the basis) that key adepts have chosen to champion. They are:
1. gza' gtad dang bral ba [championed by Oḍḍiyāna Mahārāja and Vimalamitra]

2. lhun grub [Garab Dorje]

3. bdag nyid chen po [Vairocana]

4. rang byung ye shes [Ānandā (nun)]

5. bya btsal dang dral ba [Buddhagupta]

6. bde ba chen po [Śrī Siṃha]

7. gnyis su med pa [Kukurāja and Mañjuśrīmitra]

8. thig le chen po [Rājahastin]

9. chos thams cad gzhi ji bzhin pa [Garab Dorje, Dhahenatalo (king) and gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas ye-shes]

Malcolm wrote:
You should clarify this is from sems sde, not man ngag sde.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Mkoll said:
Can you provide a link to the actual studies? That's where you got the information to make that claim, right? You're not just making it up, are you?

Malcolm wrote:
Grass fed beef does not require water the way feed lot beef does, does not require grain or antibiotics, the herds are moved from pasture to pasture, building soil and sequestering carbon.

All of the great savannahs were created by moving herds of animals, and in the case of the American Great Plains, were created by humans for animals by burning away forests. These savannahs sequestered immense amounts of carbon. Ripping them up in the 19th century released a lot of carbon.

Now, large scale industrial organic agriculture requires great petroleum inputs, as well as animal inputs from slaughterhouses, irrigation [often in unsustainable places like California and Texas], and so on.

So no, I am not making it up. If you look, you can find studies.

Mkoll said:
I worded that wrong. I meant to ask if you're making up the studies that claim that grass-fed beef is less carbon intensive than organic agriculture. Because I did look for them and didn't find any.

Again, have you actually seen these studies or are you just making them up? If you've seen them, it shouldn't be too hard to direct me to where they are...


Malcolm wrote:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an302

Here is an example. Properly managed, ruminants could be capable of 0 carbon emissions and have a positive impact on carbon sequestration.

There used to be millions of buffalo on the Great Plains — according to current ideology, this should have contributed greatly to global warming, but the opposite in fact is true. Native Americans herded buffalo for 10,000 years and built one of the largest carbon sinks ever in human history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Maybe the problem here is that your understanding of original purity is too confined to the emptiness aspect. Original purity has essence, nature and compassion. It has the three kāyas. Why? Because it is dharmakāya. There is no dharmakāya without the other two.

alpha said:
I always maintained that original purity is indivisible with lhun grub and it didn't make sense for you to say that the true definitive view is only original purity out of the two.Isolating one aspect over another is akin to falling into partiality(the extreme of annihilation) , that is how i see it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not me who is saying that, it is Vimalamitra who is saying that in several books, not just one. You can accept or reject whatever you like.

If it makes you happy to insist on adding lhun grub, ok, but it isn't necessary. The Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:
The basis is called “great original purity” which is present as the essence, nature and compassion. The pristine consciousness of the unchanging essence manifests without impediment and is called “the reality of the youthful vase body.” The nature is the unimpeded five lights. For example, the appearance of compassion is like the absence of clouds. That is called “the reality of original purity,” i.e. unlimited and not falling into any position
And:
One will be liberated on the ultimate stage of original purity.
And:
Next, the absence of anything higher than the pristine consciousness
that naturally arises on the stage of original purity is the
attainment of the sixteen stage, Highest Wisdom.
And the String of Pearls Tantra states:
Everything actualizes buddhahood in the state
of original purity free from taints.
The Realms and Transformations of Sound Tantra states:
Further, when the mind is ripened,
the basis is present in the dharmakāya,
the taints upon original purity are exhausted
and the essence has never been deluded.
Vimalamitra states:
The basis, the state of initial original purity, is liberated
because its essence is not established at all.
Its nature appears as everything
and its compassion arises in every way.
It is pretty clear to me that the intention of the 17 Tantras is that the basis is ka dag, original purity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Mkoll said:
Can you provide a link to the actual studies? That's where you got the information to make that claim, right? You're not just making it up, are you?

Malcolm wrote:
Grass fed beef does not require water the way feed lot beef does, does not require grain or antibiotics, the herds are moved from pasture to pasture, building soil and sequestering carbon.

All of the great savannahs were created by moving herds of animals, and in the case of the American Great Plains, were created by humans for animals by burning away forests. These savannahs sequestered immense amounts of carbon. Ripping them up in the 19th century released a lot of carbon.

Now, large scale industrial organic agriculture requires great petroleum inputs, as well as animal inputs from slaughterhouses, irrigation [often in unsustainable places like California and Texas], and so on.

So no, I am not making it up. If you look, you can find studies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
100% Grass fed? Are you kidding? Much less of a carbon footprint than any organic field plowed with tractors, etc.

Mkoll said:
I'd like to see the peer-reviewed study that comes to that conclusion.

Malcolm wrote:
You can find them, if you want to look.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


alpha said:
Well, the way you approach it it makes the basis just like dead space.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, but you can see it however you like.

alpha said:
Is this the definitive view?

Pearl Necklace tantra states:
"The ultimate nature is primordially pure and indescribable.
Its character is spontaneous and whatever appears is perfect".

The implication of this statement is that the basis apart from not falling into the extreme of permanence is not like nothing or dead space .

Malcolm wrote:
The Six Dimensions of Samantabhadra states:
It is present as pure from the beginning,
having always appeared as immaculate.
Among all of these stages of intellect,
the essence is pure from the beginning.
Vimalamitra comments on this passage:
When the asserted positions about the seven bases that are the object of knowledge are divided into two, there are six defective positions concerning the basis and the faultless position of original purity which is confirmed in our own texts...A follower of philosophical tenets asserts that all objects of knowledge are confirmed from the seven positions because assertions about the basis are confirmed through proofs, refutations, contradictions and replies. Those other six defective philosophical tenets are clearly explained in the Six Dimensions and so on. However, those who follow philosophical tenets [15a] resemble someone who has not seen Vajrāsana telling stories about Vajrāsana. Simply put, they do not confirm the profound meaning that is to be understood.
So however you want to slice it up, of the seven positions about the basis, only the position that the basis is originally pure is non-defective.


alpha said:
One the other hand what good does it do to make kadag the focus of one's view and place lhun grub on a lesser position as potentially being the cause of error.
To me focusing on kadag alone as being the definitive view can lead to errors as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Addressing your concern, he continues:
Since the six assertions about the basis are recognized as the potential of original purity, the practice of the faultless philosophical tenet is like explaining Vajrāsana having been there. That is without error. In addition, it is so because the explanatory description is faultless. People who follow philosophical tenets can only partially explain how the six assertions about the basis are defective.
In other words, it is recognized that the other six positions about the basis, while faulty, do indeed address an aspect of the potentiality of original purity. Nevertheless, only describing the basis as original purity is considered absolutely faultless from the point of view of the system of Dzogchen laid out in the 17 Tantras.

Maybe the problem here is that your understanding of original purity is too confined to the emptiness aspect. Original purity has essence, nature and compassion. It has the three kāyas. Why? Because it is dharmakāya. There is no dharmakāya without the other two.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Earth Termas - real objects?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Everything that buddhas do is a lie, because everything we sentient beings perceive is deceptive, including buddhas.

dzogchungpa said:
Mind is blown.


Malcolm wrote:
I really think you should use it as your new sig, with attribution of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:


Queequeg said:
Per the bolded part, does that mean if an adept dissolves into the little rainbow body that is indicative of a process with an inevitable end and which can come before the completion of certain other practices carried out in the Bardo?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that the pracitioner is engaged in the final stages of integrating with the basis, described above as "original"

Queequeg said:
Also, can you explain what it means to be liberated into the three kayas?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that having realized the dharmakāya, one now can act with the rūpakāya.

Queequeg said:
That being said, the difference between Dzogchen and sūtra Dharmas is that in sūtra Dharmas no methods are explained how to achieve the result they describe, apart from the lengthy and forbidding paths and stages.
Aye, that does seem to be the rub.

I understand that Tantra is also distinct from Dzogchen. Can you elaborate on that distinction?

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtra in general belongs to the path of renunciation — this is the main method of practice.

Tantra in general belongs to the path of transformation — using the creation stage and completion stage and so on, generating oneself as the deity, reciting mantras, transforming one's impure dimension into a pure one.

Dzogchen is path of liberation or self-liberation, where one does not need to apply any sort of antidote, either in terms of renunciation or transformation. Instead phenomena are allowed to self-liberate just a they are by recognizing one's primordial state and integrating with that. Apart from Norbu Rinpoche's teachings, the place where these three paths are most clearly explained is in the Zhang Zhung sNyan rgyud teachings belonging to the Bon school, especially the outer cycle:
Now then, the first, the path of renunciation, gives up the ten nonvirtues and accomplishes the ten virtues. The result is asserted to be buddhahood after many lives and eons. That is the path of causal characteristics. 

Second, the so called “path of transformation” of result secret mantra is transforming the outer universe into a celestial mansion, transforming the inhabitants into gods and goddesses, transforming the five samsaya substances into the five ambrosias, transforming the five aggregates into the five deities and transforming the five afflictions into the five wisdoms. This is asserted as buddhahood, being the path of result secret mantra. 

However, neither the path of renunciation nor the past of transformation will be explained here. What it to be explained here now is the inseparability of cause and result in the great vehicle. 

In the explanation of the so called “path of great self liberation with nothing to accept or reject” samsara and nirvana, existence and nonexistence, the duality of permanence and annihilation, the duality of happiness and suffering, the duality of attachment and aversion, the five afflictions, the eight consciousnesses, all appearances of deluded concepts of subject and object are not abandoned and are not to be abandoned. Since everything arises from the mind, in the sole unique sphere, abandonment and accepting do not exist as a duality. Therefore, everything that arises self-arises, everything that is liberated is self-liberated, therefore it is termed “the path of liberation.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
alpha said:
What i have is different.

Isnt the basis the indivisibility of kadag and lhun grub?

Malcolm wrote:
The reality of the original basis that exists permeated with the intrinsic nature of the three pristine consciousnesses, essence, nature and compassion, is the inwardly illuminated original purity.
It has lhun grub, but lhun grub is the cause of making mistakes, whereas, ka dag can never be the cause of error. This is why 17 Tantras state that the basis is ka dag, and that this is the correct position. Sometimes, the union of ka dag and lhun grub is called " ka dag chen po " — still, ka dag is more important because it can never be a basis for delusion, unlike lhun grub.

alpha said:
To me those quotes you gave are only arguments to support the originally pure nature of the basis .Because this purity is not just purity it has a potentiality and a luminosity, aspects which are actually reffered in your quotes essence, nature and compassion

Malcolm wrote:
They are taken directly from the book, Buddhahood in This Life [to be published by Wisdom next year], where the author, Vimalamitra, runs through the seven positions of the basis, and identifies the position of the basis as ka dag as the only faultless one. This is a summary of an extensive section in the commentary of the Kun bzang klong drug tantra. Vimalamitra does not go into it further because, as he says, it is mostly an intellectual discussion, not for practitioners.

Ka dag does not mean only emptiness, though sometimes people misunderstand it that way Ka dag refers to the fact that reality has always been pure, never affected by ignorance and so on. This is why it is the basis, and not lhun grub.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:
fckw said:
I had always assumed that "light body" and "rainbow body" are actually not the same thing. But we'd need the specific Tibetan or Sanskrit terms to know which one the question really targets.

Malcolm wrote:
They are terms used interchangeably.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Dan74 said:
I'm not sure if alternative meat industries have a smaller carbon footprint than the commercial ones, do they?

Malcolm wrote:
100% Grass fed? Are you kidding? Much less of a carbon footprint than any organic field plowed with tractors, etc. Of course, chicken requires grain, but pigs are quite happy on acorns, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:
Queequeg said:
The implication seems to be that my ignorance appears to you as form also. If I was realized, however, my form would appear to you to revert into light.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But in fact my afflictions are my own, so even if you were fully realized in this lifetime fully, the state called Phowa Chenpo, great transference, you would still appear to me in an ordinary form.

Queequeg said:
If I am following, is it then fair to say that when an adept reverts to light, leaving behind the hair and nails, that outward event (light show) is for the benefit of us deluded beings? Ie. a show to nurture our faith?

Malcolm wrote:
Some people explain in that way, but is not correct. What you are describing is called little rainbow body. This happens when a person has not completed their practice in this lifetime. When they enter the bardo of dharmatā, they remain in that and finish as much as their practice as they can before they are liberated completely into the three kāyas.




Queequeg said:
It is well known that the traces in the mind streams of all sentient beings are all that hold this mundane appearance together. These traces are even strong enough to generate appearances for other sentient beings, such as the container universe and the beings in it. These traces come from ignorance. Ignorance comes from not recognizing our primordial state. Dzogchen practice is how that ignorance is reversed.
With regard to the primordial state, is there a Garden of Eden so to speak, and then a fall from purity?

Malcolm wrote:
Only as a didactic device. "Primordial state" is an alternate term for the what is otherwise translated as "the original basis [ thog ma'i gzhi ]."


Queequeg said:
Believe it or not, I think that from the East Asian Lotus Buddhism perspective, if I understand correctly, none of that is controversial. Our language might be different, and may very well have different understandings of these statements. We make a distinction between the Primordial Buddha, which is the True Aspect of each being's Mind, and the Buddhas with 32 Major and 80 Minor characteristics who appear in response to the needs of deluded beings. The way we put it, we each embody all sentient as well as insentient beings such as plants, trees, rocks down to atoms and up to the entire dharmadhatu environment in a way that mind and body, self and environment, and person and reality are "two but not two". Our starting point is the Primordial Buddha's revelation of his body, which we do not presently understand completely, and then progression through investigation to full realization. Provisional Buddha (the Buddha that appears as Buddha) is the awakening function of our Mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason I quoted Mañjuśrīmitra is that his text, Meditation of Bodhicitta, is written for sūtra practitioners who may have doubts about a path that discards cause and result, to show this is the true intention of Mahāyāna.

That being said, the difference between Dzogchen and sūtra Dharmas is that in sūtra Dharmas no methods are explained how to achieve the result they describe, apart from the lengthy and forbidding paths and stages.

The attainment of rainbow body, in any form, is dependent on receiving proper Dzogchen transmission and instructions, and then putting them into practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
alpha said:
If kadag is included in the above schema as one of the partial and incomplete positions by which some unilaterally define the basis,  would it not be erroneous to hold the view that kadag is the only definitive view ?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Why? Defining the basis as kadag is the position of the 17 tantras. The other six are are the partial positions.

As Vimalamitra/Nyibum states:
First, establishing original purity as faultless. Dharmatā, original purity, is free from all proliferation. Since it is unaffected by ignorance, it is free from all obscurations...

Now comes the intrinsic characteristics of the faultless position, the actual extensive explanation of the reality of original purity. The reality of the original basis that exists permeated with the intrinsic nature of the three pristine consciousnesses, essence, nature and compassion, is the inwardly illuminated original purity...

The basis is not possible if it is not originally pure.
The proof text he uses, among others, is the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra:
Also, the basis of great original purity
is endowed with essence, nature and compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Earth Termas - real objects?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Everything that buddhas do is a lie, because everything we sentient beings perceive is deceptive, including buddhas.

Sonam Wangchug said:
Yes, Earth terma's do exist.. There are of course many stories surrounding their revelations. However the proof is in the pudding.

It's obvious in dealing with the genuine tertons, just how amazing and genuine they are, and also Not only on the level of Sa (earth) Terma objects
Such as Phurba's, and statues, and all .. However the Various Sadhana's which were also revealed in scroll form .. The realized beings these terma's have produced.

I can see how one could have a doubt, something common place in this age of skepticism, but keeping an open mind, (as you sound like you are trying to do) is the way to proceed..

Tashi delek

Nosta said:
Since we are dealing with real buddhist masters - that fully follow the precept of not lie - I believe that they are not decepting people (with illusionist tricks and so on) when retrieving termas. Unless they have some kind of secret practice -and this is just my imagination wandering - where they should do tricks to make people follow them or follow Buddhism. There is also the possibility that they may want win the respect, fear and adoration of people by doing tricks (recovering termas).

I prefer to believe in the idea that they have the power to transcend reality and make wonders like this, but as someone raised in a world filled with scientific knowledge, sometimes i question myself and have some doubts. A little bit like the Pure Land teachings: sometimes I think that they are to much wonderful to be real!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:
Queequeg said:
The implication seems to be that my ignorance appears to you as form also. If I was realized, however, my form would appear to you to revert into light.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But in fact my afflictions are my own, so even if you were fully realized in this lifetime fully, the state called Phowa Chenpo, great transference, you would still appear to me in an ordinary form.

It is well known that the traces in the mind streams of all sentient beings are all that hold this mundane appearance together. These traces are even strong enough to generate appearances for other sentient beings, such as the container universe and the beings in it. These traces come from ignorance. Ignorance comes from not recognizing our primordial state. Dzogchen practice is how that ignorance is reversed.

As Mañjuśrimitra says:
Also, my body appears as the infinite worlds and bodies of living beings.
The mind and traces are not the same, not different and are very hard to investigate.
However, in reality as he says:
The mind that clings to entities and clings to cause and result
itself appears as cause and condition, but because those are nondual, there is no arising and perishing. 
Because there is no arising and perishing, there is no self and other. Because there is no death and transmigration, there is no permanence and annihilation. 
Therefore, there is no delusion or samsara. In fact, there is also no nirvana.
From a Dzogchen point of view, even the pure appearance of a Buddha is not real. As he says:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Some Questions about DC
Content:
Queequeg said:
Taking this premise for granted, that all things are vibrational frequencies, why limit this dispersal into light to the personal body? If one can so transform one's body into light, why not transform the entirety of the dharma dhatu into light? Free all beings in one instant? Is there some real distinction between the body and the environment in which the body is ensconced?

Malcolm wrote:
It is simple really. Consciousness in its pristine state arises as an appearance of color to itself. This appearance is reified as the elements and so on.

When one attains buddhahood in the system of Dzogchen, everything and all sentient beings are liberated into light.

Rainbow body is just a sign that you have reached this realization. One does not transform one's body into light, one's body reverts into light.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Dan74 said:
Intention seems to be key, along with harm minimisation. There is more and more evidence that meat harms not only the animals but the environment as it is a carbon intensive industry. As for intention, most meat-eaters (including myself) crave meat and place their craving above any consideration for the welfare of the animals. This is not a good thing.
_/|\_

Malcolm wrote:
Industrial meat cultivation is certainly bad for the environment.

But we humans put our welfare above that of other creatures, including other humans, all the time. It is the norm, not the exception. Every time we dig in the ground, "relocate" some "pest" we do not like in "our" house and so on, every time we decide to disturb some environment so we can exploit it. For example, we decide we need to irrigate a field —— we give absolutely no thought to the millions, possibly billions of creatures we are drowning. But vegetarians consider rice "less harmful."

The idea that being a vegetarian is less harmful than choosing to consume consciously raised, grass fed beef and pastured pork and chicken is ludicrous.

The fact is that everything we do harms some one or something. We have our vanity of course, but in the end, everyone chooses to ignore the harm they do to some creature either directly or indirectly. At least I don't pretend. I choose my diet based on what is good for the planet as a whole, understanding that all my choices involve harming some creature or another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Qing Tian said:
Is a person who offers a cent with good intention less meritorious than one who offers a dollar?

Malcolm wrote:
That depends on which patron is free of the three wheels.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dharmagoat said:
By all means spare a thought for the suffering of beings as small as a dust mite, but it seems to me completely impractical to avoid actions that may unintentionally harm them. Such actions of course include washing you own body and clothes. There is inevitably a kind of background noise of suffering we cause that we simply cannot avoid. Presented with this fact (and equating the suffering of microorganisms with that of more highly developed animals), some will rationalize that practicing harmlessness it futile, and disregard the tangible suffering inflicted on the animals that they choose to exploit. Worse still are the crude justifications made for overlooking this suffering. When these justifications are made in the name of the Buddhadharma, the truly compassionate must speak out.

Malcolm wrote:
When you know they are there, you are not "unintentionally" harming them, you are ignoring them.

For example, just as when one drives a car in the spring and summer, thousands of insects wind up smashed in the grill of our cars. We may regret all the thousands of insect lives we take, but we certainly do nothing about them. We keep driving anyway, since our human business is so much more important than theirs, and we are more "highly developed" sentient beings.

The thing is, there no qualitative difference between one creature and another, there is only quantitative difference in terms of sense organ development. This is why we can be reborn as bugs, and they can be reborn as humans.

Ignoring the suffering we cause creatures who live in the ground when we plough fields and calling it "unintentional" when we know full well we are inflicting all kinds of harm on all kinds of creatures, that is a justification. At least I understand that all the food that I eat comes with a price of suffering. I don't pretend that some suffering is excusable and some suffering is not — I certainly do not make a distinction between the suffering of one creature and that of another. I understand that my movement in the world is inevitably harmful whether I intend it or not, and knowing that means that I cannot really claim that I am "unintentionally" harming beings. All I can say is that I did not see a being, and develop the motive to kill it and proceed with that motivation ̦‚ and from the point of view of the Buddha, I am therefore free of the karma of killing. But that also applies to all the meat that I eat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Alleviation of suffering now
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Suffering is a result, it cannot be removed. However, it can be prevented.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
Matt J said:
Thanks for "clarifying."

I've noticed that ChNNR says that nature rang-bzhin is gsal ba, while Tsyonki Rinpoche (and some of the Bonpos) says it is clarity in the sense of "knowing." I noticed on the citations related to Natural Luminosity* that gsal ba is purity. But it sounds to me that while gsal rig is gsal ba, gsal ba isn't necessarily gsal rig. Is this correct?

Malcolm wrote:
They are synonymous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Unless ''obscured by adventitious  defilements', right?

Malcolm wrote:
It cannot be obscured by adventitious defilements any more than the sun is obscured by clouds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


dharmagoat said:
How many insects do you think live on a sheep? Have you seen a healthy sheep's wool? Do you know what you are talking about?

Malcolm wrote:
Many, just like the many thousands of incests and mites that live on and in our bodies. The same goes with sheep and all other living creatures. Our bodies are a universe of living things.

dharmagoat said:
The chickens are not fed on insects. They find a few for themselves. If they were living in the wild they would eat more. Locking them in would compromise their diet and cause them general unhappiness.

Malcolm wrote:
Chickens eat lots of insects, not merely a few.

dharmagoat said:
Yes. Animal manure is vegetable waste, it is not made out of animal. I wanted to make it clear that I did not suggest fertilizing plants with animal remains, to keep my point simple.

Malcolm wrote:
The organic industry is absolutely dependent on animal products, feather meal, bone meal, blood meal and so on. Where do you think those come from? Chicken manure has a fairy high content of insect proteins in it.

dharmagoat said:
Of course I have not saved any being from suffering itself, but by not having them killed I have saved them from some suffering. Some is better than none.

Malcolm wrote:
That's funny, the suffering of death is the same whether you die of natural causes or not.

[/quote]
Despite the impression that some may give, chanting mantras is not a substitute for practicing harmlessness. By all means do both.[/quote]

You cannot harm a piece of meat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Now we are counting animals in the wild?

dharmagoat said:
Of course. You are the one thinking only in terms of the farming industry.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahaha, so you are saving all the ants by not eating them?
And how do you personally spare farm animals unless you pay their owners not to the slaughter them?
By being the keeper of a number of sheep and chickens. You are the one thinking only in terms of urban living.
Keeping is nice, are you perhaps sheering the sheep, killing thousands of insects in their wool? You understand that by keeping chickens, you are condemning countless thousands of insects to death? The ones that make the eggs they lay for you healthy with omega threes, etc.?
Arguing that not spending money on meat = saving animals is ludicrous at best.
I thought it was basic economics. Maybe the meat industry has gone mad. Another reason to leave it well alone.
You keep chickens by your own account. So many insects make their eggs healthy, unlike poor industrial chickens.
Anyone can grow a garden of some sort and fertilize it with vegetable waste. On a small scale pests are seldom a problem.
Anyone who knows how to garden, understands compost mixed with manure is better than just compost alone. Anyone who gardens understands soil is complex living thing that needs many ingredients.
Nor did it help the Syrian refugees.

My vegetarianism helps a number of animals within my sphere of influence.
I doubt it — lots of omnivores keep pets and animals they choose not to eat for this or that reason.
More than if I was not vegetarian.
No. You have not saved a single being in samsara from suffering. Not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
Wayfarer said:
But it's a metaphor or an analogy. Mind is not actually clear, nor actually luminous. Clarity and light are metaphorical descriptions of the nature of mind, whereas 'knowing' is intrinsic to it.

Malcolm wrote:
Clarity here means "distinct." In this case, the mind is clear, distinct, unmistakable.

The mind itself is actually clear. The knowing, which is the function we ascribe to mind, is clear. It has no color, shape, etc. The space of the mind is clear, free from objects, taints and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Jesse said:
What parts of buddhism should never change?

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma part. The rest of Buddhism is irrelevant.

dharmagoat said:
Could you please explain the distinction for those at home?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood and its meaning, samsara [i.e. the process of rebirth of sentient beings] and its causes, dependent origination, karma, emptiness, great compassion, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Abstaining from eating meat does not help animals at all. Not in the least. Not even remotely.

dharmagoat said:
I have saved many animals from harm by choosing not to eat them.

Included in this list are animals in the wild that I have encountered, farm animals that I have personally spared, not to mention the hundreds of animals that have remained uncaught or unborn because I have not contributed money toward their consumption.

Malcolm wrote:
Now we are counting animals in the wild? And how do you personally spare farm animals unless you pay their owners not to the slaughter them? A calf for example costs anywhere 250-500 dollars. How many of them have you personally saved?

Arguing that not spending money on meat = saving animals is ludicrous at best.

Actually if you look at the stats: 38 percent of grain products are discarded at point of sale; 50 percent of seafood is discarded at point of sale; 52 percent of fruits and vegetables are discarded at point of sale; 22 percent of meats are discarded at point of sale and 20 percent of dairy are discarded at point of sale. This comes from an estimate made of supermarkets in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ.

What the figures above show is that for every ten pounds of meat we find in the markets, 22 percent of it goes to waste. This means that meat is not being sold into markets based on some precise metric of demand. You may choose not to eat meat, but you are not saving any beings at all by doing so. The supply of meat clearly outpaces demand. The supply of grain, seafood and fruit and vegetables is clearly outpacing demand.

So, especially with regards to fish, your abstaining from eating animals is saving none of the them. Of half the fish in the sea that have vanished in the past 50 years, half of those went to waste, not counting all the other creatures pulled up by nets.

And your being a vegetarian did not help any of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 9:16 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You may think you are helping sentient beings, but you are not helping them.

seeker242 said:
Yes, I am. And so is every other person out there advocating it.

dharmagoat said:
Absolutely.

Crikey, Malcolm. How can you make a claim like that? You yourself do more harm than you even realise.

Malcolm wrote:
Abstaining from eating meat does not help animals at all. Not in the least. Not even remotely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 8:54 AM
Title: Re: How much should Buddhism Change?
Content:
Jesse said:
What parts of buddhism should never change?

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma part. The rest of Buddhism is irrelevant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
Wayfarer said:
What about 'awareness'? Mind is 'aware' by nature, isn't it? I mean, glass and water are both 'clear' by nature, but they are not mind-like, because they don't embody awareness or knowing. I think 'knowing is to mind as illumination is to light', i.e. Just as the very nature of light is to illuminate, the very nature of mind is to know.

Malcolm wrote:
Clarity is the aware part of the mind. It is short hand for " gsal rig ", "knowing clarity". Sometimes it is termed " shes rig, "knowing awareness": shes rig is gsal ba.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
Herbie said:
I am not Theravada either. But I can tell you that your nature of mind is nothing but soul theory in disguise.


Malcolm wrote:
How so? In what way does the "nature of the mind" entail an unchanging entity that continues from one life to another, etc.

Herbie said:
If it doesn't what's the purpose of positing a permanent "nature of the mind" at all?

Malcolm wrote:
Fire is always hot, water is always wet, a mind is always inseparable emptiness and clarity by nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 2nd, 2015 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
That is fine, and if you want to run a crusade, go for it. But I am pretty sure the world is not going to go along with it. After all, even in India, which is supposedly a vegetarian country, most people eat animals.

Malcolm wrote:
What you call crusade, I call "helping sentient beings". [/quote]

You may think you are helping sentient beings, but you are not helping them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 1st, 2015 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: Nature of mind vs. soul theory.
Content:
Herbie said:
My take is simply that "mind" is a word used in conventional language in different contexts like in "mind-ful" or "mind-less" but that there is no mind entity at all and therefore there cannot be any mind nature at all. so "mind" is like "santa claus".
.

Malcolm wrote:
And so what substantial entity do you take the "nature of mind" to be? Why do you think, when people discuss the "nature of the mind" they are referring to something that is not merely a convention? Why do you think "nature of the mind" refers to an entity? The mind is empty of being a mind, in other words, there is no ultimate entity called "mind."

Herbie said:
But "becoming conscious" of this or that can well be observed by everybody. therefore "consciousness" is a valid term

Malcolm wrote:
And why is this consciousness different than what is termed "clarity"?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 1st, 2015 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
Herbie said:
I am not Theravada either. But I can tell you that your nature of mind is nothing but soul theory in disguise.


Malcolm wrote:
How so? In what way does the "nature of the mind" entail an unchanging entity that continues from one life to another, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 1st, 2015 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:




Malcolm wrote:
No one disagrees that changing industrial agriculture is one of the major keys to climate change — but you are not going to convince "typical omnivores" that they should stop eating meat.

seeker242 said:
I have to say I disagree. As I've already convinced hundreds of people. I convinced my brother and sister without even trying. I myself was once a "typical omnivore" and someone else convinced me. There are plenty of future vegetarians out there!

Malcolm wrote:
That is fine, and if you want to run a crusade, go for it. But I am pretty sure the world is not going to go along with it. After all, even in India, which is supposedly a vegetarian country, most people eat animals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 1st, 2015 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Plants Respond to Leaf Vibrations Caused by Insects’ Chewing, MU Study Finds

COLUMBIA, Mo. – Previous studies have suggested that plant growth can be influenced by sound and that plants respond to wind and touch. Now, researchers at the University of Missouri, in a collaboration that brings together audio and chemical analysis, have determined that plants respond to the sounds that caterpillars make when eating plants and that the plants respond with more defenses.

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2014/0701-plants-respond-to-leaf-vibrations-caused-by-insects%E2%80%99-chewing-mu-study-finds/


There is increasingly more evidence that plants are in fact sentient, as well as living beings. This is fundamentally one of the reasons why I think many of claims vegetarians make about plant-based diets reducing suffering is pretty much bunk. Plants suffer.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 31st, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I think other things are more important, like eliminating fossil fuels, changing how we do agriculture, and so on.

seeker242 said:
I personally see those things as an intrinsic part of the issue being discussed. The elimination of fossil fuel isn't going to happen tomorrow so in the meantime it's reasonable for one to try to reduce their consumption of them. At least in the US, a vegan uses only 10% of the fossil fuel that a typical omnivore does, with regards to food. Consumption is going to first have to be reduced, in order for them to be eliminated. If one cares about global warming for example, one should be concerned about their own personal carbon footprint that their own lives and choices create IMO. One may not have power over politicians or corporations half a world away, but one does have power over one's own choices.



Malcolm wrote:
No one disagrees that changing industrial agriculture is one of the major keys to climate change — but you are not going to convince "typical omnivores" that they should stop eating meat. You can however convince them to switch to 100% pastured beef. Pigs and chicken will always require grain, which is why, once upon a time, pork and chicken was more expensive than beef, pound for pound.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 31st, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I guess, what I am trying to say is that becoming a vegetarian is not going to save the world. It won't even put a dent in global warming...

seeker242 said:
Perhaps, but for me, that still isn't a good enough reason not to try.

Kinda like the Bodhisattva vow almost. Is one really going to save a numberless about of living beings from samsara, just by doing meditation, etc. and getting enlightenment? One could argue no because there still going to be wars and killing, etc. even after that happens. But, still not a good enough reason not to try.

Malcolm wrote:
I think other things are more important, like eliminating fossil fuels, changing how we do agriculture, and so on.

And yes, by awakening, one is in a much better position to help others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
tingdzin said:
Very good thread.

Clearly, "mind" is a pretty useless word, almost as bad as "soul" or "consciousness", unless one states from the outset what one means by it. In Buddhism, people have translated, manas, citta ,vijnana, etc. all as "mind", when the terms have completely different meanings. It also obscures the fact that what the English word refers to is a process and not a thing.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, they don't really — Vasubandhu clearly states they are synonyms, distinguished only by time reference, i.e. manas has a past object, vijñāna has a present object, and citta has a future object.

tingdzin said:
It would be quite interesting and productive if someone with a thorough background in Sanskrit (Vedic as well as Buddhist) could trace these and other Sanskrit mentational words back to their earliest appearances in Indic literature, and then try to discover, using related words in other ancient Indo-European languages, what they originally stemmed from, in the same that the English word "is" ultimately stems from an IE root meaning "breathe".

Malcolm wrote:
This a useful thing to do, but as we know, language is diachronic, it evolves according to need, and there is no reason why we cannot make English terms fit Dharma definitions.

As for etymology:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cognizance
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=concept
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conscious
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=consciousness
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intellect
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intelligence
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=know
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mind
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=thought
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=think

It really is not so hard to make equivalencies. The Tibetans managed.

Dharma texts, especially Dzogchen texts, need to be translated into a common vernacular, not an obscure academic jargon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I guess, what I am trying to say is that becoming a vegetarian is not going to save the world. It won't even put a dent in global warming...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
Persuading people to become vegetarian, IS ITSELF, a benefit to sentient beings...However, If someone is going to attack and argue against vegetarianism, I'm going to defend it. That's all there is to it really. There is nothing unreasonable about that.  You don't want me to talk about it? Well, then don't attack it with nonsensical arguments. Problem solved.

Malcolm wrote:
No one is attacking vegetarianism per se. What is being critiqued is that one's diet is a measure of one's compassion.

seeker242 said:
The ecosystem of the ocean is more important than your personal feelings. The health of the planet as a whole, is more important than your personal feelings.

Malcolm wrote:
I agree with you. Unfortunately, there is no authority out there that can regulate fishing worldwide. But fisheries management in the US has led to a rebound in fish stocks. The main problem is with developing countries:
In the U.S. this gloomy picture has started to improve, thanks to science-based fisheries management. Thirty-four fish stocks have been declared rebuilt since the year 2000 and more than 90 percent of U.S. fish stocks are not considered overfished. Worldwide, though, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations considers almost 30 percent of fish stocks to be overfished. “The main problem is really in the developing countries where we need more effective institutions for fisheries management,” says Christensen. “We need to get effective management introduced in all countries, or it will have dire consequences.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/predatory-fish-have-declined-by-two-thirds-in-the-20th-century/

seeker242 said:
And it's quite appropriate to try and save them.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is. The world environment as a whole is worth preserving. We have no where else to live. Properly grazed herds are one of the most effective means of sequestering carbon, actually. And plowing fields releases an enormous amount of carbon every year.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When you kill things, of course you have no compassion.

dharmagoat said:
And when you knowingly sponsor others to kill for you..?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't sponsor anyone to kill anything for me. In order for that to happen, there would have to a living animal that I paid someone to kill for me.

Otherwise, if by buying the meat of an animal already dead in which I had no hand I am nevertheless responsible, so too are all people who buy vegetables and grains responsible for all the deaths of rodents, birds and insects that die in the hundreds of millions every year in order to put gas in your car and rice on your plate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 8:18 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Malcolm, is creating a demand for killing through purchasing meat products not asking that it to be done for you?

nilakantha said:
“And if, Mahamati, no one ever ate meat, then they wouldn’t kill for that purpose. For most innocent living beings are slaughtered for profit, few for other reasons. It is abominable, Mahamati, that in the over-eagerness of craving for flavor even human flesh is eaten by humans, not to mention the flesh of other living creatures such as animals and birds. Most of this is killed in nets and traps for that purpose, by deluded people afflicted with craving for the taste of meat, as fowlers, herders, fishermen, and so on slaughter innocent creatures of the air, earth, and water in many ways for the sake of profit. And these bitter, cruel-hearted, demoniacal, ruthless people have no concept of living beings as living beings; as they are killing and eating them, they feel no compassion." -- The Lankavatara Sutra

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is completely true. But we don't live in a world dominated by Buddhadharma and we never will. We live in a world where the vast majority of people eat meat and demand it. And indeed, as their standard of living increases, so does their demand for meat as is shown in India, China, Japan and so on.

When you kill things, of course you have no compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Malcolm, is creating a demand for killing through purchasing meat products not asking that it to be done for you?

Malcolm wrote:
No.

I am not creating a demand.

For every person in the US, no matter what kind of diet they have, 90 pounds of vegetables per year go to waste, 40 pounds of meat. In other words 6,360,000 tons of meat goes to waste in the US every year, and 14,310,000 tons of vegetables.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dharmagoat said:
If it is simpler than that, then past interpreters of the Buddhadharma have made it that way to suit their own specific conditions.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is just very simple. When meat is pure in three ways, this means you have no hand in the suffering of the animal. By the time it reaches you, there is no consciousness left connected with that to experience suffering.

It is only when one has a direct hand in slaughter by either seeing it done, doing it oneself or asking that it be done for you that there is a fault because one is directly party to the suffering of a given creature.

Vegan ethics are different than Dharma ethics. Some people think the former superior to the latter. Let them. I shall continue to follow the Dharma, not what vegans think.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One can eat meat and still observe the vow of not taking life.

dharmagoat said:
By effectively hiring a hit man.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that would break the vow of not taking life.

As long as you do not see, it request it be done, or do it yourself, there is no fault, it really is that simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
I apologize to all if what I wrote seems holier than thou because I'm vegetarian as part of the precept of not killing We each interpret the precepts according to our experiences and lives.

Malcolm wrote:
One can eat meat and still observe the vow of not taking life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Jodo Shinshu and the Adibuddha
Content:
steveb1 said:
Thanks smcj for your comments... I'm very curious to see how a kind of "Primordial Emanator" Who/Which is a Buddha but not a creator-deity "pans out" in the Vajrayana, e.g., as with the Creator question in the West, if everything is an emanation from the primordial Buddha, does not the question of theodicy arise in the sense that the ultimate cause and therefore the ultimate responsibility for the evils of samsara must be laid on the shoulders of the Emanator, whether a deity or a Buddha?  And of course, there's the question of how Jodo Shinshu relates or does not relate Amida Buddha to the Adibuddha... fascinating stuff!

Malcolm wrote:
This is not an accurate article. So ignore it.

The adibuddha simply means the first buddha of this eon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Simon E. said:
No one is either promoting nor defending the eating of meat on health grounds. There are those who require meat in their diet to stay well
.
But the Vajrayana view of eating meat is often predicated on arguments that are tangential to health.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed. The point of eating meat in Vajrayāna is compassion. The view that eating meat harms compassion belongs to sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
People who have sense at all do not eat industrially produced meat. Not only is it environmentally unsound to do so, it is not healthy either.

Mkoll said:
From a few pages ago, with added emphasis.
"Bacon, sausages and ham rank alongside smoking as cancer causes, says WHO"

Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco.

The report from the WHO’s cancer arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, says there is enough evidence to rank processed meats as group 1 carcinogens, because of a causal link with bowel cancer.

It places red meat in group 2A, as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. Eating red meat is also linked to pancreatic and prostate cancer, the IARC says.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who

Malcolm wrote:
Not much about the current state of industrial civilization is healthy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Again, the environmental harm in terms of pollution and killing in the meat industry is well documented. Is this really even being questioned?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and this is not being questioned. People who have sense at all do not eat industrially produced meat. Not only is it environmentally unsound to do so, it is not healthy either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 30th, 2015 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
According to the interwebs, it takes 6 pounds of corn to make 1 pound of beef.
So the argument about relative quantity of deaths or deaths of insects doesn't hold water.

Malcolm wrote:
Cows did not evolve to eat corn. So I don't eat corn finished beef.

And yes, the argument about relative quantity of deaths or deaths of insects does hold water:
Although U.S. corn is a highly productive crop, with typical yields between 140 and 160 bushels per acre, the resulting delivery of food by the corn system is far lower. Today’s corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol) and as animal feed (roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens). Much of the rest is exported.  Only a tiny fraction of the national corn crop is directly used for food for Americans, much of that for high-fructose corn syrup.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/

This means that the very act of driving vehicles in the US, where there is ethanol in virtually everything involves deaths for just as many creatures as feed for cows.

Monlam Tharchin said:
The environmental impacts of the meat industry in the US are well documented.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and I have mentioned many times that industrial meat production is an environmental disaster.

But I don't buy that kind of meat. Properly grazed animals are a boon for the environment, build soils, sequester carbon and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Simon E. said:
And you are being told by more than one Dzogchen student that it isn't.  Now what ?


Malcolm wrote:
I think all he means is that there is similarity in so far as there is an investigation of where thoughts or mind come from, where they go, and where they stay.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


Adamantine said:
I've looked at your link to your own quote. It is not clear what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bhavya that is being paraphrased is a Tibetan Bhavya from a period after the 8th century, as opposed to the famous Bhavaviveka also called Bhavya from the 6th century?

Malcolm wrote:
I am saying there are two Indian Madhyamaka authors, one who wrote a commentary on the MMK, called Bhavaviveka; another whose works were translated by Atisha, Tarkajvala, Blaze of Dialectics, being one of them.

Adamantine said:
You say above " I already have shown elsewhere that this is a very inaccurate paraphrase of what Bhavaviveka says" and then in the link you say "It is not a text by Bhavaviveka. Bhavya is a much later master, post Shantarakshita." So is it a paraphrase of Bhavaviveka or isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a paraphrase of Bhavya, aka Bhavaviveka II

Adamantine said:
And if it is, and you are saying he is later than Śāntarakṣita, how is it that all biographies of Bhavaviveka date him 6th century, while Śāntarakṣita is clearly 8th century?  And while it may be clear to yourself, you have not done a good job of communicating what you think Dudjom Rinpoche's, or Bhavya's, or the Derge canonical edn. of the text: dbu-ma, Vol. Tsha's error is. So, what is it, and who made the original error?

Malcolm wrote:
There are two people referred to by one name. The author of the Madhyamakavrtti is the first, Bhavaviveka I; the author of the text, Tarkajvala, being paraphrased by Dudjom Rinpoche and other gzhan stong pas, is Bhavaviveka II.

While there is no mention of Prasanga or Svatantra in the Tarkajvala, it does mentions a great Madhyamaka. However, that "great Madhyamaka" is defined by how it treats relative truth, i.e. mind only. Coarse outer Madhyamaka treats relative truth in the manner of the Sarvastivadins and so on.

In general, Dudjom Rinpoche repeats an error universally common in Tibetan Buddhism scholastics, and it is by no means confined to him. That is, he cites a version of citation that has been passed down to him in an altered or truncated form without checking the original text to see if it is accurate. This is a big problem with Tibetan treatises in general, not confined to any one school or any one author.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Your point of view is not in touch with reality.

seeker242 said:
Interesting. However, it is actually your point of view that has nothing to do with reality.
It has nothing to do with Buddhism at all.
Wrong again.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that any diet is less harmful than another, unless you are begging for alms, is the underlying point. Apart from killing animals yourself which is definitely harmful, all diets are equally harmful because they involve someone harming some creature at some time in the production of food.

For example, in order to make sesame oil, millions of tiny insects are crushed in its production — which of course is why sesame pounders were among the lowest castes in India.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, I already have shown elsewhere that this is a very inaccurate paraphrase of what Bhavaviveka says...just saying, you can search in this easily...

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=13306&p=174083&hilit=outer+madhyamaka#p174083

dzogchungpa said:
Oh, OK,  I was just supplying the quotation. It does show how Dudjom Rinpoche thought about things though, doesn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
It just shows that Dudjom Rinpoche was not a very thorough scholar and was repeating someone else's mistake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
So when you dig in the ground, you think you are not killing many creatures?

seeker242 said:
No, I grow indoors. No digging required. But even if I did, the point of digging is not to kill animals. The point of making meat is precisely to kill. Killing is the only way to get meat. Unless you are eating roadkill...The idea that there is no difference between the two is nonsensical.

Malcolm wrote:
But in point of fact, the reason why Buddha forbad monks from farming and wandering during the rain season was to prevent harm to living beings, so your point of view is just not consistent.

seeker242 said:
Oh, ok. So east asian Buddhism is not in touch with reality?

Malcolm wrote:
Your point of view is not in touch with reality. It has nothing to do with Buddhism at all.

seeker242 said:
No, the idea that I need to stop buying food altogether, is not even close to being reasonable.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that you can separate your dollars spent on vegetables in a market that sells meat from its activity in buying meat is not reasonable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Adamantine said:
I recall reading that Dudjom Rinpoche said that in scholastic study and debate--i.e. from the intellect's point of view it was important to hold the Rangtong view. From the experiential practice perspective, the shentong view was more apt. I'll look for the quote...

dzogchungpa said:
From the BRB: Secondly, concerning the subtle, inner Great Madhyamaka of definitive meaning, it is stated in the Jewel Lamp of the Madhyamaka by the master Bhavya  ( skal-ldan ): The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with [extremist] Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara-Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, I already have shown elsewhere that this is a very inaccurate paraphrase of what Bhavaviveka says...just saying, you can search in this easily...

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=13306&p=174083&hilit=outer+madhyamaka#p174083


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Scientific Materialism and Re-birth
Content:
maybay said:
The mechanism is karma, a word you have yet to invoke in this thread.

dharmagoat said:
For good reason. On a Buddhist forum the existence of karma is taken for granted without question.

But what actually is it, how is it possible, and how can it be demonstrated?

Malcolm wrote:
"Karma is volition [cetana], and what proceeds from volition."

You are confusing karma, which is very straightforward, with karma-vipaka, the ripening of karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
As a footnote I'd like to point out that DKR is Dudjom R.'s grandson and presumably brought up in the tradition of his grandfather. Therefore I think it safe to assume he accepts the Great Madhyamaka/Shentong view of emptiness which is not universally accepted in Nyingma. Thus he may express opinions not all Nyingmapas would agree with.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he was educated Sakya, and while he has taught the gZhan stong pov for balance, it is fair bet to say that like his father, he is not a gzhan stong pa.

smcj said:
Thrangu R. got a geshe degree from the Gelugpas and that doesn't stop him from being a Shentongpa.

But it looks like we are both guessing. Until and unless he comes out with a clear statement on the subject neither of us really knows. And given the touchy nature of the subject it seems likely he will keep his cards close to his chest.

Malcolm wrote:
You should read his commentary on Uttaratantra, and in point of fact he has made his POV known.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
seeker242 said:
Not true, I grow and harvest my own organic lettuce and I don't spray it with pesticides.

Malcolm wrote:
So when you dig in the ground, you think you are not killing many creatures?

seeker242 said:
But, you can't do that because that's a precepts violation so you need to hire someone to do that for you. Talk about passing the buck...Jesus!

Malcolm wrote:
If the market is out of meat, I don't buy it. My purchase or non-purchase of meat has no impact at all. Do you have any idea at all of how much meat is wasted every year in landfills because no one bought it?

seeker242 said:
But even if I didn't grow my own lettuce, according to east Asian Buddhism, it would still be more virtuous than eating a slaughtered cow, no question about it.

Malcolm wrote:
But not according to reality.

seeker242 said:
It's a completely and totally unreasonable statement.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a completely reasonable statement. As long you buy your food, you are contributing in toto to a system of agriculture that is grounded in cruelty to living creatures.
In 2010, the average amount of food loss per American was 429 pounds, of which 139 pounds at the retail level and 290 pounds at the consumer level went uneaten (table 2). At the consumer level, 59 pounds of vegetables, 52 pounds of dairy products, and 41 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish per capita from the food supply in 2010 went uneaten.
http://www.endhunger.org/PDFs/2014/USDA-FoodLoss-2014.pdf

Sorry, but the very little money I spend on meat every year just does not count.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
smcj said:
As a footnote I'd like to point out that DKR is Dudjom R.'s grandson and presumably brought up in the tradition of his grandfather. Therefore I think it safe to assume he accepts the Great Madhyamaka/Shentong view of emptiness which is not universally accepted in Nyingma. Thus he may express opinions not all Nyingmapas would agree with.


Malcolm wrote:
No, he was educated Sakya, and while he has taught the gZhan stong pov for balance, it is fair bet to say that like his father, he is not a gzhan stong pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
haha said:
As I am not sure that the first Shankara has commented on the Yoga Sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he did in fact. It is in English translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
dharmagoat said:
Malcolm, you make a good case for eating organically grown food.

Becoming vegan would of course minimize the harm you describe.

Malcolm wrote:
Organic pesticides are still poisons that kill things, and in fact most "organic" fertilizer comes from animal husbandry [manure] or slaughter [bone meal, blood meal, feather meal and so on].

Most people really have no idea how their good is produced...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha never made vegetarianism mandatory, even though Devadattva insisted that he should. What the Buddha made mandatory was that we should not directly participate in taking the life of other beings, if possible, though in Mahāyāna ethics, even this is not absolute.

seeker242 said:
Do you think that intentionally giving money and financial support to a slaughterhouse kill floor is not participating somehow? Perhaps if you are a beggar monk on alms rounds, then there wouldn't be any participation. Is anyone here actually a beggar monk?

Malcolm wrote:
I do not think buying meat in a grocery store and say strawberries in a grocery are at all different in terms of harming living beings. Our entire global system of agriculture is based on harming living beings: whether they are "pests" or food animals.

seeker242 said:
The real point I am trying to make is that the Buddha no where taught that our liberation was dependent on our diet. For example, do you think bodhisattvas who live in rakṣasa dimensions convert them into vegans?
And the point I would like to make is that your liberation or not-liberation, and my liberation or not-liberation, is largely irrelevant. The relevant question to ask here is: What do the cows themselves think about all this? To ignore their concerns and think of only your own liberation or not liberation, is by definition, a selfish way to view it.

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are changing the terms of the discussion.

Cows, like a "pest" on your lettuce, wishes to preserve their own life at any cost. Your lettuce, produced with pesticides, chemical fertilizers and so on, is no more virtuous a food than a slaughtered cow.

seeker242 said:
Do people really think they can save all beings from suffering, while simultaneously giving support to people who are murdering them? When they could easily choose not to?  I'm sorry, but that idea is just beyond my comprehension!

Malcolm wrote:
Then you better stop buying any food at all. It all comes at a great cost in sentient beings' lives, every last bit of greens, every nut and every grain.

Further, if you buy any food at all at any market that sells meat, you are supporting the slaughter of animals as well, it is not like dollars go into their register marked "vegetarian" and "omnivore."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
He also interestingly does not rule out a correspondence with Kashmir Shaivism.

dzogchungpa said:
FWIW I recently heard Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, whose Deer Park Institute regularly holds courses and seminars on Kashmir Shaivism, say that it is "very, very identical" with Vajrayana Buddhism

Malcolm wrote:
No, not really. There are of course some parallels, but to say "very, very identical" with Vajrayana Buddhism..." is just exuberant hyperbole and nothing more.

However, it is good that they hold courses on it. People who follow Buddhadharma should learn the tenets of other systems from their exponents in order to be clear about where there are similarities, and more importantly, where there are differences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: How Do You Understand The Word " Mind ? "
Content:
DGA said:
It's a shorthand cipher for Sanskrit concepts like "citta" and "vijnana."

I tend not to use the term "mind" to translate Buddhist concepts such as Buddha-nature or Dharmata; there are other shorthand terms for that.

I'm glad you've initiated this thread, because the term "mind" really is a muddle in English-language Buddhist discourse.

Malcolm wrote:
The term "mind" in English is a container metaphor. "What I have in mind...", "The thought arose in my mind..."

Consciousness on the other hand is not a container metaphor, it is a description of the awareness a mind has, dating no earlier than Locke.

In reality, "mind" comes from PIE, *men, leading to Latin mēns:

mind
intellect
reasoning, judgement

The actual word "mind: comes from is Proto-Germanic/gamundiz, leading to old English:

ġemynd:

memory; commemoration:
Heora gemynd is forgiten. The memory of them is forgotten.

thought, thinking

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


seeker242 said:
No, that hasn't happened as far as I can remember at least. However, talking down to East Asian Buddhism, trying to discount it as illegitimate, has happened over and over. The heir of superiority of Tibetan Buddhism, that some people put fourth in this forum, is plainly evident.

Johnny Dangerous said:
As is the air of superiority consistently put forth by militant vegetarians and vegans on this forum. Off the forum too, in fact. Just the other I had one admonish me for eating meat occasionally after arguing with me about medical evidence on the link between high protein and cholesterol (which he was wrong on), and then proceeding to tell me about what company he favored for pest control - can't make this stuff up.

seeker242 said:
Sure. But if someone is going to say "it's not appropriate to claim" or something like that. Then you should be behaving in the same way as you advise. Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical. If it's inappropriate to marginalize Tibetan views of eating meat, then it's equally inappropriate to marginalize East Asian views.

Malcolm wrote:
In fact there is a long and strong tradition of vegetarianism in Tibet. But it is not universally maintained, and not merely because "Tibetans can't grow vegetables."

The reality that seems to escape many people who advocate a literal interpretation of the Buddha's teachings on not eating meat, is that being a conventional living being who eats food involves harming other beings no matter what kind of diet one follows. The Buddha never made vegetarianism mandatory, even though Devadattva insisted that he should. What the Buddha made mandatory was that we should not directly participate in taking the life of other beings, if possible, though in Mahāyāna ethics, even this is not absolute. The real point I am trying to make is that the Buddha no where taught that our liberation was dependent on our diet. For example, do you think bodhisattvas who live in rakṣasa dimensions convert them into vegans?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


nilakantha said:
Just mentioned it to suggest that canonicity in Buddhism is very differant than canonicity in Christianity. Just because a text was composed in China doesn't mean it's not Buddhavacana.

Malcolm wrote:
Likewise, just because a text is a tantra, does not mean it is not Buddhavacana, therefore:
"Whoever eats meat has compassion."
—— Hevajra Tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, what you cite is a footnote on pg. 383, note 102 which itself is taken from Erik Pema Kunsang's appendix to Circle of the Sun, which is actually a summary of texts written by Khenpo Ngachung and others.

Kongtrul's actual remark on page 92 merely states what I said above, that this is a preliminary practice. It has nothing to do with the unstruck sound you are interested in.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
Correct. Eating meat is not necessarily intentional killing. Sorry, but it just isn't.
Not if you eat animals who die of natural causes and have been dead long enough for their consciousnesses to leave their bodies, waiting 72 hours to be safe. Even then, you're eating your parents and children from former lives.

Malcolm wrote:
If you eat meat pure in three ways there is no fault and no karma, as Bhavaviveka shows. It is not stipulated that it be from natural causes.

If you eat a tomato, it is certainty that some creature has died in the processing of that plant.

Buddha gave such teachings to attract Jains and so on to Mahāyāna. I do not consider them definitive teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
“You may use  those substances that have come to you indirectly without having been touched by  killing.”

Malcolm wrote:
This is a recipe for starvation, if taken literally.

nilakantha said:
We know that to be an act of killing in Buddhism it must be intentional.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. Eating meat is not necessarily intentional killing. Sorry, but it just isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Is collective consciousness Buddhist?
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
[

In the Buddhist view, saṃskāra comes directly before Vijñāna in the twelvefold chain. So collective karma would automatically imply collective consciousness to some extent, no?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Right, that is not what is described in the sgra thal 'gyur.

Panaesthesia said:
Can I ask you for a clarification Malcolm?  Are you a translator of Tibetan? Did you read the original text itself, or are you reporting what you heard in a teaching? I am curious as to how someone of the stature of Jamgon Kongtrul could be so wrong about what the text said.

Thank you, Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:
I read the text myself. It is unlikely that Kongtrul has access to the commentary of the sgra thal 'gyur. It was lost.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
“You may use  those substances that have come to you indirectly without having been touched by  killing.”

Malcolm wrote:
This is a recipe for starvation, if taken literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
Yes, and this is one of the ways that people distinguish between Samkhya and Yoga.

tepp01 said:
Actually, some Samkhya traditions (like Patanjali's Yoga school) also include Ishwara, but it's not the same Ishwara of Vedanta.

Samkhya's Ishwara is a unique, ever free, Purusha that does not have any cosmic functions (creation, destruction, etc.).

Also, all Vedanta schools teach that Jivas are beginningless (Anaadi), even though Advaita asserts that they are unreal (as different from Brahman).

Malcolm wrote:
As Tepp01 says the Ishvara in the Yoga sūtras is merely a special kind of purusha who was never bound, is not a creator, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
The one that comes to mind is the Brahma Net Sutra:

Malcolm wrote:
This sūtra is not known in India and not found in the Tibetan canon. Therefore, it is irrelevant outside of Chinese Buddhism.

nilakantha said:
How about the Lankavatara Sutra: “Because it is produced from semen and blood, too, Mahamati, meat should not be eaten by a bodhisattva, out of a desire for purity. And because it causes anxiety in beings, Mahamati, a practicing bodhisattva wishing friendliness of beings should not eat any meat at all."

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course there are Mahāyāna sūtras where the Buddha recommends vegetarianism. It is also equally true that Bhavaviveka addresses these issues in his famed Tarkajvala:
If one eats meat after creating suffering for the bodies of creatures, this will possess a fault, but if there is no mind in the creature when the meat is eaten, where can there be a misdeed if no suffering arises? Just as when one uses mother pearl, or the excrescences of fish and elephants, or peacock feathers, yak tails, teeth, bones, skin and so on, there is little or no suffering for the creature, just as when one uses fruit, water and so on there is no harm at all, in the same way, since there is no harm when meat is eaten, there is no fault. If there is a fault, then cremating the dead will be a misdeed.
Even in Mahāyāna, the Buddha never forbids using wool, using feathers, using leather, bone, shell, and many other kinds of animal products. It is inconsistent to claim that the passages where Buddha enjoins us not to eat meat must be taken as definitive teachings.

Bhavaviveka, whose Mahāyāna credentials are impeccable, certain opines that it is not necessary to take these passages literally. He points out that if the suffering of creatures is the problem we want to solve then we must avoid eating rice, sesame oil, and all kinds of other products which involve suffering for creatures.

Instead, we need to understand that this advice is aimed at people who kill animals or have them killed in order to eat them and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
The one that comes to mind is the Brahma Net Sutra:

Malcolm wrote:
This sūtra is not known in India and not found in the Tibetan canon. Therefore, it is irrelevant outside of Chinese Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: impermanence
Content:
DGA said:
You may be surprised to read that Dolpopa's position is not the consensus one in those threads.  Far from it, actually.

Nor is there any consensus among Tibetan Buddhists that Dolpopa was on the right track.  Far from it.

Nor is there any consensus among Mahayana Buddhists of East Asia that Dolpopa's view is the definitive one.  That goes without saying, right?

Really, take a quick tour through the links I gave above and you'll see what is about to happen in this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Son of the Buddha....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Purusa gives rise to prakrti.

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly, not in Saṃkhya proper, anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Simon E. said:
So you wouldn't consider that HH the Dalai Lama ( who eats meat every other say ) had a fortunate birth nilakantha ? Or won't next time ?

nilakantha said:
Karma works without regard to who or what you are. Whether you're a monk or a layman, eating meat cuts off the root of Great Compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not. Buddha taught in the Hevajra tantra, "Those who eat meat have compassion."

Further. Bhavaviveka proves that there is no fault if one consumes meat pure in three ways. There is no karma if one eats meat that is pure in three ways. Karma involves volition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
The choice of a vegetarian diet is a necessary, though not sufficient, cause for being reborn either in a Pure Land or for a fortunate rebirth in this one.


Malcolm wrote:
Not it isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 28th, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
I think you're getting your Samkhya mixed up with your Advaita.

asunthatneversets said:
The model of Advaita Vedanta has puruṣa and prakṛti. Puruṣa is a singular ontological source that gives rise to prakṛti, however prakṛti (and the transformation of the three gunas) is held to be unreal, as it is illusion [māyā], only puruṣa is real. Puruṣa is Brahman, and is an unconditioned knower [jñā].


Malcolm wrote:
No, Saṃkhya is like the Abhidharma of Hinduism. The conclusion of Saṃkhya [infinite independent purushas] is rejected by Advaita, but the general treatment of elements, organs and so on is not disputed.

In the Yogasutra commentary by Shankara, he explicitly equates purusha with Brahmin, and says there is only one purusha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
hence Buddha in the world is just an appearance in the mind of the perceiver.

Malcolm wrote:
The appearance of the world is just an appearance in the mind of a perceiver, whether that appearance is pure or impure. If your view is pure, there is no difference between meat and rice. If your view is impure, there is still no difference between meat and rice. If your view is pure, there is no difference between a buddha and a sentient being; if your view is impure, there is still no difference between a sentient being.

Liberation is not attained through choice of diet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
The Buddha's body is eternal and unchanging. Our bodies are in a constant state of flux; ergo we eat to sustain ourselves, the Buddha doesn't eat because their's no changing body to support.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahaha, so now you have lapsed into a dual view: your view of the Buddha's body is eternalist, and your view of sentient beings bodies is that they are subject to perishing.

In reality, there is no difference between the body of a buddha and the body of a sentient being: they are equally unreal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
nilakantha said:
While we all possess the Buddhadhātu as our true Self, not all of us manifest as form body Buddhas. If you are a form body Buddha, you will not eat. The logic of this is obvious in the Angulimaliya Sutra:

Mañjuśrī, if any man or woman should think to themselves that they can do evil deeds because they will still be liberated by the existence within themselves of the Tathāgata-garbha, and then do some evil deed, how could their ātma-dhātu [Self- Factor] become liberated? As I previously explained, they will not be liberated, even though they do have the dhātu, just as in the case of the youth who engaged in asceticism. Why is that? Because they are very careless. Because they are careless, they will naturally not be liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
You completely missed the point — all bodies are projections...the Tathāgata's form is not less real than our own...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


nilakantha said:
As Mahāyāna Buddhists, we know that the Lord Śākyamuni was a nirmānakāya Buddha and never actually ate anything...

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously?

nilakantha said:
Shakyamuni was basically a holographic projection, existing only in the consciousnesses of sentient beings. How could a hologram need food? We're told in the Sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra Sūtra:

“Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata is in the realm of non-arising. On the other hand, he appears in the world as a reflected image. According to the beliefs of sentient beings he displays diverse appearances and diverse lifespans. He appears among sentient beings who have become fitting receptacles for awakening thanks to their maturation and belief. These sentient beings then hear the Dharma according to their dispositions and beliefs. According to their dispositions they understand the three vehicles, and according to their dispositions they obtain belief."

And

“Mañjuśrī, there is no Tathāgata. However, the designation ‘Tathāgata’ comes about in the world because of the voice of Dharma. It is exclusively due to the maturation of sentient beings’ previous wholesome karma that they perceive the voice of the Tathāgata. That voice emerges in order to produce happiness for all sentient beings and to prompt those who are careless. Mañjuśrī, as those sentient beings hear that sound, they form the concept of a tathāgata, thinking, ‘This is the Tathāgata’s body.’"

Malcolm wrote:
If the Tathāgata never ate food, neither did we. Therefore, your obsession with diet is a complete waste of time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


swooping said:
Does this seem like a viable line of thought, or do you think I am twisting the essence of (at least) one of these traditions?

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are twisting the essence of (at least) one of these traditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
I don't think that renders the terms "base," "path," and "fruit" indistinguishable, or mean they cannot be useful concepts in a public discussion (so far as concepts are useful) about different approaches.

Malcolm wrote:
They are distinguishable in this respect only: the basis is termed the basis when one has not realized the result; the path is the means of recognizing the basis; the result is when one has recognized the basis for what it is. But in reality, the basis, path and result are the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:
Matt J said:
I actually think the more important point isn't the fruit, it's the base and the path. Advaita and Dzogchen DO take completely different approaches. Let's assume for arguments sake that the end result IS the same. So what? You still have to go down one or the other. Mixing them up isn't going to work.

Malcolm wrote:
The basis, path and result are the same thing in Dzogchen. So of course the result is the most important point, given that it is the basis and the path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 27th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Is collective consciousness Buddhist?
Content:
PorkChop said:
Is the idea of a collective consciousness a part of Buddhist doctrine?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


nilakantha said:
As Mahāyāna Buddhists, we know that the Lord Śākyamuni was a nirmānakāya Buddha and never actually ate anything...

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 26th, 2015 at 7:47 PM
Title: Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Content:


swooping said:
With what little I have read about Kashmir Shaivism it, or at least parts of it, seem to be very very similar to dzogchen to me.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not similar at all. In Trika, everything is considered real because everything is part of Shiva, and Shiva is real.

In Dzogchen, everything, there is nothing established in which or of which to be a part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 23rd, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: Bhutas, Dons, negative spirits etc.
Content:
nilakantha said:
I have firm faith in the power of Our Lady of the White Umbrella to protect me from all supernatural evils. Her dharani can be practiced by all and needs no "transmission".

Malcolm wrote:
It is but one among many such practices...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 23rd, 2015 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: Bhutas, Dons, negative spirits etc.
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
What are all the different kinds of negative spirits etc., and what are the different ways that they can effect us? And why?
What can help in dealing with them?

Thank you.

nilakantha said:
Reciting the Sitatapatra (Shurangama) Dharani is the most powerful apotropaic practice we have.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmmm, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 at 7:04 PM
Title: Re: Bhutas, Dons, negative spirits etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hi Jundo:

It is the case that provocations and so are a product of dualistic karmic vision, but so is your dog, your wife, your kids, your house and your car.

If one is still under the power of dualistic vision, thinking one's problems with be solved by passively sitting is hardly a cogent solution.

Of course, in the past, Soto masters were credited with great powers of exorcism, so clearly, they understood through their insight what to do in such cases.

M

jundo cohen said:
Hi Malcolm,

I am glad you are well and thriving. All good greetings to you.

I can only offer an opinion from one view-non-view.

Some phenomena, such as my dog, my wife, my kids, house and car, do seem to exist apart from my small mind. Merely by my thoughts, I do not seem able to make my wife go away (not that I would ever want to!). When I leave "my house" on a trip, there "my wife" is (and "my house") when I return.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is all, including sleep, karmic vision — quite powerful, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 22nd, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Bhutas, Dons, negative spirits etc.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hi Jundo:

It is the case that provocations and so are a product of dualistic karmic vision, but so is your dog, your wife, your kids, your house and your car.

If one is still under the power of dualistic vision, thinking one's problems with be solved by passively sitting is hardly a cogent solution.

Of course, in the past, Soto masters were credited with great powers of exorcism, so clearly, they understood through their insight what to do in such cases.

M



jundo cohen said:
Hello,

The following is just one practitioner's opinion from a small corner-non-corner of Buddhism.

It may be that the negative spirits are just the heart-mind. When the heart and mind are at peace, the negative spirits disappear with the breeze. They never were real from the start except for the mind's own making them real.

So, just sit, dropping all thought of spirits and their negativity and ... poof ... a certain Positive Peace may be found instead.

Better, however, to ask your own Teacher in your own Tradition.

Gassho, Jundo


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 21st, 2015 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: Bhutas, Dons, negative spirits etc.
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
What are all the different kinds of negative spirits etc., and what are the different ways that they can effect us? And why?
What can help in dealing with them?

Malcolm wrote:
This is complicated topic.

In short, practicing Guru Trapo, Drollo, etc. are best for removing provocations.

pael said:
How do you practice them? Can anyone?

Malcolm wrote:
You need transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 20th, 2015 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Bhutas, Dons, negative spirits etc.
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
What are all the different kinds of negative spirits etc., and what are the different ways that they can effect us? And why?
What can help in dealing with them?

Malcolm wrote:
This is complicated topic.

In short, practicing Guru Trapo, Drollo, etc. are best for removing provocations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 20th, 2015 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Meditation in Tib monasteries before the Chinese
Content:
MiphamFan said:
How much do you know about Tibetan Buddhism in general?

zenman said:
Khenpo level.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean you have the same level of knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism as a Khenpo? Really?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 20th, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:


Panaesthesia said:
Ah, well. So many people confused about so many things... I've been hoping that the "Dra Talgyur" would contain more information about the practice it refers to in the title, given the assertions of Jamgön Kongtrul in "The Treasury Of Knowledge, Esoteric Instructions" (Book 8, Part 4): "(sGra) thal 'gyur (rasa bali rgyud): A main tantra in the esoteric instruction class of atiyoga. It explains how to attain the level of nirmanānakāya and how to accomplish the welfare of others through practices related to sound" (Rangdrol, "The Circle of the Sun," 82)

Malcolm wrote:
The practices related to sound come from the first chapter, and the entire first chapter is a series of preliminary instructions.

Panaesthesia said:
All this time I've considered Jigme Lingpa's description of the practice as the yoga of four (external) elements just an error on his part caused by his admitted unfamiliarity with the practice, but I guess the confusion goes deeper.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not an error at all. This is one kind of practice included in general in the practice of the elements

Panaesthesia said:
I assume that you mean the same thing Malcolm. If not, what "this practice" are you referring to?

And are you referring to the Vimalamitra commentaries? I've been talking with Jean-Luc Achard about his translations of those commentaries, but he's still working on them.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. It is a long complicated section impossible to summarize here apart from saying that it teaches a progression of practices that are titled: the sound of 1) the Brahmaloka, 2) Vishnu Loka, 3) Kalavinka Loka, 4) the four elements and 5) the voice of the teacher.

Panaesthesia said:
These descriptions, from Mahamudra, are for the practice I am writing about:

These quotes are from p. 91 and p. 93 respectively of "Masters of Mahamudra: Songs and Histories of the Eighty-four Buddhist Siddhas" by Keith Dowman, Publisher: State University of New York Press (ISBN 978-0-88706-160-8): The Mahasiddha Vinapa (The Musician) achieved mahamudra through contemplation of the unborn, unstruck sound: With perseverance and devotion
I mastered the vina's errant chords;
but then practicing the unborn, unstruck sound
I, Vinapa, lost my self.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, that is not what is described in the sgra thal 'gyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 20th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
He is not running against Bill Clinton or the Clinton Family. He is running against Hillary Clinton. Don't worry though, there are five more debates I think, and Sanders will get his points across. He has plenty of time to show that Hillary herself is owned by Wall Street, and that her positions in the Senate demonstrate this again and again.

It is not his nature to pin his opponents to the wall or put the screws in. He has never run a campaign that way, and he won't start now. I support that.

DGA said:
I'm all for collegiality, so I agree with the thrust of your post in spirit, but I disagree on two points.

1.  Sanders really is running against the Clinton family, because this is the network or machine behind the Clinton campaign.  .

Malcolm wrote:
Sanders is not going to run against the Clinton family because it is misplaced. He is running against a corrupt political system awash in the cash of the wealthy more than anything else. If people are smart enough to see that, and have enough courage to vote on their convictions, and will actually help Sanders win the presidency, and continue to apply pressure to both parties through voting out irresponsible and lazy legislators, then our Democracy, founded on the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous people, might have a chance. Otherwise, it will be business as usual in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
DGA said:
Going back to the democratic debate for a moment, I want to underscore again how disappointed I am in Sanders' performance.  He had the opportunity to pin Clinton to the wall and take a definitive lead, and he took a pass.  If he's not willing to put the screws to this Republican, how can he be expected to take on the GOP nominee?  Not a good showing.
In Tuesday's debate he pointedly ignored the Clinton family's role in deregulating Wall Street, and in doing so he allowed Hillary Clinton to cast gun regulation as the key issue that divides her from him. Forgotten was Bill Clinton's selection of Goldman Sachs honcho Robert Rubin to be his treasury secretary, an appointee who with President Clinton's complicity presided over the dismantling of New Deal limits on financial greed.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not running against Bill Clinton or the Clinton Family. He is running against Hillary Clinton. Don't worry though, there are five more debates I think, and Sanders will get his points across. He has plenty of time to show that Hillary herself is owned by Wall Street, and that her positions in the Senate demonstrate this again and again.

It is not his nature to pin his opponents to the wall or put the screws in. He has never run a campaign that way, and he won't start now. I support that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Nāda yoga ~ Sound as Path ~ Sutra,Tantra,Mantra,Dzogchen
Content:


Panaesthesia said:
Dzogchen has three central practices, only two of which are taught and performed today. The "Yeshe Lama" instruction manual starts by explaining this. The one no longer used is the one I am writing about.

Malcolm wrote:
It is taught today.

Panaesthesia said:
The root tantra of the seventeen dzogchen tantras received by Padmasambhava from Shri Singha is called "The Reverberation of Sound tantra" (Dra Talgyur Root Tantra "sgra thal 'gyur gym rgyud") and the practice is described therein. It has not been translated yet, although there is an effort underway in Austria at the direction of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

Malcolm wrote:
When the commentary is published, I think you will be a little surprised at what this practice actually is. The root tantra itself does not devote more than a few stanzas to describing it. The commentary sets out in detail how one actually enters into the sounds of the four elements. But most importantly, it is a preliminary practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Martial Arts
Content:
Caodemarte said:
These are Chinese martial arts and the Chinese adherents claim this as their tradition. Lama Pai, Tibetan White Crane (not to be confused with Fujian Style White Crane), Lama or Tibetan Kungfu, and Hop Gar, according to tradition, originated in far Western China in the border regions with Tibet and then moved to north China and then down south. An American student of Tibetan White Crane published his research which which indicates a Northern China origin, contrary to received tradition.

BTW, internal and external martial arts adherents also claim the "Indian" (probably Central Asian in origin although as far south as Sri Lanka have been claimed) Bodhidharma as their founder. Is any of this historically true? Possibly, but it would seem more likely that various schools of physical practice borrowed from each other, eventually merged, and then people invented a unified historical origin. It does seem likely that some yoga exercises made their way to China and influenced physical practice there. It is a fascinating topic in intellectual history and diffusion.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan martial arts are archery, wrestling, javelin throwing and sword fighting. That's it. Well, maybe we can include horsemanship as well...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Martial Arts
Content:
Caodemarte said:
This may be of passing interest. The Chinese martial arts Lama Pai, Tibetan White Crane, Lama or Tibetan Kungfu, and Hop Gar  (all derived from the same form) from the western border region between Tibet and China and are traditionally claimed to be Tibetan in origin, originally taught by a Lama in that region.

Malcolm wrote:
Traditionally claimed by who? Certainly not Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
monktastic said:
And this is supposedly different from what took place in the Flower Sermon, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Some will see it that way, others will not, it depends on how well you understand Dzogchen teachings. Nubchen Sangye Yeshe certainly thought it was different, as does ChNN, and this is why the former took great pains to distinguish Dzogchen teachings from Chan, and why the latter follows Nubchen. You can either accept Nubs arguments or not, it is up to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Martial Arts
Content:
swooping said:
Is there any history of martial arts in Tibetan Buddhism in general, or Dzogchen specifically, as a spiritual path?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not until Trungpa adapted some Japanese Martial arts like Kyudo to the Shambhala teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 19th, 2015 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Some believe that Direct Introduction to the Nature of Your Mind or Pointing Out Instructions involves a quasi-magical transfer of energy from Guru to Disciple..
.

alpha said:
I do not think there is a transfer of energy from guru to disciple because during a real direct introduction there isnt any guru that gives or transfers something to the disciple .But some of us take part in a direct introduction with the expectation that we might get something which we dont already have.

Malcolm wrote:
The term direct introduction is a bit misleading. The term is translated from the tibetan, which is rang ngo thog tu phrad, "directly encounter your own state." This direct introduction or encounter is facilitated by a Guru, but as you correctly note, nothing is transferred per se, because the guru is merely showing you your own face [ rang ngo ] or your own state [ rang ngo ] in a direct encounter [ thog tu phrad ]. This is done on the basis of experiences, as the example of Nyoshul Lungtog's encounter with Patrul Rinpoche:
Nyoshul Lungtok, who later became one of the greatest Dzogchen masters of recent times, followed his teacher Patrul Rinpoche for about eighteen years. During all that time, they were almost inseparable. Nyoshul Lungtok studied and practiced extremely diligently, and accumulated a wealth of purification, merit, and practice; he was ready to recognize the Rigpa, but had not yet had the final introduction. Then, one famous evening, Patrul Rinpoche gave him the introduction. It happened when they were staying together in one of the hermitages high up in the mountains above Dzogchen Monastery. It was a very beautiful night. The dark blue sky was clear and the stars shone brilliantly. The sound of their solitude was heightened by the distant barking of a dog from the monastery below. Patrul Rinpoche was lying stretched out on the ground, doing a special Dzogchen practice. He called Nyoshul Lungtok over to him, saying: "Did you say you do not know the essence of the mind?" Nyoshul Lungtok guessed from his tone that this was a special moment and nodded expectantly.

"There's nothing to it really," Patrul Rinpoche said casually, and added, "My son, come and lie down over here: be like your old father." Nyoshul Lungtok stretched out by his side.

Then Patrul Rinpoche asked him, "Do you see the stars up there in the sky?"
"Yes."

"Do you hear the dogs barking in Dzogchen Monastery?"
"Yes."

"Do you hear what I'm saying to you?"
"Yes."

"Well, the nature of Dzogchen is this: simply this."

Nyoshul Lungtok tells us what happened then: "At that instant, I arrived at a certainty of realization from within. I had been liberated from the fetters of 'it is' and 'it is not.' I had realized the primordial wisdom, the naked union of emptiness and intrinsic awareness. I was introduced to this realization by his blessing, as the great Indian master Saraha said: He in whose heart the words of the master have entered, Sees the truth like a treasure in his own palm."
The sad part is that someone will take this literally, think that they should go somewhere, lie on the ground, listen to dogs bark and think this is direct introduction.

As you know, direct introduction is not introducing you to something you don't have. It is introducing you to something you have always had, and misplaced. This is one reason why the Buddhanature metaphor useful in Dzogchen, but here it means something a bit different than in lower yanas [cue, Son of the Buddha].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
MiphamFan said:
OK sure, I never disagreed with you Malcolm.

dzogchungpa said:
Oh good, because that would have been terrible.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, agreeing with me makes for very silent threads...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
swooping said:
I got distracted by the lively (!) conversation on rigpa-through-books (thanks for posting such great info there btw), but I wanted to make sure to say thanks for that. It probably should have been obvious to me, but that has cleared up a lot of confusion for me.

Malcolm wrote:
The Seven Mind trainings are a unique system which originally comes from the Vima sNying thig. These days it is most popularly summarized by the Chetsun sNying thig, and there is a long commentary on them by Jigme Lingpa as well. Longchenpa also wrote three commentaries on the Seventh Lojong, which can be found in the Lama Yangthig.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Anyway I don't really know personally any lineage that doesn't have DI or empowerment, I was just taking his word for it that at least one of his traditional teachers did not do it formally at a given session but did it over the course of a long relationship.

Malcolm wrote:
Everytime someone receives the Chetsun Nyingthig, the Thigle Gyacan, any of the Yabzhi empowerments, Gongspa Zangthal, the medium Shitro empowerment of Karma gLingpa, etc., direct introduction is provided within the context of those empowerments.

In reality, everyone in Tibet who takes these teachings seriously, not only has received DI in a formal way, but also in the informal way Ivo is describing — the two are not mutually exclusive at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


Ivo said:
There is no requirement for the the extremely unelaborated empowerments of Nyingthik to be given. It is the choice of the teacher as to which empowerment variation to use. There are a lot of masters who do not use the extremely unelaborated empowerments in a formal way at all. As I said, they are very often treated differently.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a requirement that direct introduction is given. There is no difference in meaning between the extremely unelaborate empowerment and direct introduction. They are the same thing. And in point of fact, everyone who practices actual Dzogchen receives these transmissions as a matter of course. There is no use in pretending otherwise. On the other hand, I can't speak for the fools out there who delude their students with pretty words...

Ivo said:
Only if you received them from a teacher. Otherwise, in some sense, you are a thief of the teachings.
A thief of the teachings about one's own true nature? Well, that's certainly a new one... A very interesting kind of Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not new at all, I have heard many teachers, ChNN among them, refer to people who think they can just read this or that book without transmission as "thieves of the teachings."

Ivo said:
Not really. But there are a lot of Lamas out there who sell their teachings as "Dzogchen" who do not actually teach Dzogchen.
And there are lamas out there who do not even utter the word Dzogchen, and definitely not "Direct Introduction", but are among the greatest living Dzogchen masters on Earth. And their students happen to be amazing too.

Malcolm wrote:
The first word of the three words of Garab Dorje is "རང་ངོ་ཐོག་དུ་ཕྲད" parse it however you want. It is indispensable in Dzogchen.

Ivo said:
The whole intent of the Dzogchen tantras and upadeshas is that the guru is inside, not outside.

Malcolm wrote:
Uh huh, so now we are dispensing with the lineage, and gurus too, after all the "guru is inside" — that has gotten sentient beings very far up till now, hasn't it?

Ivo said:
This is what Samantabhadra means.

Malcolm wrote:
Samantabhadra means lots of things, but a guru is never optional in Dzogchen. And this means that one cannot just buy some translation in a bookstore, read it, and then claim that one has discovered one's primordial state.

Ivo said:
Belittling people who have had by chance a taste of the blessings of the lineage with forceful arrogance instead of gentle guidance is not Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
Telling people they have tasted the blessings of the lineage when they have never met a real lineage is an outright lie. Telling people the truth is never arrogance, it is just honesty.

Ivo said:
The need for a teacher should be explained, not enforced.

Malcolm wrote:
The need for a guru is fundamental to Dzogchen teachings, it is not optional.

Ivo said:
And one should always remember that Dharma means freedom, not bondage.



Malcolm wrote:
All buddhas of the three times depended on a guru.

Ivo said:
As the incomparable Kyabje Trulshik Rinpoche used to say, not just the teaching should be Dzogchen, the person should be Dzogchen too.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you should think about that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Martial Arts
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
People in glass houses....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
Ivo said:
The modes of transmission in Dzogchen differ among lineages, a lot.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. But there are a lot of Lamas out there who sell their teachings as "Dzogchen" who do not actually teach Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 9:41 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Maybe it is a regional thing too? Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche says it was very common for people to ask lamas for pointing out instructions in his Nangchen region of Kham and for masters to give it. ChNN himself often tells how Changchub Dorje gave him DI in a short, one-to-one talk after the empowerment for his Shitro terma.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not a regional thing whatsoever.

For one thing, "pointing out", ngo phrod is generally a Mahāmudra term. Direct introduction, " rang ngo thog du phrad, " literally, "directly encountering one's own state" is a Dzogchen term. Granted, even in Dzogchen texts, there are this and that "ngo phrod," there is even an entire tantra devoted to the subject. But direct introduction from a qualified master is the only thing absolutely essential in Dzogchen teachings. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no understanding of Dzogchen at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 9:35 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ivo, as you very well know, the extremely unelaborate empowerment of the four Nyinthig empowerments is precisely a direct introduction. So what are you talking about?

Ivo said:
As you know, there is no requirement for this type of empowerment to be given at all.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean you do not need direct introduction to enter Dzogchen teachings? Every single teacher in your lineage has received all transmissions of Dzogchen in the proper way. That means they received instructions from their respective gurus. Their teachers did not just hand them books and send them out to meditate.

Ivo said:
In the lineages I have had the good fortune to be part of, this is often not taken as a formal ritual at all, and the actual transmission on this level happens in a different way, in the context of very close teacher-student relationship, one to one, over the course of time. And it is never formal. Although it is a direct introduction it bears no resemblance at all to the DI as given within the Dzogchen Community. It is in fact so different in look, and feel, as if it is a completely different thing. This is why many older Tibetan lamas have such a problem with what Norbu Rinpoche is doing. I myself do not.

Malcolm wrote:
Whoever said direct introduction needs to be a formal ritual? That depends on context. Certainly, the direct introduction that ChNN received from Rigdzin Chanchub Dorje was not a ritual.

Ivo said:
Reading authentic dzogchen texts from the deep and profound terma tradition is a form of interaction with the teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you received them from a teacher. Otherwise, in some sense, you are a thief of the teachings.

Ivo said:
For those thus fortunate, the outer appearance of a human teacher will come in due course as well. We need not stand in the way.

Malcolm wrote:
Then one should encourage people to find a qualified teacher and not encourage people to believe they have understand what they have not understood because that understanding depends on the intimate instructions of the guru, and not books.

Ivo said:
People who only read English translations of these texts without access to a Tibetan teacher who can clarify for them what this and that actually means are like blind people in a cave who have been given flashlight with dead batteries to find their way out.
At least with some of the translations out there, the batteries are quite fine, and the flashlight is reasonably bright.

Malcolm wrote:
Without a proper teacher however, the students are still quite blind no matter how bright the flashlight is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
steve_bakr said:
[

So, the Direct Introductions were received through means of a book. There is one question I had about Guru Padmasambhava's "Self-Liberation." I had quoted the Guru where he said four times that the text was a "direct introduction to your intrinsic awareness," but the quotations were rejected as false.

Malcolm wrote:
Steve, what was rejected was your conclusion about what the quotes mean. The text you cited was an oral text written down by someone. They are Guru Padmasabhava's speech, not a book written out by an author. When a guru presents that text, he does so because he has received the lung for that text and knows how to present it. For you, that Guru is the same as Guru Padmasambhava.

steve_bakr said:
The question I wanted to ask was, "Are we to believe Guru Padmasambhava or not?" "Did he tell the truth or not?" If Guru Padmasambhava reiterates that same point four times, is it even permissible to say that he is wrong all four times? Isn't he a venerated source?

Malcolm wrote:
Steve, no one is saying that what Guru Rinpoche said is wrong. Your understanding is wrong.

When he was teaching, he was giving direct introduction through words to a group of students. Which students? Principally a translator named Chogro Lui Gyaltsen, who is renowned as one of the translators of the 17 Tantras. Also Yeshe Tsogyal, she was the direct heir to these teachings. Karma Lingpa was the reincarnation of Chogro and the one appointed to promulgate them. So what you are reading is a record of one of Guru Padmasambhava's teaching sessions. Guru Rinpoche in fact wrote very little, but he taught a lot and those recorded teachings are what we now have as the treasure tradition. But they are all just so many books without proper empowerment, reading transmission and instruction

After Karma Lingpa revealed the text, he gave the empowerments, the lung and the teachings to his sun, Nyida Chojey, who then spread it widely. Ever since then it is a teaching that has been passed down in connection with the empowerment of the peaceful and wratful deities in his tradition. I have this transmission as do many people you are talking to. You can easily get this transmission, it is given rather frequently, and I am sure if you ask someone to teach you the text, respectfully and with a beginners attitude, you will have no problem.

The main reason Reynolds translated it again was to correct Evans Wentz's and Jung's misunderstandings of the text.

steve_bakr said:
I submit that it's not possible for the Guru to say something four or more times and be wrong about it.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is quite possible for you to vastly misunderstand the context [you have] and promulgate this error [which you are doing].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


Adamantine said:
I agree with this, as I said before: pointing out instructions are not necessarily given with a label, or warning. Fourth empowerments and rikpa tsel wangs still have a bit of that expectation. There is another approach, which is quite spontaneous, and the disciple will only know it was a pointing out if they "get it". I believe true Dzogchen masters are giving a type of pointing out all of the time, in infinite ways, and if one has the opportunity to spend significant time with one, they should jump at it.

Ivo said:
Very true. One of my closest teachers once told me that his own teacher (a pivotal figure in the recent history of the Nyingma) never gave them this type of direct introduction at all, and only gave them lungs for the various direct introduction traditional texts in order for them to find the experience by themselves. He also never gave commentaries on any Dzogchen texts to his heart disciples, even on the seven treasures and YL, only lungs. And he was the master of masters.

Malcolm wrote:
Ivo, as you very well know, the extremely unelaborate empowerment of the four Nyinthig empowerments is precisely a direct introduction. So what are you talking about?

Of course you have to discover Dzogchen knowledge through your own experience, and of course, having been ripened with the rig pa'i rtsal dbang through whichever of the three ways it can be given — pandita style, secret mantra style or pointing out for old ladies —  then of course one takes whatever practice texts one needs and goes and does Dzogchen practices such as rushen, etc. and eliminates one's doubts. But the effectiveness of Dzogchen practice comes about through one's interaction with a teacher and practices they give one, not from reading books and developing nice fantasies about what Dzogchen might be based on reading Western translations without a proper teacher.

People who only read English translations of these texts without access to a Tibetan teacher who can clarify for them what this and that actually means are like blind people in a cave who have been given flashlight with dead batteries to find their way out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
Fa Dao said:
This whole discussion could have been avoided if you had not so stubbornly insisted that Dzogchen can be learned from a book, or that rigpa can be introduced by a book in absence of proper transmission.
Yeah..Malcolm..about that..with all due respect...what did you expect? If you attack somebody..what..you think they wont automatically go on the defensive? Besides that, it DOES say that in the book..there is no disclaimer saying that it is a teaching manual to be accompanied by being given Direct Introduction by a qualified master. So maybe this whole discussion could have been shortened and more productive if that had been patiently explained?

Malcolm wrote:
I have been patiently explaining for many days now, ever since steve showed up. Not only myself, but many other people.

Anyone who has been a student of Norbu Rinpoche for any length of time knows that you really should receive the transmission for any Dzgchen text you wish to study. Dzogchen texts are not meant to be read in absence of proper instruction. Yes, of course, when you know the meaning, then one Dzogchen text is just as good as another, they all have the same meaning more or less, depending on whether we are talking about sems sde, klong sde, or man ngag sde. Still, if you want to really work with a text, then the proper way to do it is to find someone who will teach you the text in a proper way. This was how it was done in Tibet, we are no different today. If you can't find someone to teach you that text, then you find someone who will teach you any text of Dzogchen. The text does not matter, what matters is whether the master has genuine realization of the teachings of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 18th, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


steve_bakr said:
Malcolm, I understand that you have a very specific understanding of what constitutes the proper media and manner of transmission regarding the nature of one's mind and I respect that. I also understand that you are highly educated and I respect that as well. I hope to avail myself of your expertise.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Steve:

It is not my understanding, it is the understanding of my teachers and my lineage, including Guru Padmasambhava, going back to the two founders of Dzogchen teachings on this globe in this epoch: Garab Dorje and Tonpa Shenrab.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


steve_bakr said:
Not that tradition is to be disrespected or anything like that. Not that Dzogchen can be learned from a book independently of a living master. I claim nothing more than the taste of sugar. I hope to be verified by a living master.

Malcolm wrote:
Look steve, if you want to practice Dzogchen, it is very simple — find a proper master, receive direct introduction; then engage in Dzogchen practices so you do not remain in doubt. Finally, when you are no longer in doubt, continue in a state of confidence in liberation.

This whole discussion could have been avoided if you had not so stubbornly insisted that Dzogchen can be learned from a book, or that rigpa can be introduced by a book in absence of proper transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Yoga teachers.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dongyuling Center in Buenos Aires is an excellent centre that offers free teachings on Buddhist theory and practice, primarily in the Drukpa Kagyu tradition. The president, Gerardo Abboud, is not only a wonderful and wise man who spent 14 years studying and practicing in India and Nepal, but he is also the Dalai Lama's translator for Latin America. You can get more information at their website: http://www.dongyuling.com.ar


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
smcj said:
With this post I am actually quoting a recognized authority, so the disclaimer in my signature does not apply.

Starting around the 15 minute mark in the following link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGzN4FAFgTs
Alan Wallace talks about the various approaches to Dzogchen. At one end of the spectrum is getting the "pointing out instructions" (D.I. by a different name) in a weekend retreat without any other preparations approach. He affirms that this is a valid approach, what we would call "top down". At the other end of the spectrum is spending 20 years studying the texts and then going off and doing long retreats. He said his teacher didn't teach him either of those two ways but was a third way, just practice based. Plus obviously there is the "bottom up" approach with progressing through the lower 8 yanas.

Around the 17 minute mark he talks about what the pointing out instructions are like. At first he calls them "mind to mind transmission" but then he says it isn't literal. He does say it is "...a resonance, an affinity, a transmission..." where metaphorically the clouds can part for a moment or a minute. It's at the 20 minute mark he says in 24 years his teacher Gyaltrul R. never gave him pointing out instructions.

There is more than one way approach the subject. Our tendency to dismiss or exclude the entire spectrum of approaches here at DW tends to make the discussions somewhat myopic.

Garudavista said:
I believe Alan Wallace may not have needed pointing out instructions because he was practicing Mahamudra and not Dzogchen. Although the base for both is the same, the methods are quite different. I think that is what you've stated in your post. However, to avoid any potential confusion, I just wanted to clarify that he didn't need pointing out instructions because he was practicing Mahamudra and not Dzogchen. If I am wrong about this, please feel free to correct me.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra and Dzogchen both depend on introductions, the former is more gradual than the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I have the highest regard for Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you don't. You have no respect for it all.

steve_bakr said:
although later someone posted actual quotes which verified what I said.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they posted citations from the introduction to the book that they poorly understood.


steve_bakr said:
Now, I have responded to many posts directed to me. If it was necessary to repeat what I said before, it is because my credibility was questioned, which gave me the right of response.

Malcolm wrote:
You have no credibility here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 8:37 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:


steve_bakr said:
Misrepresenting what I've said is the opposite of helping. I know bullies very well. Why don't you address the substance of the good points that have been made here?

Malcolm wrote:
I never misrepresented a single thing you said.

I have addressed each and every point that raised, substantively.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I am more partial to Longchenpa's view of Rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't understand Longchenpa's views about rigpa, let alone Dzogchen. If you did, you would never claim that Dzogchen can be understood from reading books in absence of a master.

steve_bakr said:
I am well aware that you can hand out insults, and your are misrepresenting my position. Is that what Dzogchen is all about in your own mind? Where I am from, we call that a schoolyard bully.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not insulting you. When someone insists over and over again, that 2+2 = 5, it is not an insult to inform them that they do not know how to add. It actually helps them.

When you insist over and over again that you can introduce yourself to rig pa through reading a book in absence of a master, it is not an insult to tell you that you are deeply mistaken and wrong. I am actually helping you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
How recently have you read, "Natural Perfection?"

Malcolm wrote:
I don't read Dowman's translations -- I have no need to.

What particular aspect of the gNas Lugs mDzod did you have in mind?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I am more partial to Longchenpa's view of Rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't understand Longchenpa's views about rigpa, let alone Dzogchen. If you did, you would never claim that Dzogchen can be understood from reading books in absence of a master.

Do you really need me to trot out the citations by Longchepa where he insists that one must have a guru to enter Dzogchen teachings, really?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Longchenpa presents a considerably more expansive view of Rigpa in his work, "Natural Perfection." For Longchenpa, Rigpa is perhaps the most essential and pivotal aspect of Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you really have any idea how naive and uninformed you sound? I am sorry, but of course the whole point of Dzogchen is rigpa. The point is that you clearly do not understand what that means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is pity that these days fools think they can read a book about Dzogchen and think they have got it. Oh well, c'set la vie. There were such fools in Tibet as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, if I'm not mistaken, books can provide meaning and eaxmple, so I'm guessing the provision of "experiences" is what is uniquely the role of the master. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. This is what distinguishes Dzogchen and Vajrayāna in general from sūtra. In sūtra of course, an experienced teacher is indispensable, but there are no methods of introduction in sūtra.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, good, but I've never really gotten a clear explanation of how that works in the absence of something like "mind-to-mind contact".
.

Malcolm wrote:
Read ChNN's commentary on Song of the Vajra, it is all quite clearly explained there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
What is direct introduction but "a glimpse of rikpa?"
A direct introduction is a context for the "glimpse of rikpa". And a manifestation of a true method for attaining liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Ivo. Rig pa is a result of direct introduction, or otherwise working with methods to discover the meaning of that introduction.



Ivo said:
Malcolm, what the terma tradition is for me is clearly something very different from what the terma tradition is for you.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see any point in fetishizing books, no matter how miraculous they are, even if they fall out of the sky onto one's roof. My bonafides as a disciple of three authentic tertons are quite in order, thank you very much.

Ivo said:
On top of that you are twisting my words, now you are twisting even a direct quote of ChNN where he clearly states that "This introduction, this meeting face-to-face, is precisely the function of the present text "

Malcolm wrote:
I am not twisting anything.

The function of that text in the hands of a qualified master is to give introduction, not all by itself, picked up off a bookshelf in Barnes and Nobles or ordered from Amazon.


Ivo said:
I see no point of rephrasing again and again things which I already wrote down as clearly as I could. I am saying that yes, you can recognize by yourself with the support of symbols, and no, you can not work effectively with this without a teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
And I am saying that no, you cannot even recognize your primordial state without direct introduction, let alone work with it without a teacher.

Ivo said:
Disparaging the living force of the Dzogchen transmission, the blessings and the activity of the dakinis and the dharmapalas and terming it "superstition" is not good.

Malcolm wrote:
The living force of Dzogchen transmission is in Dzogchen masters and practitioners, not in Dzogchen books. Books are always secondary and relative. That is why Dzogchen is called "the intimate instruction [man ngag] that does not depend on scriptures [lung]."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, if I'm not mistaken, books can provide meaning and eaxmple, so I'm guessing the provision of "experiences" is what is uniquely the role of the master. Is that correct?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. This is what distinguishes Dzogchen and Vajrayāna in general from sūtra. In sūtra of course, an experienced teacher is indispensable, but there are no methods of introduction in sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The master is the person who activates the text with his or her knowledge and realization.

dzogchungpa said:
What exactly does "activate" mean here?

Malcolm wrote:
Gives life to the teaching, through meaning, example and experiences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Matt J said:
While I generally agree with Malcolm that ChNNR's view seems pretty well laid out, this is from his 1989 Forward to Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:
...This is our Primordial State. But in order to recognize it, we first need transmission from a realized master in the form of an introduction (ngo-sprod) to the state of presence and awareness (rig-pa). This introduction, this meeting face-to-face, is precisely the function of the present text, which reports the very words of Guru Padmasambhava introducing his disciples to such presence or awarenesss."

Malcolm wrote:
Which is precisely what I am saying, "we first need transmission from a realized master in the form of an introduction..."

And yes, the function of this text, in the hands of a master, is to give introduction.


Matt J said:
Certainly many readers possessing fortunate karma

Malcolm wrote:
Fortunate karma means they have met Dzogchen teachings in the form of direct introduction. Not that they have the good fortune to stumble over the book in Barnes and Nobles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
He repeatedly criticizes the idea that it is enough to just read a book about Dzogchen, any book, and claim you have real knowledge of Dzogchen.

Ivo said:
I never, ever said, nor intended to say that you can claim a real knowledge of Dzogchen by reading a book about Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but you did say, "I never stated that one can receive DI "from a book". Just a glimpse of rikpa."

What is direct introduction but "a glimpse of rikpa?"


Ivo said:
However, it is perfectly possible for someone to encounter the base, and to recognize it for what it is, if the correct circumstances engage.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, if they happen to attain the tenth bhumi.


Ivo said:
In the absence of a teacher and a working path it gets veiled almost instantaneously, but according to some of my teachers it happens a lot to ordinary beings.

Malcolm wrote:
This was already covered, no one denies that it is possible for ordinary people to have an experience of the nature of their minds without a depending on a teacher. What they are unable to do is introduce themselves to the basis, and as a result, have rig pa. Rig pa is not the basis.

Ivo said:
To deny that a text especially meant to induce this, and on top of that especially during the present time of wide dissemination of Dzogchen, is ineffective is to argue directly with the source of these teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, the text is just a bunch of squiggles on a page in absence of a teacher to use it as a manual for introduction. Without a teacher to present it, indeed the text is ineffective. That's why you need a master. The master is the person who activates the text with his or her knowledge and realization. Without that, the text is just words on paper.

You cannot have it both ways, Ivo. You cannot on the one hand claim that you never said that direction introduction can be gained from a book, and on the other hand claim that it can.

In the hands of a master, any number of texts, hundreds, if not thousands of them are effective means for giving direct introduction — but in reality, a master does not need a book to give direct introduction. But without being received from a master, no text of introduction is effective, no matter how many of them one reads.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
MalaBeads said:
Well, you know, even ChNN says that at one time in his life he thought he knew everything. So....people will think what they think, understand what they understand and there is not a lot anyone can do about it. Except what is happening here.

Enjoy your lives.

Malcolm wrote:
The one thing ChNN says is that direct introduction is indispensable and he explicitly rejects the idea that you can gain Dzogchen knowledge from books in absence of a master. Honestly, have we all been listening to the same master? He repeatedly criticizes the idea that it is enough to just read a book about Dzogchen, any book, and claim you have real knowledge of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
Malcolm, I know this distinction pretty well. I am not confusing these things.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you are simply in error when you claim that someone who has never received introduction can obtain introduction from a book, for if you claim that someone can have an "experience of rig pa" from reading a book, you are claiming that they can receive direct introduction from a book in absence of a master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
And... while I am still in my recreational break, which went far too long today, I may as well state, in full compliance with the DW tradition to put words into our teachers' mouths, that during all the years I have spent trying to find my way in Dzogchen with the help of a number of teachers, I have never met a teacher who would state that a person can not have an authentic rikpa experience by oneself, be it reading books or whatever. Even a total beginner, in fact, it is easier for them. So I can safely say for myself that I know of no Dzogchen teacher who would state that as a fact, including ChNN if asked one to one. This doesn't mean that my teachers would present this as a path or valid option for beginners, or talk about this on public talks, but denying that it might happen is absurd. In my opinion it shows a total lack of understanding of what Dharma is and what the samsaric condition actually is.

Malcolm wrote:
Rig pa, Ivo, is knowledge, as opposed to ma rig pa, ignorance.

You seem to be claiming that ordinary people can have knowledge of their primordial state spontaneously. If this were true, there would never have been any need at all for teachers and teachings.

I have never met one single authentic teacher of Dzogchen who would claim that one could have this experiential knowledge [rig pa] without it having first been introduced to one by a master.

People can experience the nature of the mind [George] without introduction, just as they can see George on a train everyday without knowing [ma rig pa] who George is. When people are introduced to the knowledge of the nature of the their minds, then we can say they have "rig pa".

Rig pa and the nature of the mind aka primordial state aka basis, are not the same thing. The fact that people continually conflate these two is unfortunate. But if you pay attention to ChNN, he says repeatedly, "rig pa is not the nature of the mind, rig pa is knowledge or instant presence in the nature of the mind."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:


T. Chokyi said:
Is that what Ivo was saying that you can get DI from this pecha?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in general he is saying that without a master one can get direct introduction from special, holy books filled with special holy blessings, different from all the other words of Buddha which are not as holy nor as filled with blessings.


T. Chokyi said:
maybe it does not go along with CHNN, I don't know...but CHNN also says to go beyond limitation, so saying we can get DI only by meeting with a human Guru and listening in the daytime (while awake) is that the only way to get DI you know of, there are no other examples of someone getting a "taste of sugar" besides from the masters oral transmission?

Malcolm wrote:
Not for those of us, who by circumstance, happen to be ordinary sentient beings. And even those extraordinary persons, realized people who have the capacity to meet Sambhogakāyas, even they started out as ordinary people who had to receive transmission from a human, aka nirmanakāya, guru.

Even tenth stage bodhisattvas have to receive empowerment in order to advance to the stage of Buddhahood. There is no path in Buddhadharma that bypasses the need for a master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is just a book, even for an advanced yogi. There is nothing special about a terma text that makes it superior to say a sūtra or a tantra in terms of blessings. This is just superstition. Of course there are some texts that can plant a positive connection in a person's mind so they can make a connection with the lineage at a future time. Even so, texts are always something relative and something quite limited.

Ivo said:
I disagree. If this is superstition, the Dharma becomes invalid in all it's aspects, maybe apart from the path of an arhat.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, so you are actually claiming that the words of one Buddha have more blessings than the words of another Buddha?

BTW, your objection makes no sense at all and lacks any pervasion. Just because treasure texts are no more holy or sacred than the words of the Buddha in sūtra and tantra does not bear the consequence that the Dharma becomes invalid in all respects outside of the path of Arhats.

Ivo said:
Yes, actually it is just a book. Without a master to introduce it, it has no juice.
wow... nope.  It has plenty of juice as it is a direct wisdom manifestation and there can be no chance encounter with any such text. Not to mention that such an encounter would trigger a whole chain of events involving a number of samaya bound agents of all kinds.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing is explained in all the tantras; transcended in the signless dimension, there is nothing to explain. 
Nothing is demonstrated in all the agamas, transcended in the unfabricated dimension, there is no effort or practice. 
Nothing is illustrated in the upadeśas, transcended in the incorruptible dimension, there is nothing to accomplish. 
E ma, Listen up, retinue of sublime appearances! The Vidyā of Reality is unceasingly clear to the retinue of the method of appearances.
Thus, in the location of vidyā nothing was said, is not being said now and will not be said later on.
— Yi ge med rgyud


Dzogchen is based on a direct perception. That cannot be brought about reading a book, no matter how holy and perceived to be filled with blessings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
but reading this text is fine imho as Ivo has said.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that it was not "fine", to read the book. People are free, they can do what they want. What is not "fine" however is to claim that without a master one can receive direct introduction from a book. ChNN would never go along with this claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:


T. Chokyi said:
Well, someone disagrees with you, so you don't need to dig your heels in, it might be wise to listen to someone other than yourself, you wrote reems on NOT eatting meat, you conducted quite a thread, but then changed your mind once you learned differently.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't "learn differently," I changed my mind.


T. Chokyi said:
Ivo and I are agreeing here, we understand the point, and George is not that far away, but you actually said he was kind of indifferent yourself if you read back...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, your primordial state aka George, is pretty indifferent. He does not care if he is wet, dry, hot, cold, in heaven, in hell or for that matter recognized or unrecognized.


T. Chokyi said:
You don't need someone to explain everything, you can read this text in English, get the lung if you are fortunate, and the person who was asking about this text already has DI since they listened to CHNN for over a year, so tasting sugar comes from the DI, but how that DI happens is different for everyone, you seem to think it is the same for everybody...

Malcolm wrote:
Our friend steve is making a different suggestion. He is making the suggestion that you do not need a master whatsoever, and that reading a text like Self-Liberation without a master is sufficient for introduction. In other words, he is suggesting that merely by reading a book, one can understand the taste of sugar.

Not only do I disagree, but ChNN would think such a suggestion preposterous.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
T. Chokyi said:
You will change your mind over time, it isn't "just a book".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is just a book. Without a master to introduce it, it has no juice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:


T. Chokyi said:
I think the George thing can be right under the surface for some individuals, for others, it may take longer, and I've had Nirmanakayas in the form of teachers come up and introduce themselves "I'm George" which implies they care very much, more than most of us here can know, for me the outer "George" was the same as the inner "George"... and it's still that way, so there isn't a line of separation, what's outside is what is inside and what's inside is what is outside, so if your outside looks a certain way, thats YOU and nobody else, you created it, including whether you see a Nirmanakaya inside or outside or both at the same time.  Everybody is different, some can understand immediately, some take more time, and some take ages, but people shouldn't be lumped into "he or she is just a beginner" when it comes to Dzogchen as CHNN has said again and again while giving teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
You have not understood the point. The point is that George is not under the surface at all, he is sitting right next to you, in full view. But still sentient beings do not recognize George unless he is introduced. And they will never recognize George by reading a book, no matter how wonderful, in exactly the same way they will never be able to understand the taste of sugar by reading about it in a book, no matter how precise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
But not with this... We are discussing the terma tradition here. It is not just a book, not even for a complete beginner.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is just a book, even for an advanced yogi. There is nothing special about a terma text that makes it superior to say a sūtra or a tantra in terms of blessings. This is just superstition. Of course there are some texts that can plant a positive connection in a person's mind so they can make a connection with the lineage at a future time. Even so, texts are always something relative and something quite limited.

Termas are also part of the oral tradition. They are held to have been orally taught by Padmasambhava [or someone else, like Saraha] to a specific person at a specific time and place, and when they are unpacked by the predicted terton, he again gives the oral transmission as he received it, thus continuing it without a break. Also tertons, by definition, must be realized Dzogchen masters.

Mahāyāna Sutras are actually termas. So are all Tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
Such a text is not only ink on paper.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, it pretty much is, if it is not presented to a proper student in a proper way, complete with the oral transmission of the text and accompanying introduction.

Dzogchen is an intimate instruction that does not depend on a scripture. This is the point that is lost on steve.

What does Dzogchen depend on? Introduction by a master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
steve_bakr,it is indeed possible to get a glimpse of rikpa by reading a text.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Ivo, actually it isn't, and I have demonstrated this already.

Ivo said:
Well, I wouldn't argue with this point, as I know where you are coming from, but I beg to differ. My personal opinion is irrelevant, but many of my Dzogchen teachers, especially during thogyal teachings, have stated the opposite again and again, and I mentioned one of those teachers. But since the possibility of any of them coming here and confirming it is quite minuscule, it is a moot point.

Malcolm wrote:
Ivo — rig pa is the knowledge of a very specific thing, one's primordial state. This is very, very subtle and cannot be accessed through a coarse mind that is engaged in reading a book, not matter how nice those words are.

We are talking about a beginner, someone who has never met George. They might see George every day on the subway, but they will never know who George is. However, when they are at last introduced to George by someone who knows George, they will say, "Oh, I see you everyday on the Subway." After that point, they will always recognize George, even if he changes his suit, hat, shoes, etc. But without that introduction, they will never recognize George, and George, being rather disinterested in people, will never walk up and introduce himself, saying, "I am George."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Ivo said:
steve_bakr,it is indeed possible to get a glimpse of rikpa by reading a text.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Ivo, actually it isn't, and I have demonstrated this already.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Matt J said:
While I disagree with what he says, I think he has every right to say it.

In the U.S., there is the idea that free speech is better than censorship because the truth will win in the marketplace of opinions. This position seeks to drive alternate views into the shadows, where they will linger unopposed.

Malcolm wrote:
The refers to the press and public sphere only. You do not have the right, for example, to walk into a African American church and stand up and say that African Americans are inferior to whites, or walk into a synagogue and express your opinion that Hitler was correct to exterminate Jews. In other words, freedom of speech is not protected in private spaces, and never has been.

Matt J said:
The debate and refutation of wrong views has a strong history in Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Banishment of recalcitrant debaters also has a long history in Buddhism...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
you can say that there is enlightenment in a provisional sense, but in an absolute sense enlightenment is dualistic because it is paired in contrast to its opposite.

Malcolm wrote:
This argument is explicitly rejected in the Rig pa rang shar.

steve_bakr said:
Therefore, I can understand your saying that the absolute viewpoint contradicts Dzogchen Tantras. .

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that your argument is explicitly rejected in the Tantras of Dzogchen. The Rig pa Rang shar gives the following account. Follow it closely and you can see that your point of view is explicitly negated. The context of the argument, btw, is to prove that Buddhahood is attained merely through an introduction.
[Opponent]
The opponents reply to that:
all phenomena are nondual.
Therefore, there cannot be duality.
Since there are no sentient beings, there are no buddhas.
Therefore, [nonduality] is freedom from the extremes of dualistic appearances.

[Reply]
Now then, is this stated in the ultimate sense,
or stated for the objects of deluded appearances?
Our reply to that and the demonstration of the proofs:
that this is so in in the ultimate sense,
but there is a dualistic appearance in the objects of deluded appearances.

[Opponent]
The  opponents rebuttal to that:
because there is no duality in the ultimate sense, 
it is not reasonable for there to be duality in objects of deluded appearances. 
Why? Because there is no duality in the ultimate sense. 
In that case it is reasonable that all sentient beings
could be liberated without the need for effort. 
Why? Because duality does not exist in the basis. 

[Reply]
Now then, how is duality asserted? 
The reply to that is:
when there are no buddhas and no sentient beings, 
there is no second or third in the basis. 
Because the potentiality of play arises from that [basis], 
buddhas and sentient beings arise as a duality.

[Opponent]
Now it is asserted that duality exists in the basis.
Because there is no good or bad in the basis,
for what reason is it said to exist as a duality? 
In that case, there cannot be transformation. 
Why? It is reasonable that sentient beings do not attain buddhahood. 
For example, even though coal
is polished, it will never become white. 
In the same way, deluded sentient beings
will never become buddhas through practicing meditation. 

[Reply]
Next, the reply is given like this:
because it exists to be demonstrated, 
the result is attained through the demonstration.
If not demonstrated, how can there be liberation? 

There are no signs in the dharmas of the basis, 
no grasping to the dharmas of the path,
and no attainment of the dharmatā of the result. 
The basis of sentient beings and the basis of buddhahood
is definitely differentiated by a sole difference.
 For what reason is there a sole difference? 
Why is it called “the sole difference”?
The basis of buddhahood is pristine consciousness [ye shes]; 
the basis of sentient beinghood is not pristine consciousness. 
When both the primordial state (ye) and recognition (shes pa) are combined, 
it is the sublime transcendent state of the buddhas.
I really think you need to reconsider your arrogance on this point. There are people here who understand Dzogchen far better than you. You should listen to them. On the Guru, for example, another of the 17 Tantras, the Precious Introduction Tantra, states:
Investigating into the intimate instructions of the Guru, one reaches the extent of effortless self-liberation.
The Rig pa Rang shar, the commentary tantra of Dzogchen, also chimes in the faults of not obtaining empowerments. Now mind you, this does not mean that one necessarily needs some kind of empowerment into an outer mandala and so on, as the Rig pa Rang Shar makes clear. That depends on the faculties of the student. But this tantra makes it absolutely clear that one must receive at least direct introduction from a proper master:
The faults of not obtaining the empowerment are as follows: in the bardo one is alarmed, panicked, exhausted, impeded and one can also lose consciousness. 
“While one has not left the body of traces, migrating beings will not see one as worthy of respect. One’s merit will be small, one’s life short, one’s enjoyments of living will be few, one will be powerless and many obstacles will occur. Nothing will be accomplished. Those are the faults of not obtaining the empowerment for the conduct of Secret Mantra. A yogin of Secret Mantra conduct must first obtain empowerment. If empowerment is not obtained, not even the Buddha will be able to turn the wheel on the stage of a tathāgata. If the wheel cannot be turned, then the nirmanakāya will not be able to benefit migrating beings with compassion. Therefore, the empowerment of the conduct of Secret Mantra must be obtained.
The root tantra of all Dzogchen teachings, the Sgra thal gyur, states:
Serve the guru as equal to a buddha
by pleasing him/her with activities of body and speech.
And:
The Dharma is in accord with the transmission of the Guru.
Finally, since you like the Kun byed rgyal po, then heed what it says:

Without an authentic master, like the scripture of a monkey, 
the basis and path will be erroneous, indeed one will be seized by conceptuality.
Therefore, like applying ferrous sulfate to gold, the precious master
should be paid with a gem of inestimable value.
This is also part of the lung called rtsal chen sprug pa, one of the five lungs brought to Tibet by Vairocana.

The Great Garuda, another one of the five lungs and also part of the Kun byed rgyal po states:
The virtuous mentor is like a precious jewel which produces everything.
Unsupported, not depending on places of transformation,
he fulfills hope through his excellent inner nature.
When examined, nothing; but he has the great excellence of producing a variety for others.
Finally, you should heed Mañjuśrīmitra [Garab Dorje's main disciple], who states in yet another of the five lungs brought by Vairocana, the Meditation of Awakened Mind:
Subtle and difficult to understand, this path of the great seer is beyond nonconceptuality and conceptuality,
difficult to analyze and difficult to explain, free from conventional expressions,
inaccessible through words, while it is not shared with the domain of others and all of the immature,
this meaning can here be seen through those definitive scriptures of the Teacher and the experiential intimate instructions of the gurus.
So, given these definitive statements in original texts of the Dzogchen tradition, you can see why no one agrees with your baseless and harmful assertions. However, you are free to following the three words of Jim Valby:
Introduce yourself to some delusion.
Spread it as widely as possible. 
Continue in that state forever.
Because that is all you are doing, sad to say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I know this text like the back of my own hand, probably better than anyone here. If you say that I do not understand it, you might as well say that there is no sky.

Malcolm wrote:
Incidentally, you only know Reynolds' translation. That can hardly be called "knowing the text like the back of my own hand..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
You are not familiar with the text, then, because John Reynolds said that it is possible to be liberated by understanding the text itself.

Malcolm wrote:
Not without having received direction introduction in a proper way from a real master. I would say that you are not familiar with this cycle in general. Many of us here actually have the transmission for this cycle. In order to practice these teachings, you must have received the Karling Shitro Empowerment.

steve_bakr said:
...probably better than anyone here.

Malcolm wrote:
Probably not.

steve_bakr said:
If you say that I do not understand it, you might as well say that there is no sky.

Malcolm wrote:
You certainly think you understand it...but sadly you don't.

The main practice of the cycle, connected with the text you are so fond of, is the Supplication of the Guru Yoga of the Three Kāyas, Self-Liberation without Abandoning the Three Poisons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
There is no enlightenment. There is no nonenlightenment. It is like "chopping wood and carrying water," except there is no wood and no water.

Malcolm wrote:
This point of view is explicitly rejected in the Dzogchen tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Clearing Practice Space
Content:
Karma_Yeshe said:
Of course we should stick to tradition and don't become secular buddhist or something strange like that. But especially when using tantric methods, it is very important for them to be connected with the place you are practising. Otherwise they just don't really work that much! Himalayan plants are no more special or more connected with spirits than any other special plants from other areas of the world. So everybody that stated that "you should stick to tradition", please ask yourself, what the real essence of the tradition is.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, when using these things, you should be very aware of the environmental impact you are having. For example, in Tibetan Medicine, it is held that one should use medicines from one's region, as these will be the most potent for you. Also, the trees from which gugul, sandalwood oil, myrrh, frankincense, aloes [agar] and so on are extracted endangered.

In Mexico, there are over 5,000 plant species useful for medicine, and very little of it has been documented in one place, much less made accessible for non-Indians to understand and use.

As far as Himalayan plants go, however, they have a special potency because of the altitude at which they grow. Alpine instances of a plant are held to be stronger than an instance grown at a lower altitude. Why? Because the distance between flower and root is shorter, and therefore the plant as a whole is held to be more potent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
steve_bakr said:
As the text says, there are no antecedent or subsequent requirements.

Malcolm wrote:
Only someone ignorant about the cycle the text comes from would make this erroneous claim.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: Why Hillary won the debate
Content:
Serenity509 said:
If it were anyone else, people would look at her experience alone and see she's qualified to be president. I've already listed her achievements in this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
Hillary does not have any special qualifications that make her more suitable to be President than Sanders. The issue is that she is owned by the banks...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Why Hillary won the debate
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Deleted by CNN this morning...:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 15th, 2015 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Why Hillary won the debate
Content:
Serenity509 said:
The real reason Hillary won the debate is that no one was on her level:
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/the_real_reason_hillary_clinton_won_the_debate_no_one_else_was_at_her_level/

Bernie Sanders supporters who think he won the debate just because he said what they wanted to hear need to quiet themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
She didn't win the debate.

She was completely unable to distance herself from big money. She refused to say that the big banks should be busted up [they should].

She could not effectively respond to the charge that she changes her opinions based on political expediency.

Her reply to Sanders that US was not Denmark was not an reply, it was lame.

She also does not support free college tuition [boo].

The only place where she gained traction with Sanders was on gun control.

But I happen to agree with Bernie on this point. He voted against the Brady Bill because IT DID NOT SUPPORT INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECKS. It is also true that VT is a rural state with the lowest rates of gun violence in the US, etc. This is why Sanders has the position on guns that he does. People in VT hunt for food. It is a poor state. Gun policies that are good for cities are not necessarily appropriate for rural areas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Mindfulness?
Content:
boda said:
You see mindfulness 2.0 practitioners as lacking something merely because of it's secularness. A mindfulness practitioner could do all sorts of loving kindness practices, met meditation, feed the hungry, etc etc. They are not limited to any tradition. But nevertheless you see them as lacking something only because they have the quality of being secular.

Malcolm wrote:
They are lacking something because they no connection with an lineage of awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
swooping said:
Is lojong a general term that refers to multiple systems of meditation?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

swooping said:
Ah, thank you. That makes sense then.
Are the 59 slogans that are popularly practiced in the dzogchen community?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Recording of phat!
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Um, no, phat is special.

zenman said:
Because?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to find out from a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Recording of phat!
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are many different ways of using this syllable.

Used incorrectly, one can cause oneself a lot of problems.

zenman said:
And any syllable. Sure. Willpower is not always beneficent.

Malcolm wrote:
Um, no, phat is special.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Recording of phat!
Content:
conebeckham said:
The Herukasattva mantra has a Phet at the end, that may be what you're hearing.

zenman said:
Sakya Trizin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvdEtII9fl4

Recitated like this phe-mantra does not have the cutting or exploding quality to it.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many different ways of using this syllable.

Used incorrectly, one can cause oneself a lot of problems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
swooping said:
Is lojong a general term that refers to multiple systems of meditation?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Clearing Practice Space
Content:
Dharmaswede said:
Since we are on the topic "supportive herbs" (and with the risk of straying off topic): If one would want to have a period of more intense practice, and fortify it with "supportive herbs" what would a boosting regimen look like? I am primarily thinking of medicin (in the widest sense of the word) but also diet.

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
First, you do a mild cleanse. Then you adhere to a pure diet [no meat, alcohol, stimulants and processed/junk foods] and use chulen, preferably tailored to your constitution and age. If you need Tibetan medicine, then you also take that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Clearing Practice Space
Content:
Ivo said:
Even the Vimala which is traded today and which should still be according to the specifications ChNN popularized - one brand still works, another one does not work at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Our Vimala is excellent, crafted in a small Tibetan-owned pharmacy in Amdo used by many physicians there.

http://www.bhaisajya.guru/web-store/vimala-dza-ti-nyi-zhu

heart said:
I can verify that it works as it should.

/magnus


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Clearing Practice Space
Content:
Ivo said:
Even the Vimala which is traded today and which should still be according to the specifications ChNN popularized - one brand still works, another one does not work at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Our Vimala is excellent, crafted in a small Tibetan-owned pharmacy in Amdo used by many physicians there.

http://www.bhaisajya.guru/web-store/vimala-dza-ti-nyi-zhu

Ivo said:
Thanks for the link, that's great to hear. Will be ordering from them for sure. The only one which works so far according to our experience is batches from Amdo sold by "Himalayanremedies". It may even be the same...

Malcolm wrote:
It is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Clearing Practice Space
Content:
Ivo said:
Even the Vimala which is traded today and which should still be according to the specifications ChNN popularized - one brand still works, another one does not work at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Our Vimala is excellent, crafted in a small Tibetan-owned pharmacy in Amdo used by many physicians there.

http://www.bhaisajya.guru/web-store/vimala-dza-ti-nyi-zhu


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Clearing Practice Space
Content:
Adamantine said:
he'd said musk is ok for Riwo sang cho- but be sure to avoid it for naga pujas or naga sang.

Malcolm wrote:
For general Sang, using an incense that has musk in it is ok. For Naga Sang it must be avoided.

For example, when holding a banquet for many people, we don't make it vegetarian because one or two guests are vegetarian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism as type of agnosticism
Content:


Wayfarer said:
I think there is  some medium by which ideas, memories, actions and so on, are carried, which is not known to science.

Malcolm wrote:
It's called "a mindstream."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Sutra: Lung needed or not
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Here's a question, can a deaf person receive a lung?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't see how.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 11th, 2015 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Sutra: Lung needed or not
Content:
pemachophel said:
Loppon-la,

Can you tell us what the difference is between a mantra and a dharani? In at least one entry from the gZungs 'Dus, the title says it's a dharani, but then in the body of the sutra, it says to recite this "mantra" X number of times. Is there an actual traditional definition of a dharani?

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
A dhāraṇī, properly speaking, is a formula for recalling the Dharma and developing wisdom and removing nonvirtues which can cause problems.

Generally, we find a description of three mantras: guhyamantras, vidyāmantras and dhāraṇī-mantras. A text called the Abhisamayavibhaṅga by Atisha statesz:
Because of protecting against mundane thoughts with reality, there are so-called secret mantras. As such, because of giving arise to special knowledge when invoked again and again, there are vidyāmantras. In order generate unfailing recollection of bodhicitta, there are dhāraṇī-mantras.
Further, an interesting text called the sGra sbyor bam po gnyis pa gives the following definitions:
A so-called mantra is mantregupti bhāśaṇe, i.e. because it is a description of the deities of mantra being summoned and secret, it is called "secret mantra." So-called "vidyā" is vidajñāna: it is name of abiding as the form of a deity in order counteract ignorance. So called "dhāraṇi" is artha granṭha dhārayati dhāraṇi: a name for not forgetting the meaning and the words of Mantra Dharma and obtaining a specific stage, thus, "dhāraṇimantra."
Further, we can make four more distinctions:  dhāraṇis that become the cause of a bodhisattvas obtaining patience, Secret Mantra dhāraṇis, dhāraṇi of Dharma and dhāraṇi of meaning. This distinction is found in the commentary on the Prajñāpāramita by Daṃṣṭrasena.

The first kind is a result of attaining patience for emptiness because of meditating with wisdom and mindfulness.

The second is a dhāraṇī mantra that possesses the power of blessings is a dhāraṇī of Secret Mantra because of an aspiration that was made to remove negativities for sentient beings.

Third, the dhāraṇī of Dharma is when bodhisattvas on the stages listen to buddhas and bodhisattvas no matter how many words of Dharma there are held and recalled with wisdom as they were explained, and this ability to not forget them for a long time is called dhāraṇi of Dharma.

Finally, the dhāraṇī of meaning simply remembering the Dharma terms of the paths, perfections, and so on.

So, my understanding is that dhāraṇis that come from sutra do not require transmission. Dhāraṇis that come from tantra, may, depending on the level of tantra. It seems that many dhāraṇis that seem to require transmission in the Tibetan tradition do not require transmission in East Asian traditions.

More research should be done because there are so many dhārṇis that do not have explicit rites of transmissions connected with them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
haha said:
Another presentation for five Kayas: jagrat, swapna, sushupta, turiya and turiyatit.
=

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is Vedanta, it does not apply.

haha said:
No, it is according to Buddhadharma. Source for this presentation is "AryaManjushrinamasangiti by Bikshu Ravishreejyana with amritakanika namasamgititippani"

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, I stand corrected, but the presentation here is an explanation of the five kāyas through the four joys. And as such, it is very specific presentation and the usage of these Vedantic terms only occur in one Tantra, the Ḍākārṇava-mahāyoginī-tantra, which has a commentary by Padmavajra.

The text of the Tippani is interesting, but again, it is a very unusual usage and is not widespread at all, which is why I never encountered this before.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Can the Buddha become angry?
Content:
jundo cohen said:
Hello,

The following is just one possibility, an interpretation, by one practitioner.

I feel that if you could travel back in time to meet the person who was the historical Buddha, before all the legends and hagiographical writings which (perhaps as a possibility) imposed a potentially idealized image on who he was, you would meet a man, a human being. He may have been a very special man, with great gifts, but just a man. If so, there is a good chance that he exhibited more ordinary human emotions than we give him credit for, and might have had some buttons that could be pushed at a certain point like most people.

On the other "one hand clapping" hand, if one is speaking of the "Big B" Buddha which represents emptiness, all reality and then some ... there is no separate you me or the other guy, nothing lacking ... thus no anger is possible.

The historical man who was buddha and ol' "Big B" are not two.

Just one opinion to toss into the stew, and not intended as the final word on Buddhism.

Gassho, Jundo

Malcolm wrote:
Sunaks̄atra [Sunakkhatta] is the prime example of the Buddha's "doubting Thomas":
"And he will never infer of me according to Dhamma: 'That Blessed One encompasses with his own mind the minds of other beings, other persons. He understands a mind affected by lust as affected by lust and a mind unaffected by lust as unaffected by lust; he understands a mind affected by hate as affected by hate and a mind unaffected by hate as unaffected by hate; he understands a mind affected by delusion as affected by delusion and a mind unaffected by delusion as unaffected by delusion; he understands a contracted mind as contracted and a distracted mind as distracted; he understands an exalted mind as exalted and an unexalted mind as unexalted; he understands a surpassed mind as surpassed and an unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed; he understands a concentrated mind as concentrated and an unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated; he understands a liberated mind as liberated and an unliberated mind as unliberated.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

So, the Buddha was not an ordinary human being, subject to suffering and affliction...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
haha said:
Another presentation for five Kayas: jagrat, swapna, sushupta, turiya and turiyatit.
=

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is Vedanta, it does not apply.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
smcj said:
Five kayas? I know of the three or four kaya schema.

Malcolm wrote:
Five kāyas: dharmakāya, sambhogakāya, nirmanakāya, svabhavikakāya and the vajra or mahāsukha kāya.

smcj said:
Thanks. I'd not heard of the "vajra or mahasukha kaya".

Malcolm wrote:
Abhidhāna-uttaratantra
states:
The dharmakāya pervades everything,
the sambhogakāya enjoys Mahāyāna,
The nirmanakāya tames whoever is to be tamed,
The vajrakāya is totally indestructible,
and the svabhāvikakāya is supreme...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
smcj said:
Five kayas? I know of the three or four kaya schema.

Malcolm wrote:
Five kāyas: dharmakāya, sambhogakāya, nirmanakāya, svabhavikakāya and the vajra or mahāsukha kāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Queequeg said:
Oh.

Malcolm wrote:
Any buddha, including Samantabhadra, automatically has all three or five kāyas.  Samantabhadra is different from other buddhas however in that "he" woke up without having to follow a path, without any effort and without engaging in any virtue at all. Śakyamuni Buddha is a nirmanakāya of Samantabhadra. This means that Śakyamuni Buddha woke up without having to follow a path, without any effort and without engaging in any virtue at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:


Queequeg said:
He's talking about Bodhisattvas, but in Tientai thought, Buddha, Bodhisattva, etc. on down to hell dweller, are all functions of Buddha, so he's really talking about Buddha.

DGA said:
Hold on--actually we do agree here.  "functions of Buddha" = nirmanakaya.  Which means that if you're seeking Buddha, it makes sense to look at one's own function, so to speak, and that's meditation.  That takes us back to here...

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=20915&start=20#p304865

Queequeg's objection to Malcolm's claim that Buddhahood is to be found in one's own mind.  I've been trying to argue, if somewhat clumsily, that Zhiyi for one wouldn't disagree with this claim Malcolm made.

Queequeg said:
Yes, I took issue with primordial Buddha being limited to Dharmakaya. Not the rest.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said it was limited...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:


Queequeg said:
I don't know how you are informed on Tientai thought, but you're mistaken.

Malcolm wrote:
DGA belongs to a Tendai organization, and it is a Tendai Ordinand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is absolutely no precedence in the sūtras for the idea that you can learn Buddhadharma by reading books.

Astus said:
Several Mahayana sutras contain their own "advertisement", saying things like knowing just a single stanza gives immeasurable merit and bring about enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
Mañjuśrīmitra writes in his Meditation of Awakened Mind:
In the final five hundred years when people are oppressed by the age, the completely untrained
practice the stainless discourses that are difficult to understand according to the words, not properly. 
The various views they enter according to the power of their own intelligence and so on,
carry them away in a river of ignorance, separating them from the yoga that is the amrita of the quintessence of the teachings.
We have a fundamentally different view of things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
smcj said:
Both Malcolm and Queequeg have posted things to the effect that there is an eternal or permanent Nirmanakaya, which to me means the physical appearance of a Buddha.

For that kind of statement to be true you've got to do a lot of fancy footwork redefining either "eternal" or "Nirmanakaya" imo.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I didn't. Queequeg did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
DGA said:
yes, that's so about the inseparability of Dharmakaya from the form bodies.

Is there more than one Nirmanakaya?

Malcolm wrote:
There are several kinds of nirmanakāya: supreme, variegated, manufactured, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 10th, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Sutra: Lung needed or not
Content:
naljor said:
But ChNN said that function of mantra is in transmission of sound…….

Malcolm wrote:
A dharani is not a mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Sutra: Lung needed or not
Content:
pemachophel said:
Loppon-la,

I appreciate your response. However, can you give a citation that backs up that nothing in sutra requires oral transmission? I would very much like to have such a citation if there is one.

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN mentions this all the time.

There is no principle of transmission in sūtra apart from transmitting vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: Sutra: Lung needed or not
Content:
pemachophel said:
It is common today to hear/read that sutras need no lung/oral transmission. A) Is this true? B) Is there an authoritative citation supporting this?

How 'bout the dharani (taken from sutras) that appear in the gZungs 'Dus (Compendium of Dharanis)?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing in sūtra requires lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
heart said:
If you could get teachings on it, that would be best. Masters use teaching on texts like this to give the actual direct introduction.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I was going to add that today, texts like this, Flight of the Garuda and so on are really teachers manuals, and in general, would be given to the student after he or she had received the lung and khrid.

While I think at this point restricting texts is absurd, getting transmission for texts is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetan text is extremely clear on this point. I don't much care what the Chinese translations or Suzuki's incredibly inaccurate paraphrase state.

Astus said:
The discourses in the sutra are supposedly spoken explanations. Since Mahamati and the Buddha are talking to each other, it is out of place to say that "apart from spoken explanations". Making an exception of verbal communication is problematic whether the sutra is meant as a spoken discourse or as a written text. If it is a spoken discourse, the whole sutra is an exception, like any other sutra. If it is a written text, it negates everything found there, including the stated exception. So, unlike other versions of the Lankavatara, the Tibetan seems to be in error.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, what they are discussing, as is very clear from the Tibetan, is the deficiency of text [letters, yi ge, akṣara ] in conveying meaning. The term being translated as "word" in the text is śabda, sound. The text says the fault is that sounds/words can fall down into letters. It then contrasts letters with spoken explanations, and then points out that even spoken explanations are deluded, because they are made in accordance with the inclination of deluded sentient beings. So no, while the Tibetan translating is not inaccurate, the Chinese translations do not manage to convey the real nuances of the passage, sorry to say.

In the first passage you cited, the Buddha is saying that sounds [ śabda ] and meanings are not different, because sounds can lead to understanding. He never says that reading or text can. This is because Buddhadharma is and always will be a oral tradition based on verbal explanations that are heard by students.



Astus said:
Then of course there many, many statements like the following from the Ārya-niṣṭhāgantabhagavajjñānavaipūlya-sūtraratnānanta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Maudgalyayāna, the awakening of a bodhisattva is connected with the virtuous mentor

Malcolm wrote:
There are several statements on the importance of good friends already in the early discourses (e.g. "the whole of the holy life" in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html ). However, it does not address the difference between written and oral communication. That sutta itself explains that the importance of a good friend is visible in the fact that the Buddha himself taught the noble eightfold path, based on which beings can attain liberation. In another discourse ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.than.html ) the Buddha teaches that lay people should learn virtue, generosity and discernment by associating with good lay friends. But that doesn't mean they could not learn the same qualities by listening to the Buddha and his monastic disciples, since there are quite a few cases where people gain faith and insight from a single teaching. Good friends are also said ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.001.than.html ) to be a prerequisite for developing the wings to self-awakening, because through them one learns the Dharma. The reason for it being a prerequisite is because one has to learn of the teachings. It does not say that the source is limited to face to face communication using voice.[/quote]

Your objection has nothing to do with the passage at hand. There are so many other passages just like it, it would take days to collect and translate them all. There is absolutely no precedence in the sūtras for the idea that you can learn Buddhadharma by reading books.


Astus said:
By the way, what is that sutra you quote from? Any English translation? Any other title (Sanskrit/English/Chinese)?

Malcolm wrote:
Astus, I generally translate my citations myself directly out of the canon. As far as I know, there is no other translation of this passage. But the Tibetan of this one is extremely simple and straight forward.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra (Split)
Content:


Queequeg said:
This is one instance where Zhanran was discussing the pervasive quality of Buddha-nature, but nonetheless, he's discussing here the Tientai view that the Dharmakaya is indisitinguishable from the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya - ie. the primordial Buddha has Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya, all three without beginning or end.
.

Malcolm wrote:
No one ever said the three kāyas were separable.

In Dzogchen it is held that from the point of view of the basis, the three kāyas are the dharmakāya; from the point of view of the path, the three kāyas are the sambhogakāya; from the point of view of result, the three kāyas are the nirmanakāya. The three kāyas are always inseparable.

The reason there is a "difference" between them has to do the fact that ordinary sentient beings and bodhisattvas on the lower stages can see only the nirmanakāya; higher bodhisattvas can see the sambhogakāya; only buddhas can see the dharmakāya.

In other words, Samantabhadra, the dharmakāya, always has a sambhogakāya and a nirmanakāya Why? For as long as there are deluded sentient beings, the buddhas appear to teach them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Caodemarte said:
This Zen discussion was inspired by the questions raised on this thread as to whether or not one had to  hear actual spoken words in Buddhism or  whether or not Buddhist teaching was absolutely dependent on sound waves reaching the ear. Zen Buddhism, at least, does not uniquely privilege the ear.

Malcolm wrote:
The Zen turn in this discussion is entirely ancillary. The main point was the meaning of hearing [śruta] and wether or not one could consider reading part of śruta. Even in the origin story of the Zen tradition, the legend of the Buddha holding a flower, the context is an in-person teaching with the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Matt J said:
I agree with Malcolm on the incompleteness of the texts. I've studied with teachers from every vehicle, and the "how to" is never clearly spelled out in the texts I've seen. The Pali suttas are pretty detailed with meditation, but even these aren't really like how meditation is taught by teachers. Especially with Zen, there's no way to know by yourself if you "get" a koan. The best you can do is piece together something like zazen in non-Sutric commentaries, and even then I would bet most people get it wrong. Heck, I got it wrong even under the supervision of a teacher, and I doubt I'm unusual in this aspect. And Dogen, the big promoter of non-koan zazen, says you need to have a teacher. In fact, out of the whole history of zen, you have maybe one or two Chinul like characters out of probably hundreds of thousands of dedicated students. This is liek planning your retirement around winning the lottery. Sure, it could happen, but the chances are so low to be negligible.

Anyone who has meditated in a group knows there is a far different energy at play than when meditating alone. So to say there's nothing transmitted, out of fear for sounding New Age, I think is nonsense. There's an energy at work there, just like there's an energy at work when you play board games live instead of over the internet, or have a face to face conversation over texting.

Then there is a logical problem. Buddhism generally tells us we have a knowledge problem, we start off in ignorance. To think that an ignorant person can guide themselves out of ignorance seems specious at best.

Malcolm wrote:
But Astus is a new breed of internet do it yourself intellectual, despite the fact that he actually went to some kind of Buddhist school and learned everything he knows about Dharma from someone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What I am claiming is that oral communication and teaching is different than reading. For example, our conversation here is dry and logical [at least my side of the conversation is]. If we were talking, or I was listening to you teach Dharma, there is a qualitatively different sort of communication happening.

Astus said:
That is meta-communication, all those other things that go on during a face-to-face conversation. It is not a matter of words being pronounced or written. Then there are two options to maintain that orality is the only way of communicating the Dharma: either that words combined with other signifiers/expressions transmit the whole, or that words are irrelevant and only the other expressions convey the meaning. It also raises the question if anything can be communicated at all through the written form.

One of the advantages of texts is exactly their "dry and logical" nature (although I wouldn't dismiss the literary arts as capable of more than that). Unlike spontaneous verbal communication, writing generally requires some focus and organising of thoughts, except perhaps instant messaging.
The Buddha also addresses this issue later on in the text, beginning on folio 212/a of the Lhasa edition:
That being the case, therefore Mahāmati, apart from spoken explanations, the Buddha and the other bodhisattvas have taught "The Tathāgatas have never explained and will never explain even a single letter." Why? For this reason, because in all Dharmas there are no letters, in absence of the meaning [the Dharma] cannot be explained. There is an explanation through taking hold of concepts. Mahāmati, if Dharma is not explained, the doctrine will perish. If the doctrine perishes, there will be no buddhas, pratyekabuddhas and śravakas.
"For this reason, Mahamati, it is declared in the canonical text by myself and other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas that not a letter is uttered or answered by the Tathagatas. For what reason? Because truths are not dependent on letters. It is not that they never declare what is in conformity with meaning; when they declare anything, it is according to the discrimination [of all beings]. If, Mahamati, the truth is not declared1 [in words] the scriptures containing all truths will disappear, and when the scriptures disappear there will be no Buddhas, Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas; and when there is no one [to teach], what is to be taught and to whom?"
(Lankavatara Sutra, 3.76)

There is no mention of an exception for "spoken explanations" in Suzuki's translation. In T670 it says "我等諸佛及諸菩薩，不說一字、不答一字。" (We, all buddhas, and all bodhisattvas, don't say a word, don't respond a word.), in T671 it says "是故我經中說，諸佛如來乃至不說一字不示一名" (It is because I say in the scriptures, all buddha-tathagatas don't go as far as saying a single word or giving a single name.), , and in T672 it says "我經中說，我與諸佛及諸菩薩，不說一字不答一字。" (I say in the scriptures, I, and all buddhas, and all bodhisattvas, don't say a word, don't respond a word). So, neither of the three Chinese Lankavatara translations speak of such an exception.
.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetan text is extremely clear on this point. I don't much care what the Chinese translations or Suzuki's incredibly inaccurate paraphrase state.

Then of course there many, many statements like the following from the Ārya-niṣṭhāgantabhagavajjñānavaipūlya-sūtraratnānanta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Maudgalyayāna, the awakening of a bodhisattva is connected with the virtuous mentor


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 9th, 2015 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Malcolm, so how do you explain how ChNN says we can read and study sutrayana without any special transmission? I'll note his says this TO HIS STUDENTS, not necessarily any random person.

Is it based on understanding Dzogchen, which is the essence of all Buddhadharma and thus being able to understand the meaning of sutra in that light?

Malcolm wrote:
You do not need a special transmission to study sūtras, but without a teacher to guide you in the meaning it is likely you won't understand any of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sūtras and tantras are not written documents. The written documents that record them are merely a shadow of verbal discourse that took place at some time. The meaning of those documents is not contained within the documents.

Astus said:
Either you say that the texts are incomplete

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they are incomplete.

Astus said:
- in which case you'd need to be in possession of some original audio record - or you claim that words as voice are significantly different from words as letters -



Malcolm wrote:
What I am claiming is that oral communication and teaching is different than reading. For example, our conversation here is dry and logical [at least my side of the conversation is]. If we were talking, or I was listening to you teach Dharma, there is a qualitatively different sort of communication happening. For example, no one is going to faint when they read the Prajñāpāramitā sūtra, but when those monks heard to the PP sūtra so long ago, some of them were really shocked.


Astus said:
"If, Mahamati, meaning is different from words, it will not be made manifest by means of words; but meaning is entered into by words as things [are revealed] by a lamp. It is, Mahamati, like a man carrying a lamp to look after his property. [By means of this light] he can say: This is my property and so is kept in this place. Just so, Mahamati, by means of the lamp of words and speech originating from discrimination, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas can enter into the exalted state of self-realisation which is free from speech-discrimination."

( http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm, 3.65)

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha also addresses this issue later on in the text, beginning on folio 212/a of the Lhasa edition:

Mahāmati, those foolish men say the following, "The meaning is exactly the words. The meaning is not other than the words. Why? For this reason: since there is no substance in the meaning, the meaning is not other than the words. The word itself is the meaning." 

Mahāmati, since the nature of words are not understood, those with uneducated mind cannot understand that how words arise and perish and the meaning does not arise and does not perish. 

Mahāmati, words fall into letters. The meaning does not fall into letters, not arising and lacking substance because of being free from entities and nonentities. 

Mahāmati, because letters are not perceived to either exist or not exist, the Tathāgātas do not teach a Dharma that falls into letters.

Mahāmati, because there are no letters in the Dharma, whoever explains a Dharma that falls into letters, he is twisted up. That being the case, therefore Mahāmati, apart from spoken explanations, the Buddha and the other bodhisattvas have taught "The Tathāgatas have never explained and will never explain even a single letter." Why? For this reason, because in all Dharmas there are no letters, in absence of the meaning [the Dharma] cannot be explained. There is an explanation through taking hold of concepts. 

Mahāmati, if Dharma is not explained, the doctrine will perish. If the doctrine perishes, there will be no buddhas, pratyekabuddhas and śravakas. If they do not exist, for whom will there be an explanation? 

That being the case, therefore Mahāmati, bodhisattva mahāsattvas must not be attached the words of the spoken explanations. 

Mahāmati, since the spoken explanations exist in accordance with the inclinations of sentient beings, they are erroneous. I and all other tathāgata, arhat, samyaksambuddhas teach the Dharma to interested sentient beings in order to reverse their minds, intellects and consciousnesses. All phenomena are nonexistent appearances. Because they are understood as appearances of one's mind, the realization of one's own sublime wisdom can never be reversed by many kinds of false concepts. 

Mahāmati, bodhisattvas mahāsattvas must rely on the meaning, they must not rely on letters. 

Mahāmati, the sons and daughters of good families who rely on letters will be deprived of the meaning, and further, will not understand it. They will not being learned in the characteristics of all the Dharmas and the stages, and they will have as their associates evil intellectuals who do not understand the sentences and the certain words will fall into evil views.

Astus said:
We can certainly come to understand the meaning of the Dharma by studying with a teacher. We can never come to understand the meaning of the Dharma merely by reading books.
Does a teacher gives any Dharma not contained in the sutras? If yes, then his teaching fails to follow the Dharma of the buddhas. If no, then sutras are both valid and beneficial sources of the Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
My reply to this is to refer you to the above where the Buddha declares all sūtras are erroneous, because they are taught in accordance with the inclinations of sentient beings.


Astus said:
"all of the buddhas and all of their teachings of peerless perfect enlightenment spring forth from this sūtra"
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 8)

Malcolm wrote:
The above explanation by the Buddha establishes that a "sūtra" is not something which is in the letters of a text, nor in the words. It is in the meaning as spoken verbally.

Astus said:
For example, the name of a teaching like Kalacakra, does not mean that the real Kalacakra can be found in the book called Kalacakra. Just as the real Prajñāpāramitā cannot be found in all the books that bear that name. The meaning of Kalackara and Prajñāpāramitā can only be learned from a teacher, never from the books themselves.
Prajnaparamita is not obtained from anyone or anything. How could a person today instruct in that better than the Buddha?

"Wherever this sutra is taught, read, recited, copied, or wherever it is to be found, one should build a seven-jeweled stupa of great height and width and richly ornamented. There is no need to put a relic inside. Why is this? Because the Tathāgata is already in it. ... the highest, complete enlightenment of all the bodhisattvas is within this sutra. This sutra opens the gate of skillful means and reveals the marks of the truth."
(Lotus Sutra, ch 10, p 161, 162, BDK Edition)

Malcolm wrote:
These days, the Buddha can't instruct anyone. But teachers can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness
Content:
Hansei said:
Hello,

I've been a student of ChNNR for over a year. Does anybody know if I need to receive a particular transmission to read this book?

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Liberation-Through-Seeing-Naked-Awareness/dp/1559393521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444297462&sr=8-1&keywords=Self-Liberation+Through+Seeing+With+Naked+Awareness

Best wishes.


Malcolm wrote:
It is good if you have the lung, but no, you do not absolutely need it to read it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: Bon influence on buddhism and viceversa.
Content:
Adamantine said:
In principle offering "fragrant smoke" is the same, if in indian incense form or
or in a larger capacity as with juniper branches on a fire..
With Riwo Sang Cho mother mixes you also have ingredients like the 3 sweets and three whites,
which you also have in tormas, which are based on traditional Indian vegetarian desirable foods
so that's certainly not coming from Bon, but from India..,

Also seems to be a tangible relation between elaborate sang offerings like Riwo Sang Cho with many precious substances in the ingredients and the homa offerings of vedic tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
One characteristic of rituals of Bon origin is that at the beginning of the rite there is a narrative of its origin. Look at ChNN's description of Sang on page 109 of Drung, Deu and Bon.

No one is denying Buddhist appropriation of some native Tibetan rites like Sang, but there is not even one single rite of Sang that was translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan. The Sang offering attributed to Padmasambhava was written in Tibet. Also this Sang offering shows evidence of having been converted from a Bonpo rite because like other Bonpo rites and Sang, it contains a narrative of its origin.

Offering of incense as a object of scent and Sang, which is used for purification, have totally different functions. In ancient Tibetan culture, nomads would have newcomers to their camp pass through Sang smoke to prevent contagious diseases. They mainly used juniper, but also many other aromatic plants as well. The principle of Sang and the principle of smudging in Native American cultures is very similar.

Riwo Sangchod, incidentally, it not a terma, it is a dag snang, a pure vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Bon influence on buddhism and viceversa.
Content:
Tongnyid Dorje said:
i was told by my lama, that tormas, bhalim in sans, indeed originated in indian vajrayana. in indian tantra you have also hom, fire offering, i will be not surprised, if they had also smoke offering... to burn the incense is already a smoke offering, no?

Malcolm wrote:
Not the elaborate sculpture tormas you see in Nyingma.

Sang, which universally uses juniper, is a uniquely Tibetan custom which comes from Nomadic culture.

The function of Sang and the function of incense are different.

Tongnyid Dorje said:
sure, not the elaborate ones. but what is left unelaborate in Tibet, as it was in India? just look at abhisheka, how it is done nowdays and how it was done originaly by wandering yogis. but this doesnt mean it is a bon influence.

as for sang, may be you are right, im not expert.


Malcolm wrote:
Tormas in India were just flatbreads.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Bon influence on buddhism and viceversa.
Content:
Tongnyid Dorje said:
i was told by my lama, that tormas, bhalim in sans, indeed originated in indian vajrayana. in indian tantra you have also hom, fire offering, i will be not surprised, if they had also smoke offering... to burn the incense is already a smoke offering, no?

Malcolm wrote:
Not the elaborate sculpture tormas you see in Nyingma.

Sang, which universally uses juniper, is a uniquely Tibetan custom which comes from Nomadic culture.

The function of Sang and the function of incense are different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Look, obviously being blind or deaf makes study and practice more difficult, but I don't accept that it makes them impossible. For Vajrayana, maybe, but otherwise no. I do think you need to have personal interaction, preferably a lot of it, with a good teacher to really get somewhere but that is possible for both the blind and the deaf.

Garudavista said:
No one said that it does make it impossible.

dzogchungpa said:
See: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=20915&p=304846#p304844 et seq.

OK, ta ta for now.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, no one said it was completely impossible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
With respect to having complete sense organs intact, if one does not, for example, it makes one unsuitable to be a Vajrayāna practitioner.

jorden said:
Could you explain that further? Do you mean that being deaf would be an practical obstacle for Vajrayana or that it would be impossible to practice Vajrayana?

Malcolm wrote:
It means your body mandala is not complete. For example, Hh Sakya Trizin discouraged one man from studying Lamdre because he was blind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 8th, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
You guys are being a bit dzogmatic, admit it.

Malcolm wrote:
No we are being xmlmatic, i.e. XML code that does not work is not XML.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Bon influence on buddhism and viceversa.
Content:
dzoki said:
I am not sure there is any such material, because to really know the influence of Bon on Buddhism and vice versa, one would need to thoroughly know both traditions, their source texts, their histories etc. Some say that rites such as Namkha, Lungta, Sur and Sang are of Bon origin (and they probably are).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they are, as well as the custom of making tormas.

dzoki said:
But I have seen at least one argument for Sang being Buddhist independent of Bon version (some sutra is supposed to speak of smoke offering).

Malcolm wrote:
There is one Sakya Lama, Zuchen, who makes some arguments to this effect. I think he is wrong.


dzoki said:
I heard Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche say that all of Bonpo style vajrayana (or whatever it is called in Bon tradition) is completely made up and copied from elements of Buddhist vajrayana and that the only original teaching of Bon having parallel in Buddhism is their short dzogchen tantra called Shang Shung Nyen Gyu.

Malcolm wrote:
Bonpo "Vajrayāna" is called "Secret Mantra."

ChNN does not say made up, he says "borrowed", and also he maintains in Drung De'u and Bon that the tantric cycles connected with Nangzher Lodpo such as Zhang Zhung Me ri [a tantric cycle], Zhang Zhung sNyan rgyud and Sems sde [Dzogchen cycles, the latter being A khrid] are not dependent on Buddhist sources, the latter have however been influenced by Dzogchen from Garab Dorje.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Words do not communicate, people communicate. ... The transmission of the Dharma does not lie in words themselves, it lies in the interaction between two people.

Astus said:
And what is the means of interaction between two people? Words.

Malcolm wrote:
I would hate to be your girlfriend.

Astus said:
Words cannot adapt with circumstances.
That's a matter of hermeneutics.

Malcolm wrote:
No, words are not sentient things.

Astus said:
Words cannot estimate your level of understanding.
If there are levels of understanding - as defined in scriptures - then even teachers can only use that for reference. If there are no clear definitions, then it is arbitrary and unreliable.

Malcolm wrote:
Sūtras and tantras are not written documents. The written documents that record them are merely a shadow of verbal discourse that took place at some time. The meaning of those documents is not contained within the documents.

We can certainly come to understand the meaning of the Dharma by studying with a teacher. We can never come to understand the meaning of the Dharma merely by reading books.

For example, the name of a teaching like Kalacakra, does not mean that the real Kalacakra can be found in the book called Kalacakra. Just as the real Prajñāpāramitā cannot be found in all the books that bear that name. The meaning of Kalackara and Prajñāpāramitā can only be learned from a teacher, never from the books themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Jonghwi was also a Seon master.

Astus said:
Apparently Jinul was not satisfied with the teachings provided by him or others, so he did not continue their tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure he did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Unknown said:
Words cannot answer your questions.
How does a non-verbal question look like


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Chinul had a Seon master, Jonghwi of Sagulsan.

Astus said:
Jonghwi was his ordination master. Jinul gained realisation and developed his teachings on his own, particularly he introduced the huatou/hwadu method - propagated by Dahui Zonggao - to Korea without ever having visited China.

Malcolm wrote:
Jonghwi was also a Seon master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Of course Chinul was a great scholar, thinker, and monk (not the reader of Internet forums like us). The point is that literally hearing the words was not neccessary in his case.  The other activities (years of meditation, study, etc.) were what helped prepare him.

Astus said:
You could add Wonhyo, Chengguan, Dushun, Jizang, Huisi and probably every Buddhist teacher who did not belong to a specific lineage, but rather studied the Dharma, listened to various people, contemplated the teachings, came to a realisation, then started to teach publicly and write some treatises.

Malcolm wrote:
The order is "listened to various teachers, studied the Dharma...."

In our modern world, this is reversed — read some books on Dharma, did not understand them at all, found a teacher to explain them....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What I mean exactly is that meaning of the Dharma is always learned from a teacher, not a text. A text cannot convey even its own meaning. In order to learn the meaning of a text, one must have a teacher. And also the Dharma does not depend on texts. One does not need books and texts to communicate its essentials.

Books do not communicate, only people do. Books may support that communication, but they are entirely incapable of replacing human transmission of the Dharma from mouth to ear.

Astus said:
Words can be communicated both through voice and letters. What is the difference between you telling me the above words over the phone or over this board? The meaning is something I have to derive from the words in both cases, so it is not communicated in either way.


Malcolm wrote:
Words do not communicate, people communicate. Words cannot adapt with circumstances. Words cannot estimate your level of understanding. Words cannot answer your questions.

The transmission of the Dharma does not lie in words themselves, it lies in the interaction between two people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Importance of a Dharma Teacher/Oral Transmission
Content:
Caodemarte said:
You do your best to learn from whatever material or through whatever means you can obtain. Chinul, a really heavy hitter in Korea,  learned the meaning of  China's Rinzai (Lin-ji or Imje)  through written texts after his initial experiences (also inspired by written texts). So possible, but highly unlikely and rather silly to try if one has a choice of more practicable methods.

DGA said:
Chinul was a great master.  He was trained and educated--which is to say, he heard the teachings and reflected on them before embarking on meditation--at Sagulsan, and later at a temple in Pyongyang.  Only after this did the texts open up to him.  It's not as though he woke up one day at age 30, went to Barnes & Noble, swept through the Zen section, read until kensho hit him a few times, and became the founder of the Chogye Order.

He was part of a living culture.  He was not a consumer.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Chinul had a Seon master, Jonghwi of Sagulsan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Q: "So, the deaf cannot really learn the Dharma?"
A: "When we discuss what constitutes a precious human birth, having all sense faculties intact is one of the requirements."

This is unclear and confusing. Surely it is not meant that the deaf cannot learn the Dharma because they cannot  hear the Dharma. Would the Dharma be then dependent on sound waves vibrating air which in turn vibrates the inner ear? Is it a requirement that one not be blind or deaf to be considered human?

Malcolm wrote:
You should acquaint yourself with the eight freedoms and ten favorable conditions that constitute a precious human birth, not just any old human birth.

With respect to having complete sense organs intact, if one does not, for example, it makes one unsuitable to be a Vajrayāna practitioner.

With respect to studying common Dharma, in ancient times blind people were less at a disadvantage than the deaf. These days the people with sensory deficits are at less of a disadvantage because of modern technology, but I wager there are very few blind people who participate on the forum.

To answer Dzogchungpa's question, the main criteria is organs of sight and hearing.

To answer Garuda Vista's question, in Dzogchen there are techniques for blind people.

But in general we have to understand that precious human birth has very precise criteria which indicates the ease with which one may meet and study Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
When we discuss what constitutes a precious human birth, having all sense faculties intact is one of the requirements.

Malcolm wrote:
So, the anosmic cannot really learn the Dharma?[/quote]

It means they have a deficiency.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Books do not communicate, only people do. Books may support that communication, but they are entirely incapable of replacing human transmission of the Dharma from mouth to ear.

dzogchungpa said:
So, the deaf cannot really learn the Dharma?

Malcolm wrote:
When we discuss what constitutes a precious human birth, having all sense faculties intact is one of the requirements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But the Dharma has always been communicated through the medium of the voice, not the medium of the page, and even Huineng's awakening story bears this out.

Astus said:
Not sure what exactly you mean here. People have been studying the Dharma through texts for ages. Also, teachers have been teaching from texts for ages. Many have composed treatises and other written materials in order to preserve what they want to communicate. Textual communication has also been used for a long time now to disseminate the teachings, communicate it to those one has never met. And the process of translation has not even been addressed.

Malcolm wrote:
The oral transmission for all the Sūtras in the Tibetan Canon still exists and is given at regular intervals.

Astus said:
Do you mean the practice that someone reads out loud what is written?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since the sūtras are all based on a oral transmission that begins with the Buddha. In the case of the Tibetan Canon, this transmission exists in an unbroken form. Translation does not present any problem either, apart from today, when people translate many texts for which they do not possess the lung.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra (Split)
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But the Dharma has always been communicated through the medium of the voice, not the medium of the page, and even Huineng's awakening story bears this out.

Astus said:
Not sure what exactly you mean here. People have been studying the Dharma through texts for ages. Also, teachers have been teaching from texts for ages. Many have composed treatises and other written materials in order to preserve what they want to communicate. Textual communication has also been used for a long time now to disseminate the teachings, communicate it to those one has never met. And the process of translation has not even been addressed.

Malcolm wrote:
What I mean exactly is that meaning of the Dharma is always learned from a teacher, not a text. A text cannot convey even its own meaning. In order to learn the meaning of a text, one must have a teacher. And also the Dharma does not depend on texts. One does not need books and texts to communicate its essentials.

Books do not communicate, only people do. Books may support that communication, but they are entirely incapable of replacing human transmission of the Dharma from mouth to ear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


steve_bakr said:
I recommend it highly to anyone who has not received Pointing Out Instructions

Adamantine said:
*sigh*


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, some people are intractable in their erroneous thinking.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Astus said:
What is missing is the oral transmission of those sutras, not to mention the rest of the canon.

Malcolm wrote:
This is completely false. The oral transmission for all the Sūtras in the Tibetan Canon still exists and is given at regular intervals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hearing, Astus, not reading...

Astus said:
Where is the difference?

"Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, ‘not established’ are themselves written." ( http://www.cttbusa.org/6patriarch/6patriarch20.asp, ch 10, tr BTTS)

Malcolm wrote:
This objection does not apply:

1. I am not suggesting we throw away all books or that they are not useful.
2. I am not suggesting you cannot write out words that have been spoken.

But the Dharma has always been communicated through the medium of the voice, not the medium of the page, and even Huineng's awakening story bears this out.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are like a person who mistakes the leaves for the trunk, in this respect. Buddhadharma has always been, and will always be, a tradition in which the meaning of the Dharma is communicated orally.

Astus said:
There are several cases where a tradition was revived/reformed/established based on scriptural materials. Recent cases include most of modern Theravada, the Soto Zen reform of Menzan Zuiho in Japan and the reforms of Taixu, Yinshun and others in China/Taiwan.

Malcolm wrote:
Hearing, Astus, not reading...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
DGA said:
Astus, I think we just disagree on this issue.  If I had to guess, it's because your experience differs from mine.  And that's fine.



Malcolm wrote:
Astus has failed to notice that the three wisdoms are hearing, reflection and meditation; not reading, reflection and meditation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
DGA said:
importance of learning the Dharma from a capable teacher.

Astus said:
Who counts as a capable teacher depends on whom one likes. Thus both the best and the worst can gather a large community where both call the other incompetent. How to tell which one is correct? That's when one has to start learning from the Buddha himself by reading his words. And if that's not enough, there are numerous traditionally approved masters, like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Asanga and Vasubandhu to consult with. And if even that's not enough, there are quite a few generally reliable works by modern teachers, like the Dalai Lama, Thrangu Rinpoche, Thich Nhat Hanh, Hsing Yun, Sheng Yen, etc.

DGA said:
Buddha Dharma is described as an oral tradition to the present, even with all these texts available.

Astus said:
By whom? There are teachers, true. But hardly any of them could recite even just a few major Mahayana sutras, not to mention the whole canon of the Buddha's words. Buddhism has been a scriptural tradition for over two millennia. It doesn't mean there are no explanations give orally, on the spot. But even the most important commentaries are textual.

DGA said:
What little understanding I have comes primarily from listening to teachers teach, and watching their example.


Astus said:
That can show how worthy teachers are important and beneficial. Or that you prefer to listen to people instead of reading. Or both. Or maybe neither.


Malcolm wrote:
You are like a person who mistakes the leaves for the trunk, in this respect. Buddhadharma has always been, and will always be, a tradition in which the meaning of the Dharma is communicated orally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Shakyamuni Qualitatively Different?
Content:
DGA said:
I guess I'm trying to probe this question of whether one Buddha is ultimately different in quality or kind from any other.  I've been taught, consistently, that the answer to this question is No at the level of Dharmakaya.  Differences in manifestation (nirmanakaya) reflect the needs of samsaric beings, and hence are differences in samsaric situations, not in Buddhahood as such.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 9:59 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
DGA said:
I'm interested in this question of whether or how Buddha Shakyamuni's emergence in this world system is different in quality or kind from that of any other Buddha in any other world system.  So I started a discussion on it here...

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=20904

...in case anyone would like to chime in.

Malcolm wrote:
It isn't. There are a billion worlds in the Sahaloka, and there is a supreme nirmanakāya in every one of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Queequeg said:
Are we really going to dispute which of Amida or Siddhartha Gautama has had a greater connection to the beings of this world now?

Malcolm wrote:
What does it matter? The dharmakāya of both is the same. There is only one teacher, i.e., the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Queequeg said:
The identification of the Primordial Buddha with Shakyamuni is not, as Malcolm suggests, just delusion grounded in attachment to names and forms, but is a statement on the nature of reality, grounding it in present, historical reality.

Malcolm wrote:
Which "present, historical reality" is just a delusion grounded in attachment to names and concepts. This teleological obsession is rather saddening.

Queequeg said:
It is largely in response to other interpretations of the Buddha and the implied statements on the nature of reality. Malcolm made an assumption that Primordial Buddha in this context means Dharmakaya and then made a typically unproductive Malcolm statement.

Malcolm wrote:
There isn't any other kind of primordial buddha. There is also no buddhahood outside of the mind. Three kāyas are in everyone. There is no buddhahood outside of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Queequeg said:
It's all just attachment, of course unless it's the truth expounded by brother Malcolm. But, oh, let's not talk about the emperor's clothes.



Malcolm wrote:
Is there anything to discuss?

Queequeg said:
Sure. But you'd have to leave your attachment to thinking you know what you are talking about in this context.

Malcolm wrote:
[Note: the image above is Kulayarāja, the All-creating King aka Samantabhadra, a pun on your quip]

There is nothing to discuss — the dharmakāya is beyond names, words and concepts [and images]. Ideas like "...according to Nichiren, the various Buddhas of the various schools are actually the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra" are completely relative. The dharmakāya is no more "Śākyamuni" than it is "Vairocana" or "Samantabhadra", etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Queequeg said:
It's all just attachment, of course unless it's the truth expounded by brother Malcolm. But, oh, let's not talk about the emperor's clothes.



Malcolm wrote:
Is there anything to discuss?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Adamantine said:
This may embarrass them and cause them to regret and stop their abusive behavior.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because this has worked so well...all of these teachers who have been embarrassed or called out, not one of them stopped teaching...

Garudavista said:
Although he is not a Buddhist teacher and is instead a neo-advaita teacher, Andrew Cohens' students' open criticisms about his abusive behavior did cause him to step down and stop him from teaching. It's been over two years now and he hasn't attempted to teach again yet. It's an interesting story. If you're not familiar with it, here are some links:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/27/what-happens-when-your-guru-disappears.html

http://www.andrewcohen.org/

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite familiar with the situation — think deposed dictator fleeing country with ill gotten gains...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Adamantine said:
Note he didn't say "stop them from teaching"

He said "stop their abusive behavior"

Malcolm wrote:
That has not happened either.

Adamantine said:
Seems like the letter in reply from Genpo Merzel at least
indicated this was a possibility.

Malcolm wrote:
He is a two time loser on this score. He was ousted from his center in Maine, moved to Utah, and then got ousted again.

Adamantine said:
Another effect of exposure is so potential students (or existing students) can be
aware of the problems and be cautious about getting involved or staying involved.

Malcolm wrote:
RIght, because this worked so well with Sasaki Roshi, Leonard Cohen's recently deceased teacher. That guy was molesting female students for years and years, everyone knew it, no one said anything until a year or so before he died.

Adamantine said:
I'm aware of a number of students of controversial teachers who left once they realized that
the teachers were deceitful based on public exposure of their actions.

Malcolm wrote:
They just get new students, etc., etc., etc., or, they manage to secure endorsements from high Lamas...

Its all bullshit, in the end, you just have to rely on your own good judgement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:


Astus said:
And what meaning is that here?

Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakāya....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Adamantine said:
This may embarrass them and cause them to regret and stop their abusive behavior.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because this has worked so well...all of these teachers who have been embarrassed or called out, not one of them stopped teaching...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's all just a bunch of attachments to names and concepts...it is not very important.

Astus said:
What is?

Malcolm wrote:
The meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


anjali said:
Thank you for that clear explanation. I do have two follow-on questions.

If, for some reason, the student was not whole heartedly present, and wasn't able to experience something, is it possible to gain direct experience without receiving another pointing out instruction from the master again at a later date?

Specifically, I'm thinking of practice texts such as Pointing Out the Dharmakaya, Clarifying the Natural State, or The Ocean of Definitive Meaning. One reads those texts, not for conceptual understanding (although that may happen), but as tools for working with experience. In your opinion, is it possible to have a successful pointing out by working with those texts (with the blessing of the guru of course)?

Malcolm wrote:
The principle of these mahāmudra texts is completely different and much more gradual. If you read these books and work with them without a teacher, it is possible you can have a sutra-like experience of śamatha and vipaśyāna, you can even become a first stage bodhisattva, but that does not mean you will have discovered the rig pa that Dzogchen is talking about. Of course, if you work with a realized master it is possible you can have that experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
The Three Ages and specifically living in the Age of the decline of the Dharma is a prominent teaching for the Jodo-shu and Shin schools, at least.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is quite a provisional teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Serenity509 said:
The five periods doctrine is that each sutra was from a specific part of the Buddha's life, and that the Lotus Sutra and Nirvana sutra were his final teaching:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai#Five_Periods

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but that does not even make sense if you look at the Lotus Sutra itself which establishes there has never been any time nor will there be any time where the Buddha is not teaching the Lotus Sutra on Rajagriha. Kind of throws a kink in the five period theory no?

It never ceases to amaze me the schemes people come up with to limit the Buddha's teachings in time and space.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: The Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Not Amida for Nichiren.
Considered in this light, it is evident that Vairochana Buddha depicted in the Flower Garland Sutra as sitting on a lotus pedestal, the sixteen-foot Shakyamuni described in the Āgama sutras, and the provisional Buddhas of the Correct and Equal, Wisdom, Golden Light, Amida, and Mahāvairochana sutras are no more than reflections of the Buddha of the “Life Span” chapter. They are like fleeting images of the moon in the sky mirrored on the surface of the water held in vessels of varying sizes. The wise men and scholars of the various schools are first of all confused as to [the nature of the Buddhas of] their own school, and more fundamentally, they are ignorant of [the Buddha of] the “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra. As a result, they mistake the reflection of the moon on the water for the real moon shining in the sky.
http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/18

Serenity509 said:
It appears that, according to Nichiren, the various Buddhas of the various schools are actually the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
It's all just a bunch of attachments to names and concepts...it is not very important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Wikipedia says Tendai, Tiantai, and Nichiren.
The Three Ages of Buddhism is also an important teaching in Pure Land, specifically living in the Dharma declining era.
From my understanding the Five Periods is a subdivision of this idea into five 500-year periods.

Malcolm wrote:
This is basically a Hinayāna idea. While it enjoys some Mahāyāna popularity, there are other sutras which push back against it, such as the Lotus Sutra and so on


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm not questioning ChNN's credentials or mastery, I'm just saying it's an interesting question of how anyone could know that someone else has experienced a moment of rigpa at a certain time, don't you agree? As far as proof is concerned, it's not a big deal for me personally, but Jikan brought it up so it got me thinking. Anyway, I have to run, ta ta for now.

Malcolm wrote:
If you understand the process, then it is quite easy for one to know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no proof of such things. Dzogchen is beyond proof and negation.

But this is what my guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has said many times.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, so you have faith in that, that's fine. Have you ever wondered how ChNN knows that?

Malcolm wrote:
I have no need to wonder. His uncle attained rainbow body, his root guru attained rainbow body. He was trained by masters who attained buddhahood.  When you examine things, you will find that a large number of ChNN's immediate predecessors attained rainbow body.

As for the state of Dzogchen being the same generic thing for all people, by way of analogy, the state of Dzogchen is to sentient beings what heat is to fire and wetness is to water.
That's a nice thing to say, but hardly a proof of anything.

If you want proof, my friend, I suggest you discover this for yourself. But put in simple terms, all sentient beings have minds, and the essence of those minds is inseparable clarity and emptiness — there is no Dzogchen apart from that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Seeing into the Nature of the Mind has been accomplished by mystics throughout history. Rigpa has been experienced by mystics of other religions throughout history, most with teachers, and some on their own.

DGA said:
That's a big claim.  Prove it.

dzogchungpa said:
Actually, saying that everyone who receives direct introduction experiences rigpa, if only for a moment, or even that there is such a thing as "rigpa", somehow known to be the same kind of thing for all dzogchenpas, is also quite a big claim IMO, and I would be very interested to see a proof of it as well. I understand that this is the Dzogchen forum, but it's an interesting question.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no proof of such things. Dzogchen is beyond proof and negation.

But this is what my guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has said many times.

As for the state of Dzogchen being the same generic thing for all people, by way of analogy, the state of Dzogchen is to sentient beings what heat is to fire and wetness is to water.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, October 5th, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I love Dzogchen deeply. It is the last religion, so to speak, that I have studied. By the time I encountered Dzogchen, I recognized its teachings from parallels in other mystical and religious traditions. What I have learned, Malcom, is that religion is universal.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not religion, it is not a religion, it is not a tradition, it is not mysticism. The most we can say is that it is a kind of knowledge.

steve_bakr said:
Dzogchen is in a Great Transition. It is now becoming a global religion. There are Lamas who have authorized the publication of the most Profoundly Secret Texts. These texts contain in it Universal Truths which are not anyone's sole property.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen cannot be written down in words -- this is what you seem to fail to understand. Because Dzogchen can never be written down in words, it can never be discovered from reading a book.

steve_bakr said:
But your approach does not take into consideration the history of the mysticism in all religion, and the attainments of individual mystics. You cannot place conditions or limitations on another person's religious experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is a living transmission, from one person to another, one by one. There is no other way it can be. This is not a limitation, this is heart of the teachings. Without transmission from another living breathing human being, there is no Dzogchen, in this case then "dzogchen" is a bunch of concepts written in words on paper.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 4th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
steve_bakr said:
The question is whether Pointing Out Instructions can be effective if they are read from Terma, like "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness," by Guru Padmasambhava. I would submit that, yes, they can.

Malcolm wrote:
And I would submit that you are wrong.

anjali said:
If one has received the pointing out instructions, but didn't "get it" at the time, is it possible in your opinion to later "get it" while reading a text?

Malcolm wrote:
If one has received direct introduction, it is possible that you may understand something more clearly with such a text, but since direct introduction works with experiences, there is no way one can substitute this conceptual understanding for working with the transmission by means of working with various experiences until one discovers the basis, aka primordial state, for oneself and has stabilizes that knowledge [rig pa].

The reason? Direct introduction works with experiences to show what the foundation that lies below experiences, thoughts and concepts, i.e. the mind essence. This is extremely subtle and cannot be discovered merely through reading books, no matter how holy or profound. The error, quite frankly, is mistaking the fact that we are aware with that awareness being the mind essence itself. The awareness that we experience moment to moment is quite coarse, and is dominated by our "energy," our rlung or vāyu. The mind essence is much more subtle than any awareness we can experience.

Direct introduction, received from a master who knows what it is he is introducing, is indispensable — it sets up the foundation for our later discovery of our own state even if at the time the experience was too subtle for us to register it clearly. Anytime anyone participates in a direct introduction with a realized master in a whole hearted openly collaborative way [rather than passively expecting something to happen], they will in fact experience that moment of knowledge [rig pa] the master intends to introduce. Even if they do not "grasp" it at the time, they will have that experience to carry with them. In the beginning, our concepts are very strong, and our ability to see the mind essence is very weak. Therefore, our moment of rig pa we experience in the direct introduction is something like a small branch caught up in a torrent of a river of concepts — it is very easily swept away. But if we are patient, and we are diligent, we can again have that experience of the mind essence, upon which all future practice depends. Why? Because it was introduced and we had it once. There is nothing at all mystical about the process, it is straightforward and nonmagical.

The process of reading is too conceptual, the mind involved is too coarse, and therefore, it is impossible that we can experience the mind essence from reading a text. However, if we have experienced the mind essence reading books such as the Chos dbying mdzod and so on can reinforce our confidence which we can bring to our practice.

In order to experience the mind essence we have to cut through coarse concepts with various methods to re-experience the mind essence that we were exposed to during the introduction. This is why we have practices such as rushen and semszin, and supremely, Song of the Vajra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 4th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:
steve_bakr said:
The question is whether Pointing Out Instructions can be effective if they are read from Terma, like "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness," by Guru Padmasambhava. I would submit that, yes, they can.

Malcolm wrote:
And I would submit that you are wrong. The commentary tantra of the Great Perfection, the Rig pa Rang Shar states:
While one has not left the body of traces, migrating beings will not see one as worthy of respect. One’s merit will be small, one’s life short, one’s enjoyments of living will be few, one will be powerless and many obstacles will occur. Nothing will be accomplished. Those are the faults of not obtaining the empowerment for the conduct of Secret Mantra. A yogin of Secret Mantra conduct must first obtain empowerment. If empowerment is not obtained, not even the Buddha will be able to turn the wheel on the stage of a tathāgata. If the wheel cannot be turned, then the nirmanakāya will not be able to benefit migrating beings with compassion. Therefore, the empowerment of the conduct of Secret Mantra must be obtained.

steve_bakr said:
You said that a Direct Introduction to the Nature of Mind is only legitimate if received from a living master, because the living master has the lineage and direct experience. That is indeed the best way.

Malcolm wrote:
It is the only way.

steve_bakr said:
The other way is reception through Terma, which is a written record of oral teachings made for a future time. If a Direct Introduction were only possible from a living master, the Terma would be without any purpose at all. The Terma are both oral teachings and contain the lineage as well.

Malcolm wrote:
Termas are revealed by people who have already studied and practiced and attained realization. They are not revealed by people with no training and no realization. Moreover, there is even training in how to reveal tertons. The teachers of Tertons are almost always tertons themselves. Tertons always undergo training in the normal way, receiving transmissions and so on in the normal way for years and years. There are no exceptions to this, none.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: The Lion-Faced Dakini
Content:
naljor said:
Really?  Is it not Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Adamantine said:
He was talking about old Tibet. . . are you relaying what you've seen in your past lives?


Malcolm wrote:
I think that ti was really easy for someone with a bit of education and charisma to set themselves up in the old country. This is why there was so much sectarianism, it all began with someone thinking someone else was a fraud...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
But if some of the charlatans we have over here had tried to pull off their cr*p back in the day, in old Tibet - I suspect they would have been run out of town ... or worse ...

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, they would be put right up on the thrones and showered with offerings.

Adamantine said:
I highly doubt it, from reading the historical accounts I've had access to. Even recognized tulkus were often treated skeptically before they proved themselves to their communities, as was the case for Chagdud Tulku, if you read his account in Lord of the Dance.

Anyway, are you suggesting that's how we should treat charlatans here?

Malcolm wrote:
I am just observing what i have seen with my own eyes...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
But if some of the charlatans we have over here had tried to pull off their cr*p back in the day, in old Tibet - I suspect they would have been run out of town ... or worse ...

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, they would be put right up on the thrones and showered with offerings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


steve_bakr said:
You have my respect for translating original Dzogchen texts. My original post was directed to someone who is having great difficulty gaining access to a teacher. I have had the benefit of Pointing Out Instructions, but it was as if I knew it all along. In retrospect, I had experienced Rigpa before but I didn't know I was experiencing it. It just needed to be "pointed out."

Malcolm wrote:
Without receiving transmission, it is of no benefit to read books about Dzogchen. Without actual direct introduction, those instructions will always just remain a bunch of concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


steve_bakr said:
For a Direct Introduction to the Nature of your Mind, please read, "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness," by Guru Padmasambhava, translated by John Reynolds. It is available on your Kindle or in print.

This not a direct introduction. One cannot receive direct introduction from a book.
I understand what you are saying. But I would not consider ancient texts formerly "Sealed, Sealed, Sealed," to be in the category of books. Many of these are in fact "Direct Oral Instructions" that in fact Dzogchen students of the past had no access to without a lung. And then, perhaps only one of these was read to them, one or a few times.

You have to understand the extraordinary times we live in. I have many secret texts along with explanations given by masters. Instead of hearing just a few of them a limited number of times, I can internalize these sacred texts dependent upon the extent of my devotion. Reading, studying, and internalizing these ancient original formerly secret texts are every bit as effective as hearing them. One can be liberated in this manner. As a lifetime student of religion, I fully appreciate the extraordinary development of having access to material that I would have had to travel to Tibet in hopes of finding when I first began to study religion.

I am not talking about reading books "about Dzogchen" with their conversational descriptions. I am talking about original pith instructions which can put one in the state of Intrinsic Awareness, one's Primordial State, simply by reading them, if one is receptive. You have to have lived long enough to fully understand the extraordinary nature of this development in the history of religion.

Malcolm wrote:
Look, I think we are talking about two entirely different things. Someone who reads Dzogchen texts without having had the benefit of a real transmission and explanation cannot receive transmission even from the most profound writing of ancient upadeshas written on a page. They might find them inspiring, but they won't discover anything and they will just remain in a state of concepts.

This is quite different than finding inspiration in those same instructions that have been communicated to you by a qualified teacher.

steve_bakr said:
I fully endorse having a personal teacher, most definitely. It is the nature of these texts, however, that listening to your teacher does not transmit the complete sentence by sentence density of the line by line liberating pith teachings contained in these secret texts. Much of what teachers present is the background understanding and preparation necessary to understand what is contained in these texts. A teacher will also judge your personal capabilities, and intsruct you accordingly. There are three kinds of students: the superior, the intermediate, and the inferior.

Malcolm wrote:
What the teacher communicates is the essence of those instructions. That living relationship with a master enlivens those instructions because the instructions are then connected with transmission. Without transmission, the instructions have no life.

steve_bakr said:
But make no mistake, these secret texts are the real thing; one can be liberated upon reading them.

Malcolm wrote:
Steve, it may come as a surprise to you, but I spend my whole day, all day, reading original Dzogchen texts in Tibetan and translating them into English. It is what I do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Simon E. said:
Its very difficult to discuss this, or any other issue, particularly online stripped as it is of all that accompanies meat world communication..body language, intonation etc ...if any of the parties involved have problems with dissonance.
But it is dissonance and it's expression which often makes for truly adult conversation, and which can mark a fresh understanding, even a changing of minds.
Something rarely achieved by a meeting of pollyannas.
We are not ( most of us ) Asian. We have a proud history of speaking our minds plainly.
This is not a barrier to understanding individual teachers. On the contrary it is an essential part of the Buddhadharma's transition to the west.

That transition is still ongoing. In fact it is early days in that process.
We are having to make policy on the hoof. That will go on for a hundred years or more at least.

Students of Buddhadharma in the west may need to be as robust in the discussion of these issues ( the authenticity or otherwise of specific teachers ) as they are vis-a-vis climate change or capitalism, without that being seen as somehow adharmic.


Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking, the discussion of the validity of teachers is best done without calling people out by name. It is best to describe the positions they hold and identify those as problematical.

On the other hand, when someone makes themselves a celebrity, they are inviting inspection and criticism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Possibly of interest, from Berkeley's favorite tulku Pema Khandro Rinpoche:
http://ngakpa.org/library/haters-and-who-they-really-are-2/

Ivo said:
This is an excellent article in every respect. Thank you for sharing!

It also contains an great summary of the whole topic by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche:

“Do not have opinions on other people’s actions.
When we see defects in others, people in general but
particularly those who have entered the Dharma…
we should understand that it is the impurity
of our perception which is at fault.

Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I don't have pure vision, so I cannot really cannot say that I have this quality. But the older I get, I have noticed that I have developed the quality of being like a piece of wood if I have nothing good to say...people are free to draw their own conclusions from my silence about this or that...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Ivo said:
I am basically saying exactly what Malcolm wrote.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I pretty much agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Adamantine said:
I didn't notice anyone here trying to force someone onto a path or to convert them.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, me either.

Adamantine said:
As I'd mentioned already- in my own experience it was valuable to see thoughtful (albeit harsh)
criticisms of a prospective teacher on Esangha- both comments grounded in dharma scripture as well as details I would otherwise have been unaware of (such as the detail that you
provided regarding the practice text for a certain gyalpo that was translated by ACI prior to their first
3-year retreat.)

Malcolm wrote:
Translated, I don't know — published as part of the ACIP releases, definitely.

Adamantine said:
So based on my own experience.. I think it'd be actually quite the opposite of generosity to
not offer one's insight into certain situations or teachers, even if it's just healthy skepticism alone.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, in the case of the Michael Roach debacle, we could all see where that was headed...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Paul said:
Paul, yes, I genuinely think that this is a bad idea too. I know how controversial this sounds, but it is actually the same karmic situation I outlined and no criticism could be helpful. My capacity for explaining such complex topics is not that high, and seeing how easy my words are misinterpreted here I would not even try to elaborate further. But I think that there is only one thing which is truly helpful in dealing with cult leaders and harmful teachers - presenting a strong example of a genuine path. This is the only way out and the only true help we can give. Everything else will destroy us in the end, no matter how good the initial intentions are. I believe this is also, incidentally, in harmony with the precepts of the Buddadharma.
I have to disagree completely then. Warning someone away from a cult is never a bad thing, as the cult cannot lead to liberation. Certainly when it starts to involve tantra and samaya issues. A group like that, and as I mention there is a rather active and highly negative cult here in the UK, is worse than poison. Poison can only harm you in one life.

I'm honestly not sure that you're saying this, but allowing someone to go down a harmful path because 'it's their karma' in some way is not compassionate.

Malcolm wrote:
People are free, and it is not our job to condition anyone to follow any path at all, whether we think it is a good one or not.

That said, there is nothing wrong with providing facts — for example, Jax's comments on facebook are there for all to see.

Providing info is one thing, strongly conditioning others is another. If someone wants to worship the Gyalpo, this may be a pity, but it is not our job to try and force them or convert them from that path. All we can do is point out what masters such as HHDL, ChNN and so on say about it. If they want to listen, fine, if not, then fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: The Lion-Faced Dakini
Content:
naljor said:
From which terma comes practice of Simhamukha in Dzogchen Community? I mean
the practice from booklet The practice of Sinhamukha with five mantras for each family…….

Malcolm wrote:
Ayu Khandro


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Funny you should use that metaphor. I've been known to hit my thumb on occasion. In any case, this really really looks like a nail to me:

Malcolm wrote:
And there are also no phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present in the basis.
Well, keep hitting it then...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
There is an unfortunate tendency here at DW to completely dismiss any teaching that can be characterized as "lower". None of my teachers has ever demonstrated that kind of attitude, so I will be excused if I follow their example.

Malcolm wrote:
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 2nd, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
From an outsider's perspective....

Malcolm wrote:
You just said it all...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Is there a master resource that has events for all linea
Content:
UnTyingTheStrings said:
I'm at the stage where I feel like seeing many teachers styles before comnoting to one. So I want to attend different teachings and events. But it seems harder than it should be to find scheduled events and such. Is there a better resource than just hearing about a center(word of mouth or searching online) and finding their individual events page? Is there some kind of inter-lineage listing by city
/region/or country so that I don't miss a visiting teacher or event out of ignorance?

Malcolm wrote:
You can try Dharmalist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


smcj said:
Be that as it may (and I concede that there is a gamut of opinions on this), you must admit that on the surface it is prone to that interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you understand neither Yogacara nor Dzogchen.

smcj said:
I don't think that it is arguable to say there is unanimity of opinion on this.

HHDL " Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection ": Question: Certain Nyingma masters have expounded shentong- emptiness of other-as the view of Dzogchen. Do you agree with them? Why is shentong such a controversial view among Tibetan Buddhist philosophers?

HHDL: If we read the writings of the great scholar Mipham, especially his commentary on the Sublime Continuum, we find that he explicitly mentions the importance of understanding the Dzogchen view, in which one is able to combine the teachings of emptiness, as expounded in the wisdom sütras of the second turning of the wheel of Dharma, with the sütras belonging to the third turning of the wheel of Dharma, particularly the Essence of Buddhahood Sutra. The understanding developed through a combination of the views expounded in both turnings of the wheel of Dharma will enable us to appreciate what in Dzogchen terminology are called: primordial purity, which is the main subject matter of the second turning, and spontaneous presence, which is the main subject matter of the third turning of the wheel of Dharma.

However, this does not mean that the emptiness spoken of in the second turning, that is in the wisdom sütras, is exactly the same as what in Dzogchen terminology is called primordial purity. But one thing which is clear is that without an understanding of emptiness as expounded in the wisdom sutras, and without taking that understanding as a basis, there is no way that you can understand primordial purity in the context of Dzogchen.

As for the question of whether spontaneous presence in Dzogchen is synonymous with what is called the tathagatagarbha- the essence of buddhahood or innate mind of clear light-in the third turning of the wheel of Dharma, especially in the Essence of Buddhahood Sutra, there do seem to be divergent views on that, even among Nyingma meditators and scholars.
(formatting mine)

Malcolm wrote:
Because you don't understand Dzogchen, you really can't appreciate what HHDL is saying here.

1) There is the question of whether it is really proper to try an understand Dzogchen on the basis of sūtra. I personally question the entire context of HHDL's comments. Dzogchen is not part of the three turnings, not at all.

2) The main controversy HHDL mentions is whether is proper to consider tathāgatagarbha as presented in sūtra to be the same as lhun grub or not.

This is just not the same thing as conflating Yogacara and Dzogchen. Tathāgatagarbha has a very subordinate role in Yogacara. It is almost entirely ignored.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


smcj said:
Be that as it may (and I concede that there is a gamut of opinions on this), you must admit that on the surface it is prone to that interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if you understand neither Yogacara nor Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


smcj said:
I like this part: And there are also no phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present in the basis.
(formatting mine.)

At the very least I'd say this was a Yogacara view.

Malcolm wrote:
Not even remotely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Ivo said:
, but I have never seen evidence of him questioning their status as teachers, or their realization..

Malcolm wrote:
I have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 1st, 2015 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
. Nowhere in the Lotus that I'm aware of is it suggested that shravakas or others should aspire to Buddhahood in order to be of help to others. The implication may be there but it is not the focus of the sutra.=.

PorkChop said:
Then you've missed the entire gist of the sutra...
Malcolm wrote:
The generation of bodhicitta is a central theme of the Lotus Sūtra.

PorkChop said:
Nice quotes... and you're totally spot on here (imho).

For further reading in this line of thought there's also the whole chapter on the prediction of Buddhahood for the Buddha's most prominent sravaka disciples (all of whom are arahants), the chapter on the conduct of Bodhisattva Mahasattvas, the point of the burning house chapter (that all 3 types of disciples will eventually attain the supreme cart of Buddhahood), the Avalokitesvara Chapter (as a model of Bodhisattva behavior) etc, etc, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
I don't he or she actually read the sutra with any attention, and he or she would rather hurl invectives rather than actually have a discussion so....good riddance....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Ivo said:
Guys, do not crucify Jax.

Malcolm wrote:
We do not have to crucify Jax, he is already doing a fine job of hanging himself with his own rope.

dzogchungpa said:
Isn't that mixing metaphors?

I guess what you're saying is that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a little hard for someone to nail himself to a cross, but it is very easy for someone to hang himself with a rope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Ivo said:
Guys, do not crucify Jax.

Malcolm wrote:
We do not have to crucify Jax, he is already doing a fine job of hanging himself with his own rope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No, there are really only two stages, when everything is said and done. The Hinayāna path only results in freedom. The Mahāyāna path results in freedom and omniscience.

The rest of it is just details.

Tenso said:
Is the bliss of Buddhahood greater than the liberation achieved from practicing hinayana?

Malcolm wrote:
That's an interesting question. Even if the bliss associated with full awakening is deeper than mere liberation, it is not a great degree of liberation, but rather, a quality associated with the result of the path.

There are basically five paths and ten stages. Paths measure realizations, stages measure qualities. There are also four kinds of realized persons, which are in fact measures of liberation from latent afflictions. The measure of full liberation is an arhat, pratyekabuddha, or an eighth stage bodhisattva, because only arhats, pratyekabuddhas and eighth stage bodhisattvas on up are free from birth in the three realms. However, the difference between the former two and the latter are the qualities cultivated on the path and the depth of realization. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not necessarily realize the emptiness of phenomena, and they do not necessarily comprehend the nonarising of phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
. Nowhere in the Lotus that I'm aware of is it suggested that shravakas or others should aspire to Buddhahood in order to be of help to others. The implication may be there but it is not the focus of the sutra.

Malcolm wrote:
In that respect, just as a rishi possesses the five clairvoyances and a pure eye, in the same way bodhisattvas generate bodhicitta, and after they attain patience for the nonarising of phenomena, it is observed that they attain the full perfect buddhahood of unsurpassed perfect complete awakening.
One who does not attain any phenomena, where is nirvana for one such as he? The Tathāgatas introduce them to awakening, and having generated bodhicitta, they do not abide in samsara and they also do not attain nirvana.
Son of a good family, a women who possesses four qualities should take this Saddharmapundarika in hand. If it is asked what four, they are as follows: being blessed by the Buddha Bhagavans, having generated roots of virtue, abiding in the heap of certainties and having generated the thought of unsurpassed perfect full awakening in order to protect all sentient beings.
The generation of bodhicitta is a central theme of the Lotus Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes the problem is that you are using provisional sūtras and commentaries from Yogacara, which is a realist system lower than Madhyamaka.

Son of Buddha said:
Yes the problem is that you are using provisional sūtras and commentaries from Madhyamaka which is a system that constantly requires interpretation due to it teetering very close to Nhilism/Annhilationism , such a system is lower than the definite Tathagatagarbha teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyaka requires no interpretation, and the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, understood from the Madhyakamala perspective of freedom from extremes, make sense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
. Nowhere in the Lotus that I'm aware of is it suggested that shravakas or others should aspire to Buddhahood in order to be of help to others. The implication may be there but it is not the focus of the sutra.=.

Malcolm wrote:
Really? I'll sort you out on this one tomorrow, but you are mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
And your citation?

Malcolm wrote:
Abhisamayālaṃkara, that being said, you invoked a specific passage of the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:


Matt J said:
While both the Buddhist and the Vedantin may attain freedom, the way they go about it is completely different. In my mind, the Vedantin expands the sense of Self,

Malcolm wrote:
In which case afflictions are not wholly eradicated and rebirth is not ended.

Matt J said:
while the Buddhist eliminates it.

Malcolm wrote:
In which case afflictions are wholly eradicated and rebirth is ended.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
DGA said:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Son of Buddha said:
Then change the channel nobody forcing you to watch this programming.

All the OP wanted was a list of Buddhist teachers who taught True Self teaching's (not hard to provide there are many), but you guys wanted to go off topic to argue and harass the poor fellow because he has different view's than you.........so you guys got what you were looking for.

But please don't complain when you guys make statements and someone else is willing to reply to those statements in disagreement while providing Sutras and commentary to support their position.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes the problem is that you are using provisional sūtras and commentaries from Yogacara, which is a realist system lower than Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Just as there is no snake apart from the rope that we see, there also no snake in the rope that we see. So too it is with a self — there is no self apart from the persons and phenomena that we see, there is also no self in the persons and phenomena we perceive.

Son of Buddha said:
Sure there us a self apart from persons and phenomena.

Here is Ju Mipham’s gloss on 9:23, from the new Dharmachakra version of Sutralamkara: In the absence of the twofold self of persons and phenomena, this is the actual nature of things, the supreme nature of the abiding reality, the intrinsic nature or essence itself. In achieving this, the buddhas have achieved a nature that is of complete purity. Thus, [to actualize] the suchness that is the unmistaken way things are is to be “the self of great beings.” This self is not the same as the conceived object that is involved when apprehending the twofold self because such a self has no bearing on things as they are.

The Self of great beings(suchness) is apart from the self of persons and phenomena

Malcolm wrote:
This is just a manner of speaking.




Son of Buddha said:
If the snake and the rope are the same thing, we should also see a snake when we see a rope.
The snake is an illusion that's very existence is predicated upon the rope which is its source, which again the fact remains when you see the illusion of the snake what you are actually seeing is the rope ........either way the illusion of the  snake and the rope are the SAME object.

Malcolm wrote:
No, if they were the same object, we would always see a snake when we see a rope.


Son of Buddha said:
Since we do not see a snake when we see a rope, and we do not see rope when we see a snake, we can understand that in fact the former perception is accompanied by knowledge and the latter perception is accompanied by ignorance.
Yep I agree, still doesn't change the fact that whether you see an snake or a rope you are looking at the same object(misperception doesn't change that)

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, misperception does change that. Ignorance does not have an object of valid perception, that is why it is ignorance.



Son of Buddha said:
We can understand that rope and the snake are just not the same thing. If they were the same thing, when one was seen, the other must always be seen. For example, when we fire, it is always accompanied by heat.
What????....... If we look at the SAME OBJECT and you see a baseball and I see an softball it still doesn't change the fact we are looking at the SAME OBJECT.

Malcolm wrote:
In order to maintain this position, you would have to maintain that the water that you see and the pus and blood that a pretas sees are the same thing, something which objectively exists apart from your perception of it. In other words, you are maintaining that the round object we are seeing exists objectively. If you maintain such a thing, you are also maintaining that external phenomena have a self.



Son of Buddha said:
Likewise, If the self and the suchness are the same thing, we should also see a self when we see suchness.
The numerous Tathagatagarbha Sutras state that Suchness is the True Self,(different words used to describe the same thing)

Malcolm wrote:
As I said and will always maintain, they cannot be taken literally on this point.

Son of Buddha said:
You make a big deal about purity, permanence and so on. There is no self without the selfless; there is purity without the impure, and so on. Taking these teachings in the Nirvana Sūtra and so on literally just traps one in dualistic categories. This why they cannot be taken literally

Malcolm wrote:
You claim they cannot be taken literally, the Buddha in those Sutras say the opposite.[/quote][/quote]

Buddha taught such sūtras for the timid, those who are afraid of the Lion's Roar of emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
DGA said:
and here we are...

William Blake said:
unable to do other than repeat the same dull round over again

DGA said:
http://www.bartleby.com/235/339.html

how many times have those chunks of that translation of chapter 6 of the Nirvana Sutra been posted to this board now?

Malcolm wrote:
Until we all do this to SOB....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
Well I'm highly skeptical that the kind of absolute certainty you claim to be in command of can be real for any ordinary sentient being, which I assume you to be. I'm also highly skeptical that the mass of Buddhist writings can be as thoroughly consistent as you appear to claim. These writings, like all writing everywhere, are the products of ordinary sentient beings, so while they may evince a basic consistency they cannot be free of error and ambiguity, in my view. It takes the eyes of faith to believe otherwise. So I guess we need to leave it there.

Malcolm wrote:
Still waiting for your citation...as it is said, "if you can't put up..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[but I don't buy it — there are too many contradictions  inherent in the term, which is why we cannot take these buddhist sutras that discuss and use the term "self" literally. They are provisional and requite interpretation.

Son of Buddha said:
You were saying.


Nirvana Sutra
Chapter Six: On the Virtue of the Name

V199.   “Then the Tathagata spoke again to Kasyapa: “O good man! You should now uphold all the words, chapters, clauses and all the virtues thereof of this sutra. Any good man or woman who hears the name of this sutra will never get born into the four realms [of hell, hungry ghost, animal, and asura]. Why not? I shall now expound to you all the virtues of this sutra and all that is practised by innumerable boundless Buddhas.”

V200.   Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “O World-Honoured One! What is this sutra to be called? How should Bodhisattva-mahasattvas uphold this sutra?” The Buddha said to Kasyapa: “The name of this sutra is to be “Mahaparinirvana”. The foremost word betokens “good”, the middle also “good”, and the final “good” too. The signification [of this sutra] is extremely deep, and what is written [in it] is good. The pureness of its arrangement is perfect, its action is pure, and its adamantine treasure-house is all-satisfying. Listen well, listen well! I shall now speak. O good man! The word “maha” betokens “eternal”. This is like all the great rivers draining into the great ocean. The same with this sutra. It crushes out all the bonds of illusion and all the qualities of Mara, and then body and life drain into “Mahaparinirvana”. Hence we say “Mahaparinirvana.” O good man! This is like a doctor who has a secret treatment embracing all medical treatments for disease. O good man! It is the same with the Tathagata. V201.   All the various wonderful doctrines taught and all the secret(esoteric) depths of meaning find their way into this Mahaparinirvana. That is why we say Mahaparinirvana. O good man! It is like a farmer who sows seed in spring. He entertains a rare wish. When he has finished the harvesting, all his longing is at an end. O good man! The same is the case with all beings. If we study other sutras, we always long for beautiful tastes. When one once hears this Mahaparinirvana, [however], one long ceases to covet the beautiful tastes mentioned in other sutras. This great Nirvana well enables all beings to cross the sea of all existences. O good man! Of all footprints, that of the elephant is the best. The same with this sutra. Of all the samadhis of the sutras, that of this sutra is the best. O good man! Of all the tillings of the field, that done in autumn is best.
V202.   The same with this sutra. It is the best of all sutras. It is like sarpirmanda, which is the best of all medicines. It thoroughly cures the feverish worries and madding minds of beings. This Great Nirvana is the foremost of all. O good man! It is like sweet butter which contains the eight tastes. The same also applies to this sutra. It contains the eight tastes. What are the eight? These are: 1) it is eternal, 2) it always is, 3) it is peaceful, 4) it is pure and cool, 5) it does not grow old, 6) it does not die, 7) it is taintless, and 8) it is pleasing and happy. These are the eight tastes. It possesses these eight tastes. This is why we say “Mahaparinirvana”. Now, all Bodhisattva-mahasattvas peacefully abide in this and manifest Nirvana in all places. That is why we say “Mahaparinirvna”. O Kasyapa! All good men and women who desire to enter Nirvana by this Mahaparinirvana must study well the fact that the Tathagata is eternal and that the Dharma and Sangha are eternal.”

V203.   Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: “All is wonderful, O World-Honoured One! We cannot conceive of the Tathagata’s depths of virtue. The same is the case with the virtues of Dharma and Sangha. This Mahaparinirvana is also inconceivable. One who studies this sutra will gain the right eye of Dharma and become a good doctor. Anybody who has not studied this sutra, we should know, is [like] a blind person, not possessing the eye of Wisdom and overshadowed by ignorance.”

Malcolm wrote:
Oh yawn....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[
No, the illusion of a snake has never been the rope. If you really think that the illusion of snake is the rope you have just betrayed the basic flaw in your thinking.

Son of Buddha said:
Yes the rope and the illusion of the snake are the same. Cause whether a person see a rope or a misperception of a snake it doesn't change the fact he is looking at the same one object.

Malcolm wrote:
Just as there is no snake apart from the rope that we see, there also no snake in the rope that we see. So too it is with a self — there is no self apart from the persons and phenomena that we see, there is also no self in the persons and phenomena we perceive.

If the snake and the rope are the same thing, we should also see a snake when we see a rope.

Since we do not see a snake when we see a rope, and we do not see rope when we see a snake, we can understand that in fact the former perception is accompanied by knowledge and the latter perception is accompanied by ignorance.

We can understand that rope and the snake are just not the same thing. If they were the same thing, when one was seen, the other must always be seen. For example, when we fire, it is always accompanied by heat.

Likewise, If the self and the suchness are the same thing, we should also see a self when we see suchness.

Since we do not see a self when we see suchness, and we do not see suchness when we see a self, we can understand that in fact the former perception is accompanied by knowledge and the latter perception is accompanied by ignorance.

You make a big deal about purity, permanence and so on. There is no self without the selfless; there is purity without the impure, and so on. Taking these teachings in the Nirvana Sūtra and so on literally just traps one in dualistic categories. This why they cannot be taken literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Liberation is one thing, stage one; omniscience is stage two, buddhahood.

smcj said:
This vehicle has more than two gears. You skipped a couple styles and levels of liberation, like pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva (with 10 levels), and levels of buddhahood.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, just making a point that there are multiple styles and level of "liberation". That is a term I understand to mean being freed from the compulsory need for rebirth (samsara).

Malcolm wrote:
No, there are really only two stages, when everything is said and done. The Hinayāna path only results in freedom. The Mahāyāna path results in freedom and omniscience.

The rest of it is just details.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Well it does appear to be put differently in some sources. For example, in the Lotus there is the repeated refrain that the disciples had achieved a kind of "extinction" but not true extinction. So perhaps some ambiguity here, no? Of course I understand that in the more popular sutras things may be put more loosely. Where do you find the interpretation you offer here?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no ambiguity. Śravakas eliminate the afflictive obscuration, thus they no longer take birth in the three realms; but they do not eliminate the knowledge obscuration, thus they do not attain buddhahood.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Okay but the text literally says that their extinction (of their afflictions) is not real; it doesn't say that what they really need is omniscience. Imho your refusal to admit of any ambiguity anywhere can be a hindrance. Or are you saying that the thousands and thousands of words of Buddhadharma are inerrant, like the bible?

Anyway I won't argue the point. For me it's a distinction without a difference, since no one is disputing what the actual differences between a shravaka and Buddha are.

Malcolm wrote:
Cite the text. I think you have a problem with your understanding of it.

When you understand the Dharma, where others see ambiguity, you don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Well it does appear to be put differently in some sources. For example, in the Lotus there is the repeated refrain that the disciples had achieved a kind of "extinction" but not true extinction. So perhaps some ambiguity here, no? Of course I understand that in the more popular sutras things may be put more loosely. Where do you find the interpretation you offer here?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no ambiguity. Śravakas eliminate the afflictive obscuration, thus they no longer take birth in the three realms; but they do not eliminate the knowledge obscuration, thus they do not attain buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.

Bakmoon said:
Aren't the texts being a little bit poetic and not 100% literal when they say that though? I would take it to mean that all things are without any real nature, and this lack of a nature is conventionally designated as a nature, rather than a purely literal meaning that all things have an underlying substance, and this underlying substance is a lack of underlying substance.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you can take it quite literally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
conebeckham said:
Yes, indeedy, Malcolm!
(Didn't see your post until after I had started mine....freedom from afflictions is the root of freedom from samsara, of course).

While we're at it, can we agree that Liberation is not the same as Buddhahood?

Vimalakirti432 said:
But is it not the case in the Mahayana that true liberation can only be achieved through Buddhahood?

Malcolm wrote:
No.

Liberation is one thing, stage one; omniscience is stage two, buddhahood.

The Mahāyāna insight comes from the fact that liberation is not sufficient; in order to help sentient beings, one must be omniscient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.

dzogchungpa said:
Or even the selfless self?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is also fine, that is the meaning. This selfless self is merely a convention, a term, a name. Our friends SOB would like us to believe there is some transcendent self that is not merely a conventional name, but I don't buy it — there are too many contradictions  inherent in the term, which is why we cannot take these buddhist sutras that discuss and use the term "self" literally. They are provisional and requite interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
conebeckham said:
Liberation means to be free of suffering and the causes of suffering.  Put more simply, Liberation means to be free of Samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Which only comes about through being free of afflictions, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
This is kind of a personal response. I've been charged with conflating epistemology and ontology.

Malcolm wrote:
How can you hold your head up in public? Who issued this grave accusation?


Vimalakirti432 said:
The point is that this logical distinction, like all logical distinctions, are only of non-trivial interest when supported by valid assumptions and outcomes. My whole point in this case is that while Vedanta may habitually start with what can be called ontology and Buddhadharma with epistemology (though personally I feel phenomenology is more accurate), the liberation each points to are arguably indistinguishable in the end.

Malcolm wrote:
Then define liberation for us, and lets see how it stacks up.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Stacks up? So you're standing in judgement? But I'm sure you must not mean that.

But really Malcolm you know I've been an open book on this, indiscriminately disclosing in numerous places, verbosely, to the annoyance of not a few!

So I would toss this question back to others, who have not been forthcoming on what liberation means to them, though asked to on occasion.

For your part, I accept your recent dzogchen pointers, which as you know I had no particular objection to.

But look, when it comes to giving brief conventional pointers to what liberation means in one's particular case, the easiest shorthand is to find a reference point in the broad tradition, as you have done.

So to repeat briefly what I've already disclosed elsewhere my view can be summed up in that hoary old Ch'an adage, which goes something like: in the beginning mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers, then mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers, finally mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. Of course this is merely the figurative version of the grammar of the Diamond Sutra: is, is not and therefore is.

So again as I've said elsewhere liberation for me can only be a liberation into the no-place of what's here, a letting go, a relinquishment into the only place possible. Now how that is realized or thought about, as sudden or gradual, innate or constructed, through rigorous training or shouting at the moon, through the dancing angels of logical disputation or the sudden plosh! of a duck landing on a pond, through visualizing herukas or other celestial beings or astral traveling - I'll leave for other worthies and dharma warriors to battle over.

But you others, you silent ones! What does liberation mean to you? Speak!

Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhadharma, liberation means only one thing and nothing more no matter whether we are talking about Hinayāna, Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna, including Dzogchen — liberation means freedom from afflictions that cause rebirth in the three realms and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Even Madhyamaka texts use the term svabhāva in this sense, such as saying that all things are of the nature of emptiness. If the term svabhāva meant substance or intrinsic existence in such instances, then those texts would be totally incoherent because they would be saying that all things are formed of an underlying substance, and that substance is a negation of substance, which is a flat out self-contradiction.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is actually what Candrakirti says it means, i.e. emptiness is the natureless nature or the insubstantial substance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Ology, ology, ology
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
This is kind of a personal response. I've been charged with conflating epistemology and ontology.

Malcolm wrote:
How can you hold your head up in public? Who issued this grave accusation?


Vimalakirti432 said:
The point is that this logical distinction, like all logical distinctions, are only of non-trivial interest when supported by valid assumptions and outcomes. My whole point in this case is that while Vedanta may habitually start with what can be called ontology and Buddhadharma with epistemology (though personally I feel phenomenology is more accurate), the liberation each points to are arguably indistinguishable in the end.

Malcolm wrote:
Then define liberation for us, and lets see how it stacks up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Can a stone meditate?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Yesbutt ... then the recognition isn't real either. My recognition is as real as a stone's non-recognition. Both are just norms. Since neither have possible reality, my recognition might as well be a stone's non-recognition.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference, conventionally, is that you can realize this unreality, a stone never can.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Can a stone meditate?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you recognize the emptiness of a rock, this is the same as recognizing the emptiness of the mind.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Ty. Yes but - even if we say the ultimate can "recognize" itself (its wisdom is "self-arising"), but a stone (ultimately) can't - then just in the ultimate there's something different between a man and a stone. One can know self-arising wisdom, the other can't. In the ultimate there seems to be a difference between sentience and non-sentience. But no difference with respect to their emptiness. Or - a person has an ultimate but a stone doesn't..

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate cannot recognize itself. There is no ultimate entity to do so.

In the ultimate there is no difference between the sentient and the insentient, since neither are established in the ultimate; they are only established conventionally. Rock, sentient beings and buddhas are nothing more than conventions, they do not refer to anything real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: So I inherited this incense burner...
Content:
DGA said:
I was given this piece from a late friend's estate.  It had never been used.  I shined it up and while this isn't something I would pick out for myself, I find a lot to like in it and I have a specific use in mind for it.

As you can see, on the lid is our old friend Hotei (Bodai), and on the bottom portion, where the incense goes, there's a large Chinese character framed by a boy and a girl... doing something.  Making an offering?  Rejoicing?  And behind that are more characters I can't read.

Can anyone inform me of what may be going on in the relief of this incense burner?  Any context will be warmly welcomed, as I'm largely ignorant of Chinese Buddhism and I can't read classical Chinese at all, fool that I am.

Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Hotei is not the Buddha, he is more like Chinese Santa Claus, the boy and the girl are receiving gifts. He is like the Chinese Jambhala.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Can a stone meditate?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Again, if the emptiness is the same for everything, why is the wisdom different? In twofold egolessness, how can I "have" mind and the stone "not have" mind?

Malcolm wrote:
You are conflating the two truths here.

Conventionally, rocks do not have minds or rig pa, etc. They are insentient. Sentient beings have minds, this is why we call them sentient.

Rocks and minds arise from causes and conditions, they are all therefore empty. If you recognize the emptiness of a rock, this is the same as recognizing the emptiness of the mind. But maybe it is a little more useful for us to recognize the emptiness of the mind, rather than the emptiness of a rock.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
[

When the quote says the perfected nature does not exist, it clarifies that statement by saying that it does not exists IN THE SAME WAY of the forders understanding  which is the existence imputed upon the phenomena and persons(known as the 2 selves of the forders), so all you quote is actally saying is that it doesn't exist in ONE manner, BUT it exists in ANOTHER manner hence: " It is also not a nonentity, because at that time suchness, the characteristic of the perfected exists", of course the very terms Existence and Non Existence are words used to describe an Samsaric understanding and Suchness is beyond samasaric understanding. hence the non duality teachings (freedom from existence and nonexistence)

Malcolm wrote:
It is saying two things, it does not exist as a nature [svabhāva], but it exists as a svalakśana, a characteristic. For example, space does not exist as a nature [since there is no entity of space], but it does exist as a characteristic [since the characteristic of space is absence of obstruction.


Son of Buddha said:
It does exist however as a characteristic, and what is that characteristics, emptiness a.k.a suchness,
Now you are just agreeing with me, I have been saying for years that the term True Self is just a word used to describe the Characteristics of Suchness which is you said "does exist"......... welcome to the club.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am not agreeing with you — you fail to distinguish between an entity and a characteristic.


Son of Buddha said:
The True Self is not an identity

Malcolm wrote:
Then the term cannot be taken literally, since after all, a self is nothing but an identity.


Son of Buddha said:
however to think that the Supreme Self has the Characteristics of Not Self is one of the 4 perversions.

Malcolm wrote:
The so called "supreme self" is just selflessness, i.e the absence of being an entity. Your supreme self is not an entity, it is therefore not real, it does not exist.



Son of Buddha said:
hence you acknowledged that the Self means something that is real.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I have shown that the intention of the term "self" is indirect and not to be taken literally.



Son of Buddha said:
Further earlier in this chapter Maitreya declares at 9.4 "all phenomena are buddhahood," but according to your oft stated point of view, this is impossible since [buddha = self] and [self = not the aggregates] and so on.
So really, I think you need to rethink your literalism on these points

Malcolm wrote:
Your not understanding the passages

Son of Buddha said:
All phenomena is Buddhahood,  because the illusion of the snake is the Rope

Malcolm wrote:
No, the illusion of a snake has never been the rope. If you really think that the illusion of snake is the rope you have just betrayed the basic flaw in your thinking.

Phenomena are not established as real, and neither is Buddhahood. As Nāgārjuna quips:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata, that is the nature of the world;
as the Tathagata has no nature, the world has no nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
The meaning of the Sutra is explicit...

Malcolm wrote:
No, it really isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
Vasubandhu also said:

Vasubandhu on the Sutralamkara 9:23, Thurman translation:
23. In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness, and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self.

Yes, and here,


As you can see the Buddha and other Buddhist masters distinguished different types of Atman, rejecting most form's but accepting their own interpretation of the term Atman.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this is intentional language and is not to be taken literally. For example, in the comment on this passage {which is by Maitreya and not Vasubandhu], Sthiramati's Sūtrālaṃkāravṛttibhāṣya provides useful clarification here:
The term "self" in this context means "essence" [svabhāvatā], i.e., since the buddhas are are said to obtain the supreme self because of being the selfless essence. Since that is pure, the buddhas attain the pure supreme selfless self.
He continues in this vein:
The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.
Now, someone may wish to counter "Sure, the imputed nature does not exist, but the perfect nature does exist," but Sthiramati responds to this:
The nature of the perfected does not exist. Since it does not exist in the same way the horn the hare of the imputed phenomena and persons, at that it is not defined as existent. It is also not a nonentity, because at that time suchness, the characteristic of the perfected exists.
This means that the perfected is not a substantial entity. It does exist however as a characteristic, and what is that characteristics, emptiness a.k.a suchness, which is not a self in any sense in which the word is used as an identifier, unless of course one wishes to claim, "The supreme identity is no identity" or "The supreme self is no self." This is precisely the meaning here. What this means is that this "self" is merely a designation and does not indicate anything real, any more than conventionally calling the stream of the aggregates a self does not indicate anything real.


Now, Sthiramati was a direct disciple of Vasubandhu, and I am quite sure he understands this text perfectly.


Son of Buddha said:
Consistent with this remark by Vasubandhu we see the Buddha using the term atman to refer to himself, and so on as a mere designation, etc. He never uses it to refer to a real entity, not even in the much vaunted Nirvana Sūtra.
In the very much vaunted Nirvana Sutra the Buddha does describe the Atman as real, he literally tells you the meaning of the term of Atman and says that it is real.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha is using intentional language that cannot be taken literally.

Further earlier in this chapter Maitreya declares at 9.4 "all phenomena are buddhahood," but according to your oft stated point of view, this is impossible since [buddha = self] and [self = not the aggregates] and so on.

So really, I think you need to rethink your literalism on these points.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta,

Malcolm wrote:
...including nirvana...


Son of Buddha said:
What you are promoting is called the 4 perversions of the dharma, to think full enlightenment is not self is the 3rd perversion.


The Self’ signifies the Buddha; ‘the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ‘Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ‘the Pure’ signifies Dharma. Bhiksus, why is it said that one who has the idea of a Self is arrogant and haughty, traversing round Samsara? Bhiksus, although you might say, ‘We also cultivate impermanence, suffering, and non-Self, these three kinds of cultivation have no real value/ meaning. I shall now explain the excellent three ways of cultivating Dharma. To think of suffering as Bliss and to think of Bliss as suffering, is perverse Dharma; to think of the impermanent as the Eternal and to think of the Eternal as impermanent is perverse Dharma; to think of the non-Self [anatman]as the Self [atman] and to think of the Self [atman] as non-Self [anatman] is perverse Dharma; t o think of the impure as the Pure and to think of the Pure as impure is perverse Dharma. Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas.
V119.   These are called perversions/ inversions. Because of these perversions/ inversions, mundane people know the letters but not the meaning [referents]. What is the meaning/referent? Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata’s Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one’s views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views – catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner.”

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, you do not understand the meaning of what you read. And obsessively repeating the same quotation over and over again does not mean anything. The meaning of this sūtra is not explicit, it is indirect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Matt J said:
Well, no matter how Thanissaro Bikkhu interprets the particular sutta, his stance is unequivocal:
Multiply the four varieties of self by their three modes, and you have twelve types of theories about the self. All of these theories the Buddha rejects. He doesn't agree with any of them, because they all involve clinging, which is something you have to comprehend and let go. This means that his not-self teaching is not just negating specific types of self — such as a cosmic self, a permanent self, or an ordinary individual self. It negates every imaginable way of defining the self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html

dzogchungpa said:
Well, as I said, I'm not an atmavadin, but I suggest you read that whole book and see how equivocal or unequivocal TB's stance is. Here's a nice quote towards the end:... the Buddha never said that there is no self, and he never said that there is a self. The question of whether a self does or doesn't exist is a question he put aside.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanissaro is here quite mistaken.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 29th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
more precisely, his teaching that all dhamma are anatta,

Malcolm wrote:
...including nirvana...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
tingdzin said:
And, as Meido remarked, a little ironic that some Zen stuff has been kept well hidden while nowadays one can read the innermost secrets of Vajrayana and Dzogchen all over the place.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, perhaps people who have a proclivity towards "secrets" should switch to Zen.

tingdzin said:
Well, certainly people who prefer actual practice to endless chatter might try looking into Zen.

Malcolm wrote:
I doubt Zen will make a dent in endless chatter, whether one practices it or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Buddha taught quite clearly there is no self in the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. He did not maintain "noble silence" on the issue. There are 14 points about which he remained silent, but the true existence of a self that was either part of the aggregates or separate from them was not a question upon which he remained silent.

Wayfarer said:
As I understand it, 'to teach the self exists is eternalism, to teach that the self doesn't exist is nihilism'. So neither the view 'the self exists' nor the view 'the self doesn't exist' are the correct view.


Malcolm wrote:
As Vasubandhu states in the Kośabhaṣyam:
Further, if it is asked whether there is liberation apart from this [Dharma] or not, there is not. If it is asked why, because of clinging to the false view of self, [others] do not maintain the definition that the continuum of the aggregates alone is designated as a self, they designate the self on some other substance alone, and therefore the afflictions arise from grasping at a self. 

If it is asked, "How are we to understand that the expression, 'self', is an expression used to engage the continuum of aggregates alone and nothing else?," it is because [a self] cannot be directly perceived nor can it be inferred. If those other phenomena that exist do not hinder it, it should be directly perceptible, in the case of the the six objects and the mind, or other wise inferable, as in the case of the sense organs.
Consistent with this remark by Vasubandhu we see the Buddha using the term atman to refer to himself, and so on as a mere designation, etc. He never uses it to refer to a real entity, not even in the much vaunted Nirvana Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
tingdzin said:
And, as Meido remarked, a little ironic that some Zen stuff has been kept well hidden while nowadays one can read the innermost secrets of Vajrayana and Dzogchen all over the place.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, perhaps people who have a proclivity towards "secrets" should switch to Zen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Can prayer flags be hung indoors?
Content:
Ayu said:
Is it mentioned anywhere if the prayers are also distributed by light?

I have some small flags in my window. You can see them from afar. It looks very friendly and joyful. And slowly the letters are fainting from the intense sunlight.

Malcolm wrote:
No, if they were, they would have been called 'od rta, rather than rlung rta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


frankc said:
You can accept their word because of your direct experience in meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Their meditation deviated into reifying clarity as something real. It is exact mistake all the tīrthika meditators make, which is why the tradition you presented does not go beyond the purusha of Samkhya and Advaita. The only difference between the latter two traditions is whether there are multiple purushas or one universal purusha. In reality, this purusha is called jñā, the knower, no different than the citta you describe.

The second account you gave, where everything is included in one eternal citta, is just the sat cit ānanda of Advaita.

This is completely beyond the pale of Buddhdharma. It is a totally wrong view, every bit as much of a wrong view as Buddhadasa's rejection of rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Can prayer flags be hung indoors?
Content:
qwerty13 said:
I am getting two kinds of information on this question. Some say prayer flags should not be used indoors (they say it is inauspicious) and others say that they can be used indoors too.

So whats the deal here? Should prayer flags be hung only outdoors?

Thanks for answers!


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but not much point. The point of hanging prayer flags is to use the wind [ rlung ] as a mount or "horse" [ rta ] for harmonizing your local environment with the mantras printed on the cloth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Compassion and the Basis
Content:
pothigai said:
I suppose I could modify my question somewhat. Afflicted dependent origination begins with ignorance of the basis, unafflicted dependent origination beings with knowledge of the basis. Can anyone describe the process of unafflicted dependent origination?

heart said:
There is nothing called "unafflicted dependent origination"

/magnus

pothigai said:
What I mean by this is the activities of a Buddha. I assume they do not arise as a product of affliction within a Buddha's mindstream.

Malcolm wrote:
The activities of a buddha arise because sentient beings are deluded. In other words, the activities of a buddha are not other than delusions of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Matt J said:
How does this differ from a self?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not established as something real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 28th, 2015 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Buddha taught quite clearly there is no self in the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. He did not maintain "noble silence" on the issue. There are 14 points about which he remained silent, but the true existence of a self that was either part of the aggregates or separate from them was not a question upon which he remained silent.

dzogchungpa said:
I believe Wayfarer is referring to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html.

Malcolm wrote:
But the Buddha did not remain silent on the issue...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Can a stone meditate?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
If this is so, is the highest vipashyana bhumi the same as the consciousness of a stone? If the emptiness is the same for everything, why is the wisdom different?

Adder said:
Does the stone have consciousness.... can a stone know its own face? No, I don't think a stone even has a 'face' rang-ngo shes-pa
It's not, but the stone already is 'pure awareness' rig pa by not having the stains of mental activity... you cannot kill a stone. At least that is how I view it (at the moment [subject to change w/o notice])

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, but rocks do not have rig pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The distinction between citta and vijñāna is a false one. Citta, vijñāna and manas are all synonyms for one thing. This point of view described above has very little difference with the point of view expounded in the Yoga Sutras — the only difference in fact is that these monks are using the scheme of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, whereas the Yoga Sutras use the Samkhya scheme of purusha/prakriti. What they are describing is exactly purusha.

frankc said:
The dinstinction isn't a false one.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course the distinction is a false one. The word citta is not at all hard to translate into English.

frankc said:
Here is a teaching from Ajahn Dune Atulo

All Buddhas and all creatures are nothing but one citta. Besides this citta. nothing exsist. The citta which has no beginning does not appear and can not be destroyed. It is not something green or yellow. It has no shape nor appearances. It is not included in the existence or the none existence. It cannot be considered new or old, long or short, big or small because it is beyond all limitation measurement, nomination trace and comparison.

Malcolm wrote:
This point of view is even worse — it is basically no different than Advaita Vedanta, it is not even at the level of Yogacara. It is basically a non-Buddhist point of view.

If you have never properly studied Madhyamaka, it is easy to see why you would think this was profound.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Compassion and the Basis
Content:
pothigai said:
Hello all

My understanding is that when in a state of wisdom with regards to the nature of the basis, all phenomena are of 'one taste'. Why then does the energy of the basis manifest as compassion when it is aware of its own nature?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis manifests as compassion, i.e., nirmanakāya buddhas, when a sentient being does not recognize the basis for what it is, his, her or its own nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And in response to the direct question, 'is there a self', the Buddha did not respond, or rather, met the question with a noble silence.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Buddha taught quite clearly there is no self in the aggregates or separate from the aggregates. He did not maintain "noble silence" on the issue. There are 14 points about which he remained silent, but the true existence of a self that was either part of the aggregates or separate from them was not a question upon which he remained silent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
Non-Duality, by David Loy. I don't endorse everything he says, but I do think he's one of the few people I know that has made a real effort to tactfully look past the labels.)

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with Loy, and I told him so, 25 years ago at BU, is that he does not differentiate between ontological non-dualism [Hinduism], and epistemic non-dualism [Buddhadharma], in fact he conflates them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
You already get away with openly trying to convert people to your sect in the introductions thread of all places.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20696

Malcolm wrote:
This person was already interested in Dzogchen teachings. Anyway, Dzogchen is not a sect or a tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
Man, brutal. You just insulted someone that was widely considered an Arahant in Thailand based on your interpretation of a Sutta. The Citta as described in the Thai forest tradition is not a consciousness, therefore this sutta is rendered useless in an argument against it. Ajahn Martin specifically says consciousness is a part of the khandas and not eternal. The eternal Citta is independent of the khandas

From Ajahn Pannavaddhos biography uncommon wisdom - Consciousness is necessary to experience the duality of subject
and object, but it is completely extraneous and unnecessary to the
original citta. So from the point of view of the reality of the knowingness
which is the true citta, consciousness is superfluous because the
true knowing is always present in the citta, even after all the physical
and mental aggregates have disappeared.

So here you see he is referring to consciousness and the citta as two different things. Further proof the sutta is irrelevant to it. Ajahn Maha Bua was a scholar before he became a hardcore meditator under Ajahn Mun. Don't you think he knows what the pali canon says? And Ajahn Thanissaro is a follower of Ajahn Maha Bua's eternal citta. And Ajahn Thanissaro is responsible for a lot of the suttas translations into english, maybe even including the one you sent me!
Luangta Maha Bua called the citta the eternal tourist who goes from life to life. In this case, it is the conventional citta. It would not be wrong to call it a soul or to speak of souls.

Malcolm wrote:
The distinction between citta and vijñāna is a false one. Citta, vijñāna and manas are all synonyms for one thing. This point of view described above has very little difference with the point of view expounded in the Yoga Sutras — the only difference in fact is that these monks are using the scheme of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, whereas the Yoga Sutras use the Samkhya scheme of purusha/prakriti. What they are describing is exactly purusha.

Maha Bua is also regarded as a total heretic by many in Thailand.

There are just so many problems with the views espoused by this monk, who would know where to begin?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: 4 Tantra`s in Bön
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
1. "Bya-ba'i rgyud",
2. "sPyod-pa'i rgyud",
3. "Ye gshen gyi rgyud", and
4. "Ye gshen chen-po'i rgyud"

kirtu said:
How are these pronounced?

Malcolm wrote:
Jyawey gyud, Chodpey gyud, Yeshen gyud, Yeshen chenpo gyud.

It is kriya tantra, carya tantra, yoga tantra and Mahāyoga tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


frankc said:
Perhaps they just have another narrative they are trying to confirm which isn't an eternalist narrative. How can a Buddhist not have an eternalist narrative anyways? The Buddha describes Nirvana as the supreme happiness. How can something be a supreme happiness if there is nothing left after the five khandas break apart to experience it.

Malcolm wrote:
[Upasiva:]
He who has reached the end:
	Does he not exist,
	or is he for eternity
	free from dis-ease?
Please, sage, declare this to me
	as this phenomenon has been known by you.

[The Buddha:]
One who has reached the end
	has no criterion [3] 
by which anyone would say that —
	for him it doesn't exist.
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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Please read the post on Shin again and specifically the quotation in which Shin views are defined by Shin. Ditto  for Songchol. In any case, if you are interested in Songchol please find and  present your True Self to a Zen teacher. That is the best way to understand Songchol. It is also what he would say to us all so I'm back to the cushion!

Malcolm wrote:
I think he would hand him a volume of the Nirvana Sūtra and tell him to read it....according to SOB's unique hermeneutics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Talking about the self, whatever that is
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
As for the Madhyamaka view you're referencing here it's a wholly separate issue, but I would say that an analysis that dissolves the difference between cause and effect seems to me to be at the very least the beginnings of establishing a view from the ultimate side.

But untangling the two truths at any given moment is a delicate thing and easily leads to needless debate. I would favor us both taking the charitable view and assume the correctness of what the other is saying, in the context in which he is saying it.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna begins the MMK with this famous verse:
At no time and no where 
does anything arise
from itself, from other, 
from both or without a cause.
Nāgārjuna's presentation does not dissolve the difference between cause and effect, it states that one cannot coherently designate causes and effects as being either the same or different without the following flaws.

For example, the Samkhya school maintains that effects are present in their causes, violating Nāgārjuna first maxim, "no arising from itself"; the Vaiśeṣika school maintains that causes and results are utterly distinct, violating Nāgārjuna;s second maxim, "no arising from other." The third maxim, "no arising from both" is present merely for formal completeness — I know of no Indian school that proposes both.

The consequence of the first assertion is that arising is unnecessary and there is can only be homogenous reproduction of the series[ thus proposing that existents arise from existents].  The consequence of the second assertion is that there is arising of an existent result from a cause that has already temporally perished, [thus proposing that existents arise from nonexistents.] The consequence of the third assertion involves the faults of the first two assertions.

Nāgārjuna, and all subsequent Madhyamikas, maintain conventionally that causes are neither the same nor different form their effects in order to account for causal continuity without invoking either identity or discontinuity, thus Nāgārjuna's fourth maxim, "There is no arising without a cause," is never violated at any time.

Of course, later, Nāgārjuna shows that ultimately arising is impossible:
An existent does not arise from existent, 
an existent does not arise from a nonexistent, 
an nonexistent does not arise from an existent,
a nonexistent does not arise from a nonexistent —
where then is there arising?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Ocean livestream
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yes, I've been enjoying them. I was a little surprised when he referred to "the empty, open field of our eternal self in the central channel" last night, but it's all good.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, of course, Ray is a gzhan stong pa.

dzogchungpa said:
You mean, like Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Kalu Rinpoche, the 16th Karmapa and CTR? Whatever could he be thinking?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, just like them, and perhaps a bit more so. I doubt any of them would have used the term "eternal self."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:


DGA said:
the short version is that Ch'an / Zen as represented in Tibetan texts doesn't necessarily correspond to how it's been taught and practiced by Ch'an and Zen masters.

MalaBeads said:
Although i dont know how chan/zen was taught or practiced in Hashang's time, i would definitely say this is true today. I remember reading ChNN's small book called "Dzogchen and Zen" and thinking that it did not correspond at all to how the practice was done at SFZC. Then, many years later, I heard ChNN speak of Suzuki-roshi as a vajrayana teacher.

I never met Suzuki-roshi so I don't know how he taught but I have heard some of his students say that Suzuki-roshi himself described his teaching as "Hinayana teaching with Mahayana spirit". Certainly, the precision of the forms was very Hinayana-like. And perhaps the Mahayana aspect goes without saying.

Then, a few years ago, one of Suzuki-roshi main lineage holders, Mel Weitzman, said that Suzuki-roshi had not taught them some of the more advanced practices in the lineage (at least thats how I understood what I heard him say). So there does seem to be an evolution of sorts happening in zen teaching in america. And of course, I am speaking of only one lineage in a vast and complicated school.

Honestly, I don't concern myself too much with what I consider to be ancient history (although I know that for some it is important and indeed can be a life's work). Nevertheless, I very much value what zen taught me, especially the form aspect.

Malcolm wrote:
The kind of Chan ChNN is talking about is the kind of Chan that once existed in Tibet and no longer does. It was discussed at length by Nubchen.

ChNN said that modern Chan/Zen is very influenced by Vajrayāna. There is someone who posts here occasionally, Matilda, who comes from a traditional Soto Temple family. According to her, the senior Soto Priests in Japan preserve a set of empowerments and practices in which they alone engage. It seems that the Soto school has not shared everything of their tradition with westerners so far.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
kirtu said:
“ If there were no permanent, fully illumined state, consciousness could not exist at all. This is the state of the primordial Buddha, the Buddha who has always existed even before our human buddhas were born.
This part, all Tibetan Buddhists would agree with .... Samantabhadra/Vajradhara ...

Malcolm wrote:
No, we would not. Especially not Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 27th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Wayfarer said:
So the views of various persons on this forum represent those different perspectives. You will note that in some threads, the Vedantins are referred to as 'heretics' (I forget the Sanskrit word right now, but it's definitely a pejorative.) But again, that is very much the consequence, in my view, of those centuries of debate and differentiation.

Malcolm wrote:
Tīrthika — it is not pejorative. It is a term used in both Buddhadharma and Jain Dharma to describe the head of another school. It has come to mean followers of other schools. It literally means "one who crosses a ford"

The Tibetan translation of the term is mu stegs pa; where mu means extreme, and stegs means upholding, thus it means "one who upholds extremes."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
You aren't by any chance suggesting that Kongtrul's or Guarisco's understanding of this stuff might be at least as valid as that of our very own amouththatnevershuts, I mean, asunthatneversets, are you?

Malcolm wrote:
You will observe that in Elio's later translation of Nyingma tenets in in Systems of Buddhist Tantra, ppg. 305-306., done in collaboration with ChNN, he abandons the term "ground of being" for the simpler and more accurate "ground."

dzogchungpa said:
BTW, just for laughs, I point out that Guarisco, in the section on Nyingma tenets in that book, translates "bdag nyid chen po" as "total state of being".

Malcolm wrote:
It is an interesting term. If you examine the context of the term, the way it is used in Tibetan, you will swiftly see that "total state of being" does not work well.

In Dzogchen, the term bdag nyid chen po and bdag nyid accompanies the terms ngang and rang bzhin. This true in both Buddhist and Bon texts.

For example, in the Zhang Zhung sNyan rGyud, we find:
State [ngang], nature [rang bzhin] and identity [bdag nyid] are a trio.
The state is the total clarity of rig pa. 
The nature is the total emptiness of rig pa. 
The identity is the nonduality of clarity and emptiness.
Everything is understood as pure consummate mind [byang chub sems]
through the axiom of total identity [bdag nyid chen po].
I have many similar examples from Buddhist texts. So here, I would prefer to render this term as "total identity."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that the basis is not "a basis or ground of being" since being, nonbeing, etc. are not established even slightly from the very start within the basis itself. The being of the basis is not established, so how can it form a basis for beings?

smcj said:
Yet you just conceded that Elio's use of "ground", in collaboration with ChNN, was appropriate.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is ok — not the best choice of words. ChNN himself uses "Base".


smcj said:
Anyway, the basis is just a word for one's own unfabricated mind.
...but not if you're a Shentongpa like Dudjom R. And, in fact, that was the specific point that Kongtrul was addressing and refuting by talking about the "ground" in terms where there are no buddhas and no sentient beings--no minds whatsoever.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, Dudjom, Kongtrul and I do not disagree. We understand these texts. But you do not, and so you are perpetually confused as to what they mean because you just read the words without understanding the meaning and so you imagine contradictions where in fact none exist.

And you keep on attributing a dimension of time to a state where there is no time. Dzogchen texts talk about the fourth time. That is the time of the basis, i.e. no past, present, future. Hence use of the terms like original, primordial, and so on. The basis is one's own unfabricated mind —— it is not a buddha, it is not a sentient being, it is beyond time, beyond extremes, beyond expression, it has never been liberated because it has never experienced a state of bondage and so on. Accumulating merit and wisdom will not liberate it; engaging in the five heinous misdeeds [harming a buddha, killing an arhat, etc.] will not place it in bondage. There is nothing you can to improve it, nothing you can do will harm it. It is empty, clear and inseparable. Relatively, when it is not recognized, it is called "the basis appears as the universe." At the time it is recognized, it is called "The universe arises as the basis." The basis is the basis, it is the path and it is the result. There is no buddhahood to find outside of the basis, likewise, there is no buddhahood to find outside of one's own unfabricated mind. One'w unfabricated mind is buddhahood. There is no other buddhahood to realize. Everything is complete within that unfabricated mind, all of samsara and nirvana is complete there. And there are also no phenomena of either samsara or nirvana at all present in the basis.



So obviously Kongtrul has a different take on it. You may disagree, as is your right, but if you push it you're basically calling him a tirthika.[/quote]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
Ven Tong Songchol seemed to have no problem quoting Taoist teachers in his teachings, and here we have him speaking of one thing that is eternal that existed before the earth and skies came into being. And what is another thing spoken of in a similar way?

Malcolm wrote:
Of what relevance is this in the Tibetan Buddhism forum?

frankc said:
It's relevant to the interpretation that Ven Tong Songchol was speaking of the "one thing" as an insight into the true nature of phenomena, as opposed to an eternal myterious"one thing" that is never born and never dies.

Malcolm wrote:
What is the relevance of Korean Zen to Tibetan Buddhism?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


smcj said:
You will observe that in Elio's later translation of Nyingma tenets in in Systems of Buddhist Tantra, ppg. 305-306., done in collaboration with ChNN, he abandons the term "ground of being" for the simpler and more accurate "ground."
Ok, and the difference is...?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that the basis is not "a basis or ground of being" since being, nonbeing, etc. are not established even slightly from the very start within the basis itself. The being of the basis is not established, so how can it form a basis for beings?

It does not. In fact, all of this display of samsara and nirvana arise because the basis is not recognized for what it actually is. But there is not even the slightly iota of phenomena within the basis itself.

Anyway, the basis is just a word for one's own unfabricated mind. The generic basis is just a description of that unfabricated mind's characteristics, i.e. emptiness, clarity and their inseparability.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing will prevent the spread of Dzogchen teachings. All the broken samaya in the universe could not damage the spread of Dzogchen even a little bit.

One of the reasons there is so much misunderstanding of Dzogchen teachings is that till now its spread has been limited to an elite.



Adamantine said:
Is this your personal opinion?

Malcolm wrote:
The first sentence is not my opinion, but can be found in the tantras of Dzogchen.

The second is my opinion. Misunderstanding of Dzogchen is not confined to Westerners, a lot of Tibetans misunderstand it as well, even supposed Dzogchen practitioners. Sometimes I think the worst thing that happened in Tibetan religious history was gradual/sudden debate at Samye with the ensuing propaganda war by the Ba clan which was taken up later by Sarmapas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
Ven Tong Songchol seemed to have no problem quoting Taoist teachers in his teachings, and here we have him speaking of one thing that is eternal that existed before the earth and skies came into being. And what is another thing spoken of in a similar way?

Malcolm wrote:
Of what relevance is this in the Tibetan Buddhism forum?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Adamantine said:
I can appreciate your perspective on this, but do you then disagree with the lineage masters' cautions regarding
degeneration of the teachings through various inappropriate or incorrect understandings
and disseminations of those misunderstandings?

I've assumed that the two main threats to proper lineage transmissions and thus
perpetuity of vajra dharma traditions and their ability to successfully liberate are a) samaya breakage and b) wrong understanding that is then passed off as correct understanding.. Probably there's plenty of overlap too between a and b.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing will prevent the spread of Dzogchen teachings. All the broken samaya in the universe could not damage the spread of Dzogchen even a little bit.

One of the reasons there is so much misunderstanding of Dzogchen teachings is that till now its spread has been limited to an elite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Talking about the self, whatever that is
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The absence of identity and difference between cause and effect is on the conventional level, that is whole point. From an ultimate point of view, there is no sense in discussing the identity or difference of causes and results.

sherabpa said:
How can this be.  On the conventional level, the absence of identity in cause and effect is obvious, and the absence of difference is simply false.  This absence has to be on the ultimate level.  Yes, there is no sense discussing it, but that does not make it conventional.

Malcolm wrote:
It is conventional, this is why both Nāgārjuna and Candra use this argument in discussing the conventional production of sprouts from seeds and butter from curds. Go ahead, examine the MMK, you will see I am correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Ground of being" is a term coined by the theologian Paul Tillich to describe God.

dzogchungpa said:
Malcolm, you are very fond of pointing this out but, honestly, it is not relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is relevant. The choice of language in a translation informs our understanding, especially when we are new and do not completely understand the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Ground of being" is a term coined by the theologian Paul Tillich to describe God.

smcj said:
A case in point to my observation that anything that is compared to Christianity is automatically understood to be unacceptable. I call this P.C.S.D., Post Christian Stress Disorder.

Malcolm wrote:
This is no more nor less than what the Chinese Buddhist did when they found that using Taoist terms in their translations confused their understanding of Buddhadharma. So they stopped doing so, and created a unique Buddhist vocabulary in Chinese to handle translations of Buddhist text.

On the other hand, your attachment to terms like ground of being and defense of them indicates that maybe you have not shaken the theism of your childhood. I was raised without any religion at all, so no PCSD here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
That translation is outdated, there is no such thing as a "ground of being" in Dzogchen... apart from the ālaya of course, which is pure ignorance.
Kalu Rinpoche Translation Committee. State of the art translation.

You keep making that assertion. There are multiple presentations on Dzogchen. This one you don't like. That's ok, it is not the only presentation.

Malcolm wrote:
There is only one presentation of this "cosmology [derived from Dzogchen Upadesha Tantras], the one in Tibetan. That one is very homogenous in other words, if you read one presentation of this subject in Dzogchen, you have more or less read them all.

There are many different translations of that presentation in English which range from fairly accurate to completely bogus.

Here, use of the term "ground of being" for gzhi is an unjustified translation for a straight forward and simple term.

dzogchungpa said:
You aren't by any chance suggesting that Kongtrul's or Guarisco's understanding of this stuff might be at least as valid as that of our very own amouththatnevershuts, I mean, asunthatneversets, are you?

Malcolm wrote:
You will observe that in Elio's later translation of Nyingma tenets in in Systems of Buddhist Tantra, ppg. 305-306., done in collaboration with ChNN, he abandons the term "ground of being" for the simpler and more accurate "ground."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
No, actually it is specifically and deliberately being presented as a "ground of being". "Myriad Worlds" is about the various cosmologies, starting with Mr Meru and such. The only subject matter the book addresses is buddhist paradigms of how the universe is. It ends with a Dzogchen cosmology, which is unambiguously a "ground of being". Excluding the presence of either buddhas or sentient beings makes that clear.

Hey, you don't have to buy it. Plenty of people have become enlightened that find such ideas heresy. But plenty of people, such as Kongtrul himself presumably, have become enlightened while holding those types of ideas. So either way is fine. It is a matter of preference.

Malcolm wrote:
No, SMCJ, the term in Tibetan is simple gzhi, basis. There is no connotation of being presented by use of the term gzhi. In fact the gzhi, the basis is devoid of any extreme of existence, nonexistence and so on. The basis is ka dag, originally pure, i.e. empty, as Master Vimalamitra states:
The basis, the state of initial original purity, is liberated
because its essence is not established at all.
"Ground of being" is a term coined by the theologian Paul Tillich to describe God. The basis is not a creative force like God. It does not generate anything. Nothing arises from the basis, and nothing returns to the basis. The Six Dimension offers some clarity:
Dharmatā free from proliferation is originally pure;
it is the basis of an intrinsically pure nature;
it is free from words and syllables;
it cannot be confirmed through expression;
it is free from all conventional reification;
it is without concepts of apprehended objects and apprehending
subjects;
it is without buddhas and without sentient beings;
it is without phenomena and without perception of phenomena;
no one, no thing, nothing at all.
When the essence of such nonexistence
is confirmed with some words:
the essence is original purity
and the nature is natural perfection.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
In another central text, The Fourth Council, Dolpopa challenged the Buddhist community to honestly address the logical inconsistencies in their philosophy, such as: If everything is essentially nonexistent, how does it happen that we’re sitting here talking about it?

Malcolm wrote:
The main disciple of Garab Dorje, Mañjuśrīmitra has a reply:
Commoners were born and are being born in various births having coming under the power of birth,
similar with the illusion of an elephant produce by an illusionist’s knowledge of illusions, the illusions are confused by the illusion;
like being deceived by a dream, the happiness experienced by the dreamer is a dream that has come under the power of a dream.

frankc said:
“With loving reverence,” he wrote, “I bow to Buddha, who is the supreme Self, perfect purity, and ever-abiding bliss. The ultimate refuge for beings suffering in this world is the supreme Self, the adamantine spiritual being. If this were not a reality, the spiritual path would be useless and enlightenment could not exist. The living experience of reality is joy beyond joy, limitless love, all-embracing compassion, intrinsic awareness, and omniscience.

Malcolm wrote:
The 12th century Tibetan Great Perfection master Rongzom anticipates this:
To determine the greatness of the total non-existence of buddhahood, if buddhahood and non-buddhahood [108/a] are nondual, why is one seeking? Determine there is nothing to seek. The yogins in whom such a meaning is present effortlessly abide on the undifferentiated stage of Samantabhadra. The undifferentiated stage of Samantabhadra is universal stage of all Buddhas. Whatever the meaning of the Great Perfection might be, that is it.

frankc said:
“Joining my palms together in deepest respect, I appeal to you to consider that if there were no absolute reality, there could be no relative world. If there were no permanent, fully illumined state, consciousness could not exist at all. This is the state of the primordial Buddha, the Buddha who has always existed even before our human buddhas were born. This state is always fully present in each of us, but it is not available to those who argue philosophically; it is only available to the yoga practitioners who cleanse their minds in order to experience it directly.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, Mañjuśrimitra states:
Therefore, because awakening and non-awakening are the same in terms of absence of characteristics, there is nothing to accept or reject.
In accordance with the meaning of that, all those explanations 
of the nominal ultimate, the absence of arising and ceasing, sameness, 
nonduality, beyond thought, emptiness, the dharmadhātu, 
freedom from expression and convention, and so on are not ultimate and also are not relative.
If it is said, “This is the path in accordance with the ultimate,” that is relative.
Do not abandon or dwell in any Dharma at all, with or without doubt. 
Because the meditator and the dharmadhātu do not exist, there is nothing to doubt and there is no nothing to see as ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Talking about the self, whatever that is
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Hi Malcolm. Yes, understood, from the ultimate level.

But at issue with the Ajahn was his account of rebirth from what I would consider the conventional level, and my point was that his kind of reasoning was overly simple for the kind of learners he's likely to be confronted with. Lacking the resources of the Mahayana, let alone the Madhyamaka, it would seem to me better to at least be consistent with the notion of identity, and even better to bracket the whole area of the conventional self for which he can give no satisfactory answers.

Malcolm wrote:
The absence of identity and difference between cause and effect is on the conventional level, that is whole point. From an ultimate point of view, there is no sense in discussing the identity or difference of causes and results.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


frankc said:
In Vajrayana Buddhism, the Adi-Buddha, or Adibuddha (Tibetan: Dang-po'i sangs-rgyas), is the "Primordial Buddha." The term refers to a self-emanating, self-originating Buddha, present before anything else existed.

Malcolm wrote:
Um, actually, this definition is completely and utterly wrong. Sorry, but it is typical Wiki-garbage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
(1) by his definition the Buddha was an eternalist because the Buddha taught the 4 virtues of Nirvana(permanence,bliss,self,purity) in the Buddha Nature Sutra's.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha also taught that nirvana was not permanent and not impermanent and so on in other sūtras, still in others he taught nirvana was cessation, etc.

The point is that one cannot always take what the Buddha says in the sūtras literally.

One has to discern what is definitive and what is provisional. As far as the Tathāgatagarbha sutras go, there are two ways to understand them: a provisional way which causes one to be a kind of eternalist; and a definitive way which is free from the fault of the provisional approach and has no taint of attachment to dualities such as permanent, impermanent and so on.

Of course you will respond with the three turnings of the wheel interpretive scheme, but I have already shown elsewhere in detail that the Tibetan use of this schema finds no support at all in Indian literature, especially not with Maitreyanatha, Asanga, etc., and is in fact is the system of a Korean master who commented at length on the Samdhinirmocana-sūtra, whose commentary exists in the Tibetan canon and was very influential.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Talking about the self, whatever that is
Content:



Vimalakirti432 said:
As an example let's look at a talk on rebirth by Ajahn Brahmali, which is available on YouTube. This is not to rag on the Ajahn, who overall gave a good presentation for learners. But in his attempt to cut off clinging to self he used the identity argument in such a way as to illustrate what I've been saying.

In short, he argued for the absolute discontinuity of consciousness, from one thought moment to the next, and so the incoherence of a continuous identity. Of course this just begged the question(s). As one young woman in the room asked, What thought moment is it that is cognizing this absolute discontinuity? His answer was evasive and weak, suggesting some kind of inference.

And even a moment's reflection reveals that yes I'm not the same as I was a moment ago, but I'm also not different. (And isn't this very same point made in the Surangama sutra, if memory serves?) But there's a more serious objection yet.

The doctrine of rebirth depends for its coherence on some notion of identity, as Bhikku Bodhi points out without controversy I think in his article on rebirth (again available online). So we have this peculiar consequence that we poor benighted sentient beings are only granted identity at the point of rebirth but not in our actual lives!

Malcolm wrote:
The Madhyamaka point of view is that causes and effects are neither the same nor are they different, thus avoiding all contradictions between absence of identity and continuity. Therefore, there is no need for the doctrine of rebirth to hinge on any kind of identity proposition in order for someone to maintain continuity in a series.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
I'm afraid that Buddhists often underestimate the subtlety of non-Buddhist systems (but this goes all the way back to the reputed first sutta of the canon, the Brahmajala).

Rongzom said:
These words of the Great Perfection, stated in very bold and coarse language, are subtle and fine like the element of space; also the systems of the lower vehicles, though spoken in subtle and very fine language, are coarse and rough like a pile of dust.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Again all the traditions, at their deepest levels, point to the unconditioned.

Nāgārjuna said:
Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established;
since the conditioned is not established, where will the unconditioned be established?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Ocean livestream
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Yes, I've been enjoying them. I was a little surprised when he referred to "the empty, open field of our eternal self in the central channel" last night, but it's all good.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, of course, Ray is a gzhan stong pa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
Tathagātagarbha is just a convention...
I'm ok with that idea.

it does not indicate anything real at all...
I'm ok with that too. I prefer adjectives such as authentic, valid, true, etc. "Real" makes it sound like an existent.

Plus I think that it is obvious that since Madhyamaka proves nothing anywhere in the universe is "real" in terms that can be logically put forward, that our ideas of what constitutes "real" is completely mistaken. It is like starting out with the assumption that there are unicorns, and then when you can't find any you ignore the fact that your assumptions about them were wrong in the first place.

Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha does not indicate anything authentic, valid, true and so on. Why? Because there is no authentic, real, true etc., basis for such a garbha. "Tathāgatagarbha", just like "sentient being" and "buddha" are just conventions that do not convey any truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Also what were the provisional dzogchen teachings provisionally taught for?

Malcolm wrote:
For people who need a teaching of a buddhahood that is not a result of a cause, causes taught in such sūtras as the Nirvana, like gathering the two accumulations and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Three Words of Dr. Jim Valby:
Introduce yourself to a delusion.
Spread it as widely as possible.
Continue in that state forever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
I could of swore an externalist was

Malcolm wrote:
Eternalist [śāśvatavādin], not externalist [tīrthika]...

It is possible to be the former without being the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
smcj said:
The Buddha taught eternalist teachings provisionally for people of similar dispositions to yourself, people very hung up on words.
Well that's good enough for me!

Malcolm wrote:
What use is permanent, truly existent and so on, when nothing relative is established at all? True, permanent, existent, pure and so on are all relative. They only exist with respect to the false, impermanent, nonexistent, impure and so on. If the latter are not established, how could the former be established? This is so obvious, I really fail to see why people cannot grok this point.

This is why this whole dialogue is fraught with error from the beginning...

Tathagātagarbha is just a convention, it does not indicate anything real at all...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
Of course you call me an externalist, it makes me wonder if you even know what an externalist is in the context  of the Buddha Nature teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
An eternalist one who maintains that there is a permanent, truly existent, pure, permanent self, as you do.

The Buddha taught eternalist teachings provisionally for people of similar dispositions to yourself, people very hung up on words.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
...........do you?

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, I frankly think you do not understand the meaning of what you read. It is a very simple observation.

It's ok though, it is better to be an eternalist like yourself than someone who follows annihilationism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It increases alienation, and prevents people from making a positive connection with the teachings.

MalaBeads said:
Yes, alienation. That's a very problem in todays world. How to include everyone?

Malcolm wrote:
There are six liberations, not only one.

But if people express interest in the teachings, even only academically, they should be encouraged.

Obviously, if someone is not interested, then there is no point is evangelizing them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 26th, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
[

Also I don't have to give my interpretation of how the term self is used in the Buddhist Buddha Nature sutras, I can show you what the Sutras actually say it is...... My interpretation need not apply.

Malcolm wrote:
One is supposed to follow the meaning, not the words. In your case, I cannot say that you are observing this maxim with regards the tathāgatagarbha sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts
Content:
steve_bakr said:
I validated Jackson's Pointing Out instructions and they were authentic in the sense that they could open a window to Rigpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Eating at restaurants that serve meat and alcohol
Content:
goldenlight said:
If Shakyamuni was horrified by mundane stuff like that then the Shakyamuni that you venerate was not a Buddha.
That is exactly what is assumed these days,The premise that shakyamuni was above the mundane and that all phenomena are empty and devoid of existence,And with this notion people are misled to indulge in misdeeds.These are mentioned in the Shurangama Sutra,unfortunately a gem of a sutra it is and people disdain it as being apocryphal.

Malcolm wrote:
Not all Mahāyāna Buddhist read the Shurangama Sutra. For example, it did not exist in the Mahāyāna Sūtra portion of the Tibetan Canon. So Mahāyāna Buddhists in Tibet do not accept it as an authoritative sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Abhijñā and Dzogchen
Content:
pothigai said:
Generally it seems that, according to the Pali Canon, a practitioner develops the abhijñās upon mastery of the fourth jhāna. I've heard accounts of people developing them earlier as well, these experiences are mainly to do with remembering past lives. It seems that these abilities arise as a result of the mind being free of the five hindrances; the product of abiding in jhāna.

Within the Dzogchen path, are such abilities also developed? If so, at what point does this happen?

Malcolm wrote:
They develop in the second vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:
frankc said:
According to Dolpopa, the Madhyamakas had grasped the second stage teaching, that there is no permanence in the universe, but had missed the all-important third stage doctriney.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently Yogacarins missed it as well because in their treatises authors such as Maitryanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu pay absolutely no attention to the hermeneutic strategy of three turnings of the wheel.

Quite frankly, the fact that Tibetans in later generations such as Dolbupa pay so much attention to this strategy represents a critical failure in their scholarship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
smcj said:
However if you alter the premise, "the awakening of the sugata does not exist" to "the awakening of the sugata does exist" (as later authors do)

Malcolm wrote:
Mañjuśrīmitra was the direct disciple of Garab Dorje, a fully awakened person who attained great transference. This is the Dzogchen Forum. So....who cares what later authors say?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:


tomamundsen said:
But there must be some cause for the appearance of Rupakaya as experienced by sentient beings, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you looking for the Dzogchen answer?

tomamundsen said:
Yes, please, Loppon.


Malcolm wrote:
Mañjuśrīmitra writes in the Meditation of Awakened Mind:
Because the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.
Thus, the cause of the appearance of the rūpakāya is the delusion of sentient beings and nothing more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Ekayana
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Outside of the context of Chan and Mahayana sutras are there any Tibetan materials discussing this topic?

I'm not thinking of general discussions about second versus third wheel, two truths etc. But a more specific discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Sakya School advocates the Ekayāna approach based on the Lotus Sutra.


passel said:
Fascinating.  Do they get this from Xiyi or is it an independently derived doctrine?  I guess not too hard to arrive at since the Lotus Sutra is all about ekayana.  Wouldnt require tientai help but just curious if there was any back and forth there.

Malcolm wrote:
None, no back and forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:


tomamundsen said:
But there must be some cause for the appearance of Rupakaya as experienced by sentient beings, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you looking for the Dzogchen answer?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
I'm pretty deep into the Drikungpas at the moment therefore that's how I am understanding it too. I.e. purification of obscurations equals rigpa, including the obscuration of trying to manufacture it.


Malcolm wrote:
This approach is typical of the vehicles of cause and effect. It is not the Dzogchen approach at all, which is beyond cause and effect. In other words, Buddhahood is not held to be a result of purification of obscurations nor the accumulation of merit and wisdom.

smcj said:
This sounds to me just like the Buddha Nature teachings and much of Zen also. "The clouds cannot taint the sun", etc.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the tathagātagarbha teachings are causal vehicle teachings, and buddhahood still depends on the two accumulations, as the Uttaratantra states:
The two accumulations are its cause,
the result of that cause is supreme awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


frankc said:
Can you give me some references to Zen teachers completely forthright about the true self/atman/soul just like straight in your face " THE ETERNAL UNCHANGING SOUL SEPARATE FROM THE FIVE KHANDAS EXISTING OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE COMPLETELY INDESTRUCTIBLE A MYSTERY BEYOND CONCEPTS THE ETERNAL KNOWER FIVE HUNDRED MEN WITH SPEARS CAN'T TOUCH IT AHHHH" It's hard for me to find just straight teachings on this thing. Like even on the Jonang website there's barely anything.

seeker242 said:
The Lankavatara Sutra, a very popular zen sutra, talks a lot about this sort of thing. But you really don't ever get a "completely forthright" description of it. But that's not a failure of the teachings, it's a failure of the nature of words and concepts to begin with.
Then Mahamati said: Again, Bhagavan, are words themselves the
highest reality? or is what is expressed in words the highest reality?

The Bhagavan replied: Mahamati, words are not the highest reality, nor
is what is expressed in words the highest reality. Why? Because the
highest reality is an exalted state of bliss, and as it cannot be entered
into by mere statements regarding it, words are not the highest reality.
Mahamati, the highest reality is to be attained by the inner realization of
noble wisdom; it is not a state of word-discrimination; therefore,
discrimination does not express the highest reality. And then, Mahamati,
words are subject to birth and destruction; they are unsteady, mutually
conditioning, and are produced by the law of causation. And again,
Mahamati, what is mutually conditioning and produced by the law of
causation cannot express the highest reality, because the indications
[pointing to the distinction between] self and not-self are non-existent.
Mahamati, words are these indications and do not express [the highest
reality].
One's true self is "unconditioned" and therefore cannot be accurately described by the conditioned.
That which is unconditioned goes beyond all idle reasonings. That which goes beyond
all idle reasonings, that is the Tathagata. Mahamati, this is the essence of
perfect enlightenment, this is the self-nature of Buddhahood which is
removed from all senses and measurements. So it is said:

79. That which is released from senses and measurements is neither an
effect nor a cause; it has nothing to do with knowledge and that which is
to be known; it is free from predicated and predicating.

80. There is something which is nowhere to be seen by anybody as the
Skandhas, causation, enlightenment; of that which is nowhere to be seen
by anybody, what description can we make?

81. It is not something made nor unmade, it is neither an effect nor a
cause, it is neither the Skandhas nor not-Skandhas, nor is it other than
the combination.

82. There is something that is not to be seen by the discrimination of its
being, nor is it to be known as nonexistent; such is the self-essence of all
things.
The Lankavatara Sutra is one of my favorites. Although, not exactly "completely forthright" in a sense. Although, depending on how you look at it, one could say it's about as completely forthright as you can get!



Malcolm wrote:
I would not place a lot of confidence in this translation, it is extremely inaccurate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
RIg pa is not intrinsic to every experience. If it were, there could be no ma rig pa, and there would never be any need to point anything out at all.

asunthatneversets said:
Do you think confusion about this arises due to the fact that "rig pa" as a Tibetan term can also mean plain old, everyday "knowing"? I've seen some teachers use it in that context, such as when the relative knowing of mind as gnas gyu shes pa is referred to as rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum. This seems to create confusion and lends to the misconception that rig pa is always present.

For instance, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche uses rig pa like that, but then makes a point to differentiate two different types of rig pa, which strikes me as a plausible example of how so much confusion arises over this principle.

In the case of stillness [gnas pa], occurrence [gyu ba] and noticing [rig pa], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa] is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.


Malcolm wrote:
rang byung rig pa is "self-originated rig pa", it means knowledge [ rig pa ] of your primordial state that originated [ byung ] from your own [ rang ] discovery of it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Ekayana
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
M-la - now, bearing in mind I didn't ask the broader question whether dzogchen/ati/lamdre etc is really a Buddhist "yana" or "school" at all - how do the Sakyapas reconcile the inclusivism of this ekayana view with vehicles that include the result in the path/cause?

Malcolm wrote:
They maintain that there is one goal, and hence one vehicle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Ekayana
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Outside of the context of Chan and Mahayana sutras are there any Tibetan materials discussing this topic?

I'm not thinking of general discussions about second versus third wheel, two truths etc. But a more specific discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the Sakya School advocates the Ekayāna approach based on the Lotus Sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 25th, 2015 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This approach is typical of the vehicles of cause and effect. It is not the Dzogchen approach at all, which is beyond cause and effect.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Ty, it gets paradoxical, however.

Your view is that, according to ati, purification as a preliminary is unnecessary since confusion itself is wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not my view at all.

Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
However this somewhat refutes the very view you try to support - that there exists ma rigpa.

If preliminary yanas/dzogchen ngondro are unnecessary because confusion is always already wisdom, in what sense can there ever be ma rigpa?

If your view is correct rigpa in fact is intrinsic to every view.

Malcolm wrote:
You are countering an argument I have not made.

The 47the chapter of the All-Creating King Tantra states:
Because the Great Perfection has always been beyond cause and result,
there is nothing to do and nothing to accomplish with seeking and practicing.
Having set the scriptures taught by the teachers of the view of cause [sentient beings] and result [buddhas]
as standards for the phenomena of worldly characteristics,
a result to accomplished is sought from a cause. 
Without a cause in the mind there has never been a result
because there is no arising in awakened mind [bodhicitta]. 
Having used an example for worldly arising phenomena, 
perishing after arising cannot be termed production.
Since the self-originated beyond cause and result cannot be examined,
having set the standard for the phenomena of worldly characteristics,
it claimed that a result is produced that is sought from a cause,
that is the provisional scripture of the vehicles of cause and result.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
I'm pretty deep into the Drikungpas at the moment therefore that's how I am understanding it too. I.e. purification of obscurations equals rigpa, including the obscuration of trying to manufacture it.


Malcolm wrote:
This approach is typical of the vehicles of cause and effect. It is not the Dzogchen approach at all, which is beyond cause and effect. In other words, Buddhahood is not held to be a result of purification of obscurations nor the accumulation of merit and wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Since Rigpa is intrinsic to every experience...

Malcolm wrote:
RIg pa is not intrinsic to every experience. If it were, there could be no ma rig pa, and there would never be any need to point anything out at all. This distinction has nothing to do at all with "scholarly explanations." It has everything to do with being properly trained by a qualified teacher of Dzogchen however.

smcj said:
This isn't a challenge, but an actual translation question.

Isn't all experience either rig pa or ma rig pa, with normal awareness being ma rig pa? And therefore, as is suggested by the semantics, is not the root rig pa is always present, with the only differentiation between awareness and unawareness being the presence or absence of the prefix ma?

Just curious.

Malcolm wrote:
The term "rig pa " refers to a very specific kind of knowledge. Ma rig pa is the absence of that knowledge, plain and simple.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Experience of Shunyata All the Time?
Content:
steve_bakr said:
Since Rigpa is intrinsic to every experience...

Malcolm wrote:
RIg pa is not intrinsic to every experience. If it were, there could be no ma rig pa, and there would never be any need to point anything out at all. This distinction has nothing to do at all with "scholarly explanations." It has everything to do with being properly trained by a qualified teacher of Dzogchen however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Student Teacher Relationship in Modern Age
Content:


steve_bakr said:
For a Direct Introduction to the Nature of your Mind, please read, "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness," by Guru Padmasambhava, translated by John Reynolds. It is available on your Kindle or in print.

Malcolm wrote:
This not a direct introduction. One cannot receive direct introduction from a book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: Gyalwa Menri Wa, New Jersey, May 2016: Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
Thanks.

If the subsequent teachings are in 2016, is there some expectation of one doing a lot of accumulation before parts two and three, or...?

Garudavista said:
I had the same question and emailed my question to the director at Olmo Ling who asked Tempa Lama who said that "as long as you have received the preliminary transmission [i.e. part 1 in November], you can attend the subsequent A Khrid teachings. It's not necessary to be finished with the 100,000 recitations."

As for the meaning of nyoshi, I'm not sure either. In the context of the sentence it seems to have something to do with instructions related to the teacher's direct experience. I tried looking for the meaning of the word on Google but couldn't find anything. Malcolm, do you know what nyoshi means?

Malcolm wrote:
dngos gzhi means "main section".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist teachers that teach a true self?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
I think the Dali Lama in his book mentioned that Sakya master Rendawa taught True Self as well.


Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahhaha — Rendawa was the most staunch opponent of the Jonang School, his student was Tsongkhapa. Rendawa declared that gzhan stong was "outside the pale of Buddhism." hahahahahaha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Gyalwa Menri Wa, New Jersey, May 2016: Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
Thanks.

Now I'm having a confuse, because it also says that ngondro isn't necessary to participate in this teaching... which is a no-brainer if it's a ngondro teaching.  "ngondro" can mean more than one thing, though.  It's the four thoughts that turn the mind; it's the accumulations of prostrations and so on; and then there are specific practices associated with certain Dzogchen transmissions that are also called "ngondro."  If the subsequent teachings are in 2016, is there some expectation of one doing a lot of accumulation before parts two and three, or...?

I also don't know what Nyoshi means.

I'm sorry if all this is obvious in context; I'm an ignorant lout asking out of interest in Dzogchen but lacking in context or much knowledge at all about Bon.  Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
It just means that in some of his A khrid teachings, you should have attended section one. Here, no need since it is the preliminary section.

Here Ngondro means Ngondro, as in refuge, bodhicitta, etc. The first five or so sections involve some Ngondro teachings up to guru yoga among meditation instructions as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Gyalwa Menri Wa, New Jersey, May 2016: Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
I just had a good experience at Serenity Ridge in Virginia (they allow participants to camp it if they want, which is great--I slept in my truck).

I'm curious how these teachings are divided up into segments.  What does "part one" of the A-Khrid involve?  how many parts are there?

thanks

Malcolm wrote:
It is probably the A Khrid in fifteen sections — about 36 western pages. There are other instructions, the fifteen section A khrid in the version I have amounts to about 165 pages of instructions. There is also another earlier manual divided into eight or ten sections. It is about 135 pages all totaled.

I imagine, though I could not tell you for sure, that is is three sections divided by five sections. It has the usual subjects like confidence in the guru, bodhicitta, refuge and confession, mandala, supplication to the guru, etc.

So I imagine that first retreat focuses mainly on Ngondro, the second and third retreats focus mainly nature of mind, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 24th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:


kirtu said:
Here's something: some people are forever trying to project their assumed universal norms onto others and force others into the structures that they have imposed on themselves mentally.  For example, most Americans do this daily with their racial trauma.  So we can get a good deal of exaggeration that people really think reflect actual reality.

Malcolm wrote:
For example, when someone says "Most X do Y...."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
is highly counterproductive, IMO.

MalaBeads said:
How so, malcolm? I would like to understand more.

Malcolm wrote:
It increases alienation, and prevents people from making a positive connection with the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Gyalwa Menri Wa, New Jersey, May 2016: Dzogchen
Content:
DGA said:
Am I badly misinterpreting this?  I'm trying to understand what needs are met by organizing this event in this way.  As someone who is interested in the logistics of how to organize an event like this, I'm interested to know how well this serves the participants in the retreat.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think this is expensive, you should check out his program to become a long life and prosperity ritual specialist, and it is packed!

There is a market for it. But not all Bon programs are so expensive, as you know.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Do you know why he makes this seemingly controversial choice?
Is it explained why in Light of Kailash ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he explains all of his points of view on this in LOK. ChNN makes the argument that Zhang Zhung is the origin of many Tibetan cultural practices, including elemental calculation.

As to the absence of an elemental calculation in China resembling anything like what we find in Tibet, there is the story that the Tang emperor was so incensed at the use of calculation by the Tibetan minister Gar to trick him, the emperor had all texts of calculation burned, and that the only surviving copies, known as the The Eighty Cycles of Porthang [spor thang brgyad cu skor] were brought to Tibet by Srong btsan sGam po's chinese wife, Kongjo.

The science of sa dpyad, site examination, is part of this collection of knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN generally favors the Bonpo histories on the origins of such sciences. You can read about it in Light of Kailash.


catmoon said:
You call them sciences? How very generous of you.

Malcolm wrote:
Per the OED:
science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this: veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject: the science of criminology.
• archaic knowledge of any kind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Who are the sources for Chinese influence?

Malcolm wrote:
Depending on whether you follow Chö or Bon it differs.

According to Chö, the master Duhar Nagpo introduced divinatory sciences to Tibet during the Imperial period after they were taught by Mañjuśrī on five peaked mountain. Also, Wenjo supposedly introduced them during the time of Songtsen Gampo.

According to Bonpos, it was Legtang Mangpo, who received it from Kongtse, after Kongtse received it from the Bon equivalent of Mañjuśri, Mrawey Senge.

amanitamusc said:
Has ChNN  commented  on this?

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN generally favors the Bonpo histories on the origins of such sciences. You can read about it in Light of Kailash.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, the perfect site for chod is:
On red cliffs there are tsan, on black cliffs there are düd,
at lakes and springs on slate mountains, nāgas,
on most grass covered hills there are classes of gnyan. 
on rock mountains are gyalpos and the'urang. 

Cliffs and mountains are equivalent,
supporting happiness, sloping in the front. 
Male mountains are wide, female mountains are narrow. 
The mountain is the body, the lake is the heart,
the spring is the life channel, and the trees are the hair,
the crest of the elephant, the heart of the human,
the highest burden of horses and animals, 
the excellent place for overcoming the opponent,
that is the place to remain for Chod. 
That is called the "eye of the gnyan."

Norwegian said:
Great quote. Thanks for posting this. Where is it from?

Malcolm wrote:
Same as above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Who are the sources for Chinese influence?

Malcolm wrote:
Depending on whether you follow Chö or Bon it differs.

According to Chö, the master Duhar Nagpo introduced divinatory sciences to Tibet during the Imperial period after they were taught by Mañjuśrī on five peaked mountain. Also, Wenjo supposedly introduced them during the time of Songtsen Gampo.

According to Bonpos, it was Legtang Mangpo, who received it from Kongtse, after Kongtse received it from the Bon equivalent of Mañjuśri, Mrawey Senge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, the perfect site for chod is:
On red cliffs there are tsan, on black cliffs there are düd,
at lakes and springs on slate mountains, nāgas,
on most grass covered hills there are classes of gnyan. 
on rock mountains are gyalpos and the'urang. 

Cliffs and mountains are equivalent,
supporting happiness, sloping in the front. 
Male mountains are wide, female mountains are narrow. 
The mountain is the body, the lake is the heart,
the spring is the life channel, and the trees are the hair,
the crest of the elephant, the heart of the human,
the highest burden of horses and animals, 
the excellent place for overcoming the opponent,
that is the place to remain for Chod. 
That is called the "eye of the gnyan."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Resources on Sacred Geography
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is a kind of literature called sa dpyad, literally, "site analysis" that gives various indications and sometimes even diagrams like the following: mountain_types.jpg (15.07 KiB) Viewed 4065 times
This illustration, from left to right, shows mountains according to elemental typology: wood [ཤིང], fire [མེ], metal [ལྕགས] and water [ཆུ].

It is generally held that the science of sa dbyad comes from China. The above illustration is from a text from is called The Treasury of Jewels, Chinese Site Analysis [rgya nag dpyad nor bu'i gter mdzod]. There are also site examination texts from India, having to do with mandala construction, as well as the subject of Vastu śastra.

The dual influences of Chinese and Indian culture on these issues is demonstrated by Karma Chagme's short text on this subject. We can see here too Tibetan pre-Buddhist ideas about ancestors and so on in the way the term bla is used in this specific context. The first chapter of Karma Chagme's text states:
The accurate result of the relative site:
in general, all of the outer universe and inhabitants
have the nature of the five elements. 
India, China, Mongolia and Tibet
are based on the way earth element has formed. 

The chronicle of happiness, suffering, 
increase and decrease, wealth and poverty
is clarified in the site examination texts of Kīlaya. 
Therefore, this location of the living, 
such as location of the house and so on, is important. 

Life [srog], the soul [bla] and consciousness [rnam shes] are a trio. 
Life is taken by the ghostly butcher.
Consciousness is the slave of karma.
Having taken the form of the past life, the soul
exists in the tomb site.  
If the tomb site is good, that soul prospers,
will protect and guard the living,
and is called "being guarded by the souls of the paternal ancestors."
If the tomb site is bad, that soul flounders,
and since it seeks protection in the living, 
the misfortune of unbearable illnesses arise. 
Therefore, the site of the tomb is important. 
It was said by Ārya Mañjusȓī
in the Tantras of the Divinatory Sciences of China,
"If the corpse is carried to a badly analyzed site,
even animals will be crushed into dust."
The text continues in the following chapter by listing various titles of Chinese and India site examination texts. Chapter three gives the general technique. Chapter four gives the techniques for picking a tomb site. Chapter five gives the specifics for picking a house site. Chapter six gives the specifics for selecting a site for practicing Chod.

FYI, the above text is a section of Karma Chagme's Mountain Dharma.

Much of this information about directions, shapes of the land and so on is to be found in elemental calculation, which is also part of the "Divinatory Sciences of China."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Towards a Buddhist Fundamentalism: Part II
Content:
Ayu said:
Misunderstanding:
I suppose it was me, who moderated. But it was not for "attacking and missinterpreting" that person. I just edited the name. Nothing else. No warning. I just asked them, not to mention that name.
Without telling the name, I regarded the topic as "considering a problem". With telling the name this "considering" turned to slander in my eyes. The statements could be right, but with the name you can find the slander easily by google...
I'm sorry that so many people don't understand this. For me it is so clear.

Malcolm wrote:
In the United States we are used to something called "Freedom of Speech," so when you go editing things out, this offends many of us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: Eating at restaurants that serve meat and alcohol
Content:
smcj said:
Yikes! U.D. your posts were nothing but supportive of ChNN. And I hope none of my posts are being interpreted as offensive. I think there's some bad information floating around.

Urgyen Dorje said:
Thanks!  That's what I thought too!

But lama Konchog Namdrol, says that he's received complaints by the DC community on DW ...

Malcolm wrote:
I doubt it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Title: Re: Eating at restaurants that serve meat and alcohol
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Well, this lama Konchok Namdrol is harassing me and my friend because of some trespass on DW, and is threatening to get us banned from all the Buddhist forums and webcast Buddhist activities such as ChNNR's webcasts and Garchen Rinpoches's web casts.  Sorry, but we take that seriously as we are students of both lamas.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no one can ban you from DC webcasts since they are open. No one will ban you from Vajracakra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Title: Re: Eating at restaurants that serve meat and alcohol
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
I was told to never post again by lama Konchog Namdrol, who has some relationship with DW that I don't understand.

Malcolm wrote:
And a relationship that no one else knows about or cares about.

Urgyen Dorje said:
I guess I'm defying that order.  Ban me.  I don't care.

Malcolm wrote:
How could anyone ban you? This phantom Lama has no authority here.  Screw all limitations imposed by others. We have enough to deal with dealing with our own limitations.

Urgyen Dorje said:
It's ridiculous to make an arbitrary line in the sand over eating meat and drinking alcohol.  Good Buddhists, here, bad ones, there.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, agreed. Liberation is not found in what one eats or drinks.

Urgyen Dorje said:
To this day.  It's a pretty shitty thing all around.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. There are no rules.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: European refugee crisis
Content:
Dan74 said:
And in Sweden, there is very little racism.

Malcolm wrote:
The most explicitly anti-gay, anti-semitic person I ever met in my life, outside of Americans I have met, was a woman from Sweden. Really, I was very surprised. I think xenophobia runs deeper among Europeans than many people realize.

Norwegian said:
Yes. I'm quite surprised Dan74 suggested this. Sweden has a lot of problems with racism and xenophobia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_in_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Sweden

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/16/how-a-former-neo-nazi-party-became-swedens-third-largest/

Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, I think that we can all agree that we ought to do something to help the 20 million refugees in the world today.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: European refugee crisis
Content:
Dan74 said:
And in Sweden, there is very little racism.

Malcolm wrote:
The most explicitly anti-gay, anti-semitic person I ever met in my life, outside of Americans I have met, was a woman from Sweden. Really, I was very surprised. I think xenophobia runs deeper among Europeans than many people realize.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 21st, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Malcolm, what about the time you quoted Rongzom saying first dhyana is necessary for Dzogchen practitioners?

Malcolm wrote:
What I said was that Rongzom maintains that if one has not understood the meaning of Dzogchen directly, one should meditate either sūtra or tantra style [without a bias towards either, incidentally], cultivating these five mental factors that constitute the first dhyan̄a, trying to maintain total attention [shes bzhin, saṃprajāna ] within the horizon of complete mindfulness [ dran pa, smṛtiḥ ]. Thus, for many of us, developing this dhyāna is important to the degree that it assists us maintain the view. These two words, smṛtiḥ and saṃprajāna, incidentally, as the words ChNN is translating using "presence and awareness."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:


passel said:
This is one of the things I wonder about- does this mean that attentional stability is optional for dzogchen? (actually seems plausible to me for certain individuals), or (more plausible to me) that the attentional stability is a necessity but is developed in a variety of alternative contexts to what has been "officially" known as "shamatha"?  My suspicion is that it's the latter. (The story od Garab Dorje maintaining equipoise as the devatas blew horns in his ears, e.g.)

Straightforward shamatha has been an important part of my path and will continue to be, I can't undo my foundation, so I suppose this is just idle curiosity on my part...


Malcolm wrote:
Samadhi is innate, it is part of the 10 neutral mental factors all sentient beings possess.

You will often find in the Dzogchen tradition the idea of self-arisen concentration — this is a result of recognizing the basis [aka rig pa] and stabilizing that recognition through various practices as Ivo mentions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The only that never changes is the space element. And it does not exist as such.

Harimoo said:
"The only thing that nerver changes is the space element".
Because time is space ?

I don't understand.

lostitude said:
How can you say that space is permanent if it doesn't exist anyway? If it's permanently never there, then anything that doesn't exist is also permanently never there and changeless...

Malcolm wrote:
Right, the characteristic of space is its total absence, which is why the element of space is defined as "non-obstruction." It and the two kinds of cessation, are the only kinds of uncompounded phenomena [dharma, lit. bearer of characteristics] there are. Everything else is compounded or conditioned.

When you begin to delve into higher Buddhist tenets, the metaphor of space becomes more important, since emptiness is linked to it. It is the basis and container of everything without being anything at all. Since it is the basis and container of everything, everything it supports isn't anything at all, like a magician's illusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:


lostitude said:
It was just an example of something that doesn't change just because you look at it or you don't.

Malcolm wrote:
The only that never changes is the space element. And it does not exist as such.

catmoon said:
Quantum mechanics says something very different. It not only has structure on the very fine scale, even when dead empty in the colloquial sense, and at absolute zero temp, it contains measurable amounts of energy.

Now the Dalai Lama says that when science and religion disagree, it is religion that must adjust....

Malcolm wrote:
Wrong space, you are talking about conditioned space.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 10:09 AM
Title: Re: European refugee crisis
Content:


kirtu said:
The vast majority are not.  Even so, there can be provincialism even without overt nationalism.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell that to Algerian kids in France...

kirtu said:
You are correct about that.  Unfortunately the same (or similar) is true for any North African descended kid and almost any Arab kid as well.

Just like the prejudice against African-Americans, many Hispanics and American Indians in the US.

There aren't that many differences, except that Americans to their credit have been addressing both overt and subtle racism while the French just seem to flounder along.  However I haven't seen this up close for over 20 yrs now.  Hopefully the French have at least begun to address the issues.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no. I think that European xenophobia is greatly exacerbated compared that that of Americans in general, that at least is my experience of Europeans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Is it a kind of space that only certain people are able to perceive?

Malcolm wrote:
No one can perceive it because it is mere absence of obstruction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
SeeLion said:
No, because space is uncompounded and never arose.
Are we sure space didn't arise at the Big Bang ?

Malcolm wrote:
The kind of space I am talking about did not arise at the big bang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 20th, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: European refugee crisis
Content:


kirtu said:
I have rarely met Europeans who have no knowledge or experience with other cultures and countries and languages.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because Europeans are jammed up next to each other. It apparently does not necessarily save them from being ignorant bigots however.

kirtu said:
The vast majority are not.  Even so, there can be provincialism even without overt nationalism.

Malcolm wrote:
Tell that to Algerian kids in France...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 11:38 PM
Title: Re: European refugee crisis
Content:


kirtu said:
I have rarely met Europeans who have no knowledge or experience with other cultures and countries and languages.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because Europeans are jammed up next to each other. It apparently does not necessarily save them from being ignorant bigots however.

kirtu said:
We see a rise of nationalism more of late but I would like to think that this is transient (and I have long wanted people like le Pen to leave the stage but their successors and ideology are still stubbornly drawing crowds).

Malcolm wrote:
The EU is and was a big mistake, especially for Italy, Greece and Spain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Where is?
Content:
jnanasutra said:
མྱང་ཏིང་འཛིན་བཟང་པོ།

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean where is Nyang Tingzin Zangpo?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: The Nature of Buddhahood
Content:
BrianG said:
Virupa saw a Nirmanakaya before he became an arya.


kirtu said:
BrianG - when did that happen?

Thanks!

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
He is referring to Virupa's encounter with the woman we know as Nairatma, Virupa's guru. In the bios she is called a nirmanakāya, this means she was a human woman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 9:28 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All that was said was that Dzogchen is not a path of analysis and that Kamalashila's objections were rejected.

Astus said:
When I wrote "the very basis of vipasyana as it's been taught since the Nikayas", I meant that it teaches the primary form of analysis. .

Malcolm wrote:
No, it does not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
Those definitions seem to support my post.

Astus said:
It is used in the context of directly accessing non-conceptuality. It is mistaking a vacant mind as the realisation of emptiness.

smcj said:
That's what I said.

The mistake being the type of awareness, which is sleep like or hypnotic, not the lack of conceptuality. The awareness is supposed to be vivid and alert. The lack of conceptuality is what lends itself to misinterpreting it as correct.

Actually Khenpo Tsultrim says in "Progressive Stages of Emptiness" that once the innate Buddha Nature expresses itself, that a Madhyamika can, out of habit, incorrectly try to analyze it.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because Khenpo Tsultrim is actually a Dzogchen practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Astus said:
Thus it is not enough to have an experience of mind without concepts...

Malcolm wrote:
No one ever said it was.

All that was said was that Dzogchen is not a path of analysis and that Kamalashila's objections were rejected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
chimechodra said:
Thanks tigersnest! I actually met Lynn while I was at that retreat in July and just signed up for her course.

Does anyone know if you need anything besides transmission for Vajrapani practice? I imagine there's a lung required, does anyone know if he gave the lung in the July Massachusetts retreat?


Malcolm wrote:
he gave it. He always gives it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But if you are not interested in Dzogchen practice, then my answer will not help you at all.

cloudburst said:
fair enough, but in this case I am not seeking your help, but rather attempting to have a discussion.

my point here as you know is that direct introduction introduces you to a non-conceptual awareness that is not necessarily on the path of seeing. Without the analysis enjoined by kamalashila, the union of shamatha and vipashyana, you are stuck. you are not even on the path of application at that point.

Malcolm wrote:
Sort of, though that is not really what rig pa means.

No one ever said it was the path of seeing. But paths and stages are completely irrelevant to Dzogchen. You do not need the kind of analysis advocated in sutra to realize buddhahood in the path of Dzogchen. It simple isn't a requisite.

There are other practices that one does instead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
cloudburst said:
how do you "apply" an introduction to yourself?

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to know about Dzogchen practice, then you should go study at the feet of a Dzogchen master. Then all your questions will be answered. But if you are not interested in Dzogchen practice, then my answer will not help you at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
then you apply it yourself.

cloudburst said:
apply what to your self, precisely?

Malcolm wrote:
The introduction until you are no longer remaining in doubt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 19th, 2015 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


cloudburst said:
For incredibly advanced practitioners, it might be possible to attain the path of seeing outside of meditative equipoise through introduction, but the rarity of that boggles the imagination. To go around promoting this as a path that would be generally accessible I think is a huge disservice to those with interest and aspiration.

Malcolm wrote:
Introduction is a path. Once you have received introduction from a qualified person, then you apply it yourself. The only qualification one needs is interest.

In Dzogchen, it is sufficient to have an inferential understanding of emptiness, for example, derived from the eight examples of illusion.

The path itself does not necessarily involve any analytical vipaśyāna at all. It involves working with the experience of the introduction itself.

Dzogchen is not a path based on causes and results, as difficult as that is for many people to accept.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Astus said:
What I have tried to highlight is that the amazement/wonder/shock technique in Dzogchen seems to be what's addressed by the quoted passage from Kamalashila.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so. He is addressing a different problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
MalaBeads said:
Obviously there is a difference between practitioners who work in universities and academics who are not practitioners. I think what sangye was referring ("it has to stop") is the latter...

Malcolm wrote:
But it won't. Everything is out there for people to read. That is just the way it is. People might not like the way academics comment on Dzogchen and other Buddhist topics, but that is not going to stop anyone. And frankly, telling people who are academics they cannot come to this or that teaching unless they promise to take up the Buddhist religion is highly counterproductive, IMO.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Anyway, such analysis is not necessary in Dzogchen practice, not in any sense at all.

Astus said:
At this moment, you are free from all fixed notions of what mind might be, and liberation itself is actualized: “There is nothing there: transfixed in wonder,”
( http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/tsik-sum-nedek-commentary )

Malcolm wrote:
Patrul Rinpoche states:
First is the method of introducing the view that has not yet been revealed. Generally speaking, there are many ways of bringing the view to realization. In the sūtrayāna path of dialectics the method of lung rig [scripture and reasoning* MS] is employed; that is, using the scriptural authority of the teaching of Buddha and the great masters, and through logic and reasoning, arriving at the realization of the view.

According to the common approach of Secret Mantrayāna, by means of the wisdom of example in the third empowerment, one is introduced to the real, ultimate wisdom in the fourth empowerment. 

Here, according to the special approach of the great masters of the practice lineage, the nature of mind, the face of rigpa, is introduced in and upon the very dissolution of conceptual mind.
Neither of the two latter methods require analysis, as I said, "Anyway, such analysis is not necessary in Dzogchen practice, not in any sense at all."
The crucial point here is that rigpa, which abides as the ground of dharmakāya, is the primordial purity of the path of the yogins, the absolute view of freedom from all elaboration. Until you recognize this one point, then whatever meditation or practice you do, you can never get beyond a fabricated mind-made view and meditation. The difference between this and the approach of the natural Dzogpachenpo is greater than that between earth and sky, as it does not possess the essential point—the unceasing flow of clear light, which is non-meditation. So it is most important, first of all, to recognize this and this alone, and: “Recognize this as the pure awareness of dharmakāya”.
I don't know why you bother citing Patrul Rinpoche, as he merely illustrates my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
DGA said:
At this point, I'm having a hard time tracking what is meant by "conceptual" and "analysis" in this discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Analysis is conceptual and discursive by nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Can you learn and practice Tibetan Buddhism from books?
Content:
Ervin said:
I bought a book today, it's called Stillness insight and emptiness, Buddhist meditation from the ground up. Written by Lama Dudjom Dorjee.

So I was wandering if I can simply buy books and practice meditation and precepts, etc without a teacher and sangha?

Thanks

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing in Buddhadharma may be truly learnt unless you learn it from a teacher. Buddhadharma is an oral tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And a counterclarification from the same text, pg. 153.
Unshakable by the likes of Mārā, when one cultivates suchness with the power of zeal, then the stage of zealous conduct is distinguished on the basis of intense zeal. The bodhisattva existing in this stage, although still an ordinary person, has completely passed beyond all the calamities of a fool and is endowed with innumerable qualities like samadhis, spells, freedoms, superknowledges and so on.

Astus said:
And the preceding sentence says: "as long as one does not directly experience the suchness (tattvam) of the selflessness of the personality and of dharmas, (there is) only a very intense zeal"

However, as shown in my previous collection of clarifying quotes, meditation is about direct perception, and through vipasyana  that is what is achieved. The zealous stage is about aspiring to that direct experience, it is the time of practice on the basis of the instructions, required before realisation is attained.

The text continues in the section on zealous conduct:

"But when one would ascertain the non-dual knowledge which is devoid of the forms of the object and subject, then this is the degree of penetration designated "The best (worldly) condition" (agradharma). And this is called "The samadhi without interval" because, in fact, immediately following it one enters into suchness."

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that you kept denying there was a conceptual meditation on suchness and thus, were quoting passages not in accordance with their meaning.

Anyway, such analysis is not necessary in Dzogchen practice, not in any sense at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thus, still, this shows a yogin who has not yet achieved the path of seeing.

Astus said:
Here are some further clarifications then from Adam's translation of the 1st Bhavanakrama, key terms underlined by me:

Malcolm wrote:
And a counterclarification from the same text, pg. 153.
Unshakable by the likes of Mārā, when one cultivates suchness with the power of zeal, then the stage of zealous conduct is distinguished on the basis of intense zeal. The bodhisattva existing in this stage, although still an ordinary person, has completely passed beyond all the calamities of a fool and is endowed with innumerable qualities like samadhis, spells, freedoms, superknowledges and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your mistake is assuming I am talking about SDR — I am not, I am talking about the attitude exemplified by Sangye.


Adamantine said:
There's a saying "when all you have is a hammer all you see is nails" ever heard it?
There's some students of ChNN that like to weave illusions of conflict in order to proclaim the
superiority of their Guru and his style. It's quite silly and it's been going on here among more or less the same
handful of people over and over for years.

Malcolm wrote:
Huge projection.



Adamantine said:
It was never intended to have this one quote decontextualized and posted
on an Internet forum and for other students of other Lamas to follow the advice.

Malcolm wrote:
No kidding.

Adamantine said:
I know, I know, some people here believe they fall into the category of sublime beings but I'm not easily convinced by
you. Take care.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahaha. What a laugh.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


catmoon said:
It seems to me that Astus and Malcolm are both correct here. If one is focusing on  an "image both conceptually and non-conceptually" perhaps this includes both your views, since focusing non-conceptually must in some sense entail the abandonment of the image, because it is conceptual in nature. Likewise, focusing on the image conceptually is indeed one step removed from actual suchness.

Malcolm wrote:
It just means that there is no discursiveness with regards to the object, that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The term " rtogs pa " in Tibetan means either "to realize" or "to understand." Here it means the latter more than former.

The conclusion is not false, it is merely a conceptual approximation that is cultivated on the path of application. And the text does not switch topics, you just are not following the gradualist perspective of Kamalashila correctly.

Astus said:
In Adam's translation (p 207):

"When a yogin does not actually hold firmly to the nature of any entity, then he enters nonconceptual samadhi. And he also understands the absence of inherent nature of all things."

And while he uses understanding there, the previous sentence says one realises nonconceptual samadhi, and it is because of that that one can understand emptiness. If the suchness there were just an imagined concept, it wouldn't be nonconceptual samadhi.

Malcolm wrote:
Even hindus have nonconceptual samadhis; one can have a nonconceptual samadhi on a concept. Thus, still, this shows a yogin who has not yet achieved the path of seeing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, Astus, this part of the text is not talking about the first bhumi. This is talking about heat on the path of application where in fact you reflect on generic concepts of emptiness.

Astus said:
That does not really fit with the description of what is performed during meditation.

"In this way, when the person does not firmly apprehend the entity of a thing as ultimately existing; having investigated it with wisdom, the practitioner engages in non-conceptual single-pointed concentration. And thus the identitylessness of all phenomena is realized."

Then that conclusion of vipasyana is false. Or in the following paragraphs it switches topic to describe the path from a different perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
The term " rtogs pa " in Tibetan means either "to realize" or "to understand." Here it means the latter more than former.

The conclusion is not false, it is merely a conceptual approximation that is cultivated on the path of application. And the text does not switch topics, you just are not following the gradualist perspective of Kamalashila correctly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, September 18th, 2015 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Adamantine said:
I think you're the ones conflating issues. SDR never said anything about distribution or security clearances of classical
Dzogchen texts. That's an issue you've created as a straw man.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, I am merely pointing out that it is senseless to keep certain classical Dzogchen texts restricted. There is no decent reason for it any more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The only that never changes is the space element. And it does not exist as such.

Harimoo said:
"The only thing that nerver changes is the space element".
Because time is space ?

I don't understand.

Malcolm wrote:
No, because space is uncompounded and never arose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"This is the path of engaging in a union of calm abiding meditation and insight. Its focuses on the image conceptually and non-conceptually." pg. 140.
Thus, "This suchness is a generic image of suchness, it is not real suchness," as I said.

Astus said:
According to HHDL's commentary (p 141) it doesn't refer to some image but it's a synonym:

"Then once more continue your meditation on the union of special insight and calm abiding, which is also known as focusing on the reflection both conceptually and non-conceptually."

And Kamalashila continues:

"Thus, through this progress, a yogi should meditate on suchness for an hour, or half a session in the night, or one full session, or for as long as is comfortable. This is the meditative stabilization thoroughly discerning the ultimate, as taught in the Descent into Lanka Sutra."

It is on suchness, not some image of suchness. And that's what is in the text in every place, directly seeing suchness, not simply an image or concept of it.

The quote provided in my previous post states: "apprehends the selfless nature of all phenomena", and that's the very result of the vipasyana. It would be quite pointless to achieve simply a generic concept, since for that there is no need to perform any meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Astus, this part of the text is not talking about the first bhumi. This is talking about heat on the path of application where in fact you reflect on generic concepts of emptiness. This is why the text says on page 143, "If you act thus, your meditative stabilization will actualize that emptiness that possess the supreme of qualities," meaning that you have not yet actualized the first bhumi and the path of seeing.

HHDL's comments bear my point out. Seriously, you have a deep misunderstanding of this text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Adamantine said:
Just chanced upon this post from Malcolm from this thread http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=17097&start=40 which somehow communicates in its own way what SDR and
ChNN are getting at ... I'm quite confused by the straw men that have been scattered throughout this thread considering..

Malcolm wrote:
That is because you are conflating two issues:

Necessity for transmission
Distribution of classical Dzogchen texts

No one disputes that the former is needed to properly understand Dzogchen, let alone realize it.

However, what we have been discussing is the question of whether the burden of treating classical Dzogchen texts like a state secret, with security clearances and so on, is really necessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This suchness is a generic image of suchness, it is not real suchness.

Astus said:
"Thus such a mind in the entity of ultimate bodhicitta included within the path of seeing, which apprehends the selfless nature of all phenomena is generated. Through this achievement one enters into the path focusing on the reality of things and one is then born in the family of tathagatas, enters the bodhisattva category without flaws, turns away from all migrations, abides in the suchness of bodhisattvas and attains the first bodhisattva bhumi (spiritual level)."


Malcolm wrote:
No Astus, the passage you cite above, "If and when the mind is spontaneously engaging in meditative equipoise on suchness free of sinking and mental agitation, at that time it should be left naturally and the efforts relaxed." [pg. 139] Is followed in the text by:

"This is the path of engaging in a union of calm abiding meditation and insight. Its focuses on the image conceptually and non-conceptually." pg. 140.

Thus, "This suchness is a generic image of suchness, it is not real suchness," as I said.

You are quoting Kamalashila all out of order and disregarding the sequence of his presentation of śamatha and vipaśyāna. That is just bad scholarship.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:
smcj said:
A couple of sentences later he mentions that it is possible to present Dzogchen as a stand alone practice without a context (like ChNN does evidently), but Gyaltrul R. always taught him that it was part of the Path.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen has its own basis, path and result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:
chimechodra said:
Would you happen to know if this was given at the end of the July retreat in Massachusetts? (Also is there a list of what lungs he gave where? Hard to keep track!)

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he gave it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Ready for some comic relief?
Content:
catmoon said:
Oh btw it's worse than that. My analysis of Nagarjuna (which is of course authoritative ) shows that instead of solving the excluded middle problem, by adopting a four pole logic system, he actually increases the excluded middle problem manyfold. This simple logical problem invalidates almost everything he said. Well not invalidates... but removes the seeming pillars of logic that support his arguments, reducing them to mere suppositions.


To wit: Instead of a single excluded middle between yes and no, we get the following middle grounds, most of which are chronically excluded and never mentioned:

Between yes and no
Between yes and (both yes and no)
Between yes and (neither yes nor no)
Between no and (both yes and no)
Between no and (neither yes nor no)
Between (both yes and no) and (neither yes nor no)

Edit: and it gets worse still because there are tripolar middle grounds and even a quadripolar one!

Malcolm wrote:
All of these are automatically negated by the non-affirming negation of yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: Ready for some comic relief?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There is no excluded middle in Buddhadharma.


catmoon said:
Yes there is. See? We just excluded it.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this does not work.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
you did not provide a very detailed presentation.

Astus said:
Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/:

"What properly examines suchness from within a state of calm-abiding meditation is penetrative insight."

"When suchness is properly meditated upon with wisdom, purified transcendent wisdom is realised. Since wisdom alone can realise suchness and can effectively eradicate the obscurations, I shall therefore search for suchness through wisdom while engaging in calm-abiding meditation. And I shall not remain content with calm-abiding meditation alone.
What is suchness like? It is the nature of all phenomena that ultimately they are empty of the self of person and the self of phenomena. This is understood by the perfection of wisdom and not otherwise."

"What is thoroughly realised by the mind too is realised as being empty. By realising that, the very identity which is established as the aspect of the mind, like the identity of physical form, etc., is also not ultimately perceived. In this way, when a person does not ultimately see the identity of all phenomena through wisdom he would not analyse whether physical form is permanent or impermanent, empty or not empty, contaminated or non-contaminated, produced or non-produced and existent or non-existent.
Just as physical form is not examined, similarly feeling, recognition, compositional factors and consciousness are not examined. When the object does not exist, its particularities also cannot exist. So how can they be examined? In this way when the person does not firmly grasp on to the entity of a thing as ultimately existing, having investigated with wisdom, then the practitioner engages in a non-conceptual single-pointed concentration. And thus identitylessness of a11 phenomena is also realised."

"In this way one who has entered in the suchness of the selflessness of person and phenomena is free from concept and analysis because there is nothing to be thoroughly examined and observed. One is free from expression and with one-pointed mental engagement one automatically enters in meditation without manifest discrimination. Thus one very clearly meditates on suchness and abides in it."

"If and when the mind is spontaneously engaging in meditative equipoise on suchness free of sinking and mental agitation, at that time it should be left naturally and the efforts relaxed."

Malcolm wrote:
First Kamashila sets forth his objective. Then he describes the means he wants to use to get there. A realized bodhisattva has no need for the following: ""If and when the mind is spontaneously engaging in meditative equipoise on suchness free of sinking and mental agitation, at that time it should be left naturally and the efforts relaxed."

This suchness is a generic image of suchness, it is not real suchness.

Many people do not have this idea. They meet Buddhadharma and then spend lots of time refuting a self they never believed existed to begin with.
The general idea of self includes that it remains the same from one day to another. What not many people have is a more sophisticated soul/atman view.
Many commoners do not really have this idea — first they have to be brainwashed into refuting a self most of them will readily agree they do not have, unless they have a belief in a soul. Many atheists are quite happy they have no soul, and if you tell them their "self" is a cognitive imputation, they happily go along with this idea.
Umm, no.
How so? That something is only a conventionally agreed name means that it has no basis beyond the concept.
That is not merely what conventional means. For example, according to one famous presentation of Madhyamaka, things are not non-existent in the relative. The term vyavahāra has come to mean a mere designation in some Buddhist circles, but even here, there are levels of vyavahāra, holding that this or that is vyavahāra does not mean that one is not also a realist. For example, "water" is vyavahāra, but its qualities of limpidity and wetness are parāmartha dharmas according to Sautrantikas. For example, according to one famous presentation of Madhyamaka, we cannot say a car is nonexistent, even though it is conventional, we can only say that there is no inherent car in a car, not that there is no car in that which is conventionally termed "a car" because such a thing has been designated on the basis of its parts. Why? Because that which is conventionally designated a car functions as a car, and hence it is car. According to this specific brand of Madhyamaka, a car has a basis beyond its concept, its parts. One cannot designate a bunch of sticks and leaves a car and expect to drive anywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Ready for some comic relief?
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
[1] The Excluded Middle walks without feet, on no discernible path, and never arrives. Even the Excluded Middle sometimes wonders: what’s the point?
[

Malcolm wrote:
There is no excluded middle in Buddhadharma. Also the middle is negated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Bhuddists are the master race
Content:
catmoon said:
Well not all of them, not everywhere, but those Sherpas certainly are if you happen to find yourself climbing above 25,000 feet.

Recent genetic studies are looking at the mutations that allow Sherpas and other Tibetans to tolerate altitude easily, The weird part is one of the mutations causes Sherpas to make FEWER red blood cells. When a Westerner without the mutation is progressively exposed to higher altitudes, we make more blood cells to compensate. This process gets more and more extreme the higher we go, until in the death zone, we run into problems with blood viscosity which lead to High Altitude Pulmonary Edema and High Altitude Cerebral Edema, both life-threatening conditions.

Now the Sherpas don't do that. They make a pretty normal number of blood cells and avoid many problems, thanks to a mutation that seems to be less than 10,000 years old.

Another mutation looks like it is involved with oxygen metabolism. Maybe they don't pile up lactic acid via anaerobic metabolism to the extent we do. Maybe they can scavenge oxygen out of the blood stream better. No one knows yet but its an area of active research. This one is an older mutation.


There are quite a number of mutations that occur with roughly a 90% frequency among Tibetans, and some of them run as low a 1% frequency among Han Chinese. I find it really intriguing that we are so close to understanding the hows and whys of it all. A significant possibility is that it may be possible to develop an injection that will turn you into a Sherpa for a while.

How effective are these mutations? A few years back there was a massive problem on K2 and people were dropping like flies. If you enter the death zone, normally you have about 48 hours to get down before you become nonfunctional. That's a death sentence at altitude. A fellow name Pemba Gyalje Sherpa (sp?) began rescue operations, and by the time he was done he had spent 90 continuous hours in the death zone. Basket case right? Nope, when he was done he just hiked off the mountain. He was fine.

Of course it might be entirely due to Buddhist mental discipline and the help of Tara but somehow I don't think so...

Malcolm wrote:
Denosovians, man...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:
chimechodra said:
Thanks Malcolm! Does the SSI store have any Chenrezig/Avalokitesvara sadhana texts (and maybe even an explanation manual/guide?) for anyone who has received general transmission? I've only ever practiced Chenrezig in the context of my local Kagyu center on their Wednesday nights, and this is the only item I see on the SSI site:

http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=74_94_100&products_id=240

Would this be recommended? Let me know, thank you!

Malcolm wrote:
You need the lung for this, but it is given at every retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:


cloudburst said:
Aren't they falsifiable though? For example, If someone just proved things existed by way of and essence, or that consciousness had a material basis .... ?

Malcolm wrote:
Not for the ordinary consciousness of regular folks.

cloudburst said:
As I understand it, for something to be falsifiable, there simply has to be some way that it could be shown to be false.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, to the consciousnesses of ordinary people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is, it is the conceptual emptiness meditated/cultivated during heat on the path of application.

Astus said:
Still, Kamalashila does not talk about conceiving emptiness but realising it directly.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, you did not provide a very detailed presentation.

Astus said:
An experience of permanence is going to a place and seeing the same rock there, year in year out. Does not mean the rock is permanent, but it is the kind of thing that provides common people with their notion of permanence and durability.
It is a notion of permanence, a concept, that can be removed by directing them to analyse what they actually experience.

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously, this does not work — case in point, eternalists.

Astus said:
No, actually they are not. A lot of Buddhist training involves planting ideas in people's heads that actually they don't hold.
Like the endurance of a real self?

Malcolm wrote:
For example, yes. Many people do not have this idea. They meet Buddhadharma and then spend lots of time refuting a self they never believed existed to begin with.

Astus said:
No, Madhyamikas understand nonarising [It is Yogacaras who do not], their problem is clinging to true relative truth.
How could it be true if it is conventional? The very meaning of conventional is that it is not true.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no.




Astus said:
it is a critique of grasping in different systems, as already explained above.
It does not actually address the systems but reinterprets them according to his preferences and thus criticises systems that never existed. It's like those non-Buddhists who attack the Dharma because they misconstrue it as nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Sure it does. Rongzom knows these things much better than you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:


cloudburst said:
Aren't they falsifiable though? For example, If someone just proved things existed by way of and essence, or that consciousness had a material basis .... ?

Malcolm wrote:
Not for the ordinary consciousness of regular folks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:
catmoon said:
I begin with the Kalama sutta, which enjoins the careful examination and application of what we learn of dharma, and reaching our own judgments.


It does nothing of the kind.
I hold the same view as Vima here. What's wrong with it?

Malcolm wrote:
The Kalamas sutta is addressing the Kalamas people, who were not Buddha's students. But in the end, they became Buddha's students.

Once you become a student of the Buddha's, then:
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Shariputra: "Shariputra, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation?"

"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation."

"Excellent, Shariputra. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, and attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed and pursued, plunges into the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal and consummation."
http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/pubbakotthaka_sutta.htm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Dear reader, note that supernatural = fairyland = insanity.

catmoon said:
Duly noted. This is perhaps one of your deepest insights.

What's that you say? You were being sarcastic?

Well then, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I think the burden of proving the existence of the supernatural now lies with you.

BTW I'm not just poking you in the eye here, nor do I dispute the existence of the supernatural, it's just the argument looks like it has this hole in it.

Other than that I think you're in better form than ever. Go Malcolm!

Malcolm wrote:
Oh no, you misunderstood — I was pointing out that our friend here was making rather disrespectful analogies.

Things like rebirth, buddhafields, etc. are completely unfalsifiable. But saying that something is not falsifiable is not suggesting that it is equivalent to a flying spaghetti monster or horns on a rabbit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:
chimechodra said:
Would this just be mantra practice within the natural context of something like a Chenrezig Sadhana,

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:


lostitude said:
It was just an example of something that doesn't change just because you look at it or you don't.

Malcolm wrote:
The only that never changes is the space element. And it does not exist as such.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
lostitude said:
I don't see why? You can experience something permanent but not always be in the right frame of mind to experience it. It is like perceiving background noise, you actually hear it only if you pay sufficient attention to it.

Astus said:
Permanence excludes causality. Being recognised is a change in conditions. Also, if it is one's permanent self, the self is the one that should recognise itself, and since it is permanent, it either always knows itself or never.

lostitude said:
I guess this philosophy really isn't for me then... to me, whether you open or close your window to let the sunlight come in, won't change anything about the sun itself... but ok, doesn't matter, each to his own

Malcolm wrote:
The sun is also not permanent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
Now while I do have a strong streak of rationalism - as do you, my new dharma buddy, the Venerable Malcolm - that's not my fundamental mental disposition - which is more properly labeled "pantheistic". For as long as I can remember I have had that well-attested sense of the aliveness of things, of trees and rocks as well as sentient beings, and no not just on sunny days. Of course this kind of feeling is tucked into or appropriated by most religious traditions where one can find its warrant. In the Gospel of Thomas, for example, where we find Jesus saying, "The kingdom of God is spread upon the Earth but men do not see it", and of course in many Zen sayings and Zen inspired poetry.

Now someone with this disposition may point to this and call it God or Brahmin and, while not necessarily being in error, may be adding a head to the one that's already there. That's why I've always been drawn to Buddhist dependent origination and the middle way as perhaps a more accurate and direct approach.

Of course I only speak for myself, but one with this disposition may experience, by moments at least, objects and beings, including one's own person, as a kind of transparency, as being particular instances of one energy, but a single energy that cannot be reified into some kind of literal "one".

Now just to be precise, I'm not calling myself a "pantheist"; I'm only copping to that disposition, and like all mental dispositions it's only the beginning to much that needs to be worked out and developed.

I could babble on of course, and  you know already what a terrible blabbermouth I am, but all this is to explain why I find it so weird to be called a "materialist", just because I find no evidence for or need to believe in particular theories about the nature of consciousness.

So you see I may well be an idiot, and maybe just as annoying as any other, but I thought it was of use to at least point out precisely what kind of idiot I am.

Malcolm wrote:
Finally, something from your heart, rather than a bunch of insouciant intellectualism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
However, the knowledge obscuration is abandoned at the very end, at buddhahood, because it is more fundamental than the afflictive obscuration. Thus there is an non-afflictive ignorance that is the ignorance of which produces self-grasping, which even tenth stage bodhisattvas retain, and the afflictive ignorance which is the basis of taking birth in the three realms, abandoned on the seventh stage.

cloudburst said:
Can you do better than just asserting your view?

Malcolm wrote:
Can you?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And again, the mind of analysis is a very coarse mind. That itself is a block for realization. For example, with our ordinary eyes we cannot see very subtle things. Likewise, with our ordinary conceptual minds we cannot realize what which is subtle and hard to realize. The best we can do is generate a coarse conceptual simulacrum. Then, in order to generate the subtle mind necessary for realizing the true nature of things, well, it takes a long time through sūtrayāna methods, many eons, just to even realize the first bhumi.

Astus said:
What defines coarse and subtle mind for you? No simulacrum is mentioned in the Bhavanakrama or other texts I'm aware of.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course there is, it is the conceptual emptiness meditated/cultivated during heat on the path of application.

Astus said:
Sure.
And what is reliable? Something one can grasp and hang on to?
Yes, just like people have convincing experiences of ropes as snakes.
Nobody sees snakes all the time, they at best think there is a permanent substance behind/within what they can experience in the six senses.

Malcolm wrote:
An experience of permanence is going to a place and seeing the same rock there, year in year out. Does not mean the rock is permanent, but it is the kind of thing that provides common people with their notion of permanence and durability.

Astus said:
Again, here is your claim that you have to begin with a position, only to abandon it later. This is like believing that in order to walk barefoot, one must first put on shoes and then take them off.
As noted before, people are already in the state of assuming positions and it is not adding another to point out the error.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually they are not. A lot of Buddhist training involves planting ideas in people's heads that actually they don't hold.

Astus said:
And yet, again and again, so-called Madhyamikas make strenuous efforts to defend what they know is not true. This is the problem with Madhyamaka, again identified by Rongzom:
So, there are three things not understood: homogeneity (unity of the two truths), non-duality (unity not conceived as 1+1) and non-arising (lack of substance to come or go).

Malcolm wrote:
No, Madhyamikas understand nonarising [It is Yogacaras who do not], their problem is clinging to true relative truth.

Astus said:
Unless this is merely a critique of style and not content, but in that case it is an aesthetic question.

Malcolm wrote:
it is a critique of grasping in different systems, as already explained above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, September 17th, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
muni said:
Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
Namkhai Norbu, not Namkhay Norbu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


cloudburst said:
to be more precise, knowledge obscurations arise from having had afflictive ignorance since beginingless time. like the smell of garlic in a wooden box, the smell has its origin with the garlic but persists after the garlic has been removed.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. The knowledge obscuration precedes the afflictive obscuration, in other words, the latter arises from the former.


cloudburst said:
can you prove that? Im interested.

Malcolm wrote:
Prove it? How can you prove anything?

However, the knowledge obscuration is abandoned at the very end, at buddhahood, because it is more fundamental than the afflictive obscuration. Thus there is an non-afflictive ignorance that is the ignorance of which produces self-grasping, which even tenth stage bodhisattvas retain, and the afflictive ignorance which is the basis of taking birth in the three realms, abandoned on the seventh stage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:


Adamantine said:
Patrul Rinpoche's The Vision of Clear Light is a practice text, not a classic? The Four Dharmas of Longchenpa?

Malcolm wrote:
Again, these books are commentaries by Rinpoche on specific texts, connected with ChNN's transmission for his students.

But Longchenpa's text of the four Dharmas has been openly published for decades now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Adamantine said:
Malcolm, if your newest opinions in this thread (which have already shifted sharply from your initial comments at the beginning) are truly mirroring those of your root Guru's (ChNN) in opposition to your other Guru's (Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche)—which is the impression you've been giving—then can you explain why such a great proportion of texts in the Dzogchen Community's bookstore http://shop.shangshungfoundation.com/en/best-sales?p=2 -not just sadhanas but also teachings / explanations of Dzogchen- are restricted?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not talking about practice texts. I am talking about the great classics, like the Seven Treasuries, the 17 Tantras, Yeshe Lama, Guhyagarbha Commentaries, Nyinthig Yazhi, and so on.

I have no problem with practice texts being restricted within the communities who use them. For example, I am an SMS student, I have no problem with the SMS texts being restricted to people who have done the levels to which they correspond — none whatsoever.

I am broaching a wider issue.

Adamantine said:
There's a number of teachings on Dzogchen in the restricted list- not only practice texts as you are claiming - do I need to list them all here?

Malcolm wrote:
Any texts on the restricted list are connected with ChNN's transmission for his students, i.e. practice texts, but classical texts like Supreme Source, Marvelous Primordial State, Primordial Experience and so on are not restricted at all.

Again, I am addressing the issue of restricting great classics, foundation texts, not texts which belong to this or that community.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and as pointed out above, it is a very slow approach because it relies on a coarse mind.

Astus said:
How slow? If someone cares to study a bit, then follow through the instructions, it is not that difficult. And I'm not bringing up here the whole minimum three aeons schedule, just the fairly ordinary person interested in the Dharma with the proper conditions to accept the teachings, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Kamalashila would — he is the very epitome of a gradualist.

And again, the mind of analysis is a very coarse mind. That itself is a block for realization. For example, with our ordinary eyes we cannot see very subtle things. Likewise, with our ordinary conceptual minds we cannot realize what which is subtle and hard to realize. The best we can do is generate a coarse conceptual simulacrum. Then, in order to generate the subtle mind necessary for realizing the true nature of things, well, it takes a long time through sūtrayāna methods, many eons, just to even realize the first bhumi.

Astus said:
So you admit that all analysis is unreliable.
Is there anything reliable?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure.


Astus said:
Well then, it is pretty clear your notion of impermanence is merely an imputation, because there are plenty of counterfactual experiences of permanence.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that there are experiences of permanence?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, just like people have convincing experiences of ropes as snakes.

Astus said:
There is only one stream of momentary consciousness. It functions through the six sense organs like a monkey jumping from one window to the next. For example, when it functions through the eye, it is called "eye consciousness", when it jumps to the ear, it is called "ear-consciousness." But one does not possess multiple consciousnesses at the same time. To propose that one does contradicts the basic definition of vijñāna-skandha.
No, there was no mention of multiple consciousnesses at the same time. However, the mind-stream does not affirm a single consciousness either, rather a series of many. The monkey's simile means that consciousness occurs where the hand and the branch makes contact, but there is no monkey going from one place to another. As the sutta explains: "what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html ), and in another speech: "Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. ... Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html ).

Malcolm wrote:
Since it functions in a serial stream, we can call it one thing for the purpose of conversation, just as we can refer to the collection of aggregates as a self, for the purpose of conversation. It does not mean that there is a unitary Astus in your aggregates.

Astus said:
In the contrary, Madhyamakas also take this stance, as Nāgārjuna states; "If I had a position, I would be at fault; since I alone have no position, I alone am without fault."
That is where one has to arrive at, after due analysis. You know, relative truth first.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, here is your claim that you have to begin with a position, only to abandon it later. This is like believing that in order to walk barefoot, one must first put on shoes and then take them off.

Astus said:
The problem with Madhyamaka is that it has a theoretical view: the two truths.
That is called an expedient means, and it has its use. It does not stand alone as some statement of ultimate value.

Malcolm wrote:
And yet, again and again, so-called Madhyamikas make strenuous efforts to defend what they know is not true. This is the problem with Madhyamaka, again identified by Rongzom:
Since in the Madhyamaka system, the ultimate is understood as free from proliferation, non-arising is established. At that time there is no difference between non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Nevertheless, since they assert a true relative truth, the category of “established as homogenous” is not understood.
And lest you think the critique is only aimed at sūtra, Rongzom continues:
Since the system of Secret Mantra asserts the two truths to be inseparable, homogeneity is established.At that time there is no difference between homogeneity, non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Nevertheless, due to anxiety about not being able to practice uniform behavior and not being able to remove that anxiety quickly, for that purpose they undertake ascetic hardships. Therefore, the category “all phenomena are established to be non-dual” is not understood.

Astus said:
Madhyamaka analysis does not address the nature of the mind; it merely rejects claims for existing existents and that is all.

Malcolm wrote:
True nature is no nature. What other nature is there to address?[/quote]

Yes, that is the Yogacara view:
Since in the Yogacāra system the nature of subject and object are not asserted, the natureless is established. At that time there is no difference between naturelessness and emptiness and selflesness. Nevetheless, since they assert the dependent, arising from cause and conditions, the category of “established as non-arising” is not understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Adamantine said:
Malcolm, if your newest opinions in this thread (which have already shifted sharply from your initial comments at the beginning) are truly mirroring those of your root Guru's (ChNN) in opposition to your other Guru's (Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche)—which is the impression you've been giving—then can you explain why such a great proportion of texts in the Dzogchen Community's bookstore http://shop.shangshungfoundation.com/en/best-sales?p=2 -not just sadhanas but also teachings / explanations of Dzogchen- are restricted?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not talking about practice texts. I am talking about the great classics, like the Seven Treasuries, the 17 Tantras, Yeshe Lama, Guhyagarbha Commentaries, Nyinthig Yazhi, and so on.

I have no problem with practice texts being restricted within the communities who use them. For example, I am an SMS student, I have no problem with the SMS texts being restricted to people who have done the levels to which they correspond — none whatsoever.

I am broaching a wider issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the hysteria about publishing books on Dzogchen is a little absurd. Every published book on Dzogchen should come with disclaimer that one will not discover the state of Dzogchen by reading a book.

DGA said:
Hysteria though?  I haven't seen any hysteria in this thread by any participants in it or anyone quoted in it, but I have seen some hyperbole.  Who do you think is hysterical over this issue?

Malcolm wrote:
I mean the historical hysteria about this issue over the years. I used to be of the strong opinion that these books should be locked in a vault, and that only the elect should able to peer in it. My thinking about this has changed markedly over the years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
muni said:
Is Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche or your Master ( other Masters)  advising to read Dzogchen books in order to discover Dzogchen/ Nature? Discover "better" than the pointing out?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not, Dzogchen is not in a book; this is why the hysteria about publishing books on Dzogchen is a little absurd. Every published book on Dzogchen should come with disclaimer that one will not discover the state of Dzogchen by reading a book. And as I pointed out, published books about tantric rites are much more fraught with potential for abuse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The extremes are not there, they are not established, they never existed from the beginning.

Astus said:
The problem is that they are thought to be established, although they are not. And that's the basic mistake.

Malcolm wrote:
It's not going to rectified through proofs and negations.

Astus said:
But you don't even need to make these conceptual assumptions and then go about eliminating them. This is a very dim-witted approach.
Ignorance is already present, no need to establish it, only to point it out as the source of the problems.

Malcolm wrote:
We all understand ignorance is the source of the problem. The question is how to deal with it.

Astus said:
No, really it is much simpler than that. They need to receive direct introduction — then they need to work with the instructions of the lineage, which in general do not involve any analysis whatsoever, at least in Dzogchen.
Same happens everywhere else. One learns the teaching, understands it, then applies it. Analysis is following the guidance of the teachings to confirm for oneself its validity, like checking if there's a self in the sensory areas.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and as pointed out above, it is a very slow approach because it relies on a coarse mind.


Astus said:
If all perceptions are inconstant and reliable, than all analysis is unreliable.
Yes, even the teachings are empty, conventional and conditioned. If there were a teaching of the ultimate nature, then it would really contradict universal emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
So you admit that all analysis is unreliable.


Astus said:
Analysis is using the teachings to do an investigation. So when it talks about checking if there is any permanent element within the physical area, it's not just theorising whether that is the case or not, but looking at one's own present experience. This is what I have said before and say now.

Malcolm wrote:
Well then, it is pretty clear your notion of impermanence is merely an imputation, because there are plenty of counterfactual experiences of permanence.



Astus said:
No one is positing an ultimate perceiver here — the point there are not six consciousnesses apprehending six different kinds of media. There is one consciousness functioning through the six sense organs. The point is that when one understands that the magician is not real, one immediately understands that his tricks are also false. Going through and analyzing the six external sense objects is a waste of time.
There are a number of problems with positing a single consciousness, as taught from the early texts on in the context of the 18 dhatus. Actually, that's what one should recognise during analysis, that the mind is not a single entity but a series of instances, and then one can go further to see that even instances are not graspable as distinct entities. That's how the emptiness of both self and dharmas are confirmed. Looking for that single perceiver is no different from looking for the self and not finding it anywhere.

Malcolm wrote:
There is only one stream of momentary consciousness. It functions through the six sense organs like a monkey jumping from one window to the next. For example, when it functions through the eye, it is called "eye consciousness", when it jumps to the ear, it is called "ear-consciousness." But one does not possess multiple consciousnesses at the same time. To propose that one does contradicts the basic definition of vijñāna-skandha.


Astus said:
Madhyamaka, in reality, merely serves as a corrective to the realism of the three lower tenet systems. It has no tenet system of its own. This is why Madhyamaka has not independent path which is separate from the path of Yogacara. The path of Yogcara and Madhyamaka is the same path, five paths and ten stages.
This interpretation of "corrective to the realism of the three lower tenet systems" makes sense only in the Tibetan system where only Vajrayana is viewed as something practical, while the so called sutra teachings are reduced to mere theory. Kamalashila does not seem to see that way, nor do other Madhyamikas. As for the path, why should it come up with a new one? It is a Mahayana teaching for bodhisattvas.

Malcolm wrote:
In the contrary, Madhyamakas also take this stance, as Nāgārjuna states; "If I had a position, I would be at fault; since I alone have no position, I alone am without fault."

Astus said:
The kinds of analysis Madhyamaka engages in is meant to serve as a corrective to realism.
If by realism you mean the basic grasping at supposedly real entities, then yes. If by that you mean only a theoretical view, then it is limiting the scope of the teachings for no good reason.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem with Madhyamaka is that it has a theoretical view: the two truths.

Astus said:
Saying that the nature of mind is "empty-clarity" does not really add anything. When it is said that the mind is empty, that's not the same as saying there is no mind. Since the mind is per definition aware, saying that its nature is empty is the same as saying that awareness is empty, but the awareness of it is not diminished by this at all. Similarly, saying that a ball is red doesn't mean it is not also round, since being a ball means that it is round.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka analysis does not address the nature of the mind; it merely rejects claims for existing existents and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The point I am making is that intellectual analysis will only result in an intellectual apprehension of the object of analysis. Even when you are finished with the analysis, for example, the famous diamond sliver analysis, and so on, still in the end you are left with the concept "emptiness", "nonarising", "freedom from extremes" and so on, even though, as Mañjuśrimitra points out, since the conceptualized extreme does not exist, therefore the extreme to analyze does not exist. Therefore, conventional analysis by mundane minds cannot used in an ultimate analysis because they cannot escape their own conceptual clinging, indeed they are always with concepts.

sherabpa said:
This is a standard objection to the mahayana analysis which is refuted by Shantideva in ch 9:

109
'But when the process of analysis
is in turn made an object of analysis
This too may be analyzed
And thus we find an infinite regress'.

110
If phenomena are truly analyzed
No basis for analysis remains.
Deprived of further objects, it has no basis
Which is called 'nirvana'.

This is standard stuff, you must know this.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, this is the Madhyamaka POV. Mañjuśrīmitra finds some fault with this line of reasoning for the reasons above.

sherabpa said:
The vajrayana was not taught because ultimate reality is inaccessible through the sutras.  That is a great denigration of the sutras.  Rather, it was taught because of the four superiorities.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say that ultimate reality was inaccessible through sūtra, I pointed out that in the beginning that the kind of analysis that Astus now deems necessary, with his new-found enthusiasm for the Bhāvanakrama, is not necessary, and various faults to be had with such an analytical approach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


cloudburst said:
to be more precise, knowledge obscurations arise from having had afflictive ignorance since beginingless time. like the smell of garlic in a wooden box, the smell has its origin with the garlic but persists after the garlic has been removed.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not the case. The knowledge obscuration precedes the afflictive obscuration, in other words, the latter arises from the former.



cloudburst said:
so contra to your usual interpretation of shantideva, you now claim that emptiness IS an object of mind?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not, read the thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


cloudburst said:
there are things that arise as a result of this ignorance, such as contaminated feelings, contaminated karma, knowledge obscurations etc. but at its root, the ignorance that is the root of samsara is a conceptual error.

Malcolm wrote:
Which ignorance are you talking about? The one at the head of the twelve nidanas, or the knowledge obscuration of ignorance? They are not the same thing.

cloudburst said:
afflictive ignorance.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, then you have it turned right round on its head when you state the knowledge obscuration arises from afflictive ignorance. If this were the case, there could be no arhats, nor could there be eighth stage bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


cloudburst said:
there are things that arise as a result of this ignorance, such as contaminated feelings, contaminated karma, knowledge obscurations etc. but at its root, the ignorance that is the root of samsara is a conceptual error.

Malcolm wrote:
Which ignorance are you talking about? The one at the head of the twelve nidanas, or the knowledge obscuration of ignorance? They are not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
BTW, just because I think these books should be out there and available to the interested does not mean that I think such books should not also come with pretty stern statements about who such books are really intended for.

We can create a culture of respect for the teachings without having to enforce restrictions on classic texts.

For example, when the Bonpos published some instructions on Thogal, ChNN told everyone they should not read the thogal sections of that book. He did not say they should not buy it, etc. I think by and large everyone obeyed his request — I know I did.

I think it is much more strange that books on all the procedures of doing Kilaya practice are openly published for anyone to read, and no one says boo about those books, but when it comes to Dzogchen, everyone freaks out a little. And frankly, I think instructions on smad las rites should more restricted then any Dzogchen tantra, which is pretty vanilla by comparison [you won't find any smad las rites in any Dzogchen tantra].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


cloudburst said:
when we reach the eighth ground we become free of afflictive ignorance altogether, and are liberated from samsara. Cut the root, kill the tree.

It may be noted here that of the two obstructions that need to be removed, karmic formations isnt specified.

Malcolm wrote:
In some presentations, karmic obscurations are listed as a separate obscuration, for example, in the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā and the Buddhāvataṃsaka-nāma-mahāvaipulya-sūtra among many others. In the Ārya-mahāmokṣadiśunpuṣyakrokramtyapāpaṃśodhana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, and any number of Indian commentaries, both sutric, and especially tantric, there is a discussion three obscurations.

When we become a first stage bodhisattva we are liberated from samsara in the sense that now our Buddhahood is guaranteed. Even during patience on the path of application we are guaranteed not to take rebirth in the three lower realms and so on.

At the eighth stage, since we are free from afflictive obscurations, we now have power over birth, but this does mean we are free from the knowledge obscuration of ignorance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


conebeckham said:
མ་རིག་འདུ་བྱེད་མེད་མི་འབྱུང་།
དེ་མེད་འདུ་བྱེད་མི་འབྱུང་ཞིང་།
ཕན་ཚུན་རྒྱུ་ཕྱིར་དེ་གཉིས་ནི།
རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ནི་མ་གྲུབ་ཡིན།
Nagarjuna, Seventy Stanzas, verse 11--Ignorance arises in dependence on karmic formations, and vice versa.

cloudburst said:
Cone did you translate this yourself? this is wonderful!

conebeckham said:
Let me know if you need a translation.

cloudburst said:
thank you that's very kind!

conebeckham said:
Nagarjuna, Seventy Stanzas, verse 11--Ignorance arises in dependence on karmic formations, and vice versa.  Let me know if you need a translation.

cloudburst said:
of course everyone knows that all the dependent related links are dependent, but which is called "the root" of samsara? Which immediately precedes karmic formations, and thus can be considered it's immediate cause? Why does Nagarjuna say that when ignorance is stopped, compositional activity is stopped?


Malcolm wrote:
མ་རིག་འདུ་བྱེད་མེད་མི་འབྱུང་།
དེ་མེད་འདུ་བྱེད་མི་འབྱུང་ཞིང་།
ཕན་ཚུན་རྒྱུ་ཕྱིར་དེ་གཉིས་ནི།
རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ནི་མ་གྲུབ་ཡིན།

Ignorance [the first link of dependent origination] is not produced without formations [the second link], 
without it, formations are not produced —
because they mutually cause [each other]
both of them are not established.

The root of samsara is not the afflictive ignorance in the chain of dependent origination. The root of samsara is the ignorance that is a knowledge obscuration.

For certain, a clear distinction is drawn between these two in Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
ngodrup said:
Similarly, with amply respect for the opinions of Loppon-la,

I concur with Lama Pema here. What is missing in having many
translations out is that the wang, lung and tri is not widespread.

Malcolm wrote:
It is actually more widespread than there are texts to support those.

ngodrup said:
Our merit is good enough to hear of dharmas like dzogchen, but
weak enough that we have wrong views about tantra and dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
C'mon, with all due respect, even Tibetans have wrong views about tantra and dzogchen.


ngodrup said:
And then we wonder why it is hard to have stability in the practice.
We wonder why we have yet to see any rainbow bodies in the west.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, with all due respect, rainbow body is not the main point of practicing the teachings.


ngodrup said:
I'm surprised that Shenpen Rinpoche's words are controversial to anybody.
He's showing concern that dzogchen fulfills its function for qualified
students who can actually make use of them. We need to, as Lama Pema says
here, popularize the idea that co-operating with one's teacher/s is the *main*
criterion.

Malcolm wrote:
"Qualified" means you are a student who is interested in the teachings and makes the effort to go get them.

In any case, I also not proposing anything radical at all. Rather, I am observing that people are not as stupid and deluded as you might conclude from Shenphen Rinpoche's talk, and second, that the dissemination of classical Dzogchen literature will have a positive effect on the world, not a negative one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
pemachophel said:
Loppon-la,

You know I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with the following:

"the cat is out of the bag anyway, so we might as well do our best to present the best possible translations available to the widest number of people so they can encounter the teachings"

Rather I think we should do a better job of explaining and popularizing the notion that proper transmission of Dzogchen requires wang/ngo-tro, lung, and tri and that, if any are missing, the process doesn't work. This includes doing a better job of explaining that "the process" is supra-conceptual and is not a matter of intellectual understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
I can understand why you feel that way. Of course, I agree with you that Dzogchen needs to transmitted in a proper way, but Dzogchen teachings are not secrets to be kept as if they were classified information. At this point in time, people who do not read Tibetan are at a severe disadvantage, even if they have transmission. So for this reason, it is necessary to openly publish the classics, because in fact, all the raw information is out there already anyway; both in academia and in popular books available to the general public. Anyone can buy Alan Wallace's publication of Dudjom Lingpa's Dzogchen collection. Anyone can by Yeshe Lama on Amazon. These are but two examples. The cat is out of the bag, and we ought to acknowledge this fact. Anyone can get Germano's thesis, etc.

pemachophel said:
IMO, popularizing the Dzogchen texts even more widely and openly will only result in those teachings losing more and more of their power.

Malcolm wrote:
The predictions in the sgra thal 'gyur tantra concerning the spread of Dzogchen teachings throughout this world indicate that it is the last teaching to remain in this world before the teachings completely disappear. It is similar to the principle that at first the hells disappear, and then each realm above it, until all that remains is the upper form realms. Likewise, in this world system, first the worldly systems will disappear, the lower yānas, than the outer tantras, than the two lower inner tantras, and in the end, the only teaching which will remain is the Dzogchen teaching. Of course, Dzogchen was also the first teaching ever to be taught in this eon. All teachings spread from there.

So we should not be too worried about the teachings losing their power. Dzogchen is the essence of all of the teachings, it will never lose any of its power, ever, just like the sun and the moon will never lose their power to illuminate until this world system is destroyed completely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche on Reading Dzogchen Books
Content:
Adamantine said:
Some of these same issues are covered from Sangye Khandro's POV in this recent interview: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/no-adaptation-required

Excerpt:
Have there been other problems in the transmission of the Vajrayana? Let me give you one example. An abbot—who works with my partner Lama Chonam and me—is coming to the United States soon to teach Dzogchen. He will give the empowerment, the reading transmission, and the instructions. But there will be restrictions on who can participate. It’s very important to him that no academic researchers be present unless they are there to actually practice. He is concerned about Westerners getting these transmissions, going back to their universities, and then teaching or publishing, out of context, what they were given. This is a problem in the West, and those of us who understand proper transmission need to speak out about it. It needs to stop.

MalaBeads said:
Thank you for the link to the article and thank you to Khandro Sangye for doing it. I had no idea there was such a problem with academics and universities.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there isn't. But Khenpo Namdrol, to whom she is referring, is probably upset at the fact that Germano [as well as others] has been using Dzogchen material in classes at UVA for decades. The thing is, he has produced a fair number of pretty good scholars are also actually interested in practicing the teachings. And some who have no interest at all, but are in it for the intellectual exercise and cultural studies. My personal opinion from reading his papers and hearing him describe what he thinks Dzogchen means is that he has misunderstood key points, but I could say the same for a lot of faithful traditionalists as well. I also do not buy his speculative historical analysis of Dzogchen. But in this article I think Sangye is being a little over the top. Dzogchen teachings belong to humanity. And the cat is out of the bag anyway, so we might as well do our best to present the best possible translations available to the widest number of people so they can encounter the teachings. Frankly, invocations to Rahula are much more problematical as widely available texts than say the Rig pa rang shar tantra, IMO.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Astus said:
If there were no pre-existing concept of a tiger, someone saying that there is no tiger in the house would make no sense. In both cases one needs to have the assumption of a tiger. And that view of a real tiger is the mistake everyone has. Without seeing for oneself that there is no tiger, the mistake remains.

Malcolm wrote:
This is very similar to the argument Gelugpas make about inherent existence — they insist that the object of negation is inherent existence — but no one has any idea of what inherent existence is until they are informed that this is what they looking for and negating.


Astus said:
One already has the view of substantial entities, conceiving things as independent objects.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.

Astus said:
That is the misconception that needs to be eliminated. At the same time, one is normally unaware of the presence of wrong view, so it has to be highlighted as the source of the problem. Thus the structure of the four noble truths and the twelve links. So it is not the case that the extremes are not there, because they are the basis of all the problems.

Malcolm wrote:
The extremes are not there, they are not established, they never existed from the beginning.

Astus said:
Even if you think you have confirmed the absence of extremes, this is just an intellectual confirmation. In order to actually confirm this, you have to go beyond the conceptuality of the mind. Conceptual analysis will not get you there. Conceptual investigation will not get you there.
The extremes are conceptual assumptions. And just like with any other wrong view, it can be corrected through understanding it to be wrong. And that understanding requires concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
But you don't even need to make these conceptual assumptions and then go about eliminating them. This is a very dim-witted approach.



Astus said:
What you work with is the concepts themselves. They are your experiences.  So you observe them: where does this thought come from, where does it go? You do this until you understand that concepts do not come from anywhere nor go anywhere. Then you can go beyond concepts. But even this is still a conceptual exercise. It should only be done after receiving direct introduction on the basis having the experience of a moment of ordinary mind.
Similarly to samatha, in vipasyana one goes from the grosser to the subtler objects, simply because that is normally easier. But eventually one arrives at investigating the mind to see that thoughts are inconstant and unreliable. A moment of mind without concepts becomes a memory in the next moment and then serves as just another concept, thus people can even imagine it to be a real self and set up a duality of thoughts versus no thoughts. Then they need to look again and integrate all experiences to see that all has the same nature as the mind. That way it becomes an analysis in the reverse order.

Malcolm wrote:
No, really it is much simpler than that. They need to receive direct introduction — then they need to work with the instructions of the lineage, which in general do not involve any analysis whatsoever, at least in Dzogchen.

Astus said:
As pointed out, mundane direct perceptions are deceptive.
All perceptions are inconstant and unreliable, and when that is recognised, there is no more basis for attachment. It doesn't matter whether it's an elephant or just the illusion of an elephant.

Malcolm wrote:
If all perceptions are inconstant and reliable, than all analysis is unreliable.

Astus said:
The reason it is not recognized is because of lack of introduction. Someone might, eventually exhaust their concepts through analysis, and understand. But this is a very slow route, it takes eons.
Analysis is directed investigation, that is: vipasyana. Not theorising or arguing. That "slow exhaustion of concepts" is a straw man.

Malcolm wrote:
But above, you clear indicate that you have to adopt a theory to investigate. So you are now contradicting yourself.

Astus said:
No, you merely need look at the perceiver who uses the six sense media, and understand it is not established in any way, mere empty clarity. You do not need analysis, you need direct introduction through experiences.
Analysis is exactly like that, except it does not posit a perceiver but investigates the six areas as they are and confirms directly that there is nothing to grasp.

Malcolm wrote:
No one is positing an ultimate perceiver here — the point there are not six consciousnesses apprehending six different kinds of media. There is one consciousness functioning through the six sense organs. The point is that when one understands that the magician is not real, one immediately understands that his tricks are also false. Going through and analyzing the six external sense objects is a waste of time.

Astus said:
Since the kind of analysis used by Kamalashila and which are you now advocating involves coarse conceptuality, it is very difficult, virtually impossible through analysis to discover the nonconceptual empty clarity of the mind and go beyond mind. But when one works with direct introduction, it is very easy.
In a sense it is understandable that analytical meditation had been put away as too complicated and more experiential methods were raised as the direct path. Madhyamaka had become a large heap of arguments and theories, so no wonder many felt that it is too slow and such.

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka, in reality, merely serves as a corrective to the realism of the three lower tenet systems. It has no tenet system of its own. This is why Madhyamaka has not independent path which is separate from the path of Yogacara. The path of Yogcara and Madhyamaka is the same path, five paths and ten stages.

Astus said:
The same happened to abhidharma. But that doesn't mean it was always like that or that's how it was meant to be used.

Malcolm wrote:
The kinds of analysis Madhyamaka engages in is meant to serve as a corrective to realism.

But these days, proponents of Madhyamaka analysis spend lots of time building up realisms just to tear them down, like small children who build sand castles, believe they are real for a little a while, and then act like conquerors when they demolish their sand castle with a kick.


Astus said:
Dzogchen and Mahamudra emphasising that one should go directly to the nature of mind, however, is practically not different from analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
This demonstrates you have not really understood Dzogchen teachings. Sūtra Mahāmudra indeed involves a fair amount of analytical investigation, but that is not surprising since it is called "Sūtra" Mahāmudra for a reason.

Astus said:
It goes through the same steps of establishing a calm mind, then investigating that very mind to ascertain its emptiness, finally arriving at the unity of samatha-vipasyana.

Malcolm wrote:
This really is not the principle of Dzogchen teachings on any level at all.


Astus said:
If the mind were not looked into it would be simply just samatha. Kamalashila arrives at the nature of mind as well:

"One analyses by thinking that just as the mind, the identity of all phenomena too is like mere illusion. In this way when the identity of the mind is individually examined by wisdom, in the ultimate sense it is perceived neither within or without. It is also not perceived in the absence of both. Neither the mind of the past, nor that of the future, nor of the present is perceived. When the mind is born, it comes from nowhere and when it ceases it goes nowhere because it is inapprehensible, undemonstratable and non-physical."

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the nature of the mind. The nature of the mind is not only emptiness. The result of this analysis epitomizes the fault the Kun byed rgyal po Tantra is pointing out to which exists in the sūtras of the bodhisattva pitika:
The sūtras of bodhisattvas...
assert dharmatā as empty space
through the investigation and analysis of the two truths.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the absence of the four extremes is not something that really can be confirmed with ordinary thinking and cognitions because it is not an object.
The face of prajñāpāramitā is not different than all appearances [this is fundamental tenet of Ati yoga, one of things that differentiates it from Chan/Zen, etc.], hence it is an object of mind, an experience

cloudburst said:
Please, from your point of view, what is the difference between the "absence of the four extremes" and the "face of prajnaparamita?"

Malcolm wrote:
The absence of the four extremes is a conceptual construction; appearances are suchness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:
Garudavista said:
Vimalakirti432, you may also benefit from watching Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche's talk "Is there Buddhism without Rebirth?" that he gave at The UC Berkley Center for Buddhist Studies:

I hope this helps.

Malcolm wrote:
This is what he was critiquing.

In fact, Dzongsar's rambling presentation was pretty weak.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Finding there is no tiger in the room is not a matter of analysis.

Astus said:
One checks each room if there is a tiger there. Similarly, one checks the aggregates if there is a self there. If this is not analysis, then what is called analysis is not analysis. And probably this is where the misunderstanding of analysis lies, mistaking it for theorising instead of informed observation and investigation of phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
And hence the fault of conceptualizing.

One should walk into a room, and discover what is there without first imagining "Oh! If there is a tiger there, I better go find out!"

What you are essentially recommending is going through a conceptual exercise of imagining that something is there, and then spending time to find out whether what you imagine is true.

If, on the other hand, someone tells you, "There are no tigers in that house", it may be the case that you have some doubt and need to confirm this for your self. Likewise, if someone tells you that there is no self in the aggregates, then you look and you will not find one. Of course it is up to you to look, and not leave it as a mere concept.


Astus said:
It is, providing you have ascertained there is no tiger. Otherwise, you can analyze whether there is or is not a tiger in a room until the end of time, without being one step closer to the truth. This is the problem with Madhyamaka analysis.
Again, as above, vipasyana is not theorising.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the kind of vipaśyāna analysis you are now favoring is really, because unlike tigers and snakes, the absence of the four extremes is not something that really can be confirmed with ordinary thinking and cognitions because it is not an object. Therefore, you have to imagine something to negate and so on.

In other words, having seen a tiger, one can know what the absence of a tiger is because there are sign by which tigers can be apprehended. But there are no signs by which an extreme can be apprehended, and hence the analogy breaks down as it must.

Even if you think you have confirmed the absence of extremes, this is just an intellectual confirmation. In order to actually confirm this, you have to go beyond the conceptuality of the mind. Conceptual analysis will not get you there. Conceptual investigation will not get you there.

What you work with is the concepts themselves. They are your experiences.  So you observe them: where does this thought come from, where does it go? You do this until you understand that concepts do not come from anywhere nor go anywhere. Then you can go beyond concepts. But even this is still a conceptual exercise. It should only be done after receiving direct introduction on the basis having the experience of a moment of ordinary mind.


Astus said:
Yes, so it is not a matter of analysis. It is a matter of direct perception.
There is direct perception, yes. The analysis is pointing one's perception in the right direction.

Malcolm wrote:
As pointed out, mundane direct perceptions are deceptive.

Astus said:
The reason it is not recognised is because of the lack of direction, and that is what the teachings and the analysis performed based on the Dharma helps with.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason it is not recognized is because of lack of introduction. Someone might, eventually exhaust their concepts through analysis, and understand. But this is a very slow route, it takes eons.

Astus said:
Thus, there is no real need for analysis. One does not need to understand mere that there is no tiger in a house, one needs to understand that tigers, houses, snakes and indeed all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions — this is the real intention of Mahāyāna.
The tiger is a metaphor for substance, the house for the six sensory areas. Realising that the six senses are insubstantial, illusory, is all there is to know. The way to realise that is observing clearly what the six senses actually are, that is, looking through the rooms, and that is analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you merely need look at the perceiver who uses the six sense media, and understand it is not established in any way, mere empty clarity. You do not need analysis, you need direct introduction through experiences.

Since the kind of analysis used by Kamalashila and which are you now advocating involves coarse conceptuality, it is very difficult, virtually impossible through analysis to discover the nonconceptual empty clarity of the mind and go beyond mind. But when one works with direct introduction, it is very easy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
I do want in a separate post to address the whole problem of tone...

Malcolm wrote:
I think you are tone deaf. You have no idea how disrespectful your presentation is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Hi Wayfarer. Thanks for your helpful comments, which don't sound at all dashed off.

As for your inference that I'm a materialist I understand why you say that but I still have to disagree. As you suggest, the "natural" and the "super" are slippery and relative terms. I have no commitment to materialism but rather as I've said to collapsing a distinction rooted in primitive notions.

Malcolm wrote:
You seriously need to read The Savage Mind by Levi-Strauss.

Vimalakirti432 said:
I sometimes feel it's my way I'm saying things...that causes people problems.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, like when you say: "Here I would add that whatever way one takes "Buddha fields", on a sliding scale from fairyland to metaphor to straight on reality..."

Vimalakirti432 said:
And no I don't think this is a rewriting of anyone's tradition, as some have suggested, but a reframing of the dharma for a specific concrete situation, as Buddhism has always done.

Malcolm wrote:
Gotta love the jargon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A conceptual knowledge of emptiness is still a mere concept, and results in being fettered. A simulacrum, not the real thing.

Astus said:
Ignorance is based on the mistaken concept of self. Removing that is wisdom. Knowledge of emptiness as a mere concept is not knowledge of emptiness. The conceptual knowledge of emptiness is when the concept of substance is proven to be false. Just like if one were to think that there is a tiger in the house then there would arise fear from entering it. But if one actually goes and checks the rooms and find no tiger, from the confirmed knowledge of that the fear vanishes.

Malcolm wrote:
Finding there is no tiger in the room is not a matter of analysis.

Astus said:
We might say that "there is no tiger in the house" is a conceptual knowledge, but what it means is that the idea of there being a tiger is removed, so in that sense it is relinquishing the concept.

Malcolm wrote:
It is, providing you have ascertained there is no tiger. Otherwise, you can analyze whether there is or is not a tiger in a room until the end of time, without being one step closer to the truth. This is the problem with Madhyamaka analysis.

Astus said:
It is not that one just sits far from the house and wonders whether there is or there isn't any tiger, one actually has to check it for himself.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so it is not a matter of analysis. It is a matter of direct perception.

Astus said:
Same goes for vipasyana, it is not merely theorising about there being a self or not but actually looking for it. Although it could be said that searching the house for a tiger is still based on delusion, without actually doing a thorough analysis, one will not just enter the house.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is the following: when one is analyzing things like lions, tigers and bears, in reality these are mundane objects. Further, direct perceptions with mundane sense organs is not a priori veridical. You could very well see a rope as a snake an alley, in this case your [mistaken] direct perception is a snake, and as far as you are concerned, there must be a snake there. This shows the limitation of your analogy with ordinary sense organs.

Rongzom uses the example of the reflection of a black snake in the water to show the errors of various tenet systems. He explains:
[H]igher and lower views are solely differentiated on the basis more and less attachment to reality in appearances. 

For example, if there is reflection of a black snake in the water; some will see a snake, [48/a] and will leave due to their fear. Likewise, even though phenomena which are a source of suffering are like an illusion, they are abandoned by the śrāvakas who perceive them as real.

Even though some understand that  the black snake is a reflection, believing that it is harmful if touched, rely on medicine; likewise in the system of the Prajñāpāramita, even though the relative is like an illusion, since there is a view in which functional agents exist, one develops the pristine consciousness concerning the the knowable and relies upon the medicine of great compassion. 

Since some understand that the black snake is a reflection and will not cause harm even if touched, and are able to communicate to those with anxiety that its touch has no power. Likewise, in the systems of kriya and outer yoga tantra, even though it is comprehended there is no fault in lower conduct and substances, they do not have the capacity for intrepid behavior. But they have the capacity of the behavior to make offerings to deities, perform the conduct of strict discipline, accomplishment substances, etc. 

Some understand there is no fault in touching a black snake even if touching it has the ability to cause harm, because that anxiety is rapidly removed due to the existence of the strict discipline of subjugation.[49/a]  Likewise, the system of inner yoga "stands on the neck" of practice to quickly render all phenomena equal. One’s behavior specifically corresponds to the  strict discipline of the absence of virtue and misdeeds in phenomena and the absence of pure or impure in food. 

Since some, possessing an undeceived mind regarding the characteristic of a reflection of a black snake, see all of those behaviors as the behavior of children. Leaving aside the others, abandoning existents, etc.;, even the subjugation of that very reflection of a black snake like a heroic warrior is seen as a childish idea.  Accepting and rejecting, or a mind fabricating the condition of those does not develop, and moving and seeking do not occur. Likewise, since the system of the Great Perfection comprehends and is the culmination of the comprehension of all phenomena as totally equivalent to illusions, that being the case, the mind is not confused by the power of appearances and there is no ability of develop formations — there is no accepting, no rejecting, no moving and no seeking. As such, this culmination of the comprehension of being like an illusion is also proven to the culmination of comprehending the two truths as inseparable.
Thus, there is no real need for analysis. One does not need to understand mere that there is no tiger in a house, one needs to understand that tigers, houses, snakes and indeed all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions — this is the real intention of Mahāyāna.

Astus said:
In order to be free from conceptualisation of extremes one has to see that there is nothing to conceptualise about.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not require analytical investigation.
That is fine if one thinks nirvana comes about from causes, which is a characteristic approach of the causal vehicle a.k.a, the vehicle of characteristics.
If realisation has no causes, there is neither path nor teachings. Nirvana is the elimination of ignorance, and that happens through correct understanding and correct contemplation. Vajrayana is no different, since it is itself a path with instructions and practices.
[/quote]

Nirvana is not the elimination of ignorance. Nirvana is the elimination of afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: The problem of nihilism
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Here I'm talking about the dualistic notion of escaping out of life, of the otherworldliness we find from the beginning in the texts. The non-dual orientation of the Mahayana in theory should be the cure. Unfortunately the Mahayana has at the same time transformed the idea of escape into the unconditioned into a different kind of escape into supernatural notions of the Buddha and Buddha realms.

I've often been stuck by the essential strangeness of Mahayana sutras. They tend to begin with interesting core ideas, images, metaphors, etc. but then balloon out into mountains of repetition and hyperbole so that what starts out as a useful kind of poetry that supports one's practice finally becomes an alternate universe that substitutes a fairyland for the real.

Malcolm wrote:
Bias alert! Here you go again, trolling another forum.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Of course the Mahayana texts no doubt assumed the forms they did for many reasons, among which is the fact they were probably more chanted than read.

Malcolm wrote:
Total nonsense.

Vimalakirti432 said:
But the point is not the sutras themselves but what the represent, a kind of over-the-top supernaturalism, where the Mahayana, pardon the pun if there is one, kind of loses its mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Dear reader, note that supernatural = fairyland = insanity.

Vimalakirti432 said:
In fact this happens almost literally. One of the debates in Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is whether a Buddha can have any mind at all, any thoughts or concepts, or whether she is a kind of robo-buddha, driven on by a previous bodhisattva career to help beings mindlessly. In this way a Buddha becomes so utterly, inhumanly transcendent that you need intermediaries to somehow connect with the human level, bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, just as in theistic religions where an utterly transcendent God also demands intermediaries, Jesus in the Abrahamic line and Krishna in the line of Sanatana dharma, as examples.

Malcolm wrote:
You really deeply misunderstand the point of a buddha's spontaneous activity.


Vimalakirti432 said:
The result is that many traditions of the Mahayana are so heavily invested in supernatural concepts, realms and impossible states beyond being that for me at least they constitute an obstruction, and are therefore problematic as a cure for nihilism.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, supernatural = impossible.

Vimalakirti432 said:
But now the liberal, like Garbo, will finally speak his own sort of truth. To that end keep in mind that I'm a fool with no standing and who speaks only for himself. What I offer is no more than a short glimpse into how a typical liberal thinks about these questions. So in that sense I may be doing no more than providing ammunition for fundamentalists everywhere!

Malcolm wrote:
You are hardly a liberal. A "liberal" follower of Buddhadharma does not call Sukhavati Vyuha "a fairy land." A conservative materialist might though.

Vimalakirti432 said:
I begin with the Kalama sutta, which enjoins the careful examination and application of what we learn of dharma, and reaching our own judgments.

Malcolm wrote:
It does nothing of the kind.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Here's what I see. I think without much controversy I see the core of Buddhism as dependent origination.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is the core of Buddhadharma. Score one for Vima!

Vimalakirti432 said:
From dependent origination all the other key ideas are derived - impermanence, the questioning of the nature of identity and so on, really the whole framework of the dhamma. And here, bare-bones as it seems, is the first phase of the cure for nihilism.

This first phase can be seen in many passages of the pali canon, where we read that certain of the Buddha's followers were immediately liberated, simply upon hearing about the principle of dependent origination. Initially this seems strange, at least to me, given the lack of explanation in the text. But on reflection I think we can fill in the blanks and assume that for some of his followers the intuition of dependent origination was enough, and that all its basic implications quickly followed.

Malcolm wrote:
Śariputra was already a follower of Saṃkhya, so of course dependent origination made sense to him immediately.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Here I locate the beginning of the second phase in the cure for nihilism, for here was an expansion of the practice that well before the Mahayana developed the sense of interrelatedness between beings, of their connectedness, so that even under the ideology of the arhats institutions were built that allowed people to see more clearly their inextricable network of relations, how the idea of a single isolated being was incoherent on the level of precious human birth, and that they were part of a larger whole, a spiritual community immune to annihilation. (Admirable friendships is not just half the spiritual life, it is the whole of the spiritual of life, says the Upaddha Sutta.)

Malcolm wrote:
Just as a personal self is incoherent, so is a social or communal self.

Vimalakirti432 said:
This development returns us to the problems of Buddhist realism, which are particularly acute in respect to the aggregates. The aggregates were wise and advanced medicine perhaps in the beginning, for the Buddha was known to say what was most skillful in the context of needs of the person he was facing. But by setting up separate categories for mind and body, i.e. dualism, the aggregates committed Buddhism to just the kind of habitual habits of mind that dependent origination in its deepest implications I believe overcomes.

Malcolm wrote:
The division of nāma and rūpa is ancient and pre-Buddhist. It is obvious that the mind is not the body. Lose a finger, your mind is not diminished one little bit. Lose your mind, your body immediately begins to decay and rot.

The point of the aggregates is merely to show there was no self in them or apart from them. The aggregates cover afflicted phenomena, whereas the āyatanas and dhātu cover both afflicted and nonafflicted  phenomena.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Ideas of the "material" and the "spiritual" are in fact habits of mind that go back in most cultures to very early human history, and arise as consequences of our particular evolution on our particular little planet we call home. Solid things hurt when they fall on our heads, and when the breath leaves the body and someone dies we feel that some switch has been turned off, that some substance has left. So understandably many of the first words for entities like "soul" also meant "breath" - "pneuma" in Greek, "prana" in Sanskrit, and so on. On the most primitive level, which like it or not, is still at the root of our mental habits, I believe it's as simple as that.

Malcolm wrote:
Prāṇa does not mean breath, it means life. There is a vāyu, a wind, called prāṇa-vāyu, the wind that sustains life.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Nagarjuna, by drawing out the full implications of dependent origination, breaks this primitive dichotomy down, shows that mind and body, emptiness and form, are not separate but an interdependent reality that resists all conceptualization and mental fabrication. A materialist denies spirit, an idealist denies matter, both in some sense toy with nihilism. Nagarjuna, by appearing to deny everything denies nothing. His middle way, as he maintains, is not nihilism but its cure (except for the hopelessly incurable who would posit emptiness as real).  His rigorous analysis definitively shows that dependent origination is indeed deep, subtle and hard to fathom.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Nāgārjuna points out that nothing is is established and that everything is a mere convention.

Vimalakirti432 said:
And so to sum up my liberal version of the dharma: when drawn out in its full implications, dependent origination is the definitive cure for nihilism and the fear of annihilation, in at least three phases: (phase 1)We are not separate and so have nothing to fear; (phase 2) we are not alone but interdependently involved with endless other beings; (phase 3)we are expressions of the non-dual fabric of things as they are, beyond all conception, perennially arising and re-arising, ever-renewing windows on reality.

Malcolm wrote:
We are also not the same. The idea of nonseparation is just another false identity proposition, refuted in opening praise of the MMK which is cited from the Prajñāpāramitā: i.e. not ceasing, not arising, not going, not coming, not annihilated, not permanent, not different, not identical, not the same... Thus, we are not interdependently involved with endless other beings, this is something Nāgārjuna rejects explicitly since he refutes the dominant condition among the four conditions [as well as the other three] in the first chapter of the MMK. There is no nondual fabric of things as they are, this is an entirely foreign notion to Buddhadharma. In Nāgārjuna's view, there is no ultimately no arising or ceasing. Arising and ceasing are merely conventions grounded in not seeing how things are.

Vimalakirti432 said:
That was a lot of ground to cover in a relatively short space, so there's bound to be much open to criticism.

Malcolm wrote:
You said it, not me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: a former student of aroter seeks help!
Content:
tingdzin said:
It might be useful to keep it simple for awhile: read basic unglamorous Buddhism and do basic unglamorous practice, examining carefully not only the motives of the people who want you "on board" with their beliefs, as well as your own possible motives in being attracted to this or that group.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, in the case of the DC, we want you to convert people by handing out flowers at the airport....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Astus said:
If you discriminate that phenomena are identityless
And meditate by discriminating them in this way,
This is the cause for the result of attaining nirvana.
Peace will not come about through any other cause."

Malcolm wrote:
That is fine if one thinks nirvana comes about from causes, which is a characteristic approach of the causal vehicle a.k.a, the vehicle of characteristics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
So you are claiming that the conceptual knowledge of emptiness, the conceptual knowledge known to a mundane authority, is sufficient?

Astus said:
Knowing that fire is hot is a conceptual knowledge. If one has never encountered fire, it is an unconfirmed conceptual knowledge. If one has encountered fire, it is a confirmed conceptual knowledge. Similarly, only hearing about emptiness without knowing what it means is just verbal information. Once it becomes clear what emptiness refers to in one's present experience, it is a confirmed conceptual knowledge. For example, one sees fire and knows that it is fire. If one sees fire without knowing what fire is, that has no power to inform one's knowledge (and therefore subsequent actions), while knowing fire without ever seeing one has no power to inform one's actions (as there is no use of that knowledge in any situation).

Malcolm wrote:
This does not help your case at all. A conceptual knowledge of emptiness is still a mere concept, and results in being fettered. A simulacrum, not the real thing. For example, The Ārya-niṣṭhāgantabhagavajjñānavaipūlya-sūtraratnānanta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states

For example, space is does not impede. In the same way, all objects are like space. Total nonconceptuality does not impede. Total nonconceptuality is freedom. Total conceptuality is a fetter. Total nonconceptuality cuts the fetters.

Here, when we should understand that the term "mundane" eye refers to exactly the kind of mundane authorities Mañjuśrimitra is critiquing.
It is this analysis with mundane authorities that goes exactly nowhere.
That mundane analysis is the view uninformed by emptiness, the thinking of an ordinary being (prthagjana).
Having a view of emptiness does not make on an ārya.
Analysis is the method by what one can arrive at confirming what one has learnt and understood.
But this contradicts the Saddharma-pundarika sūtra:
That which does not analyze or conceive phenomena, Mañjuśrī, is the called "the procedure of a bodhisattva."
And the Ārya-pitāputrasamāgamana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
If it is asked "What is the samadhi that illuminates all phenomena?," here, for the purpose of engaging all phenomena, the bodhisattva mahāsattva does not mentally engage in any conceptuality or analysis
It also contradicts the Ārya-tathāgatajñānamudrā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
The consciousness without concepts about all phenomena is unobscured.
And the Ārya-śūraṃgamasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Whoever does not conceptualize existence or nonexistence is free from the bonds of Māra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Eating at restaurants that serve meat and alcohol
Content:
KeithBC said:
Lots of people do lots of things that I disagree with.  Life is too short to get upset by all of them.  It is their karma, not mine.

Even if a Buddha image is there with a purely commercial or decorative intent, it does no harm and may do some good.  If meat is on the menu (as it is at 99.9% of restaurants here), my responsibility is to not order it, not to change the menu.  If, by increasing demand for vegetarian meals and decreasing demand for meat, I motivate the owners to change the menu, so much the better.

If people are in a teachable mood, I am willing to help them.  If not, c'est la vie.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

Tenso said:
I agree it's their karma but it's still a sign of disrespect to many serious practitioners. No other religions would tolerate their prophets being displayed for purely commercial and decorative purposes.

Malcolm wrote:
Apart from Trumpism...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:


kirtu said:
"he got us into a war" - which should have worked against Bush.  Instead we had the spectacle of uneducated teen singers declaring "he is our President and we should follow him/trust him to conduct the war"  and she and her ilk were actually listened to!

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, getting into a war usually favors a politician's chances of re-election.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No one has ever won a Presidency by appealing to the unhinged in the US, contrary to world opinion, they just don't have enough votes compared to blacks, latinos and white women.

kirtu said:
Food for thought:

Blacks - 13.6% of population
Latino/Hispanic citizens - 12% of population
White women (est) - 39.47% of population

65% of total population

So why was George Bush elected twice?  Especially the second time?  The demographic argument doesn't explain elections in every case by itself.  Other factors are at play as well.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the first time, he had the Supreme Court win it for him. Second time, he got us into a war and was elected because Kerry has all the charisma of a wet blanket.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


Astus said:
By saying that arriving at the conceptual understanding of emptiness is insufficient and it should go beyond.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are claiming that the conceptual knowledge of emptiness, the conceptual knowledge known to a mundane authority, is sufficient?


Astus said:
By saying that analysis does not result in insight into the nature of concepts and so in non-attachment.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think it is contradicting sūtra at all. For example:

The Buddhāvataṃsaka-nāma-mahāvaipulya-sūtra:
The so-called "seeing" by which the mundane eye sees, 
the seeing lacking higher perception [vipaśyāna],
sees phenomena as evil.
If seen with higher perception [vipaśyāna],
nothing is seen.
Or the Bodhisattva-pitika:
Again, so-called higher perception [vipaśyāna] is seeing just how all phenomena are; seeing the reality of all phenomena; seeing that non-otherness of all phenomena; seeing the emptiness, seeing the signlessness, seeing the lack of aspiration of all phenomenal. Again, so-called higher perception [vipaśyāna] is not seeing with a cause, not seeing with out a cause, not seeing birth, perishing or abiding, not seeing an objective cause — also the best seeing is not seeing at all.
Or the Ārya-sāgara-nāgarāja-paripṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
In the same way, there is the higher perception [vipaśyāna] that all phenomena are without cause, without persistence, isolated, totally unestablished. As such, whatever is seen, that is the vipaśyāna of all phenomena. Therefore, if there is higher perception [vipaśyāna] regarding all phenomena, when someone sees a phenomena, it is not higher perception [vipaśyāna]. If it is asked why, seeing phenomena is not higher perception [vipaśyāna] because a cognition is not cognizant.
Here, when we should understand that the term "mundane" eye refers to exactly the kind of mundane authorities Mañjuśrimitra is critiquing.

It is this analysis with mundane authorities that goes exactly nowhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:


Astus said:
There are at least two problems with that view:

1. it supposes there is something to gain beyond concepts, instead of realising the nature of conceptuality.

Malcolm wrote:
How?


Astus said:
2. it denies what is taught in the sutras and shastras: that vipasyana results in wisdom, practically negating the validity of all paths but the vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
How?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:
passel said:
Malcolm- "A perfect śamatha is nothing more than the first dhyāna, attended by five mental factors: vitarka, vicara, prithi, sukha and ekagraha. This is a universal definition."

I 'd have to know a lot more than I do to label anything a universal definition (weird concept that), but that's not the definition Wallace uses.  "The attainment of Shamatha" according to him is post 9th stage, accompanied by shinjiang (which he describes in a very specific way), and he equates it not with the first dhyana but with access concentration.

Malcolm wrote:
He is mistaken.

passel said:
Access concentration/ the attainment of shamatha, according to him is a state devoid of any objects of the 6 conciousnesses, only the alaya and the alaya-vijnana remain.  That's an insanely high bar, not attainable in an afternoon.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, he is mistaken,
The state you describe, attainable in an afternoon, sounds interesting and probably worthwhile, but this demonstrates my point.  Yogis can use the same tools to very different ends.  Not a problem, imo.
You ought to read the Abhidharmakośha where this definition of the first dhyāna is set out, then compare with the Bhavanakrama, Rongzom Chokyi Pandita, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: How important is shamatha, and practices before shamatha
Content:


passel said:
Bottom line, meditation lineages have house styles and house interpretations of received texts, and they differ from one another.  You can't assume that one yogi's 5th stage of Shamatha is the same as another yogi's 5th stage of Shamatha, or even that they mean the same thing by Shamatha.

Malcolm wrote:
A perfect śamatha is nothing more than the first dhyāna, attended by five mental factors: vitarka, vicara, prithi, sukha and ekagraha. This is a universal definition.

The idea that it takes a year to develop this experience is ridiculous. If you understand what you are doing, you can develop this experience in as little as a single afternoon.

Since the mental factors of vitarka and vicara drop off above the first dhyāna, when one 's motivation is to engage in vipaśyāna, it is not appropriate to cultivate anything more than this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Okay your various points/responses here are fair enough but arguable, but I guess I should make clear what I mean when I talk about false imputations regarding my views.

I've come back to this repeatedly so maybe this is a waste of bytes but again you insist on calling me a materialist when I insist I'm nothing of the kind.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't accept rebirth or karma so, at the very least this makes you an ucchedavādin.

Vimalakirti432 said:
So you must see the lack of reciprocity here. I'm not telling you that you're a taoist, or a secret Presbyterian or even a supernaturalist as such. I'm accepting your views as you express them. I'm only saying that as a fellow traveller of Buddhism I personally don't accept its supernatural aspects, and I guess I would be expecting the courtesy of having my views, while certainly challenged, in the end accepted on their own terms.

Malcolm wrote:
But I don't accept that it is proper for a practitioner of Buddhadharma to reject rebirth and karma. I don't accept that it is  a proper view to label these things pejoratively "supernatural", which we know is just a hedge word for "superstitions."

Vimalakirti432 said:
Now I understand there is a kind of impulse or even duty in the tradition to refute what are considered wrong views, and this would lead you to what would be considered in some other setting to be discourteous. So no I'm not about to get upset and rant etc. - unless this qualifies as a rant!

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm.....labeling rebirth and karma "superstitions" is actually pretty damn discourteous in a Mahāyāna Buddhist forum.

Vimalakirti432 said:
So again I think we've taken this as far as it can go. I'm by no means a scholar but I've read widely enough in the traditions to be familiar with what you're bringing in here and so unlikely to radically change my views. But perhaps in my next life!

Malcolm wrote:
You have merely left us with an undemonstrated assertion: "karma and rebirth are supernatural beliefs [aka superstitions] and therefore I do not accept them." You have refused to defend this statement in anyway, and have spend most of the time in this exchanging invoking your right to believe whatever you want and be respected for it. I will respect you for believing whatever you want, but not as a follower of Buddhadharma. Whatever you are following, it is not Buddhadharma.

And in particular, you chose to launch this unsubstantiated polemic in the Tibetan Buddhist forum — what the hell did you expect?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
I'm no logician but here I see Dharmakirti as using the old sales guy trick. You don't ask the customer if she wants ice cream but whether she wants chocolate or vanilla. In other words, you force your victim to choose between a false and unnecessary dichotomy, and ordering something they don't want.

Malcolm wrote:
But you have to choose.


Vimalakirti432 said:
I would suggest that as with most of the words we use we don't even know what we mean by "physical". We set up definitions in legitimate ways, in the natural sciences for example for pragmatic purposes, but also in what I consider illegitimate ways, in the interests of defending a certain metaphysical view or system.

Malcolm wrote:
I know precisely what I mean: "physical" [rūpena] refers to any entity that possesses hardness, heat, motility or liquidity in some degree or another. This covers everything on the periodic table of elements and all qualities they can possess or demonstrate, indeed it covers every type of physical phenomena, down to the smallest we can experimentally observe or even imagine, as well as the largest and everything in between.

Vimalakirti432 said:
Here we have what is called the hard problem of consciousness. To oppose the thesis that Dharmakirti is defending is not to assert the contrary but merely to say that neither of the alternatives he offers can be established.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a hard problem at all. You are conscious [unless you are Turing machine], so am I. It is established at the outset you have a mind. So where does it come from? What is its origin? Etc. These are not hard problems, expect for materialists.

Vimalakirti432 said:
But this we find in all apologetics everywhere, the misuse of reason in defence of the faith. But logic can't establish this kind of thing, only yogic experience. So when an arhat or practitioner claims such knowledge I can only tip my hat and wish them the best. But when anyone tries to establish this kind of thing through logic I can only shake my head. Reason has many uses, but this isn't one.

Malcolm wrote:
The only one using apologetics here is you. What you are doing is called "eel-wriggling."

Vimalakirti432 said:
As for non-duality, I assume you mean that matter emerges from mind, i.e., the reverse of materialism? But in a previous post I've already touched on that, so I won't repeat myself here.

Malcolm wrote:
Please indulge us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Again I don't want to be drawn into a pointless debate, which you would probably agree would be unskillful for both of us.

Malcolm wrote:
That depends, if you start calling me names and jumping up and down and carrying on like this,, maybe it will be unskillful. Otherwise...

Vimalakirti432 said:
1. My assertion as to seeing things as they are without false imputations etc. hardly commits me to what you're calling "materialism". My point all the way through is that both "material" and "spiritual" are constructs. But here I think we get into the philosophic weeds that can hardly be cleared out in this kind of forum.

Malcolm wrote:
First we have to establish what an authority is. Buddhadharma accepts three kinds, direct perception, inferences based on direct perceptions and testimony.

Vimalakirti432 said:
2. I'm sure you're aware that Nagarjuna was also called a nihilist by many of his contemporaries. Now I'm not saying that my views adhere precisely to Nagarjuna in all respects, but I see myself here as beginning with his fundamental view of things, and not with some notion of materialism, ancient or modern. If my views come across differently then perhaps I'm not expressing myself very well.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna has no position with respect to the ultimate existence or nonexistence of things, nevertheless, conventionally he accepted rebirth and karma, even in the MMK he makes it very clear he advocates the Arya Sammitya position with respect to karma — supporting their concept of the avipraṇaśa amongst all possible options. In the Pratītyasamutpādakarika he also makes it clear that conventionally he accepts rebirth and karma.

Vimalakirti432 said:
3. As for the relationship between what we could call nikaya Buddhism and Mahayana, Madhyamika, etc., I'm sure you know better than I do that it's extremely complex and that views on this depend on who you're talking to. So it seems to me pointless to set up and then cling to anything like a precise analysis of these relationships.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not that complicated.

Vimalakirti432 said:
4. No there is nothing supernatural about mind, karma and rebirth, which is precisely my point, and no I don't believe that saying this eviscerates the dharma, but only offers alternate skillful means.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha taught six dhātus, not only five — with consciousness being the sixth. Now, dhātu does not mean that there is one unified element, which is why we also have the idea of the sattva dhātu, the dhātu of sentient beings.

It is not a skillful means to cater to people's annihilationist tendencies any more than it is a skillful means to cater to their eternalist tendencies [though indeed the Buddha has said the latter is preferable to the former]. You have jumped on the horse only to fall off on the other side [annihilationism].

Vimalakirti432 said:
Otherwise, you appear to be well grounded in your tradition with firm shradda so of course I have to respect your point of view, even where I see that it may lead you to inaccurate imputation of an alternate way. And you may be correct in every respect.

Malcolm wrote:
First, before you make judgements about the imputations of others, you have to establish that your own cognitions are authoritative. Are you quite certain you are not the one making false imputations, i.e., false inferences?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
Just a slight correction: I meant avoiding speech no likely to be of further use. I guess I can also add that I could respond to several of your points in discussion, but that we lack the basis to make that discussion fruitful. Again, with metta and all the best.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course we have no basis for further discussion because you are a priory committed to physicalism. You fail the first step of the heuristic that Dharmakīrti lays out in his proof of rebirth, i.e. do you think that the cause of a moment of mind is material or mental?

You seek refuge in some putative nonduality of matter and mind, and I am happy to understand that mind and matter are nondual, but in precisely the opposite way you intend.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:
Vimalakirti432 said:
Hi Malcolm. Here I would only maintain once again, that "materialist" is an unfair imputation in my case, and in the case of many others who consider themselves non-supernaturalists. But I guess we'll have to leave it there, in the interests of right speech. In this case, that means speech not likely to be of further use. I invite you to carefully read my other posts, if you're interested in fully understanding my views. We obviously have different predispositions, so from my side no harm no foul. With metta.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing supernatural about mind, nor is there anything supernatural about karma and the ripening of karma.

Your very use of the term "supernatural" to describe phenomena such as karma and rebirth places you squarely in the Carvaka camp. The Carvakas were not fools, and I don't take you to be one, they were very sophisticated thinkers who were a dominant school in pre-Hindu India. But it is undeniable that negating rebirth and karma eviscerates the Buddha's teaching and his Dharma.

The negation of rebirth and karma on a relative level is an extreme view, ucchedavāda, annihilationism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
1. As for the definition of "materialist", my point is that the tulku is setting up a straw man argument, replacing a variety of possible opposing points of view with a dimwitted, comic book version of a "materialist" of no real interest to anyone.

Malcolm wrote:
It does not matter what colors and shades you want to paint a materialist in, a materialist will always hold matter as a first principle, and consciousness as derivative from physical processes.

Vimalakirti432 said:
2. As for consciousness as an emergent property of matter, some certainly hold that view, but my point again is that the old dichotomy material/spiritual has been so subverted by what we now know of the uncanny nature of so-called "matter" as to render the old dichotomy meaningless. Does that mean that anything goes, that anything can happen? No, it simply means that we attend to what's there, without imposing dualities, and with a minimum of distorted, inaccurate or unskillful imputations.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is all to say that at the end of the day, consciousness is asserted to follow physical laws, hence materialism — and this observation is identical to the carvaka point of view.



Vimalakirti432 said:
3. As for different views of rebirth in Buddhism, I'm sure you're aware that most Theravadins have a very literal view of rebirth, kamma, nibbana, etc. and certainly would never say that rebirth from the ultimate side is "mumbo-jumbo" as the tulku did.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure they would — rebirth is irrelevant from the point of view of paramatthadhammas.

Vimalakirti432 said:
So while I agree that nearly everything in the Mahayana is prefigured in the early suttas, we can't ignore the significant differences. Certainly Theravadins don't.

Malcolm wrote:
The only substantially important different is whether the antarabhāva, aka bardo, is accepted or rejected. This is dealt with in the Koshabhaṣyaṃ

Vimalakirti432 said:
4. As for karma rooted in volition I agree, but again I can't subscribe to the supernaturalist amplifications of this idea that you note here.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because you are a materialist, and therefore reject rebirth, and consider the ripening of karma described by the Buddha as "supernaturalist." It's ok, I mean, I don't care whether you accept rebirth or not — but it is impossible to practice Buddhadharma correctly without accepting rebirth, you know, the "supernatural" kind, not the bullshit revisionism we see bandied about these days. At best, you might, as in the Kalamas sutta, be able to have a bit of relaxation by practicing the four brahmaviharas, but you certainly will not enjoy liberation.

What you fail to understand is that in Buddhadharma, matter is regarded as an emergent property of minds, not the other way around.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Matt J said:
Then what is the role of concepts in Dzogchen teachings?
Yet all of these schools use concepts eventually to undermine concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence the critique from a Dzogchen perspective.
The point I am making is that intellectual analysis will only result in an intellectual apprehension of the object of analysis. Even when you are finished with the analysis, for example, the famous diamond sliver analysis, and so on, still in the end you are left with the concept "emptiness", "nonarising", "freedom from extremes" and so on, even though, as Mañjuśrimitra points out, since the conceptualized extreme does not exist, therefore the extreme to analyze does not exist. Therefore, conventional analysis by mundane minds cannot used in an ultimate analysis because they cannot escape their own conceptual clinging, indeed they are always with concepts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Matt J said:
Yet all of these schools use concepts eventually to undermine concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence the critique from a Dzogchen perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and rebirth
Content:


Vimalakirti432 said:
It was particularly telling that he appeared to conflate these posited materialists with ancient Indian materialists or nihilists, the charvakas.

Malcolm wrote:
There is very little difference in their point of view.

Vimalakirti432 said:
In fact, with the advance of the sciences and especially of physics and cosmology what does the term "materialist" even mean?

Malcolm wrote:
It means one believes that consciousness arises as an emergent property of matter.

Vimalakirti432 said:
So while later Mahayana, Madhyamika and Tibetan Buddhism re-imagined rebirth in ways still unthinkable for Buddhist realists like the Theravadins, we should allow the same process to happen in modern Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Mahāyāna concepts around rebirth, as well as those of Madhyamaka and so on are based grounded in the Abhidharma tradition of Sarvastivāda.


Vimalakirti432 said:
Rebirth and karma, I feel, are most properly seen in the deep context of interdependent origination, of infinite causes and conditions, and do not depend on ancient physiology, or on the notion of isolated streams of becoming, which violates the logic of the Mahayana in any case (non-distinctions, interpenetration, etc.).

Malcolm wrote:
No, they are properly seen in the context of what the Buddha taught: that is unique beginningless mindstreams have volitions, direct physical and verbal actions based on the volitions, and reap the results of those volitions in the future. In this case, Tibetan Buddhists mainly depend on the Sautrantika/Yogacara explanation for ripening, but not exclusively.


